More News on SCOTUS Right to Life Decision

Okay, so it wasn't a right to life decision, but we had better start framing the arguement more effectively. I have a category such as, "anti-life" v. "pro-choice". Why? Who has a choice? I'm sorry missy, but you gave up your choice when you gave 'it' up! If you really do not want to have a baby, do not do those things which make babies. Period.

There is more good news on the home front, and I do not believe they are getting enough press.

Black Activists Laud Supreme Court's Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Year-Long Controversy Based on Faulty Accusation Unnecessarily Stoked Racial Tensions

For Release: April 18, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11
or Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a legislative ban on the practice of partial birth abortion is being hailed by members of the black leadership network Project 21 as a victory for the safety and welfare of the unborn as well as a reminder of the importance of having strict constructionists jurists on our courts.

"At last, the Supreme Court acknowledges that the right to kill one's baby has limits," said Project 21 member Djana Milton. "Although abortion itself remains constitutionally guaranteed, all manners of cruelty in the process are no longer tolerable. This is one of the most civilized decisions in the life and death fight for the unborn." [Continue reading.

How about that?! It is so good when we come together. Please read their press release, and visit their site. The least we could do is support our brothers and sisters. Have a great day.

If it's not alive, why is it so hard to kill?

I have come upon this article in the UK where abortions are allowed up until the 24th week of--what? Pregnancy?--gestation. After this length of time, you must have a disability, a defect or the mother's life must be in danger for the doctor to elect to murder you. Oh, there I go again. Speaking as if to the child--er--the fetus (which BTW means "baby" in English)--is a human being. Imagine that! I always wanted a puppy! (If you don't get that, don't bother trying. You are too far gone.)

One in 30 aborted foetuses lives.

One in 30 foetuses aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a 10-year study at 20 UK hospitals has found.

Most of these babies with disabilities were born between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy and all lived for no more than a few hours.

Anti-abortion campaigners said the figures in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology study were likely to be the tip of the iceberg.

But abortion experts said such incidents were extremely rare.

Abortion rates

About 190,000 abortions take place annually in England and Wales. This is nearly a quarter of all pregnancies.

Most abortions are carried out on "healthy" foetuses for social reasons.

The study, however, looked at the outcomes of 3,189 abortions performed between 1995 and 2004 because the baby had a disability of some kind.

It showed that 102 - or around one in 30 - were born alive.

Julia Millington of the pro-life group Alive and Kicking Campaign said the rates found at West Midlands hospitals studied were likely to be mirrored elsewhere in the UK.

She explained: "If 102 out of 3,189 babies aborted for reasons of impairment are born alive, then how many healthy babies must be surviving?

"It is difficult to comprehend the number of babies, throughout the country, left fighting for their lives." [Continue reading.]

So. I wonder also. I wonder how many children are BORN in America only to be layed to die? Oh yes. They let the CHILD starve, crying for it's Mommy. I guess the 'women' who don't have time to bother with children don't need to know about this information. No. Only the info. from the EU that fits their agenda is noteworthy.

YOU ARE EXPOSED. I also wonder how many people will ever read about this study in America? The land of brave and the home of the free...life, liberty and property...God help us.

Update: My friend, Nathan Bradfield, has an open trackback every weekend. He was kind enough to allow me to share a link back to this article, and I forgot to mention him! How rude! Please, when you trackback to anyone, use the proper etiquette and mention them in your post!

His trackback for this past weekend is here. He has a wonderful site all week as well! Please check out his writings. He is a very talented Christian man. (BE POLITE!)

Are Farsi-language broadcasts helping?

I have the evidence which I have been seeking for a while. I've known about this, but I did not want to write about it until I could verify it. Remember, bloggers try to verify and double-check the 'news' we write about, because we know how important our credibility actually is. We do not take our readers for granted like, say, the NY Times does. (Sorry. Just had to get that jab in there. lol)

This article deals with our handling of Iran and how we should be trying to truly help the Iranian people whose souls are crying out for freedom and peace. Please read it, write about it, help.

Washington Times

TODAY'S EDITORIAL

Today, as Washington grapples with the threats posed by Iranian support for terrorism and efforts to develop nuclear weapons, it appears that American policy-makers are being forced to choose between very bad options: 1) taking military action against Iranian nuclear sites and other regime targets, or 2) continuing to push for passage of largely unenforceable U.N. resolutions and hoping that if the regime develops nuclear weapons, we would somehow be able to use some form of "containment" to deal with the problem.

We find ourselves in this untenable position today due in part to our neglect of alternatives such as the development of radio stations oriented towards taking the American message directly to the Iranian people. In his position as ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Government Information, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, has made it his mission to reform what he views as a largely dysfunctional system of broadcasting to Iran. In a letter to President Bush last month, Mr. Coburn made a powerful case that Radio Farda, which broadcasts music and other entertainment programs to Iran, and the Voice of America's Farsi-language service "may actually be harming American interests rather than helping." [Read the whole article.]

If we truly desire to find a peaceful outcome to the end of the nuclear weapons problem and human rights violations, then I suggest we listen, for a change, to what the people have been saying for years.

If the link provided is no longer accessible, try this one.

Update: Nathan is having an open-trackback weekend, and you MUST add this URL to your post. It is only proper! He is a very nice Christian man who I met quite a while ago (through the net, not face to face). He has very good articles, and he likes to stay on top the news as we do. You may want to add him to your blogroll, because I guarantee you will read news you may have missed. Thanks, and have a great day.