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
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.”
"...In the Gospel of John, the Lord Jesus comes into the midst of his timid band of disciples after his resurrection from the dead. (Jn. 20. 19-23) To say “timid” is putting it mildly. The disciples of Jesus were scared out of their mind. They had seen from a distance or had heard the graphic details of Jesus’ crucifixion. They knew how he had been tortured beyond recognition. His flesh had been whipped and torn. He hung suspended on the cross for three hours anguishing for every breath.
These images haunted them. Their own abandonment of the Lord in his hour of need tore at their souls and shamed them into hiding. Hiding is exactly what they were doing. Their fear and shame made them close and lock the doors. They were trapped in a prison of their own making.
They were also afraid of the fate that awaited them. If the authorities had so brutally tortured Jesus, what chances did they have of escaping the same treatment? The Lord Jesus had already warned of them of this earlier in the week during his last meal with them the night before he died. He told them: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.” (Jn. 15.18-19) These words too must have hovered over the disciples as they were gathered together.
Into this frightened huddle came the Lord Jesus and he said to them, “Peace be with you.” The Lord offered them peace. He offered them his peace. Now, keep in mind, that nothing has changed about their circumstances. The world was still a hostile place. Those who had sought Jesus’ death were still in power. The Roman soldiers were still patrolling the streets. Yet, the Lord Jesus offers his disciples peace. What peace could these disciples have if they were still hated and despised, shamed and belittled?
The Lord Jesus tells them, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you.” (Jn. 14.27) While the world was still a hostile and cruel place for the disciples, one thing had in fact changed. The Lord Jesus, who had died because of this hostility and cruelty, had overcome death and had returned to be with his disciples.
More than just rising from the dead, the risen Christ came back to his friends, to his chosen ones to give them peace by being with him them. He breathed out his spirit upon them and the disciples breathed in this Spirit. Those who had lost their breath from fear and shame now inhaled the energy and vitality of the risen Christ.
The disciples were still in lots of trouble. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that they would continue to get into trouble with the authorities but they were at peace even in the midst of their travails because Christ was with them. They had begun to live for God in Christ Jesus. Their peace of mind, their own tranquility even in the face of adversity was solely rooted in knowing Jesus, the Christ.
The fear and the shame that the disciples experienced was the result of sin, the sins of others and their own sins. Their being trapped and locked in the room because of fear is always the consequence of sin. Sin starts out with the notion that we can live without God. Sin takes root in our hearts when we start to live for ourselves. We begin to move away from God because it no longer suits us or because of illusions or temptations that make us think we can do better without God. Sin by thought, word, deed or omission is a decision to live for ourselves, not for God. How does living for ourselves become a sin?
St. Augustine tells us that our hearts are made for God and our hearts will be restless until they rest in God. We are made to live for God, for only in him will we find the happiness, peace, and beauty that our own being craves. By this design, God is the one who guides us to the way, the truth and the life that will make us truly happy, that will truly free us. When we begin to believe that our happiness is found in living for ourselves and doing what we want we begin to lose our bearings. We begin to get lost because we no longer know the way, the truth, or the life that was made for us.
More often than not, this begins with a distorted notion of freedom. Freedom has come to mean doing what we want when we want. Each person decides what happiness means and no one should keep us from seeking happiness according to our own design. Lots of people talk about being pro-choice, believing there are no bad choices since each one gets to choose what one wants. When this happens, then the only guide for our decisions becomes our own pleasure and our own ego. Anything that stands in the way of pleasing ourselves or glorifying ourselves is perceived as bad and must be feared or hated. This path will only lead to one place, a room where we are locked up by our own fears or chained by our pleasures..."