It is this week's Outfit of the Week!
This shop has so many beautiful dresses!
On the path to over-the-counter abortionsPrayers that the murder of the unborn comes to an end... and that this new abortion pill isn't approved by the FDA...
Posted: May 26, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
On June 17, the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health will hold a public hearing to begin the approval process of a new abortion pill, Ulipristal acetate, to be marketed by the brand names ella® or ellaOne®.
ellaOne can be taken up to five days after unprotected sex, as opposed to emergency contraception, which can be taken up to three days after unprotected sex.
ellaOne has been marketed in the United Kingdom since September 2009 as an emergency contraceptive, but it does not chemically work the same in a woman's body as an EC.
In fact, ellaOne works the same as mifepristone, or RU486, also known as the abortion pill, which can be taken up to 49 days after the first day of a woman's last period.
While ellaOne and RU486 are composed of different chemical compounds, they are both progesterone blockers, while the EC is a progesterone.
A "fact sheet" by the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, which is pushing FDA approval of ellaOne, confirms "mifepristone [RU486] and ulipristal acetate [ellaOne] are both selective progesterone modulators."
ellaOne blocks progesterone from reaching the cushiony lining of a mother's uterus, the endometrium. ellaOne causes the endometrium to degrade and her days-old embryo to die.
Since RU486 is taken later in pregnancy, it blocks progesterone from reaching a mother's placenta, thereby causing it to degrade and her weeks-old embryo to die.
According to a 2009 report from the European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, quoted by Wikipedia, "like mifepristone [RU486], ulipristal acetate [ellaOne] is embryotoxic in animal studies."
All of this is not to say the EC cannot be "embryotoxic" as well. It just kills differently by either slowing the embryo down from reaching the uterus alive or by making the uterus impermeable to implantation by the embryo.
The EC and ellaOne may also work by delaying ovulation or making it difficult for sperm to reach egg.
Bottom line: While in actuality the EC and ellaOne may cause abortions, and RU486 certainly does, ellaOne is admitted to be "embryotoxic" and works chemically the same as RU486, so it should not be classified as an emergency contraception...
Read the entire article here.
HAVERSTRAW (WABC) -- The parents of a high school student from Rockland County are demanding answers after their ninth grader was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school.
He was suspended even though the school doesn't even have a policy banning them. So did the principal go too far? Jason Laguna is a former altar boy and proud Catholic. He got his rosary beads as a gift, thinks they look cool and sometimes wears them under his shirt at school. But last Friday, right before dismissal, he pulled them out on his way out. He was given a one-day suspension from Fieldstone Secondary School. His mother calls the punishment extreme, considering the 14-year-old is a member of student government and, according to his last report card, "is a pleasure to have in class." Laguna says she was told the school has an unwritten policy regarding beads because they could be used to show gang affiliation. The principal claims it was insubordination, saying Laguna's actions, "endangered the safety, health, morals or welfare of himself or others." Jason was supposed to stay home Friday, but late Thursday the district superintendent put that on hold pending further investigation. It may not be divine intervention, but his mother has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union as she continues to fight the suspension.
Click here to see the video clip.
“Clinical, chilling and cynical”
State values contracepted or aborted babies at between $4 and $9 each when computing budget, according to California Catholic Conference
As the state teeters on bankruptcy, the California Catholic Conference, the political action arm of the state’s bishops, has asked members of the legislature’s budget committee “why funds continue to be allocated to programs designed to eliminate those at the beginning of life, and at the same time withhold funds from those who are unable to provide for themselves or, in the case of the elderly, those who are at the end of life,” according to the May 21 email alert of the Catholic Legislative Network, “Public Policy Insights.”
“If you're looking for a line item in the California Budget that says abortion funding you will not find it,” said the email. “State Medi-Cal dollars are used to pay for abortions -- more than 80,000 in 2007. Publishing such a number would make it too open to attack.”
In the meantime, said the Catholic Legislative Alert email, “Major funding for abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood and others, is contained in the California Family PACT program budget. The program has not been cut as drastically as other programs during California's budget shortfall, in part, because of the claim by these providers that Family PACT saves the state money by adverting births. The bottom line -- quoting figures from the study used by providers to argue for minimal cuts -- is that ‘non-births’ save the state $1.88 billion from conception to age two, and more than $4 billion from conception to age five.”
“Abortion proponents, of course, would not openly make such a claim -- most people would find such a justification for abortion horrifying,” the email noted...
...“The bottom line projection then is that by reducing public health and welfare expenditures resulting from ‘unintended’ (their term) pregnancies, every dollar spent on Family PACT saved the public sector $4.30 from conception to age two and $9.25 from conception to age five,” Hogan noted. The purported savings, said Hogan, come from reduced state expenditures for “medical, welfare and other social service costs.”
The full article can be read here. The study that the article is based on can be found here.Completely putting aside the fact that the state is funding murder to save money, I still would have to question to logic. California is paying to kill future taxpayers, to save money now. Hardly a good long term strategy. Maybe we could spend less on those stupid star studded "Come to California and Stay" ads (and why are those being played in California, by the way? We're already here...) and just stop murdering our future.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- "The Gallup released the results of a new survey confirming, for the third time in the last year, that more Americans call themselves pro-life than "pro-choice" on abortion. That's enough for the respected polling firm to say a pro-life majority is the "new normal" in the United States.
According to a May 3-6 Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans say they are pro-life on abortion versus 45 percent who say they are "pro-choice," supporting legal abortions..."
"Because this is the third consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life position, the polling firm calls the results "a real change in public opinion.""
"In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.This response sums up my reaction to the article since I'm too disgusted to be particularly articulate right now:
The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week, said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to undergo mutilation...
A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context...."
“If we just told parents, ‘No, this is wrong,’ our concern is they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass,” she said. “A just-say-no policy may end up alienating these families, who are going to then find an alternative that will do more harm than good.”
Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, said she was “astonished that a group of intelligent people did not see the utter slippery slope that we put physicians on” with the new policy statement. “How much blood will parents be satisfied with?”
She added: “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.”