"When abortion is hidden, abortion is tolerated" http://www.abortionNO.org

Friday, July 31, 2009

Tim Tebow, Football Superstar & Sports Illustrated Cover Model: "Yes, I am" Saving Myself for Marriage

Also says he is grateful that his mother's story has helped women choose not to have an abortion

July 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week Florida Gators Quarterback Tim Tebow's photo may have graced the cover of Sports Illustrated, the same magazine that is best known for its annual "swimsuit issue," but the contrast between the two cover stories couldn't have been more glaring.

At 21 years of age and graced with boyish good looks, Tebow is one of the most talked about rising stars of the NCAA; but the football superstar literally left reporters speechless last week when he answered a question during a press conference about whether or not he is "saving himself" for marriage.

"Yes I am," said Tebow briefly, who then indicated he was ready for the next question. However, in the video of the press conference, a reporter is heard stumbling over his words in the background as he tries to ask a follow-up question. Tebow then laughs, obviously reacting to the reactions of the reporters in the room.

"I think y'all were stunned by that," he says. "Y'all can't even ask a question. Wow. I mean, I was ready for that question. I don't think y'all were."

It wasn't the only controversial remark that Tebow made that day. In response to another question about whether or not people may be tired of the volume of coverage devoted to the young football star, Tebow, a devout Christian, said that the level of exposure he receives is a mixed blessing. However, he said, he looks at the positive side that, thanks to his fame, he has been able to share his Christian faith with so many people.

In addition, the football star told the reporters that he believes that the publicity given to his mother's story has helped other women choose not to abort their unborn children. Tebow's mother, who serves as a Christian missionary together with her husband, was pressured to abort Tebow following a life-threatening infection she suffered while pregnant with him. Doctors pressured her to abort her son to save her own life, but she ultimately resisted the pressure and both mother and child survived the birth.

"There has been a lot of people that have been encouraged not to have an abortion because they heard the story of my mom, or they have been encouraged because they have heard me give my faith on TV or in a report or something," said Tebow.

"You know what, although there has been a backlash, oh, well. You know what, I'll deal with it if I have to. It's not a big deal to me because of the kids and people that have been encouraged by the stories we have tried to tell and by the life that I've tried to live."

Growing up Tebow would often help his parents with their Christian mission work in the Philippines. He was homeschooled by his mother, who instilled in her children strong Christian values.

Tebow was the first home-schooled athlete to be nominated for the Heisman Trophy. "That's really cool," he said at the time. "A lot of times people have this stereotype of homeschoolers as not very athletic - it's like, go win a spelling bee or something like that - it's an honor for me to be the first one to do that."

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

NY Nurse Threatened, Forced to Participate in Abortion Speaks Out

New York City, N.Y., Jul 28, 2009 / 05:12 am (CNA).- "It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, the Brooklyn nurse who says she was forced to aid an abortion against her will. Now Cenzon-DeCarlo is speaking out, describing the terror she felt as she was asked to sacrifice her religious convictions for the sake of her job.

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a devout Catholic, says she has been having nightmares and difficulty sleeping ever since the incident took place on May 24, reports the New York Post.
"I couldn't believe that this could happen," Cenzon-DeCarlo told the Post, describing how she was threatened with charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, which could result in possible loss of a job and nursing license, if she did not participate in the abortion.

Although she was told that it was an emergency and the woman would die if she did not assist, Cenzon-DeCarlo observed that the woman had not received the treatments typically given to a patient whose life is in danger as the hospital claimed it was.

She later found out that the hospital itself had declared the case a "Category II," meaning that it was not immediately life-threatening, and that there was a six-hour window for the operation to take place, allowing ample time for the hospital to find a replacement nurse who did not have moral objections to the procedure.

"I felt violated and betrayed," Cenzon-DeCarlo said.

The nurse had clearly stated that she was unwilling to aid in abortions during a job interview with Mount Sinai. She says she had put her beliefs in writing.

Cenzon-DeCarlo went on to explain that she was later told by two supervisors that she would need to sign a statement agreeing to participate in abortions if she wanted any more overtime shifts. Over the next month, she was designated only one overtime shift, instead of the eight or nine she was usually assigned, reported the New York Post.

Now, the Alliance Defense Fund is representing Cenzon-DeCarlo in a lawsuit that seeks to force Mount Sinai to surrender their federal funding because it has violated a federal rule protecting employees who morally object to controversial procedures.

The lawsuit also seeks damages on behalf of Cenzon-DeCarlo, as well as a restoration of her overtime shifts and a respect for her objections to abortion.

Now, the married mother of a year-old baby hopes the litigation will be enough to restore protection to her religious convictions. "I emigrated to this country in the belief that here religious freedom is sacred," she said. "Doctors and nurses shouldn't be forced to abandon their beliefs and participate in abortion in order to keep their jobs."

Related Articles:
Lawsuit: Catholic Nurse Forced to Assist in Late-Term Abortion

ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) attorneys file lawsuit against hospital for violating Christian nurse’s rights of conscience

FACT SHEET on this lawsuit, including links to resources.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Planned Parenthood Labors to Bulldoze Law Requiring Doctors to Tell Women that Abortion Ends a Human Life

Watch Dr. Patti Giebink, a former abortionist at Sioux Falls, Planned Parenthood, tell her story about performing abortions at Planned Parenthood. Today Patti is a pro-life OB/GYN. (Read her article below video)

Planned Parenthood Must Obey the Law
By Dr. Patti Giebink, M.D.

Planned Parenthood again shows the extremes it will go to in disobeying the law. An informed consent law passed by the South Dakota legislature in 2005 requires, even mandates, using the words “human being” in referring to the result of abortion ending a life, in addition to other vital information.

The United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this law in June 2008 and Planned Parenthood has been in violation for over 10 months. It is not a question of language because that was settled last year. It is not a question about a woman’s right to choose, but her right to make an intelligent and informed choice.

Planned Parenthood’s lawyer implied in a hearing on Friday, July 17th, 2009 that the doctor’s right to withhold information from women is more important than a woman’s right to have the information she needs to make a serious, life-changing decision.

Statements made in court and on the form Planned Parenthood currently uses to “inform” women are blatantly inaccurate and misleading. They misrepresent current medical literature especially when it comes to the risks of elective abortion. There is no confusion that abortion increases a woman’s risk of suicide and significantly increases her risk of preterm delivery in following pregnancies.

Clearly, Planned Parenthood has no regard for the law and is more concerned about economics than providing safe and legal care to women. It is time for the Department of Health to enforce the letter of the law, impose sanctions or shut them down.

Please join me in calling Governor Rounds and the South Dakota Department of Health in telling Planned Parenthood that obeying the law is not optional.

1. Governor Rounds’s Office at 605.773.3212 or email by visiting http://www.state.sd.us/governor/

2. The South Dakota Department of Health at 605-773-6631 or by email at DOH.info@state.sd.us

Planned Parenthood must be required to obey the law!

Dr. Patti Giebink, M.D.
Board Certified Obstetrician
Member of ACOG
Board member of AAPLOG
Former abortion provider at Sioux Falls Planned Parenthood
(and last SD resident to do so)

Related Articles:
Judge to decide if SD abortion law goes to trial

Judge Vows to Rule Soon in Abortion Warning Case

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Actress Uma Thurman to Play Heroic Catholic Nun

(CathNews)Actress Uma Thurman plays a Catholic nun in her latest movie "Girl Soldier", the true and tragic story of 140 Ugandan girls who were kidnapped and enslaved in 1996, known as the Aboke Abductions.

Set in Uganda, the film is based on the 1996 Aboke abductions, which saw 140 schoolgirls taken from their boarding school to be used as child soldiers and sex slaves. One of the nuns who taught at the school, called Sister Caroline in Kathy Cook's book on the subject, Stolen Angels, (Sister Rachele Fassera by birth), pursued the abductors and negotiated the release of 109 of the girls. She then set about rallying the people, government, United Nations and Pope to try to end the abduction and indoctrination of child conscripts.

The book recounts the story of girls who were kidnapped from their school by Joseph Kony, leader of Uganda's Lord Resistance Army. They were forced to become soldiers and sex slaves, and would have been forgotten had it not been for their mothers and a group of interfaith clerics who fought to rescue them from their captors.

Thurman will play one of the religious, a nun by the name of Sister Caroline. She tracked the LRA members back to their camp and demanded the release of the kidnapped. 110 girls were returned to her, but Caroline refused to turn her back on the rest.

She began a crusade to rally parents, the Ugandan government, the United Nations and even the Pope to assist in rescuing all of the children living in captivity.

Thurman says she was drawn to the role in part to help shed light on the situation so many children worldwide face. "This is a film that had to get made," Thurman said. "It's beyond me that in this day and age the exploitation of child soldiers goes virtually unnoticed and unchecked by Western media."

"Soldier" will be directed by Will Raee ("1000 Ways to Die") from a script by Karen Croner ("One True Thing") and newcomer Stephanie Pinola, and is being produced by Caspian Pictures.

Related Article: Tragedy of Child-Soldiers in Uganda

Angelina Atyam: The Forgiveness of a Mother

"Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good," says Obama's Health Policy Advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel

By Kim Priestap
Betsy McCaughey brings to our attention the Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's views regarding universal health care.

Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, so what he thinks may impact all of us. As Betsy points out, Dr. Emanuel has some very radical views regarding the rationing of health care. Take for example Emanuel's comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won't be easy:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

In other words, these procedural changes aren't really change at all. Instead, he thinks we need change in how we apply health care coverage. As Betsy notes, Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society. Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.
So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.

Making things even worse, private health care companies will be driven out of business, so that won't be an option for parents with disabled children, either, leaving them with no coverage whatsoever. This kind of policy would drive up the abortion rate, which Obama and other liberals want covered as a basic care, as doctors urge parents go out of their way to screen their unborn babies for any and all disorders and defects that would not be covered under basic care. If a child's disorder is undetected by prenatal testing, what happens when the disorder becomes obvious after birth? I shudder to think what the government would come up with then.

Emanuel's policies would lead to a further deterioration of our nation's culture as people begin to look at those with disabilities as objects that drive up collective health care costs instead of as individual human beings who have intrinsic value and rights endowed to them by God.

Watch this video, that shows Emanuel escaping after being confronted on this issue.
See further information below this post.

Related Articles:
Lawmakers Confirm House Health Care Bill Promotes Euthanasia Among Elderly

Forbes: ObamaCare Dives Into End-Of-Life Debate

Forbes: What To Know About The Health Care Debate

Nazi Genocidal Intent of Obama's Proposed Healthcare Reforms Exposed; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's brother) Escapes when Confronted

Panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Obamas modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions of elderly, terminally-ill, and poor people, who would be judged not fit to live, just as in Nazi Germany. This would save, as President Obama says, $2-3 million, by taking lives not worthy to be lived.
Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, health policy advisor to President Obama and leader of a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquarted at The Hastings Center,

believes in witholding medical care from the elderly for the greater good.

Related Stories: Obama's Nazi Doctors and Their 'Reforms'

CBO deals new blow to health plan

Listen to the real-life stories of the victims of government-run healthcare.

Visit www.FacesofGovernmentHealthCare.com and Conservatives for Patient's Rights to learn more.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended cancer care?

This is a brave--well-written article, something we seriously need to ponder while the children (Congress) are at recess.
July 22, 2009
By: James Lewis
American Thinker

Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.

The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this:

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?

Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.

Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.

The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world.

Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told.

Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps.

Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants.

So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened.

Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication:

Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life?

There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die?

But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal.

The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is:

Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease.

I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.

Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Pro-Life Catholic Nurse Threatened, Forced to Assist in Late-Term Abortion at Mount Sinai Hospital in NY

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City

A lawsuit has been filed against Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City for requiring a nurse who had a long record of expressing conscientious objection to abortions to help in the dismemberment of a live 22-week-old preborn child.

The case is being brought by the Alliance Defense Fund, which also is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the hospital from retaliating against the nurse, Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo.

"Compelling Mrs. DeCarlo to assist in this abortion against her religious beliefs exposed Mrs. DeCarlo to brutal psychological harm," said the document seeking the injunction. "By assisting she was forced to witness the killing of a 22-week-old preborn child by dismemberment.

"Because it was included in the requirements of her nursing duties as an assistant on the case, Mount Sinai forced Mrs. DeCarlo to watch the doctor remove the bloody arms and legs of the child from its mother's body by with forceps, and then after the surgery, to view the bloody body parts in the specimen cup, put saline in the cup, and take it to the specimen area," the injunction request explains.

This happened even though according to the hospital's own protocols, the abortion was not so urgent that it would have required her assistance, and there was more than enough time to summon another nurse, the complaint said.

A hospital spokesman declined to comment in a WND telephone call seeking information, instructing that the request for a statement be submitted via e-mail. An e-mail response said the hospital wouldn't comment.

The ADF explained that the hospital has known of the nurse's religious objections to participating in the death of a living unborn baby since 2004. Nevertheless, they ordered her to participate, threatening her with disciplinary measures if she refused, she allged. The hospital then dramatically cut her on-call assignments after she refused to sign a statement promising to participate in future abortions.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience. Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, but this nurse's objections fell on deaf ears."

The case alleges the abortion was set up by the hospital because the mother had been diagnosed with preeclampsia, but DeCarlo knew such a condition can be treated without the necessity of an abortion.

When she was told the unborn child was alive, she immediately objected to Dr. Noel Strong, the resident assigned to the case. A series of calls to the nursing supervisor, Fran Carpo, and her supervisor, Ella Shapiro, followed.

The orders came back from Carpo that DeCarlo must assist in the procedure.

"Mrs. DeCarlo repeated her longstanding objection and pleaded with Ms. Carpo that Mount Sinai not force her to assist in this abortion against her strongly held religious beliefs. Mrs. DeCarlo asked Ms. Carpo to call other nurses to the case since so little time had elapsed before Mrs. DeCarlo had voiced her objection. Ms. Carpo said that Ms. Shapiro had insisted that Mrs. DeCarlo assist on the case, and had prohibited Ms. Carpo from even trying to call other nurses to cover the case. Ms. Carpo also said that Dr. Silverstein had yelled at her over the phone in opposition to any delay in the case as a result of Mrs. DeCarlo's request for accommodation," the document explains.

Then the threats began.

"Ms. Carpo said that if Mrs. DeCarlo did not participate in the case, Mrs. DeCarlo would be brought up on charges of 'insubordination and patient abandonment,'" the complaint states. "A charge of patient abandonment would severely jeopardize Mrs. DeCarlo's employment and her nursing license and consequently her career and her and her family's livelihood."

Even DeCarlo's tearful pleas to be allowed to get her priest on the telephone to explain her religious objection were ignored.

The case at the time was designated by the hospital as Category II, which means the doctors wanted the procedure done within six hours – more than enough time to bring in a replacement nurse, the lawsuit said.

According to the request for the injunction, federal law doesn't allow the hospital to do what it did.

"Mount Sinai is bound to respect Mrs. DeCarlo's conscience rights by virtue of several laws, but most notably 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c). Mount Sinai has voluntarily subjected itself to this statute by receiving hundreds of millions of federal Health and Human Services dollars in recent years," the request said. "This statute … states in no uncertain terms that Mrs. DeCarlo is protected from discrimination by Mount Sinai in the conditions or privileges of her employment on the basis of her religious objection to assisting in abortion.

"Mount Sinai blatantly violated Mrs. DeCarlo’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) on May 24, and it continues to do so by condoning the violation and insisting that it can compel her or other employees again or penalize them by removing them from on-call shifts," it said.

It said the injunction is essential because of the imminent danger to employees.

"Mount Sinai must not and cannot force employees to assist in procedures they consider to be brutal murder. But rather than honoring that trust it has resorted to brash bullying tactics against the one employee to ask that her rights of conscience be respected," the request said.

DeCarlo's injuries include the trauma from the procedure.

"She has felt intense emotional, psychological and spiritual suffering from having to participate in something she considers profoundly immoral and unjust. She has missed several days of work, has had trouble sleeping, and has had nightmares about the killing of this child. She has even had to deal with feelings of estrangement from God and family members," the law firm said.

According to the allegations, after the incident, the hospital retaliated against DeCarlo "because of her request that it honor her religious objection to assisting in abortion, and because of the grievance procedure that she filed. First Mount Sinai officials failed to assign Mrs. DeCarlo to her usual 8–9 on-call shifts in August."

WND previously reported on a similar conscience rights case brought by a nurse in Louisiana in which the state Supreme Court ordered a trial.

The hospital in the case had demanded that the nurse's complaint be dismissed.

That case also is being handled by the Alliance Defense Fund. It was brought on behalf of nurse Toni Lemly, who had worked in the St. Tammany Parish Hospital. She sued when she objected to dispensing the "morning after" abortion pill because of her religious beliefs and was demoted.

The hospital's lawyers sought to have her case dismissed out of hand, and when that attempt failed, went to the state Supreme Court. The high court, however, issued a single-word ruling on the hospital's demands: "Denied."

"The hospital declined several reasonable suggestions made by Lemly, a nurse for 23 years, that would have enabled the facility to continue administering the pill while allowing her to abstain from dispensing it herself," the ADF report said. "The hospital chose not to act on any of her suggestions."

WND reported earlier when Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, urged people to contact the White House to express their views on the subject of conscience rights.

"We don't want to kill our patients," she said in an interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND.

There also is an online petition campaign on the issue at Freedom2Care through which people can contact the Department of Health and Human Services.

The issue is getting hotter under President Obama's leadership. Since his election, Obama also has repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions and overturned the nation's ban on experimenting on human embryos for stem cell research.

He's also installed in his administration's highest levels several strongly pro-abortion politicians, including former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, now health secretary.

If this is not a case that proves the importance for upholding Conscience Protection, I don't know what is. Be advised folks, obama is trying like hell to overturn conscience protection, despite his flowery rhetoric to the contrary. If you believe that our healthcare professionals should be free to object to procedures that are morally wrong and contrary to their beliefs, then you MUST ACT TODAY, before it's too late. Please, contact your state representatives and tell them to,
"Retain the conscience regulation & stop abortion mandates! Enforce the laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The government has a special responsibility to ensure that the conscience rights of health care providers are fully protected.”
God Bless! ~Georgia

Join the Freedom2Care Campaign
Contact Elected Officals:
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden
U.S. Senators
U.S. Representatives
State Governor
State Legislators

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Obama "Not Familiar" with Key Provision in Healthcare that Outlaws Private Insurance

Heritage Foundation: During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Obama able to quote a republican before he can quote the healthcare bill he is trying to push:

Related Aricles: Obama May Have to Wait for Healthcare Passage

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

State-run healthcare in Oregon tells dying cancer patient: Your policy does not include life-extending drugs; only physician-assisted suicide

Now, more than ever, I am convinced that "O"care is really: NoCare.
But, don't take my word for it.
Folks, before you fall into the trap of believing that universal healthcare is the answer to the healthcare problem in our country, I strongly urge you to DO YOUR RESEARCH, NOW!! Don't let others do it for you. The answers you find will speak for themselves. These articles are a good starting point. Time is of the essence. All our lives wait in peril.

(See a related articles below)
Eugene, Oregon(CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.

“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”

A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.

“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”

According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.

“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.

Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they have not changed their coverage of recurrent cancer patients, but have only clarified the rules.

Related Article: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care (July 2008)

Hitler's T4 Program Revived in Obama's Healthcare 'Reform'

Monday, July 20, 2009

Liberal Smear Tactic Against Liveaction.org's Lila Rose: Labels her "mean, vindictive and harsh" in her attempt to "take down" Planned Parenthood

Be forwarned folks: what you are about to read is casuistry at its' finest: what really goes on in the mind of a liberal. This could be hazardous to your health. My advice: take a few deep breaths in between sentences. Then, smile and be HAPPY that you are NOT a liberal. And, if you are, take a deep breath and consider having a change of heart, FAST! Moms for Life is a blog by someone who was once an ignorant liberal and is now a happily informed conservative.
Decide for yourself. Watch this video (dated July 13, 2009)
Then, read Julie Driscoll's atrocious article from D.C.'s Examiner.com below:

Liveaction.org’s Lila Rose claims to care about women and girls: Are you kidding me? By Julie Driscoll.

The right-to-lifers were in Chicago this week, standing on Michigan Avenue with their fetus signs and pro-life message. They stood quietly, they didn’t protest, they didn’t harass passersby, they just stood for hours with their signs, silently transmitting their message. Two blocks away there’s a Planned Parenthood clinic, but from what I could see, its patrons came and went unmolested by these protesters.

I disagree with the message, but I respect the right of those men and women who stood on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue to deliver it.

On the other hand, we’ve got young Lila Rose of liveaction.org, who lurks around Planned Parenthood clinic and baits workers into allegedly making statements contrary to law and Planned Parenthood's own policy. I cordially invite Rose to come on out to Chicago, slink into Planned Parenthood clinics with a tape recorder taped to her thigh, and do her little lights, camera, action gig. See, in Illinois – and about a dozen states in all -- state law requires the consent of all parties to a recorded conversation. Take a look at this screen grab of liveaction.org's map – apparently Rose’s dedication to her cause doesn’t extend so far as to risk her own fanny in jail, or risk being sued, or risk any other unpleasant legal matter. The states with red dots indicate locations where Rose has launched her vendetta against Planned Parenthood. Notably absent from her map are any red dots in Illinois. Illinois law allows for both criminal penalties and civil suits in cases of Lila-Rose-like surreptitious taping. I’m guessing we’re safe from her antics here.

She did, however, launch a few in California and a couple in Connecticut, other states where the all-party consent rule is in place. From liveaction.org’s website:

“Los Angeles California 2007
Live Action Investigation"
Lila Rose went undercover into two Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles clinics, posing as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. Rose was told by clinic staff, ‘Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.’”
Violation: California law required Planned Parenthood to report this clear case of statutory rape to law enforcement, but both clinics investigated failed to do so.
Action Taken: Planned Parenthood admitted no wrongdoing, but threatened to sue Lila.”

Hmm . . . since she apparently didn’t record this conversation, or the ones in Connecticut, I suppose we’re just supposed to take her word that these things actually happened? And how good is the word of a woman who admittedly spends a lot of her time lying – specifically, to Planned Parenthood workers all over the country? Planned Parenthood claims the tapes are edited, but Rose denies it -- I guess, again, we’re supposed to believe Rose’s statements that it’s all true, despite her history of lying for the cause. Liveaction.org claims to post the “full footage” of the videos on its website – uh, sorry guys, but entire segments can be edited out of tapes. I’m not bitin’.

Rose’s Mona Lisa Project cites this mission statement: “We hope that our project will lead to criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood so that their business practices will be forced to comply with governing laws that protect young girls.” Ah, yes, this is a woman who is all about protecting young girls and women. What Rose doesn’t mention in her pro-life mission is that abortions constitute only about 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services – the other services it offers benefit women, girls and men nationwide, including abstinence counseling, breast/testicular exams, child sexual abuse prevention, date rape education, dating violence, eating disorders, menopause, pregnancy, labor and delivery, safe sex, sexually transmitted infections, and women’s reproductive health. Ninety-seven percent of the services offered are preventive services.

So, let me get this straight: Rose claims to be on a mission to protect girls and women – by targeting an organization that devotes its resources to doing just that. Rose, this paragon of pro-life virtue, is campaigning to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood clinics – clinics that provide valuable health services to women and girls. According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokesperson Diane Quest, “Any removal of public funding would only serve to deny women, men, and young people critical preventive health care.”

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ms. Rose spends a whole lot of time slithering into Planned Parenthood clinics, in the hopes of catching a worker off guard and saying something questionable – all in the name of protecting women and girls. Assuming that a Planned Parenthood worker doesn’t immediately call the authorities upon hearing the confession of a bogus “14-year-old” who was allegedly impregnated by her adult boyfriend, where’s the report of Rose’s follow-up to see if, in fact, Planned Parenthood did report these incidents at a later time? Does she really think she’s providing a valuable service to women and girls in this country by callously attempting to deny them affordable counseling and health services?

I think otherwise. Like any fanatic, Rose doesn’t seem to care much about those she harms, as long as she accomplishes her pro-life mission. She’s apparently latched on to what she considers a wellspring of opportunity – the alleged compromising of young girls -- to attempt to get Planned Parenthood clinics in hot water, and I’d be surprised if she gave one thought to the fate of the young girls she outs.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition said of Lila Rose, “So now with Lila, you bring this young, fresh college student that completely blows any stereotypes away. No one is going to accuse Lila of being mean, vindictive and harsh.”

Except, maybe, me – I’ll say it. Lila Rose is not only mean, vindictive and harsh, she’s also astonishingly careless with the lives of women and girls who depend on the very organization she works to bring down.

Hidden Abortion Mandate in Healthcare Reform Bill

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Healthcare Reform Bill Rejects Freedom of Choice

This brilliantly written article explains how this bill rejects our freedom to choose a provider and the freedom of the provider to choose not to perform abortions.
Don’t let the government strip patients of choice and innovation in health care. Join HandsOffMyHealth.org today and make your voice heard!

Rejected 'conscience clause'
Possible stumbling block for health care reform

By Mary Claire Kendall | Friday, July 17, 2009
The Washington Times

Just before Independence Day, President Obama, Rome-bound, told reporters he favors a "robust" policy protecting health care workers whose consciences forbid them to perform abortions and other morally objectionable practices. His words, however, diverge from his deeds.

While almost everyone agrees abortion is terrible, somehow, when inconvenient unborn human life intrudes, it too often becomes the default "choice."

Promises of "robust" conscience protections notwithstanding, the president's $635 billion off-budget reserve fund for remaking American health care includes eight principles that deny both consumers' freedom to choose their health care provider and health care providers' freedom to choose not to kill unborn babies through abortion.

In February, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, tried to remedy this situation by attaching a conscience clause to the budget. This ninth principle -- although nonbinding -- was defeated 56 to 41 along mostly party lines. Three Republican senators -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (now a Democrat), Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine voted against; three Democrat senators -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania voted for the provision.

On Monday, Mr. Coburn reintroduced his amendment in the key Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pension, where it was again promptly voted down along party lines -- though Mr. Casey broke ranks -- clearing the way for passage of the committee's health reform bill two days later.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, acting chairman while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, continues to convalesce, claimed current law protects consciences. However, according to a Senate source, this is a "manifestly phony argument" since the Hyde Amendment forbidding federal funding of abortion, thereby protecting consciences, is a rider attached to the health appropriations bill requiring annual renewal. Given the current climate, this is a tenuous protection at best. Furthermore, my source indicated, Mr. Dodd looked pained to make this argument knowing just how phony it was.

Make no mistake, if Congress does not deal honestly with this issue, it has the potential to derail health care reform.

But, consider the even greater consequences of failure to include a conscience clause.

Health care reform without a conscience clause would force Catholic and other faith-inspired health care facilities, true to their mission, to shutter, thus depriving the poorest of critical health care. In Virginia alone, 11 Catholic hospitals serve one-third of the population.

The possibility that health care reform could be fast-tracked through reconciliation, rendering it filibuster-proof -- potentially enacting abortion-on-demand nationally by a simple majority vote -- would be the worst possible outcome.

Far better to work through this very difficult issue -- which is every bit as difficult, if not more, than bridging the differences over health care reform strategy -- than to shove through "phony" conscience protections just to get a bill. It won't be easy. But, then, like John F. Kennedy, Mr. Obama's mantra is apparently not to shy away from challenges.

In early May, the White House worked to meet this challenge by bringing together those on opposite sides of abortion's divide; yet by month's end, a crazed fanatic had snuffed out the God-given life of Kansas late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller.

Cormac Burke -- Irish priest and prolific author -- reflected earlier this year on the root causes of this cultural divide at a Witherspoon Institute/Ethics & Public Policy Center forum on "feminine identity," commenting that he found the United States in the 1950s palpably wholesome. But, when he returned in the late '60s, he was stunned to see how jaded Americans had become.

The twin sexual and psychedelic revolutions were pivotal to this cultural change, paving the way for the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, making it official that "free love" is not free.

Now, 36 years later -- 50 million aborted children having paid the "free love" tab with their lives -- if health care reform liberalizes abortion laws further, the cost will climb. And, the wounds will fester, causing increasing radicalization on both sides in the same way black enslavement catalyzed the fanaticism of John Brown -- in Herman Melville's words, the "meteor" of the Civil War.

Only by respecting consciences can we avert the tragedy of America becoming an even larger killing field -- both of doctors who practice the healing arts, however misguided they might be; and of the unborn, who will never know the beauty of life, let alone the thrill of liberty.

What a wholesome change if, as he has promised, Mr. Obama's health care bill, in fact, offers "robust" conscience protections for health care providers and patients.

But, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, should we "trust but verify" and ask if this means Mr. Obama now backs the Coburn conscience clause? From the Senate Health Committee's vote, the answer is apparently not, which makes Mr. Obama's promise of "robust" conscience protections sound like more smooth-talking from a man desperate for a health care bill, no matter the cost.

Mary Claire Kendall was special assistant to the assistant secretary for health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 1989-93.

Related Articles:

Inside the Monstrous Obamacare Beaurocracy

House health care bill 'outlaws private insurance'
Obama on cost of 'reform': 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'

Abortion mandate slipped into bill
Despite detection by pro-life senators' radar

Silent FOCA: Abortion Expands in Health Care

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

Senate Dems Call for Government-Run Insurance Option; Want Fee on Companies Not Offering Insurance

Friday, July 17, 2009

'Wrongful Birth' Suit: Parents of Disabled Boy Sue Hospital for $2.3 Million Claiming Ultra-Sound Failure Robbed Them of Option to have an Abortion

via: Telegraph.co.uk
Rupert Parsons' mother is claiming £1.5 million ($2.3 Million American Dollars) in interim compensation for "wrongful birth" on the grounds that the hospital should have picked up on his "severe, profound and multiple disabilities" before the 20th week of her pregnancy.

Rupert was born at Musgrove Park Hospital in his home town of Taunton, Somerset, suffering congenital heart defects, a cleft palate, a vertebral abnormality and with only one kidney.

Robin Oppenheim, QC, respresenting the family, told the High Court in London that the disabilities meant Rupert spent much of his time in a wheelchair. and needed 24-hour ventilation via a tracheotomy. He was also fed through a tube.

His devoted mother, Franchesca Parsons, 25, had the "extraordinarily demanding" task of caring for him, he added.

The court heard Rupert's father, Lee Barrett, suffered from congenital heart problems and his maternal grandmother was born with spina bifida.

A pre-natal scan was reported as showing "no obvious fetal abnormality" in Rupert, but the family claims more detailed tests would have picked up on the boy's disabilities before the 20th week of pregnancy.

Although Rupert was now a very much loved member of his family, his mother has sued the hospital's managers, Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust, arguing that she never had the option of terminating the pregnancy.

The family's lawyers said Rupert's parents were concerned throughout the pregnancy that he might be born disabled and did not want to see him suffer in the way his father had done.

Mr Oppenheim said the NHS had "admitted liability" in 2006, opening the way for a multi million pound compensation claim to cover the costs of a lifetime's care.

He added that it was too early to finally assess the compensation due to uncertainties over how Rupert's condition will develop as he grows up.

But in the meantime, Mr Oppenheim asked Mr Justice Blair to award an interim payment of pounds 1.5 million so that Rupert and his family could move to a more suitable home and put in place a professional care regime, with two nurses on hand day and night.

Mr Oppenheim told the judge that Rupert's family has already received pounds 500,000 in interim payments, but his current care regime only allowed for one carer to be on hand at night.

Mr Oppenheim said the family's most "pressing need" was to move to a new home which could be specially adapted for Rupert's care. The boy became "frustrated" at the lack of space, the court heard.

Urging the court to sanction the £1.5 million payout, Mr Oppenheim said: "The strain on this family is immense; bluntly it is at the point of breaking down. A move to a new home is essential as well as a stable care regime".

Women are routinely offered an ultrasound scan at around 20 weeks’ gestation, to check that the baby is developing normally. Unless any concerns are discovered this is the last scan they will receive before the birth

Abortion is allowed in Britain up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Beyond this a termination can only be sanctioned if the fetus has a severe disability, or of the mother’s life is at risk.

The NHS Trust is disputing the amount of the interim payment. The case was adjourned and a decision will be announced at a later date.

Funeral Services Set for Infant Baby Found Dead in a Dumpster

(07-16) 15:51 PDT Union City -- SFGate Home of the San Francisco Chronicle
Her tombstone will read Matea Esperanza, even though nobody knows her name.
It was the name chosen by the Union City police dispatcher, who took the call May 18 that an infant girl with the umbilical cord still attached was found dead in a dumpster at the Parkside Apartments.

It means gift of God in Hebrew, and the surname means hope in Spanish.

No one has come forward to claim the girl, so the Union City Police Department is holding a public funeral for her at 1 p.m. Wednesday at Chapel of the Chimes in Hayward.

"This case touched so many people in our department," said Detective Steven Mendez. "We were flabbergasted. There is a fire station a few blocks away where the baby could have been safely surrendered. Our station is half a mile away. It's tragic all the way around."

California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law allows mothers to surrender their newborns three days after birth at hospitals, fire stations and police stations. Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, has written a bill that would stretch the deadline to 30 days.

Torrico is expected to speak at the funeral, along with Union City Police Chaplain Albert Valencia. Police Chief Greg Stewart and members of the police department and Union City Fire Department will also attend, Mendez said.

Investigators have not been able to locate anyone who can help them find the infant's parents, Mendez said.

Matea's will be buried at Chapel of the Chimes, the same location as her service: 32992 Mission Blvd. She will be buried in a donated white christening dress and bonnet, and her tombstone will read: Matea Esperanza, Adopted with love by UCPD.

Sadly, the dumpster is the final resting place for nearly 1 million children legally killed per year in our country by abortion. Please pray for an end to this holocaust.
For Thier Lives, Georgia

Astronauts Launch Pro-Life TV Ad Commemorating 40th Anniversary of Neil Armstrong's First Moonwalk

Houston, TX (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life group whose first two television commercials were rejected by NBC and CNN has unveiled a new ad that promote the potential of human life. The ads feature clips of astronaut Neil Armstrong and they have the support of top astronauts Dr. Joseph Kerwin and Gene Krantz.

Featuring video images of a 3-D ultrasound of an unborn baby, a message shows saying, "At 5 weeks, his heart will beat, at 9 weeks his feet will form, at 80 weeks he will take his first step."

The images move to a scene of Armstrong landing on the moon and audio of his famous words saying it was "one giant leap for mankind."

The message concludes, "at 2,024 weeks ... Life, Imagine the Potential."

Dr. Joseph Kerwin, the first American doctor in outer space, joined other former NASA greats yesterday at a press conference sponsored by the Catholic pro-life group Fidelis, the creator of the new advertisement and its popular web site CatholicVote.org.

The event commemorated both the fortieth anniversary of Apollo 11’s historic landing on the moon and the new ad buy from Fidelis.

“For thousands of years, man has looked at the moon and the stars in awe. But forty years ago, we did the unthinkable: We landed on the moon. This new ad by CatholicVote.org captures the spirit of this historic mission by highlighting the potential of human life,” Kerwin said.
Gene Krantz, best known as the flight director at mission control manager during Apollo 13, was also on hand to premiere the ad.

Brian Burch, the president of the group, told LifeNews.com that putting a man on the moon was once thought impossible.

“Neil Armstrong will go down in history as one of the greatest explorers. His long journey to the moon started, as each of us started, with a small kick in our mother’s womb,” said Burch. “Today, we salute the astronauts of Apollo 11 and all other brave pioneers who give meaning to the potential of every human life.”

With today marking the anniversary of the liftoff of Apollo 11 and July 20 marking the anniversary of the first moonwalk, the new Fidelis pro-life commercial comes at an appropriate time.

In a note to supporters of the organization, Kerwin talked more about the new "Imagine" television commercial. He said it would "be running regularly on local Houston television stations for the next several weeks."

"Their new ad is already creating buzz in Houston, and I can't wait for the rest of the country to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Apollo 11 with this new ad," he said.

"Next Monday, media outlets around the world will commemorate the historic achievement of Apollo 11. The courage and dedication of the astronauts aboard Apollo 11, and hundreds of others involved in our nation's space program make me proud of our great country," Kerwin added. "But most importantly, the achievements of the space program remind me of the potential of every human life."

"May we never cease to marvel at the gift, and potential of every human life," he concluded.

Retired astronaut Dr. Bill Thornton also joined Kerwin and Kranz at the press event.

Fidelis sponsored an ad that NBC and CNN rejected but that was viewed over 1.8 million times on the Internet thanks to the controversy generated by the censorship. A previous ad focused on adoption.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Bombshell: Sotomayor Admits Promoting and Engaging in Radical Abortion-Rights Legal Efforts

By Dawn Eden | July 16, 2009
In a bombshell admission, Judge Sonia Sotomayor — who yesterday spoke of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund as being a “mainstream” organization — admitted she was aware that the group, on whose board she served for twelve years, fought common-sense regulations on abortion.

Responding to a question by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on the six briefs filed by the PRLDEF during her tenure as a board member there — briefs which argued that abortion was a “fundamental right” — she responded.

“I can’t answer that question, because I didn’t review the briefs. I did know that the fund had a health-care docket that included challenges to certain limitations on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy under certain circumstances.”

One brief on the PRLDEF’s “health-care docket”argued against Ohio’s parental-notification law. It said:

that establishment and free exercise clause concerns also militate toward the invalidation of these abortion-specific notice statutes. If Justice Stevens is correct that the belief that life begins at conception is religious, [cit. omit.] then these statutes would seem to both reflect and accomplish state endorsement of religious beliefs. [cit. omit.] The Court would need to examine whether the ostensible secular purposes are “sham,” [cit. omit.] in light of the fact that abortion is singled out for notice from other, at least, equally life-shaping reproductive choices based on a purpose to save “lives”, and that parents who are religiously opposed to abortion are among its primary beneficiaries. It would also need to consider whether the state, through giving the parents confidential information (far more valuable here than financial assistance), has enhanced these parents’ ability to indoctrinate, control, or punish their minor daughters who choose abortion, and, thereby, has crossed the critical line between respecting the parents’ privacy right to inculcate religion in their children.

These are the views that Sotomayor now admits she knew she was promoting as a board member of the PRLDEF and as chair of its litigation committee. These are the views that the Supreme Court nominee considers “mainstream.”

AUL’s Sotomayor411.com has the full story on the PRLDEF briefs, including full-text links.

Hear Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life,Discussion & Goals in Questioning Sotomayor during the Senate Hearings

A message from AUL President, Dr. Charmaine Yoest:
AUL Senior Fellow Dawn Eden has done a terrific job live-blogging the Sotomayor hearings. Following her live-blogging will give you the latest information about these crucial hearings. You can help us by getting the word out to your friends and family. Encourage them to learn more by visiting Sotomayor411.com and the AUL Blog. Also, please visit our AUL Action website to find other ways you can take action on your concerns.

If you are on Facebook or Twitter, please take a minute to find me there. I will be “tweeting” from behind the scenes as we get ready for my testimony tomorrow. I would love to hear from you.

For Life,
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO

Holy Pro-Life Catholic Image Desecrated to Promote Sotomayor

Mocking Our Lady of Guadalupe is utterly disgraceful! If you twitter, let Felix Sanchez know that his actions are vile! Tell him to remove this photo desecrating Our Lady!

(NewsBusters)With the start of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearings the topic of abortion naturally arises – not only because it one of our most polarizing legal and social issues, but also because Sotamayor claims to be Catholic, a religion that adamantly and explicitly teaches the evil of abortion.

And while her Catholicism scares some liberals, others are using it as a selling point, and in doing so desecrating a holy image of the Virgin Mary. Felix Sanchez, the CEO of D.C. government and public relations firm TerraCom and chairman of the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, has updated his Twitter page with a background of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Over Our Lady’s face, the likeness of Sotomayor has been superimposed (shown at right).

The patron saint of all the Americas, Our Lady of Guadalupe has a special place in the hearts of Hispanic Catholics, especially Mexicans (which Sotomayor is not). But Sanchez seemed to use the image to appeal to all Hispanics and to promote his plea to “Confirm Sonia Maria Sotomayor,” as his Twitter page says.

Besides showing the desecration of a holy image, Sanchez’s image has a sick irony. For many reasons including sash symbolizing pregnancy that the Virgin wears in the image, Our Lady of Guadalupe is often associated with and used as a symbol of the Catholic pro-life movement. She is also the “Patroness of the Unborn.”

While Sotomayor may claim to be Catholic, her views on abortion are unclear. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution,” and “all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law.”

However, she also upheld the Mexico City Policy, a policy which prohibited federal funding to NGO’s who provide or support abortion in other countries, and which President Obama has recently overturned.

The fact is that both sides of the abortion debate have concerns with Sotomayor’s unknown abortion stance. As a Catholic, however, her stance should already be clear. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches and upholds the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Sotomayor, who attended Catholic school, must know this. Catholic politicians, and all Catholics, are expected to also uphold this teaching and make it a priority. Sotomayor’s assertion that legal abortion is “settled law” should worry Catholics and all who value the sanctity of life.

Read: Poll: Americans Opposed to Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Sarah Palin Blasts Obama in Washington Post Op-ed: The 'Cap-and-Tax' Dead End

(Newsbusters)In a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration, Sarah Palin took off the gloves to attack the recently House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, disaffectionately known as cap-and-tax.
Brilliantly, Palin also took this opportunity to chide her not so adoring press.

By Sarah Palin
Washington Post: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.

Major Victory for Soldier who Challenged Obama's Legitimacy to Serve as President

By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world."

He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice." (sidenote from me:If the accusations are so "bogus" Mr. Olbermann, than why were the orders REVOKED so quickly? If the President's legitimacy is so obvious..this soldier would be well on his way to Afghanistan by now..with all do respect, sir.)

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying 'I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Read the rest of the article HERE

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

The question over Obama's eligibility now also being raised on billboards nationwide.

Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Sotomayor Denies Racial Bias in 'wise Latina' Remark

Read full article from Townhall HERE.

Sotomayor: Abortion Rights are "Settled Law"

(Townhall)Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights is settled law and says there is a constitutional right to privacy.

The federal appeals court judge was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.

Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution." She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say pointblank if she agreed with the high court's precedent on this volatile issue.

Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that "all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law," subject to the possibility of subsequent reversal, such as when the court last month renounced a previous precedent in a reverse discrimination case. It ruled 5-4 on the side of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who challenged a decision by the city to discard the results of an employee test in which they fared better than minorities who took the examination.

Briefs in U.S. Supreme Court Abortion Cases 1980-1992 Prove Sotomayor's Radical Abortion Agenda Far Surpasses Roe v. Wade

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO,
Americans United for Life(AUL)
***Read Charmaine's July 8th memo to to Senate Judiciary Committee members, urging them to ask Judge Sotomayor the “Top Ten” most important questions pertaining to abortion, its regulations and the role of the Court as the Senators prepared for her confirmation hearings that began on July 13.***
via: Sotomayor411.com
From 1980 to 1992, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was on the governing board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF).
During this time, the Fund filed at least six friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs in five abortion-related cases in the Supreme Court. Every time, the PRLDEF argued that the Supreme Court should impose unlimited abortion rights and eliminate virtually all abortion regulations passed by popularly-elected representatives in the states.

According to the New York Times on May 28, 2009, “The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts.”

These briefs show that Judge Sotomayor supports an interpretation of abortion rights that goes far beyond Roe v. Wade and would eliminate most or all state and federal abortion regulations, while requiring state and federal funding of abortion.

Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. 358 (1980)
The US Supreme Court upheld an Illinois statute prohibiting the use of state funds for abortions except where necessary to save the woman’s life. In this case, the PRLDEF:

-Argued that “medically necessary” abortions must be publicly funded
-Argued that the Court’s definition of health in abortion law (from Doe v. Bolton) should be the definition of “medical necessity” . . . “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
-Argued that limits on public funding “discriminates”
-Urged Supreme Court “to affirm the holding of the District Court that Illinois’ singular denial of funding for medically necessary abortions, while funding all other comparable medically necessary care, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
The Court upheld several Missouri regulations, including viability testing, and rejected a challenge to a state statutory preamble that declared that the life of a human being begins at conception. In this case, the PRLDEF:

-Argued that abortion is a fundamental right and that strict scrutiny is required:
“This suggested departure from the Court’s jurisprudence of fundamental rights is inconsistent with the very notion of a fundamental right. The right to abortion is no less vulnerable to hatred, intolerance, prejudice and misunderstanding than any other fundamental right. Only strict scrutiny of all forms of interference can guarantee that necessary burdens on the right to choose abortion are distinguished from superfluous or obstructionist ones.”

This is exactly the intent and language of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that President Obama has promised Planned Parenthood he will sign, which declares abortion to be fundamental right and would impose “strict scrutiny” and prohibits any “interference” with the right to abortion.

-Argued that “Strict Scrutiny Of All Significant Burdens On The Fundamental Right To Abortion Is Required Under The Equal Protection Clause.”
-Argued for “strict scrutiny of all state-created obstacles.”
-Argued “Strict scrutiny is required under the liberty prong of the due process clause because of the preciousness of the fundamental right and its vulnerability to social prejudice and intolerance. The principle of equal protection also justifies strict scrutiny: it requires that fundamental rights be guaranteed equally to all.”
-Argued that “If the children of the poor are homeless and hungry now, when abortion is safe and legal, countless more will suffer if regulations multiply the cost of abortion.”
-Argued against any meaningful regulation:
“In addition to hospitalization, [*40] a number of regulations struck down by this and lower courts under the Roe v. Wade framework, might not be considered sufficiently burdensome as to trigger strict scrutiny analysis. Intrusive and distorted “informed consent” requirements designed to frighten women from obtaining abortions, and onerous record-keeping and public disclosure requirements, which were intended to harass patients and providers, were struck down in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986). These and more preclusive parental consent and notices rules, n58 or more intrusive spousal consent or notice requirements, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), might survive an unduly burdensome threshold.”

-Argued against “ultra-sound testing” for every abortion and against requirement that “physicians personally counsel patients.”
-Argued against “viability tests” as “useless and expensive.”
Quoted Justice Marshall’s dissent in Beal v. Doe:

“An unwanted child may be disruptive and destructive of the life of any woman, but the impact is felt most by those too poor to ameliorate those effects. If funds for an abortion are unavailable, a poor woman may feel that she is forced to obtain an illegal abortion that poses serious threat to her health and even her life . . . If she refuses to take this risk, and undergoes the pain and danger of state-financed pregnancy and childbirth, she may well give up all chances of escaping the cycle of poverty. Absent day-care facilities, she will be forced into full-time childcare for years to come; she will be unable to work so that her family can break out of the welfare system or the lowest income brackets. If she already has children, another infant to feed and clothe may well stretch the budget past the breaking point. All chance to control the direction of her own life will have been lost.”
Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438, 458-59 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting).

-Asserted again that “The Fund opposes any efforts to . . . in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”

Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
In rejecting a facial challenge to an Ohio parental notification law, the US Supreme Court upheld an Ohio statute requiring a minor to notify one parent or obtain a judicial waiver. The Court rejected the clinic’s claim that the judicial procedure was burdensome. In this case, the PRLDEF:

-Joined a brief opposing parental notice of abortion in case of minors and specifically declared, “The Fund opposes any efforts to . . . in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade” arguing that “adolescent women’s right to choose not . . . infringed by [parental] notification statutes.”
-Insisted on a “fundamental right to abortion.”
-Argued that minors should be “protected against parental involvement that might prevent or obstruct the exercise of their right to choose.”

“that establishment and free exercise clause concerns also militate toward the invalidation of these abortion-specific notice statutes. If Justice Stevens is correct that the belief that life begins at conception is religious, [cit. omit.] then these statutes would seem to both reflect and accomplish state endorsement of religious beliefs. [cit. omit.] The Court would need to examine whether the ostensible secular purposes are “sham,” [cit. omit.] in light of the fact that abortion is singled out for notice from other, at least, equally life-shaping reproductive choices based on a purpose to save “lives”, and that parents who are religiously opposed to abortion are among its primary beneficiaries. It would also need to consider whether the state, through giving the parents confidential information (far more valuable here than financial assistance), has enhanced these parents’ ability to indoctrinate, control, or punish their minor daughters who choose abortion, and, thereby, has crossed the critical line between respecting the parents’ privacy right to inculcate religion in their children.”

-Argued for strict scrutiny standard, in effect, though not in name (argued that state interests must be “narrowly drawn”).
-Focused on the minority of teens who went thru the bypass process completely ignoring parents and parental rights and completely ignoring the effect on teens who might have been deterred from pregnancy. Is that a good way to make public policy? Is that a good way to urge the Court to invalidate legislation passed by majority support?

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)
The Supreme Court upheld regulations that recipients of Title X funds could not counsel or refer for abortion using Title X funds. In this case, the PRLDEF:

-Argued that Title X regulations should be invalidated.
-Argued that abortion is “fundamental right”.
PRLDEF Rust v. Sullivan Brief 1 (PDF)
PRLDEF Rust v. Sullivan Brief 2 (PDF)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
The Supreme Court upheld parental consent and informed consent regulations from Pennsylvania, but invalided a spousal notice requirement. In this case, the PRLDEF:

-Joined brief opposing 24 hour waiting period and parental consent.
-Opposed definition of medical emergency, establish reporting requirements, and require informed consent, parental consent.
-Urged Court to apply “strict scrutiny” to strike down the regulations.
-Urged that abortion be treated as fundamental right and apply strict scrutiny.
-Compared abortion to the right to free speech and argued that any “burden” was unconstitutional.
-Again contended that, “The Fund opposes any efforts to . . . in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”
Summary Links: PRLDEF Briefs

PRLDEF Williams v. Zbaraz Brief (PDF)
PRLDEF Webster v. Reproductive Health Services Brief (PDF)
PRLDEF Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Brief (PDF)
PRLDEF Rust v. Sullivan Brief 1 (PDF)
PRLDEF Rust v. Sullivan Brief 2 (PDF)
PRLDEF Planned Parenthood v. Casey Brief (PDF)

Read July 13 article by Charmaine Yoest: Grist for the Grill: To Question Sotomayor (Townhall)

B-Team Amateur Catholic Blogroll

Obama's Pro-Abortion Record

"I Am Personally Responsible for over 75,000 Abortions"

*This video was made during the campaign to ban abortion in South Dakota. Bernard Nathanson repented of his ways and has became Catholic.*

100% of funds raised go directly to Pro-Life efforts
Randall Terry, founder Operation Rescue, addresses the assassination of George Tiller. Mr. Terry urges the pro-life movement to not surrender words and actions under the heavy opposition from child killers and the Obama administration.

This is, by far, the BEST prayer book I have ever read!

This is, by far, the BEST prayer book I have ever read!
Not just a prayer book for teens...but for people of all ages! You will LOVE it! Order your copy TODAY!

Books for Children

  • Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss
  • The Weight of a Mass: A Tale of Faith, by Josephine Nobisso
  • The Princess and the Kiss, by Jennie Bishop
  • Angel in the Waters, by Regina Doman

More Recommended Reading

  • Abortion: Yes or No? by John L. Grady, M.D.
  • Changed ~ Making Sense of Your Own or a Loved One's Abortion Experience, by Michaelene Fredenburg
  • Ending Abortion Not Just Fighting It, by Fr. Frank A. Pavone, M.E.V.
  • Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), by Pope John Paul II
  • God Is Love, An Encyclical Letter of Pope Benedict XVI
  • Humane Vitae: A Challenge to Love, by Pope Paul VI
  • Is the Fetus Human? by Eric Pastuszek
  • Led by Faith, by Immaculee Ilibigiza
  • Left to Tell, by Immaculee Ilibigiza
  • Living the Gospel of Life ~ the pastoral statement issued by U.S. Catholic Bishops
  • Noise, by Teresa Tomeo
  • Our Lady of Guadalupe, Hope for the World by Dan Lynch
  • Render Unto Caesar, by Charles J. Chaput
  • The Way to Love, by Anthony De Mello
  • Won By Love, by Norma McCorvey

Dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe

Dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe
Patroness of the Americas, Intercessor for the Pre-born
Powered by WebRing.
Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!