[quote]sufiandy wrote:<<< Some type of moral thought process is involved before deciding to have an abortion. The conclusion to have one is not just based on the fact you don’t think its immoral so its no big deal and your decision is already made. Of course there are probably some women who don’t fall in that category but those are not the ones pro choicer’s are fighting for.[/quote]This is somewhat insightful dude. I’ll give ya credit. I have witnessed first hand the personal emotional wreckage of women who have murdered their own unborn children regardless of how far along they were. Not just ones who know Jesus either. Any flicker of a breathing conscience and it catches up with them. Women KNOW they have committed an atrocity. Men too, but not usually as much. I know what I am talkin about. It is an act of barbaric narcissism. It haunts them.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
With a newborn at home, I will not always have time to spare. Even though I eventually will.
[/quote]
No. You won’t. Hahah!
This thread is still alive?
Why won’t this thread die already?!!
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
This thread is still alive?
Why won’t this thread die already?!![/quote]See? Death. They’re always tryin to kill sumthin. Even threads.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
This thread is still alive?
Why won’t this thread die already?!![/quote]See? Death. They’re always tryin to kill sumthin. Even threads.
[/quote]
Lol, zing!
LMFAO = D The most ironical portion, tigger posted in this thread and helped the topic stay near the top of the board! [i]JJAAA JJAAA JJAAA!!![/i]
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
This thread is still alive?
Why won’t this thread die already?!![/quote]See? Death. They’re always tryin to kill sumthin. Even threads.
[/quote]
Lol, zing![/quote]
So raj, are you telling me the woman can make the choice for her child? Yet no one else can, right?
When a mother has an abortion, who is she possibly thinking about?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So raj, are you telling me the woman can make the choice for her child? Yet no one else can, right?
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask.
I will ask another way: The mother is the only one who can make the choice to have an abortion, correct?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So raj, are you telling me the woman can make the choice for her child? Yet no one else can, right?
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask.[/quote]
No I’m of the opinion abortion is ok only in certain circumstances. I asked because I read a post by a feminist who stated that she is very pro choice but also against sex selective abortion. Those sound like conflicting positions to me.
Nah man, I am just curious as to what those circumstances would be that justify an abortion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
No I’m of the opinion abortion is ok only in certain circumstances. I asked because I read a post by a feminist who stated that she is very pro choice but also against sex selective abortion. Those sound like conflicting positions to me.[/quote]
^ Former abortion clinic worker Jewels Green
Laughing at the babyâ??s foot in the sink: for us abortion clinic workers, the macabre was the norm
by Jewels Green Thu Sep 08, 2011
Note: Jewels Green is a former abortion clinic worker who also had an abortion herself. She recently spoke out about her experiences as an abortion clinic worker for the first time. You can read that article here. In this column she reveals more details about her five years at the clinic.
September 8, 2011 (LiveAction.org ) - So much became daily business-as-usual while working at an abortion clinic year after year: the tears, the shouting parents and boyfriends, the drivers who accompanied abortion patients who said they were “going out for a cigarette” and then disappeared-abandoning the pregnant mother they’d brought in, the jokes in the lunchroom about the one who showed up with her multiple other kids in tow (we did not allow children in the waiting room. Ever.)
Even the macabre became commonplace. The gallows humor I’d seen in movies about medical staff that work around disease and death day in and day out was right at home in an abortion clinic.
I vividly remember the cleaning lady who quit after finding a foot in the drain of the one of the sinks in the autoclave room (where the medical instruments were cleaned and sterilized after abortions) and how we all laughed and joked about it in the staff lounge for days and weeks afterward.
When the power went out one time for hours and we were all explicitly instructed NOT to open the freezer where all of the medical waste was stored (read: dead baby parts in bio-hazard bags) but inevitably, someone did open that freezer and I will never, ever forget the stench of decaying human flesh for as long as I live-but we all laughed as we gagged and joked how at least they- had it better in that non-functioning freezer because at least they couldn’t smell it.
But one thing about the clinic never sat well with me, and maybe this is because in my heart I always knew it was wrong. All of it was wrong. Especially this: the dead baby in the refrigerator in the lab. It was touted as a “teaching tool” and a “medical anomaly” that this perfect 10-week-old fetus “survived” the suction abortion procedure perfectly intact. So he (I thought I could tell it was a he) was given the dubious honor of being preserved in formalin in a translucent plastic jar in the laboratory refrigerator. I think we called him Charlie, but I can’t really remember. I know he had a name, but blissfully I have either forgotten or repressed it. But he was there. Every day I worked there.
Occasionally I peeked in on him, fascinated by the bizarreness of it all, but also with a scientific curiosity-every other abortion resulted in parts, bits and pieces of human in the jar-but this miraculous little creature was perfectly formed and complete in every way, with the heartbreaking exception that he was dead. There was no amniotic sac, no placenta, just teeny-tiny perfect little baby. Floating in the jar. In the fridge. Forever silent witness to the march of death of his immature brethren.
How I now pray his soul rests in peace, and that someday he is given decent burial-or at the very least tossed out with the rest of the bio-hazardous waste-for that would be far more merciful than where I knew him to be.
This article originally appeared on LiveAction.org
Author of study showing abortion limits do not increase Maternal Mortality demolishes pro-abortion critique
By Randall K. Oâ??Bannon, Ph.D., NRL-ETF Director of Education and Research
When Elard Koch and his colleagues published his study showing that abortion limits do not lead to increases in maternal mortality, they upset more than few apple carts. Chief among them was the Guttmacher Institute, which has for years published â??studiesâ?? claiming the exact opposite.
Koch et alâ??s study, â??Womenâ??s Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legalisation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007,â?? which appeared in the May 2012 edition of the journal PloS ONE, followed 50 years of government statistics. Chile made abortion illegal in 1989, yet maternal mortality rates continued to drop, showing that abortion limits are not associated with increases in maternal mortality, contrary to claims long made by Guttmacher and others.
Koch et alâ??s carefully documented conclusion was that better education and improved medical care were the sort of factors which led to decreased maternal mortality, not abortion.
Though Guttmacherâ??s claims were not the focus of Kochâ??s article, Guttmacher recognized the threat posed by the Chilean study and responded aggressively, defending its own claims and its methods. In an advisory published on its website, Guttmacher claims that the Chilean study â??has several serious conceptual and methodological flaws that render some of its conclusions pertaining to abortion and maternal mortality invalidâ??
Though Guttmacher does not specify what the technical â??methodologicalâ?? errors might be, it does offer four basic criticisms of the Koch study: 1) That Chileâ??s abortion laws before 1989 were already restrictive, so that no conclusions could be drawn from the change; 2) That authors rely on a narrow, unreliable database; 3) The conclusion of the Chilean study on abortionâ??s impact â??is not supported by the existing body of evidenceâ??; 4) The authors underestimate the incidence of hospitalizations for complications of â??unsafeâ?? abortions in Chile. None of their claims hold weight.
Guttmacher argues that research indicates the drop in maternal mortality rates in Chile is due to â??greater access to and use of contraceptivesâ?? and the private use of chemical abortifacients like misprostol. (Misoprostol is the prostaglandin used in conjunction with RU486 in the United States but is capable of inducing an abortion on its own by stimulating powerful uterine contractions to expel the unborn child.)
Despite the considerable evidence obtained by Koch and his colleagues, Guttmacher maintains in the end that â??The evidence on abortion laws, unsafe abortion and maternal health indicates that further reductions in Chileâ??s maternal mortality and morbidity could be achieved by such strategies as liberalizing the countryâ??s abortion law and giving women meaningful access to safe and legal abortion services.â??
In an interview with Steve Weatherbe, a reporter for National Catholic Register, lead researcher Elard Koch responded to Guttmacherâ??s charges in some detail (www.ncregister.com/daily-news/new-study-rejects-claim-that-where-abortion-is-illegal-maternal-mortality-I). The point-by-point rebuttal Koch offered in the interview can be found in Weatherbeâ??s blog at A Chilean Study disproves A Pro-Abortion Article of Faith | Vancouver Island Christian News.
Koch describes as â??major misinformationâ?? the claim that Chileâ??s abortion policy was nearly as restrictive before prohibition as after. Though abortion was allowed for â??therapeutic reasonsâ?? prior to 1989 (permitted after three physicians or one physician and two witnesses from 1931 to 1967, allowed based on opinion of just two physicians from 1967 to 1989), Koch says that in practice this was interpreted very broadly, with physicians authorizing abortions for socioeconomic reasons, â??mental health reasons,â?? or simply â??on request.â??
Koch notes that at just one hospital in Santiago, over 3,000 abortions were performed â??on requestâ?? in 1973, giving just a hint of how liberally this condition was interpreted and how many thousands of unborn lives slipped through the loophole.
The new law does not have this wiggle room, Koch argues. While the language allows the delivery of a pre-viable fetus when the object is to save the life of the mother, the word â??therapeuticâ?? is no longer in the statute, and statistics before and after 1989 are indicative of a real change.
Koch told Weatherbe that in the 1960s, abortion (both spontaneousâ??that is, miscarriageâ??and induced) was the leading cause of maternal mortality, and over 40% to 50% of all abortion related hospitalizations were attributable to clandestine abortions. Between 2001 and 2008, only 12% to 18% of abortion hospitalizations are attributable to complications from these clandestine abortions.
Abortion mortality generally decreased in line with decreasing general maternal mortality, challenging the suggestion that women simply turned to illegal methods and had their deaths miscoded after failing to seek medical help. Of this claim, Koch says â??given the strengths and integrity of the Chilean registry of maternal deaths and live births, as well as the widely acknowledged credentials of the Chilean INE [National Institute of Statistics], it is highly unlikely that maternal deaths of any kind (including those caused by complications of any kind of abortion) are misrepresented or under-reported.â?? That they had data from the 1960s showing high numbers of maternal deaths due to abortion was, in fact, evidence of the quality of their data.
Koch thus argues that the Chilean teamâ??s reliance on the countryâ??s vital statistics was not a weakness of their study, as Guttmacher claims, but a strength.
Koch goes into some detail outlining the rigorous statistical methods used to collect, measure, and check the study data. Those wanting such detail are free to read his lengthy response on the faithvictoria blog linked above.
Suffice it to say that Koch and his colleagues relied on broad, consistent, hard scientific data on vital statistics that has been recognized by both the United Nations and the World Health Organization as among the worldâ??s best.
The Guttmacher criticism is all the more remarkable given that Guttmacher customarily relies on â??surveys of women and surveys of health professionalsâ?? to generate its international estimates. Of these, Koch says that while they may have some anecdotal value, these indirect methods are â??flawed from an epidemiological viewpoint,â?? and can lead to under or overestimations. And because of the â??subjective nature of opinion surveys,â?? Koch notes, these â??can be extremely biased.â??
Koch gives the examples of Mexico and Guatemala. In 2006, using these survey methods, Guttmacher estimated there were between 700,000 and 1,000,000 illegal abortions being done in Mexico each year. This figure was used to raise the specter of a crisis in the government and on the streets of Mexico, leading to the legalization of abortion there on April 24, 2007. Yet since legalization, the number of abortions reported in Mexico has only been a fraction of that, ranging from 13,404 in 2008 to just 20,314 in 2011. Even taking the highest figure and Guttmacherâ??s lowest estimate, that would mean that Guttmacher overestimated by a factor of more than thirty!
Researchers from Guttmacher estimated that there were over 400,000 abortions a year in Colombia, yet when added to the 715,453 live births recorded in Colombia for 2008, Koch points out that this â??leads to a figure of pregnancies beyond the empirically possible reproductive rate for that country.â??
This is something to consider when assessing the â??existing body of evidenceâ?? that Guttmacher has collected in support of its claim that abortion limits are associated with high maternal mortality and that abortion legalization leads to lower rates of maternal mortality. Koch gives numerous counterexamples where countries like Chile, Ireland, Malta, and Poland which protect unborn children have declining maternal mortality rates while countries allowing abortion such as the U.S. and Canada show increases.
There are countries, Koch admits, like Nicaragua and El Salvador which limit abortion and still have high maternal mortality rates as well as countries like Guyana who show no decrease in maternal mortality rates following legalization, arguing against any sort of broad generalization of the sort made by Guttmacher. Koch argues, based on his own findings, that education, rather than abortion policy, is a better predictor of maternal mortality rates.
Guttmacher tries to argue that the highest maternal mortality rates are found in subregions with high â??unsafe abortion rates and abortion-related maternal deaths, while such deaths are low or non-existent in countries with â??liberal abortion laws.â?? Koch points out that the subregions Guttmacher refers to that have both abortion limits and high maternal mortality rates are typically undeveloped or underdeveloped countries â??exhibiting fundamental deficiencies such as high illiteracy rates of the mothers, poor access to maternal health facilities, low proportion of childbirth delivered by skilled attendants, malnutrition, insufficient access to clear water and sanitary sewer, etc.â??
In light of those deficiencies, Koch says, â??it is not possible to do a causal assumption from circumstantial or purely descriptive data without taking into account these major factors identified to substantially decrease maternal mortality.â??
Koch has little trouble answering the remaining chargeâ?? that Chileâ??s low maternal mortality rates were due, not to the factors cited in the Chilean study, but increased contraceptive use and the black market dissemination of misoprostol. Koch and his colleagues acknowledged in their paper that Chileâ??s contraceptive program had helped reduce abortion rates, although Koch says their data indicated that fertility reduction was not limited to the use of artificial contraceptive means alone.
As for the claim that abortion has merely shifted to private chemical means like misoprostol, Koch labels this â??speculation unsupported by our epidemiological data.â??
Koch points out that misoprostol didnâ??t hit the Chilean black market until the late 1990s, long after maternal mortality rates had already significantly dropped. Furthermore, Koch notes, misoprostol is not sold over the counter in Chile and prescriptions are audited month-by-month by the Chilean Institute of Public Health, making it difficult to prescribe for purposes other than the approved use of addressing ulcers.
Having invested so much in the twisted thesis that a country must legalize abortion in order to save lives, the fervency of Guttmacherâ??s attack on Kochâ??s study and defense of its own research is not surprising. Yet after all is said and done, the Chilean study and its conclusions still stands, and the most careful and rigorous research still shows that you donâ??t reduce maternal mortality by legalizing the slaughter of unborn children.
Indiana abortions at lowest rate since 1977
by Ben Johnson Thu Jun 07, 2012
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, June 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Figures released by the Indiana State Department of Health show the state’s abortion rate in 2010 was the lowest since 1977, marking a prolonged decline.
ISDH reported that 10,031 unborn children were aborted in 2010, a five percent drop since 2009. That is 526 fewer abortions than the previous year.
National Right to Life notes , “Indiana’s abortion rate has now dropped over 8% since 2008 and has fallen nearly 40% from Indiana’s highest annual abortion rate of 16,505 in 1980.”
“There are lot of factors that go into it,” Marc Tuttle, president of Right to Life of Indianapolis told LifeSiteNews.com. The dwindling number of abortionists in the state is one key. “Nobody goes into medical school in order to become an abortionist,” he said. “We’ve also had a lot of success with sidewalk counseling.”
Statutes such as the state’s parental notice law and 18-hour waiting period, and greater information about fetal development have helped women change their minds, he said.
“Finally, especially here in Indianapolis, we have a network of crisis pregnancy centers that has just bloomed and blossomed over the last five to 10 years. They deserve a lot of credit too for being able to meet the needs of women.”
A representative for Planned Parenthood of Indiana told the media, “Indiana is still 49th in the nation in terms of accessibility in family planning services.”
Tuttle said the pro-life movement has had a number of “hidden victories,” which have been overlooked because the media focus on political or judicial battles, where “pro-lifers are at several disadvantages.”
“What the media don’t cover is the number of abortionists, which has been declining drastically over a number of years; the number of women seeking abortions; and the number of women who are living healthier lifestyles and not living promiscuous lifestyles, who are therefore not at risk of having unplanned pregnancies,” Tuttle told LifeSiteNews.
The reduction in medical abortions was almost entirely offset by the rising number of chemical, or drug-induced, abortions in the state. There were 1,968 drug-induced abortions in 2010, up from 1,460 in 2009.
“We are shocked by the rapid increase in the use of chemical abortifacients that are largely unregulated,” said Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter.
Advocates of the unborn welcome the overall declining numbers but remain focused on their goal.
“On the one hand, yes, we’re on the lowest number we’ve had in decades but on the flip side it’s still a horrendous number of abortions,” Tuttle told LifeSiteNews.
“Our goal as pro-lifers needs to be to make our cities and our states totally abortion-free,” he said. “We can be heartened by these numbers, but our goal is to have no abortions.”
^ Phil Kline
Anatomy of a lie: Kansas courtâ??s scheme to eliminate Planned Parenthood prosecutor revealed
by Kathleen Gilbert Thu Jun 07, 2012
TOPEKA, Kansas, June 7, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The man who became the first prosecutor in America to take on Planned Parenthood in court has revealed new details in the astonishing story of how the Kansas Supreme Court colluded with prosecutors and the Kathleen Sebelius administration to halt his investigation and turn the media against him, culminating in an effort to end his legal career.
For those unfamiliar with the Phill Kline case, the recusal motion filed last month by lawyers for the former Kansas Attorney General deftly encapsulates how the investigator was vilified for allegedly violating “patient privacy” in the normal course of investigating child rape, which in turn brought him head to head with Planned Parenthood.
The motion tells the story Kline summed up recently as “Alice through the looking glass: It only gets curiouser and curiouser.”
Although Kline’s motion focused on the need for two of the state Supreme Court’s justices to recuse themselves, in a testimony to the strength of his argument, all five Supreme Court justices named for their involvement in the case recused themselves last month - an exodus unprecedented in recent memory, as a Court spokesman acknowledged.
One of the motion’s early footnotes notes that the reason for the twisted tale was predictable: it involved abortion.
“It is difficult to fathom any other context where criminal targets could so effectively use the courts to prevent a prosecutor from using lawful means to gather evidence of their crimes,” said Kline’s lawyers. “However, in the context of abortion it should surprise no one.” The lawyers quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s observation that, “the jurisprudence of this Court has a way of changing when abortion is involved.”
From the beginning, AG Kline"s investigation into child rape was repeatedly hampered by abortionists’ extraordinary legal motions: in one example, the court handed over the task of redacting the records in question to the target of the investigation itself, Planned Parenthood - a move Kline called “unprecedented,” and which resulted in over-redaction.
As soon as Kline moved out of the attorney general’s office in 2007, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri teamed with Kansas’ new top attorney in a desperate bid to recover the abortion records Kline still held.
Kline’s pro-abortion successor, AG Steve Morrison, first attempted to run “an intelligence raid for Planned Parenthood” in the spring of 2007 by demanding Kline’s records - even though Morrison already owned copies of all of them, and had no intention of prosecuting anyway - but the motion was denied. Two months later, Planned Parenthood began trying to force Kline to hand over the records. Meanwhile Morrison, who publicly cleared Planned Parenthood of charges, subpoenaed a local magistrate for his copy of the records.
When that failed, Planned Parenthood officials arrived unannounced three days later in the same judge’s office to demand the records. The judge, Richard Anderson, said the records likely contained evidence of their criminal activity, and refused.
Finally, Morrison joined forces with Planned Parenthood itself in their Supreme Court action against Kline, a bid that failed in December 2008.
But Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier’s opinion in that ruling, widely noted for its surprisingly abusive language against Kline, had a falsehood buried within that few noticed at the time: she wrote that Kline left “no coherent copies” of the records at the AG’s office, a claim Kline’s lawyers called a “whopper.” The “spectacular falsehood” was the basis of Beier’s faux “sanction” ordering Kline to return totally redundant record copies, putting him in a bad light.
Even worse, previous writings by Beier strongly hinted that the red herring was intentional: Beier had endorsed the idea that “[t]he media are tools to produce cultural infrastructure.”
The ruse worked: “Kline abortion prosecution faulted, Justices order medical records turned over to state,” reported the Topeka Capital-Journal; the Kansas City Star blared, “High court sanctions Kline for handling of abortion records.”
Ultimately, many of the 107 charges Kline had brought against Planned Parenthood, including all 23 felonies, were thrown out last year when it was discovered that the Kathleen Sebelius administration had destroyed key documents needed to compare Kline’s records with Planned Parenthood’s later submissions. The destruction took place in 2005, two years after Kline began uncovering abortionists’ alleged criminal activity.
Fortunately, Kline’s recent recusal motion has had an impact: four days after the filing, the five justices, including Sebelius-appointed Carol Beier, said they would recuse themselves based on a technicality regarding their previous involvement with Kline - something they would have known about for years - reasoning Kline’s attorney called a smokescreen to divert attention from the embarrassing motion.
Even so, said the attorney, the layers of deception demonstrated in the case have rendered it “irretrievably flawed.” Meanwhile, as Kline fights the ethics allegations aimed at suspending his license, in proceedings that have also proved deeply flawed thus far, his legal expenses have topped $300,000 and counting.
Although the recusal motion focused on Justice Beier’s role in the affair, its contents reveal just how far Kansas officials were willing to go to protect Planned Parenthood from prosecution.
Not only were AG Morrisonâ??s actions baseless other than to erase record of abortionsts’ wrongdoing, said Kline’s lawyers, but the Beier sanction raised the stakes even more by requiring Kline to hand over records that Kansas officials never had to begin with - ones he procured in his own subsequent abortion investigations as a district attorney.
As a result, private documents and statements Kline had assured sources would be kept private, were handed over to Kansas - and abortionists.
“I’ve been told,” said Kline, “that all of that information was then turned over to the attorneys for the abortion clinics.”
This world is on the cusp of downright scary times, at least for this gimp!
Video: Ted Turner, Reduce population by five billion people
by Ben Johnson Thu Jun 07, 2012
ATLANTA, GEORGIA, June 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Media mogul and population control advocate Ted Turner recently told citizen journalists he would like to reduce the world’s population by five billion people, asking parents to be a “one child family-for 100 years.”
Turner had to answer for his history of provocative statements, and made a few new ones, when members of the website WeAreChange.org caught up with him on camera late last month.
One individual asked the CNN founder what his goal was for world population.
“I think two billion is about right,” Turner said as he walked briskly away. In October, the number of people in the world reached seven billion.
Before disappearing around the corner Turner said he hoped to eliminate five billion people through the “one child family.”
The interviewer responded, “One child policy.”
Turner answered, “For 100 years.”
In a subsequent interview, Turner was asked if he had said “a 95 percent decline from present [population] levels would be ideal” in the 1990s. Turner replied, "I might have said that, “96 was a long time ago.”
In a third confrontation, the amateur journalists asked Turner if he formulated his views during the Bilderberg conference.
Although it is not clear Turner was endorsing China’s one-child policy of forced abortion, he previously denied Beijing had taken “draconian steps” to control its birthrate during a 2009 interview on the Diane Rehm Show. Instead, he claimed China merely “encouraged” its citizens to have one baby, though he volunteered, “I’m not intimately familiar with everything.”
Experts and eyewitnesses were “shocked and appalled” by his comments.
John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said Turner was “denying the Holocaust.”
Reducing the world’s birthrate has long been a passion of Turner’s, “as long as it’s voluntary.” He noted people turn against the notion of population control, because “people don’t want to be controlled.” In 2010, Turner proposed allowing women to sell their fertility rights. Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, told LifeSiteNews.com at the time, “There is-something despicable about offering a poor, hungry woman food, money, or clothing in exchange for her surrendering her fertility.”
Such a plan was outlawed by the 1999 Tiahrt Amendment, Mosher noted.
Turner forecast an environmental disaster of apocalyptic dimensions if measures are not taken immediately. “We’ll be eight degrees hotter in-30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,” he said. “Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.”
The video team from WeAreChange.org asked the 73-year-old businessman if it were hypocritical to support a one-child family when he had five children and was one of the nation’s largest landholders.
The Land Report magazine lists Turner as the nation’s second largest private landholder, behind his business partner, John Malone. Turner owns more than two million acres.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that Turner’s critics “accuse him of trying to corner the land over the world’s largest underground water system, and of conspiring with the United Nations - to which he has donated millions of dollars through a nonprofit group he created - to build a huge federal wildlife refuge that would remove the land from Nebraska’s tax rolls.”
Turner, a dedicated globalist, donated $1 billion to the United Nations, much of which has been used for “projects dealing with women and population issues.”
The outspoken atheist told a gathering of Society of Environmental Journalists in 1998 his views were incompatible with Christian doctrine or the Biblical admonition to “be fruitful and multiply.”
Turner has mocked the late, Blessed Pope John Paul II for his Polish roots, said the Ten Commandments are “a little out of date,” and stated the pope needs to “get with it.”
In 1998, he told a meeting of Zero Population Growth he and other population controllers fought against “the forces of darkness in general.”
Planned Parenthood sets up clinic inside a Los Angeles High School
by Bryan Kemper Fri Jun 08, 2012
June 8, 2012 (BryanKemper.com) - When I first read the headline of this story I was hoping I was reading wrong or that it was a parody. Unfortunately I was reading correctly and this was a real news story. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortion, has set up one of their death camps inside the walls of a public high school.
From the article in the Daily Caller it appears that the abortion giant will not actually be doing surgical abortions on the campus, but they most definitely will be referring and counseling for abortion. They also will be providing free birth control for teens without their parents’ knowledge. I would bet that the school nurse is not even allowed to give kids an aspirin, yet Planned Parenthood can give birth control? Something is just plain wrong with this.
Not only is Planned Parenthood setting up camp in the school, they are going to train and use the kids to spread their poison to other kids.
â??Planned Parenthood also trains Roosevelt students to market its services to their peers by talking to them about sexually transmitted diseases and how to avoid getting pregnant.â??
As a parent I am appalled that not only are they allowed to have a clinic on the campus but are openly using kids to market abortion and promiscuity to other kids. Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of our tax dollars and now they are being given front row access to our kids; this should enrage parents.
I want to know if when the history teacher is teaching about the Nazi Holocaust in class that the students are also told about the Planned Parenthood founder’s connection with Hitler’s Nazi regime?
Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing children and for them to be allowed near our children is deplorable. They prey on kids and peddle their cycle of death to them; sex, condoms, abortion and start over again. They create a destructive pattern of activities that are dangerous and have no place in our schools.
Over the past few years Live Action has been exposing Planned Parenthood for what they really are. They have done undercover investigations showing Planned Parenthood covering for pimps seeking abortions for underage sex slaves. They have recently shown Planned Parenthood coaching girls how to get a sex selection abortion.
How can an organization that would help a sex trafficker be allowed near teenage girls? Where is the outrage in Los Angeles? Is anyone thinking with an ounce of discernment?
I talked to Kristina Garza from the Southern California based organization, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, and asked what they will be doing about what is happening in their front yard.
Kristina has this to say:
[i]"CBS News makes no qualms about calling Planned Parenthood's business deal exactly what it is: 'setting up shop' in our public schools. The fact that Planned Parenthood is garnering business directly from LA Unified School District is not news, though. LAUSD and Orange County school employees have been taking high school girls to Planned Parenthood for abortions during school hours, without their parents' knowledge for years.
"Planned Parenthood also recruits life-long clients from our public schools by teaching sexual education that promotes promiscuity to students as young as 5 years old, providing free condoms and birth control to high school students, and advertising in public school newspapers
.
"Planned Parenthood claims that they will reduce the number of teen pregnancies at Roosevelt High, but, in fact, they will just increase the number of pregnancies that end in abortion. We are disgusted by Planned Parenthood's blatant and desperate attempt to take over our public school systems with it's death-dealing business agenda, and will not let the Roosevelt High School death camp go unnoticed.
"Students deserve to know the truth about Planned Parenthood, and Survivors will 1.) Expose Planned Parenthood's lies about 'sexual health,' 2.) Make sure the public knows that Planned Parenthood unashamedly protects child predators and circumvents the proper role of parents in students' lives, and 3.) Continue to show students the reality of abortion, of which Planned Parenthood is the number 1 provider in the world. Planned Parenthood cannot be trusted and must be stopped from preying on our students by setting up shop on our public schools."[/i]
Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life commented, “This is actually a great opportunity for the pro-life movement to implement a project we at Priests for Life took up years ago: to train local taxpayers to alert their school district to the liability that partnership with Planned Parenthood brings. Planned Parenthood breaks the law left and right, covering up sexual abuse of minors, for example. For a school district to partner with an organization like Planned Parenthood is like a school district buying a swing set from a company who produces defective swing sets that have hurt and killed children in the past. Taxpayers should start bringing this up in school board meetings.”
The Priests for Life Youth Outreach will work along side Survivors, Live Action and other organizations to confront this atrocity and continue to expose the Planned Parenthood for who they are. This is the generation who will abolish abortion; we will not sit silently while predators like Planned Parenthood are targeting the youth of America.
Original story from the Daily Caller.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-sets-up-clinic-inside-a-los-angeles-high-school
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
This world is on the cusp of downright scary times, at least for this gimp!
Ted Turner is a screw ball for sure but those guys asking him questions were obnoxious. After about 2 or 3 minutes I wanted to take Turner’s side.
Turner is an absolute piece of shit and that simple fact supersedes the emotional involvement of the interviewers.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ted Turner is a screw ball for sure but those guys asking him questions were obnoxious. After about 2 or 3 minutes I wanted to take Turner’s side.[/quote]