July 13, 2006
Crevical Cancer, Vaccines, and Deception
It's one thing to have reframing in political discourse where blind partisanship reigns. It is an entirely different matter when reframing starts affecting medical information presented to patients. The recent acclaim for the cervical cancer vaccine is one such case of reframing the debate going drastically wrong.
One important fact about the cervical cancer vaccine is that it is not designed to prevent cervical cancer. There is no medical study or information that will refute this point. What this vaccine prevents in human papillomavirus (HPV) or genital warts. It just so happens that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.
Saying this vaccine prevents cervical cancer is like saying prohibition prevented car accidents. Sure, less people got drunk and starting driving cars, but that's not quite the point. The vaccine does not attack cervical cancer directly.
Typically medical treatments are described by the condition they are directly treating. A polio vaccine prevents polio. The measles vaccine prevents measles. The question is why this HPV vaccine is being described as a cervical cancer vaccine.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, one that isn't effectively prevented from being spread by condoms or other birth control methods. As a result, tens of millions of people in the United States alone are carriers of the virus. This disease is in pandemic proportions. Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences.
In an attempt to downplay the significance of HPV and the rates people have been infected by it, the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does. What is even more disquieting is the attempt to have this vaccine administered to young girls as a requirement to attend school even before it has been established that there are no harmful effects that this vaccine will cause to girls of that age.
If the government is going to require children to congregate in schools, it has the obligation to make sure that those children do so in an environment that is healthy. This should not be confused with free license for the government to usurp the medical decision-making rights of parents.
Requiring vaccines for communicable diseases like polio, measles, mumps, and the like makes sense. Those diseases spread through no action of children who are in the same classroom with one another. HPV is in another class. In order to transmit HPV, one has to have sex with someone infected with it. While sex education is schools has the affect of encouraging premarital and promiscuous sex, schools still generally look down on children actually having sex at school. Therefore, schools have no stake whatsoever in whether students are vaccinated for HPV.
Describing this vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine makes it artificially "amenable" to parents when schools start requiring the vaccine. Who would be against preventing cancer? However, when one starts talking about preventing sexually transmitted diseases, other factors come into play.
For instance, the "conventional wisdom" of the school administrator and medical community elite is that abstinence education is harmful for children. Despite thousands of years of history that prove abstinence education works, these elites insist that children need to be taught not only the methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, but be provided with those methods in schools despite parental objections. Parents who object should be overruled as acting against the children's best interests. Elites are using schools as a means of power-projection over children attempting to influence matters far beyond the scope of education.
The fact that government bureaucrats and medical professionals are calling the HPV vaccine a cervical cancer vaccine, with a clear eye towards mandating the vaccine for school children, should cause parents to stand up and take notice. This latest provocation against the authority of parents shows a bureaucracy not focusing on what it was designed to do, educate children, but ever expanding its power over children and families. Just who is serving whom?
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 4, 2006
The Economics of Life
The pro-life movement is celebrating victories that after over 30 years of Roe v Wade, the scourge of abortion, at least public support for it, has waned and is now the minority position. South Dakota passed an outright abortion ban believing the time was right to challenge the law. Poll after poll demonstrates that the public knows that conception is the "moment that changes everything" where a new life is created and begins its journey to birth. Are we a pro-life nation then? The answer to that question is still no.
It seems a contradiction to say that while most oppose abortion that it does not follow the nation has become pro-life. That is, until you take a look at the new battlefields of the pro-life movement. Terri Schiavo is the most popular example.
An unbiased observer would certainly be taken aback at the concept of the individual making decisions for Terri was her husband that has since gotten engaged to another woman and had two children with her. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. However, the public was largely unconcerned with that.
The point where support for Terri fell the most was when the cameras showed images of Terri Schiavo to the world. The public saw someone who was unmistakably alive but unmistakably having a "low quality of life". Most felt that it was not worth being alive in those circumstances. Suddenly, it didn't matter what Michael Schiavo's motivations were or his conflict of interest. He was making the "right" decision to end a life not worth living.
It is known that the abortion movement grew out of the eugenics movement and it should come as no surprise that the husband of the lawyer who litigated Roe v Wade lobbied Bill Clinton to approve RU-486, not for easy access to abortion or women's rights, but because "twenty-six million food stamp recipients is (sic) more than the economy can stand." It isn't about life, it is about a productive life (in Ron Weddington's case, where the financial output is greater than the input).
This can also been seen in the recent burst of "futile care" cases (where hospitals unilaterally decide who should die independent of the families wishes or objections). While few would argue that those who are alive only with the help of life support equipment (i.e. respirators, not a feeding tube) can be "unplugged", futile care laws have been used to try to kill children, including a child perfectly able to heal, the uninsured, and Katrina evacuees that were "no worth moving". With talk of universal health care, one wonders if that will finally put complete control on whether (poor) patients should be left untreated.
One could argue that doctors know best and if they determine care is futile, then it really is. However, in the case of Haleigh (the girl who recovered above), doctors can and are wrong. Medical advances developed a year later may have helped Terri Schiavo recover. Then there is the case of just using futile care law to avoid dealing with poor and uninsured patients and leaving them to die legally. After all, more is going in to them than is coming out.
Going back to the original premise, it can be seen that the nation isn't becoming more pro-life, per se. What has lead to the downfall of support of abortion is the realization that unborn children have the potential to be productive citizens save some external force that prevents them. The rise of an anti-abortion culture is the convergence of pro-life forces with those who believe that the potential of productive life should be allowed.
Where the pro-life movement has yet to engage in is the rising notion of reducing human life to matters of economics. Taking whatever subjective equation is used, if someone comes out having a "negative" balance they can be killed. If they have a positive balance, they can live. This quantification system, even if it aligns with those against abortion, is decidedly not pro-life, usually because the poor and minorities (however they are determined) tend to cluster on the "negative" balance side of the equation.
The value of a human life has been determined. The problem is that those subjective measures mean that the most vulnerable in society will be the ones most likely to be considered "without value". Fighting against the valuation of life is the next big pro-life challenge.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 14, 2006
Federal Courts Require Funding of Supporters of Forced Prostitution
USAID requires that grant recipients of its AIDS humanitarian funds must sign a pledge that they oppose commercial sex work. A federal court recently ruled that this is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Despite the fact the US holds that prostitution is illegal (with the exception of Nevada) and that there is a near-universal condemnation for the practice, apparently allowing the government to restrict its humanitarian funds to actually be humane is unconscionable.
Let’s be honest for a moment. Most women (or for that matter, girls) don’t get into prostitution as a career of first choice. When was the last time you asked a girl what she wanted to be when she grows up and that girl answered “I want to be a hooker!”? Most women get into prostitution out of desperation, or worse, because they were forced into it. Further, prostitutes are subject to much higher levels of abuse and maltreatment because of the nature of the work. Nothing epitomizes male domination over women more than the sex trade and sex trafficking industries.
The problem with the sex trade goes far beyond those who simply sign up for it. More often than not, women or girls are forced into it. In fact, many governments and other larger organizations have gone beyond the simple sex trade and gone into organized rape as an industry. On these issues we must tolerate diversity of opinion by the virtue of the First Amendment. That does not require that we capitulate to something that should be universally condemned. The solution to 12 year olds being forced into prostitution is not “unionization”; the solution is preventing it from happening in the first place and prosecuting those responsible.
There came a time when positions could be advocated without asking the government for a handout. Only those positions that can’t stand on their own require outside assistance. Now those positions have an ally in the federal court system.
It seems the current trend in jurisprudence is to normalize more and more outlandish behavior. NAMBLA has a right to state their position; it doesn’t mean the government should or needs to fund it. However, the courts seem to think otherwise. What’s next? Government funds to help cover up child sex abuse?
When the United States wants to fund humanitarian work, it wants to do so in a humane way. It isn’t a matter of simply policy choice, but rather a matter of justice. While there can be opinions that legalized and unregulated prostitution is best for society, nothing the Founding Fathers intended required the government to subsidize those positions.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 1, 2006
DI Column Up: Lent and the Carnival
ATTENTION Dawn Patrol Readers: This is the article Dawn is referring to.
You can read it here. I'll have some pictures from Sex Out Loud later today probably.
UPDATE:
There really weren't any pictures worth taking. Table of condoms and genital shaped chocolates really. Everything else was just stupid.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the link and kind words, Dawn Eden!
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:11 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 26, 2006
Universal Health Care and Euthanasia
There are two events that should give people pause when considering universal health care. First is Hurricane Katrina and several facilities euthanisizing patients not because of terminal illness, but because they didn?t think they could move them. Second is Charlotte Wyatt who doctors want to euthanize (or more accurately let die) because they don?t think she is worth saving. A court has rules that the doctors can make this decision even though it is contrary to the will of the parents. In the first case, it is people making mistaken practical judgments. In the second case, it?s little more than outright eugenics.
It is one thing to let some one commit suicide because they've lived a full life and have little hope of recovery. It is another to mandate death to people because they aren't worth taking care of. The first case can be called "right to die". The second case is more properly called the "right to kill". Confusing the two makes it easier for the "right to die" crowd to be a "right to kill" crowd.
Right now it is particularly difficult for people to be put to death against their stated (or their family members) will in the United States; that is until universal health care is introduced (and hopefully it never will be). To summarize, the government can't be trusted to know which phone calls belong to terrorists and which belong to moms planning on getting their kids to soccer practice. The government can't be trusted to get industry advice and not sell out to the rich. The government can't be trusted even to hold prisoners captured on the field of battle. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY HEALTH CARE!!!
The problem comes in that the government uses different priorities to make decisions than people do. For instance, the Irish Health Service had other priorities in mind when deciding on health care for the elderly. Or stateside, an Illinois pension fund seems to be operating under different priorities then actually keeping pensions around for teachers. Bureaucrats like wasting money, when they waste too much there isn?t enough to take care of business. Apply this to health care and it means people without money who have come to rely on public health care will get screwed.
What happens when people get screwed by the health care system? Well they'll be euthanized more often than they are now. New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them. Not because they were terminally ill. Not because they were in incredible pain. It was because they assessed the situation and didn?t think it worth trying to find a way to help them. The difference is when they aren't the government, they'll be prosecuted. When they are operating with a government imprimatur, they'll get away with it more likely than not. The government will decide who is worth treating and who should die based on some dollar calculation.
If the NSA can't be trusted to listen to some phone calls, what makes people think that this health care calculus will be honest?
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
DI Column Up: False Religion
Oh yeah, I have a column up,False Religion. Take a look.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 13, 2006
Let's Talk About Sex II: Christianity, Sex, and Love
Disclaimer: This is yet another draft. It's generally written from the Catholic perspective, but likely matches up with various orthodox Christian interpretations. All comments are appreciated; all errors are mine. To be fair, I'm less than happy with this and it need more work, I'm not sure I really said what I set out to say.
Two recent articles have motivated me to finally write this. The first is the Dawn Patrol's report on the Planned Barrenhood key chains and the second is Planned Barrenhood's discussion on the difference between their view of sex and the "absolutist" (read as Christian) view of sex. This is typical of the certain sectors of liberal sex ideology to say that Christian's hate sex and they are celebrating life and love and all that is light with sex. The problems with this are that (1) it wildly misrepresents the Christian view of sex and (2) they really don't believe their own statements on sex as a celebration.
Below is how they show the differences between the views of sex:
Fixed (F) or Absolutist World View vs. Relativist (R) World View:F. Sexuality is basically animal passion and lust, genital, and must be controlled.
R. Sexuality is a natural and positive life force with both sensual and spiritual aspects.F. The main goal of sex is marriage and reproduction.
R. Sex does not have to be confined to marriage; pleasure, love, and celebration are goals in themselves.F. Sex is only acceptable in heterosexual marriages.
R. Tolerance or acceptance of same-gender relationships.F. Masturbation, oral sex, same-gender relationships, and contraception all thwart God’s purposes for sex and are forbidden.
R. God’s purpose for sex is to celebrate life; masturbation, oral sex, and same-gender relationships can express the celebratory and communion nature of sex.F. Strict gender roles in relationships with male active and superior.
R. Flexible, egalitarian gender roles.F. Emphasis on sex as genitality and on genital acts.
R. Emphasis on people and their relationships rather than on what they do genitally.
In several of these cases it is my belief that they have it backwards. They attribute their own beliefs onto Christianity in this straw-man attempt to justify their brand of sexual ethics. For instance, the focus on sex as genitality is certainly no Christian position, nor is the idea that sex is animal passion and lust. It wasn't a Christian band that came up with the lyrics, "You and me ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like the do it on the Discovery Channel." (It's from the Bloodhound Gang in an album called "Hooray for Boobies").
Going into bookstores lately I've noticed something about this brand of liberal sexual ethics. They say that sex is spiritual, emotional, communal (skipping past the interesting yet unconvincing theory that masturbation is a communal celebration), etc, but the books and content they put out on the subject focuses purely on the physical. There is book after book, article after article, teaching readers about the latest position or technique to make your partner crazy. For an ideology that claims to say that it recognizes the spiritual and emotional components of sex it certainly seems to talk about nothing else but the physical. In any store remotely identifying itself as Christian you won't find collections of sex toys for purchase. There's a good reason. If you have to resort to power tools and contortionism to enjoy sex, you aren't doing it right. For an ideology that is always searching and striving for the ultimate orgasm, they've never been less sexually fulfilled.
The point of contention at its deepest level is really a disagreement about love. Christians have one view; the liberal sexual ideology crowd has another. When Christians talk about love, they talk about a relationship between people first and foremost. That is why in Christian relationships, courting and getting to know one another takes place before sex (ideally). In the other camp, love is about sex first and foremost. That is why they generally have sex before any real relationship exists (i.e. one-night stands). In the September 2005 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, economist Jacques Attali predicts the death of monogamy because "at long last, we will recognize that it is human to love different people at the same time." What he means is sex. If society is so ready to disregard monogamy why is infidelity still such a large cause of the many divorces we see? When Christians talk about loving many people it doesn't require or necessitate sexual relations with those people.
Enough of talking about what other people think about sex, the point here is to talk about what Christianity says about sex, and love in general. If you ask about anyone what is the most intimate sign of love (particularly romantic love) you will almost universally get sex as a response. Ask people what would be the most intimate sign of love between married people; you'll likely get the same answer. So the first question to answer is what is love; particularly romantic love.
As Christians, our example is obviously Jesus Christ. I brief synopsis of Jesus' saving work can be put this way: In the fullness of Time, God the Father gave His only Son, who in turn, gave up His life on the cross for us. The love of Jesus can be seen by what he does for us and what he gives us. Jesus doesn't show His love by allowing us to give something to Him; he initiates the relationship by His gift. This brand of love is characterized first and foremost by giving.
The state of mankind when He died on the Cross wasn't particularly swell. The Jews repudiated Him, His apostles deserted Him, and He was put to death like a criminal. Jesus' gift of salvation comes to us in our sin. In other words, Jesus' love is unconditional. This brand of love is characterized by it being unconditional.
This is a good description of love in general; however that doesn't clarify romantic love specifically. For that we can turn to the much maligned Ephesians 5. In turn it talks about marriage from the perspective of the wife and the husband. Wives are to give obedience to their husbands. Husbands are to give their lives up for their wives. There is no discussion on the conditions for that (aside of an implied valid marriage) just that it should be done. Likewise, it's a gift.
This is also illustrated in the typical wedding vows of Catholic (and I imagine most Christian) weddings. Phrases like "for richer or for poorer", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part" all can be summarized like this. I will love you and be your spouse no matter what conditions arise until one of us dies. Marital love is unconditional.
The most beautiful expression of this is the expression used both in Genesis and Ephesians to describe marriage, "the two shall become one flesh". To be more accurate and not allow ourselves to be hamstrung by the English translation, it isn’t a physical unity that is being referred to but a complete union, body, soul, mind, and heart. In short, the union is complete. Marriage is something that is more than just a physical reality as illustrated by the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes it as the highest form of spirituality, a Sacrament.
Sacraments, in order to be valid require correct form and correct matter. This is of particular interest to the point because of the form and matter of the Sacrament of Marriage. The form is the free consent to marriage as an indissoluble union. The matter is the consummation of marriage, or sex. Not only does the Catholic Church no consider sex to be some base or animalistic instinct to be controlled, it is an essential component to the Sacrament and a highly spiritual act at that.
To follow the train of thought, the ultimate act of marriage is almost universally considered to be sex. As such, one would expect that sex should reflect the marital reality as a complete unconditional gift of love. At this point, this view of sex is totally irreconcilable with how it is presented by the liberal sexual ideology crowd. This view doesn’t restrict sex to the physical realm, nor dismiss the physical realm as something dirty to be discarded but it is an integration of the entire human person with the entire person of the spouse. This is a crude summary of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
As a final point, there are those of the liberal sexual persuasion who argue that sex is beautiful in special in the way they practice it. Something that is special is characterized by its rarity. My wife is special because she’s the only one of her kind; there is not another person that is her clone. When one sleeps with 10 people, 50 people, 100 people, can one say that those encounters are special? Is it still special when you can’t remember all their names? When you don’t call them anymore? How can something be beautiful when it is treated with the same regard as a handshake?
The drive to continue new and different forms of physical expression of sex tends to indicate a focus on that aspect. If sex is little more than assembly line love, of course one will get bored. When sex is a celebration of love, as it should be in the Christian sense, one doesn’t need to make weekly sojourns to the adult book store for a new toy. No one gets tired of being truly loved. That’s not to say that only the missionary position is permitted, but the focus on the “latest fad” in technique betrays something that ends up ignoring the other dimensions of sex and perhaps ends up being sex as a taking instead of a giving. Contraception converts an unconditional act of love to a conditional act (only if we can avoid children). Then of course, the random sexual encounters can’t be understood as love in any real sense.
As one final point, it certainly isn't the Christian position that the only expression of marital love is sex exclusively. There are a myriad of general ways and even more ways specific to the couple where one can express love. Fostering those expressions which speak to the emotional (generally) dimensions of ourselves are what helps couples to feel connected and in love outside the bedroom, and quite frankly, to also feel those things inside the bedroom. No one wants to feel like merely a sexual object and without those other expressions of love, it very quickly begins to feel that way. The idea that sex should be the only way one expresses love does great harm to marriages.
It is only in the complete unconditional loving gift of self in the sexual act where one can truly experience the beauty and spirituality of sexuality. This is the orthodox Christian position, despite the claims to the contrary. Something special, sacred, and beautiful need not be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear but it’s high time that Christians speak up to counter this idea that we hate sex and think it is something base. It’s certainly high time that we counter this radical sexual liberation philosophy that has ended up so handicapping men and women that they no longer know how to relate to each other except genitally. It’s time to stop letting Planned Barrenhood have the only say in what sex is and what it should be.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:38 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 9, 2006
Number of Cases of Child Rape Covered Up by Planned Parenthood in Illinois Remains Steady in 2004
The latest set of abortion statistics have come out for Illinois that indicate that Planned Parenthood and friends have covered up at least 290 cases of child rape during the year 2004. Local media in the state seemed to miss this during their coverage of the latest statistics.
In Illinois, as in most of the civilized world, the age of consent means that girls under a certain age cannot legally consent to sex, and hence, any intercourse with them is rape. Illinois requires that medical professionals report any cases of child abuse to DCFS. While in this case they tried to make a distinction between a medical professional and someone answering the phone, in this case it is obvious that a medical professional was involved, knew the girls age, and choose not to follow their obligations under the law to report. Contrary to their claims, no investigation is required by Planned Parenthood, they simply have to recognize the girl's age and make a phone call so their can be an appropriate investigation. Instead, they choose to make money on the deal by charging for the abortion and then concealing the fact that there was a crime. This is what Planned Parenthood's apparent business model is.
At the same time they are making a profit by covering up the rape of little girls by dirty old men, they insist that parents should not be allowed to interfere and have no right to know that their children are getting abortions. In fact, in a case of clear kidnapping, rape, and fraud by a child rapists mother, Planned Parenthood had the mother of the daughter who was raped arrested for trying to prevent the abortion. Planned Parenthood will even write prescriptions to non-existent minors they have never seen in what they even admit is against the law.
If you think Dr. Waldyke should not be writing prescriptions to underage girls she hasn't met and encouraging her to share the pills with others so their older rapist boyfriends can get off scot-free, I encourage you to contact her at waldyke@uiuc.edu or by phone at (217) 333-2711. This doctor works for the state (and even used the University's clinic prescription pads to write the order), knew and admitted what she did was illegal and has not been held to account.
Planned Parenthood can proudly boast on their own website that they cover up cases of child rape. The irony of this portion of the pro-choice debate is that the only who gets a choice is the rapist who can choose to cover his tracks.
(ht: Dawn Eden)
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:52 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
September 29, 2005
Stop the ACLU: The War on Abstinence
The ACLU has delcared war on abstinence education. The "guardian of civil rights" has determined that such programs are dangerous according to the Waxman report that I debunked last year. That report did not say all abstinence education programs contained errors, and included programs as erroneous because of ludicrous things such as the word "snuggling" as suggesting religion. The ACLU has picked the parts of the report out that the liked and started to run with it.
Skipping past the labeling of policy decisions they don't agree with as "dangerous", exactly what in abstinence education violates anyone's civil liberties? Parents are perfectly free to get condoms for their kids, buy them porn, or show them how to use sex toys. Abstinence education does not impede anyone from doing anything; it is the suggestion that one ought not to do anything. Yet, the ACLU considers this issue a matter of reproductive freedom.
Simply put, this is not a legal fight to protect anyone's rights. This is a fight to advance a specific agenda that has nothing to do with rights. Teachers are not running around arresting children for having sex.
They suggest that abstinence education is dangerous because kids will do it anyway and won't have essential information to protect themselves. The story goes they must be informed on all the choices such as Plan B, and amusing ironic name considering that safe sex is supposed to be safe (and not require Plan B's). Kids simply won't listen when being told not to have sex.
However, the same people insist on DARE programs in schools which tell kids to stay off drugs. Do we get rid of these programs too? Should we take out DARE and instead introduce a program that shows kids how to do drugs properly to minimize the chance of contracting Hep C?
Critics have said that the ACLU is not interested in defending civil liberties as much as they are fighting for the advancement of a certain agenda. This latest war on abstinence is the best example of this in action. No rights are being violated but the ACLU is on the scene to prevent the dissemination of messages that they disagree with.
This was a production of Stop The ACLUblogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
Second Edition of the Carnival of Life
Sorry for the late post on this one, yesterday was a very hectic day for me. This is the second edition of the Carnival of Life. Because of light contributions last week, we skipped and added those posts into this week. We still need hosts for upcoming weeks, and need many more posts to go with the carnival. Keep getting the word out!
Future Hosts:
September 28th - Stem Cell Extremist
October 3rd - Pro-Life Blogs
October 24th - The Revolution
Here are the last two weeks of entries.
Jay at Stop The ACLU presents ACLU Loses In Parental Consent For Abortion Case. The ACLU chalks up a rare lose against common sense laws that say parents really are the parents of their children.
DeputyHeadmistress at The Common Room presents Messages in Movies
DeputyHeadmistress also submits The Gift of Unplanned Blessings:
"We are the recipients of many unplanned blessings, and children are not the least of them.
In this post I want to tell you about two special "unplanned" additions to our family who were adopted. We had three children, had just had a miscarriage, the headmaster was enlisted in the AF, and I was a sahm (this means very little money). We weren't seeking adoption at all, but we heard of two little girls who needed a home together, and we just couldn't come up with a good reason to say no."
Cross Blogging asks Will Abortions Become Obsolete? with new medical technologies that make traditional conception "obsolete". (As an aside, to clear up some misconceptions. Galileo was not persecuted because of his science. Many others before and after him came to the same conclusions. His science, while sloppy (tides don't prove the earth revolves around the sun) didn't get him into trouble. His big mouth and attitude problem (things which I do have expertise in) got him into trouble. It's one thing to advocate ideas, it's another to start cramming them down the Pope's mouth in medieval Europe.)
This Carnival is Ubercarnival listed.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 7, 2005
First Carnival of Life is up!
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hurricane Katrina: Planned Parenthood on the Scene Making Sure Black People Don't Breed
In the massive response to Hurricane Katrina, dozens if not hundreds of charities rushed to provide essential care to the victims. Some brought food, others brought medicine. Planned Parenthood got into the mix "on the frontlines aiding patients in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." (Their words)
What were the essentials that Planned Parenthood brought to starving and dehydrating people? Why contraceptives, of course. It's as if the voice of Margaret Sanger herself spoke out from the grave saying "You've seen those masses of displaced black people on TV. Give us money and we'll make sure that, when they come to your town, they don't breed!" (HT: Dawn Eden).
In a crisis where people really need help and are avoiding roaming gangs of thugs and rapists I don't think sex is on their mind. Instead of letting the Red Cross or Catholic Charities take the donation money, Planned Parenthood is taking it so they can continue their eugenic mission. More on this at Culture & Cosmos.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 31, 2005
It's Time to Grow Up, Glenn
Link Looting? Don't you think that's in a little poor taste comparing someone having a, albeit heated, disagreement with you about the ACLU?
Sure, the ACLU does some good things, but they are a part of the larger encroachment of the federal government in general and the judiciary in specific, something as a lawyer you apparently see no problem with. Let's recap.
Any abortion regulation is now a federal question, even when we're dealing with . Whether or not states can protect their kids from pedophiles is now a federal question. Whether intelligent design or evolution or both is taught in the classroom is now a federal question. Whether local school boards can decide to teach students abstinence is now a federal question. The ACLU is at the forefront of federalizing every policy dispute and instead of people dealing with things democratically at the lowest level, we are left with a system where every policy decision must be approved by a judge. That is not democracy; that is juristocracy.
When you have ACLU leaders comparing religious people with terrorists and saying all prayer is immoral, is it any wonder why people of faith are suspicious? When the ACLU supports revoking the tax-exempt status of churches (despite the fact they aren't businesses and don't produce anything) is it a wonder why we question their values?
Is a mass-delinking appropriate here because of a disagreement, maybe not. But comparing people who dislink you because of your politics to the looters in New Orleans is beyond the pale. We realize as a professor you might not take criticism well, but do try to not make every disagreement a moral failing of your opponents.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Carnival of Life Debut!
Tim and I over at Pro-Life blogs are debuting the Carnival of Life. If you have posts on pro-life issues submit them.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:29 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 26, 2005
Eugenics at Carle Foundation Hospital
(Note: Thanks to Pro-Life Blogs for hosting the PDF)
Eugenics is the sterilizing of the "unfit" so that only the fit can breed. This was all the rage in the 30s until Hitler took it to its logical extension and it fell out of style. Many states allowed courts to order sterilization of criminals or others that those in power deemed not fit to procreate. The laws were eventually overturned.
That brings me to this story. On March 10th, 2005 a woman was admitted to Carle Foundation hospital. She was several months pregnant and was admitted for complications to her pregnancy and for apparent drug abuse. At admission, the staff identified "Communication Barriers" on a form even though the patient speaks fluent English (Page 1 in the linked PDF document below). Page 2 is an authorization form for sterilization "signed" on March 12th. Page 3 and 4 are the nursing charts that show on 3/11 the "pt (patient) would not wake up", on 3/12 that the nurses could not do a consultation with her because the drugs (which included the ones given by the hospital at this point) have not worn off, and that on 3/13 says the "pt (patient) finally 'waking up'". The patient was admitted on the 11th but unable to communicate until the 13th, yet signed a form authorizing sterilization on the 12th. How precisely can a patient unable to communicate and unable to "wake up" sign a consent form to have her tubes tied? The law in Illinois for medical treatment is "informed consent" and based on the nurse's own statements, this patient was in no position to consent to anything and certainly not do so in an informed matter.
Here are the excerpts of the medical records which have had identifying information redacted except the patient number so Carle can verify these records should they so choose.
After receiving this information I tried to see if this has happened to other women. I received 2 reports that women were pressured into signing these forms and refused but nothing quite on the level of this. This could be one nurse who took matters into her own hands or an institutional policy, I just don't know that right now and I have been unable to successfully dig deeper. I'm of the opinion that if this has happened once in such a flagrant manner, what's to say it hasn't happened before or won't happen again. Only some public prying will be able to determine it which is the intention of this post.
One may argue that sterilization of women with drug problems is a good thing, to them I say why not wait until she is awake and convince her? Sure, I'm against sterilization but it is legal in this country. Why not deal with the drug problem instead of sterilizing the woman and dropping her back into her bad situation? What happens when the woman breaks free of her drug problem and later wants to have children when she's clean? What happened here was a hospital staffer trying to slip through this sterilization because they wanted to impose it on her. Luckily, this time they got caught and the authorization was revoked. The courts and legislatures have decided that they have no place controlling who should breed; certainly nurses in hospitals shouldn't be making those decisions either.
CLARIFICATION:
Apparently I was less than clear... once she "came to" she told asked the nurses about this thing she signed, they told her, and she eventually (with difficulty) got the permission revoked. They just got the form signed so when she delivered, they would be able to "take care of it" with no questions asked.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:38 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Abortion Advocates Fight Against Choice
Abortion advocates are in a fight over the current HHS appropriations bill and whether hospitals, doctors, and medical personnel can be forced to be involved in abortion or risk losing any federal funds they may receive. This comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed by the State of California to overturn such provisions.
Here is another example of the "pro-choice" crowd fighting against the choice of medical providers in what services they want to provide and attempting to nullify their consciences. They argue that they aren't pro-abortion but then insist that every doctor must be jumping to perform abortions on demand. Any provider who refuses on the basis of conscience to provide any abortion-related services will likely face a revocation of their licenses.
The pro-abortion crowd not only wants to prevent medical providers from having a choice on what services they provide, they also want to exclude the religious from not only public life but even private jobs (with the ACLU trying to eliminate tax exemption for churches). If you're religious not only do they not want to allow you the choice to follow your conscience, they want to prevent your choice of profession.
So much for choice.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:44 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The .XXX Top-Level Domain
There has been a bit of talk about the .XXX top-level domain (TLD) and whether it should be approved. When I got around to writing something, I thought it was stale news, but apparently discussion is making the rounds.
In short, the TLD is meant for, you guessed it, porn. The Bush Administration doesn’t like it because it will create a virtual “red-light” district on the web. There are some concerns that it will legitimize pornography.
I think it’s a good idea, honestly. One, pornography is already legitimized if you are using the strict meaning of that word. There is nothing illegal about it (save some sparse regulations) and, let’s be honest, it’s ingrained into the culture. It doesn’t make it a good thing, but the Supreme Court has made it the law of the land that it gets to stay. Even if US laws were able to stop it, it would still come in from overseas and I don’t think we want a China-like Internet setup with the government censoring what we can see on the web. Pornography is bad for the soul and for that matter even bad for society, but it is up to people who believe that to make the case on an individual basis at this point.
Two, this makes it that much easier to block some porn. Anything that ends in “.xxx” gets denied. Very simple, doesn’t require any new filtering technology or anyone to scour the web to put sites in the filter. If anything, it makes it that much more obvious when someone is looking at porn (a.k.a. your kids) and dealing with it. It would be great if all porn (or at least most) could be kicked to the .xxx TLD, it would make filtering it for those who don’t want it that much easier.
When I was in Milan a few years ago, I was struck by the constant array of “sex shops” in otherwise respectable neighborhoods and essentially pornographic ads on TV (usual telephone commercials, I don’t know why). A red-light district at least lets you know where to avoid if you don’t want to be exposed to it. The same is true for a TLD.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:32 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
The ACLU Declares Jihad on Abstinence Education
In a direct attack against common sense, the ACLU has waged a relentless war against teaching kids the simple fact that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or get STDs. The ACLU applauded a recent decision by the federal government to suspend funding to Silver Ring Thing because it was using the money to evangelize and convert people. While they are very correct that this was a misuse of funds, it is part of a larger campaign to kick abstinence education out of the schools as inherently religious. In fact, a recent study by Rep. Waxman (that has been debunked) cited religion as a primary concern about these programs. The ACLU agrees.
They cite evidence that abstinence education programs do not work. History disproves this as we haven’t had anything close to the rates of single mothers, teenage pregnancies, or STD infections before sex-ed was taught in schools. For centuries, if not millennia, telling people to reserve sex for marriage worked. If they want proof, look back 100 years. Abstinence works every time it’s tried.
The irony is that while suggesting there is proof that abstinence education does not work, Planned Parenthood (through their research arm) has inadvertently shown that sex-ed and easy access to birth control has not slowed unintended pregnancies, reduced abortion, or reduced STD infections. Their recent report says:
“54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.”
Easy access to contraception has INCREASED the rate of infections of AIDS in Africa. Condoms are unable to protect against the single biggest cause of cervical cancer, HPV. Sex-ed in schools is based around teaching children “Hey, its ok, go out, have fun, just use a condom and you’ll be ok.” There is no attempt to deal with the emotional maturity issues regarding sex which leaves children so unprepared that the rate of kids committing suicide increases with sexual activity. They talk about moral programming and how it is ineffective at teaching youth abstinence, but rely on moral programming to teach them to use condoms.
The facts are these: abstinence education works and throwing condoms at kids doesn’t. If you aren’t ready to be a daddy you might want to think about not having sex which is the only effective way to not become one.
Thanks to OTB, Stop The ACLU, Basil's Blog
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
NARAL: All Legitimacy Left Behind
NARAL has hit rock-bottom...
And they've started to dig.
They pulled the commercial but are still insisting Roberts supports violence against abortion clinics. Read more from Culture & Cosmos below.
=================
NARAL Website Still Portrays Judge John Roberts as Defender of Violence
Despite their decision to pull a misleading television ad that accuses Judge John G. Roberts of defending violence against abortion clinics, NARAL Pro-Choice America remains strongly opposed to Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. Their website, ProChoiceAmerica.org, features a special section devoted to providing talking points and other documents designed to hurt Roberts' confirmation chances including one that continues to portray him as a defender of clinic violence.
NARAL has come under intense criticism for a recent television ad that implied that Roberts defended the perpetrators of 1998 bombing of a Birmingham, Ala. abortion clinic. The accusation stems from an amicus curiae brief Roberts co-authored seven years before the bombing when he was Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In a brief for the case Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts argued that protestors at an abortion clinic could not be prosecuted under a Civil War era civil rights law. In his oral argument before the Supreme Court, Roberts makes it clear that the protesters should be prosecuted for any state laws they violated such as trespassing, disturbing the peace or inciting a riot.
The ad came under a barrage of criticism, including from supporters of abortion like Frances Kissling, president of "Catholics" for a Free Choice. After a letter denouncing it was sent to NARAL by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, who is pro-abortion, the ad was pulled. In a letter to Specter, NARAL president Nancy Keenan did not apologize for the ad's content but did say she regretted "that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record."
The day after pulling the ad, NARAL communications director David E. Seldin announced he was resigning immediately. In an e-mail to coworkers he said, "I've been thinking for a while that I would most likely leave after the Supreme Court nomination fight was over, and by leaving now I can spend the next two weeks in Cape Cod with my family relaxing, instead of trying to find a place with good cell phone reception." A Washington Post report said Seldin was among a group of Democrats who thought they should be tougher on Roberts.
Despite pulling the ad, NARAL is using the same rhetoric as the ad in its online campaign to stop confirmation of Roberts saying he "argued in support of the violent clinic protesters at Operation Rescue who have tried to block women's access to basic health care services with bombs and threats of murder." The document accuses Roberts of being "so driven by ideology that he will excuse lawless conduct against women and other Americans."
In a list of talking points on the website, NARAL says that the "Bush administration owes it to the American public to disclose all relevant information about John Roberts, including his taxes, records from his job as Deputy Solicitor General, and the radical right's role in his selection."
Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
I was Wrong About NARAL & Planned Parenthood
I'm probably one of the few bloggers on the net that will admit when he was wrong, and I was wrong about Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and in general the Left as a whole. To lie requires intent. When they said John Roberts supports clinic bombers and extremists they did not intend to deceive. They sincerely believe that anyone against abortion is ipso facto a clinic bomber, terrorist, and extremist. They aren't lying because they believe if you are against abortion, you are an extreme terrorist.
Even though poll, after poll, after poll, after poll say that the majority or near a majority are pro-life, they continue to label anyone pro-life as extreme. Anyone who dares speaks out against abortion is a clinic bomber to them and they consider any form of picketing as a form of violence and constitute criminal activity on par with the Mafia or the Klan.
While they believe violence against clinics is evil, they celebrate violence against non-violent protestors. Even the implication of violence against abortion providers must be stopped. (Hint: Any pro-life group that felt threatened by PP's cartoon can just take the lawsuit against the Nuremberg Files, change the name, and re-file it). They insist they are trying to protect minors but they protect them against having their child rapist boyfriends arrested for their crimes.
So in the end, they aren't lying. They sincerely believe in what they are saying. The problem is that their sense of reality is gone. The next time someone talks to you about the "divisiveness" in American politics, point them Left. It wasn't the GOP that brackets out ideas and groups as unacceptable.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
CNN Runs Known False Ad by NARAL
FactCheck.org found that the information in NARAL's latest ad, the Roberts filed briefs to support clinic bombers is false. CNN is running the ad anyway.
To pro-choicers, anyone who is against abortion is a clinic bomber and terrorist.
In other news, liberal columnist Christopher Morris has largely proved my point from yesterday that Catholics should recuse themselves from any case that their religion has a stance on... namely abortion.
HT: QandO Blog, RedState, Michelle Malkin, Powerline
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 8, 2005
Celebrating Guardians who Kill
In what only can be considered bizarre, the Florida State Guardianship Association honored Michael Schiavo as Guardian of the Year for being a hero in “mercifully” killing his wife in a method that would be illegal to apply to most animals. It shouldn’t be surprising that the Florida Bar Association gave Judge Greer the Judge of the Year Award for his part in defining separation of powers as prohibiting any check from the Legislature or Executive Branches against the juristocracy. In a society that celebrates people who abort their kids, is it any surprise that people celebrate guardians who delete their charges?
It’s a society that is outraged by stories of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy, but remains silent when Planned Parenthood covers up about the same number of child rape cases in 1 year in the state of Illinois than the Catholic Church “covered up” in 50 years nationwide. It’s a society that couldn’t care less that child sex abuse takes place in public schools in much larger proportions.
So while Michael Schiavo and the Florida Lawyers and Guardians associations are celebrating their power to put the powerless to death, the rest of us can celebrate the miracle of birth of Susan Torres to a courageous father who kept his wife on life support so the child could be born.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 24, 2005
Friday Fax / All Pro-Lifers Left Behind
Apparently having pro-life voices at the UN is too much to be allowed for an inclusive organization concerned with giving voices to all people everywhere. Some would criticize saying the UN is an organization that has given up on peace-keeping and has concerned itself with killing babies everywhere. Stunts like this reinforce such notions.
=============
UN Excludes Pro-Life Groups from Important UN Meeting
For the last two days, hundreds of UN-picked international lobby groups have gathered in New York for discussions with the UN General Assembly about the upcoming Millennium Summit +5. Numerous pro-life, pro-family groups applied to participate, but all were rejected by a handpicked panel of the United Nations. As a result, yesterday's sessions consisted of repeated and unopposed calls for more access to abortion and homosexual rights through the Millennium Development Goals.
The UN's "informal interactive hearings" with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the first of their kind. Ominously to pro-life groups, Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette opening remarks called them a "significant new step in the way the United Nations relates to civil society." UN bureaucrats and radical NGOs have sought for years for a way to keep pro-life groups out of UN negotiations but they have largely failed. This new approach has succeeded.
Participating NGOs for this round of negotiations were chosen by a task force under Jean Ping of Gabon, President of the General Assembly. Aside from Ping and his staff, the task force included ten lobby group representatives, including the radical feminist group Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO).
WEDO is circulating a document today at the UN which calls for the +5 Summit to "reaffirm that universal access to sexual and reproductive health by 2015 and protection of reproductive rights are critical for achieving the MDGs." Another WEDO pamphlet states that "Right-wing forces everywhere invoke culture and religion to deny women's rights," and blames "cultural and religious fundamentalism" for blocking women's "reproductive health and rights." Terms such as "reproductive rights" are misused at the UN to include abortion.
C-FAM and numerous other pro-family, pro-life groups, most with official UN status, applied to participate in the hearings, but were rejected by the task force. Selected NGOs include the International Planned Parenthood Federation and other pro-abortion groups such as the National Youth Network for Reproductive Rights and Family Care International.
Thursday's sessions saw repeated calls for "universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and a full recognition and protection of reproductive rights," by participants such as the Association for Women's Rights in Development. The Europe Youth Network for Sexual & Reproductive Rights and other groups also called for greater access to abortion for young people.
Several groups also stressed the protection of rights based on "sexual orientation." The representative of MADRE, an Argentine group, stated that gays and lesbians must have their "sexual rights, gender identity and gender _expression" protected. "No religion...can be excused for these violations."
The hearings were partially funded by Canada, Finland and Norway.
Copyright 2005 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 16, 2005
In Maine It's Murder to Kill a Pregnant Woman, To Kill Her Child Is Apparently Legal
Maine Family Unhappy With Compromise on Unborn Victims Bill
Maine's legislators apparently compromised on the fact that killing a pregnant woman is a little more serious than killing a non-pregnant woman. They did not, however, add a second charge to killing the unborn child. You still can only be charged for the first murder, but the fact that the child died is only a consideration during sentencing.
This, however, goes to show that an unborn child is something of consequence to people not simply a blob of cells. No one minds getting warts lasered off (another type of cell blobs) but when you kill an unborn child it somehow makes a murder worse...
If life didn't start until birth, then why do so many people support punishing people who criminally attack pregnant woman and injure the child (despite the fact in this case they don't recognize a second charge)?
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 23, 2005
No Restriction is Too Small - How the Supreme Court Enables Child Rapists
No restriction is too small for the Supreme Court to rule unconstitutional if it prevents a raped 9 year old from getting an abortion to cover up for her rapist. No restriction can be allowed to prevent minors from having abortions.
In all things, until you are 18, you are a child with parents who make decisions for you. You can't get a tattoo, you can't choose your school, you can't get a credit card, you can't even go on a school field trip unless your parents say ok. But if you want an abortion, and only if you want an abortion, are you suddenly charged with power to make your own decisions. This is the kind of judicial stupidity imposed upon society by the juristocracy.
Of course, the ACLU is trying to overturn this law. The heroes of freedom at the ACLU want to make sure that all child predators are free and clear when it comes to impregnating kids and getting away with it (* see footnotes). Planned Parenthood even glorifies young girls dating (and having sex with) older men on their own website for kids.
- Sources that indicate as the age of the impregnanted girl goes down, the age of the father goes up.
· Males M, Chew K, "The Ages of Fathers in California Adolescent Births, 1993," American Journal of Public Health, 1996, 86(4):565-568
· Males, "Adult involvement in teenage childbearing and STD," The Lancet, 1995, 346:64-65.
· Montfort, Sue, Brick, Peggy. Unequal Partners, Second Edition. The Center for Family Life Education, Planned Parenthood of Greater northern New Jersey, Inc.: Morristown, NJ, 2000.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 3, 2005
Eugenics in Champaign
I finally got the medical records I've been waiting for. I asked for them around 3/14 and just got them today. To be fair they've been waiting for a week for me to come get them, but that's still 5 weeks to xerox not all that much. The important docs were not in the set I was given, but I managed to get them because they were in another file. I'll be fair and chalk that up to crappy record keeping.
The record largely reflects what I thought. Patient was admitted on 3/10 and didn't "wake up" (their words) until 3/14. She was documented as having communication difficulties and was recorded in several places as not being able to communicate effectively or for that matter meaningfully. But here's the catch, apparently she signed on 3/12 permission to be sterilized. Based on the medical records, she was in absolutely no position to consent to that. The doctor/nurse/hospital took it upon themselves to ensure that someone they thought was unfit could not have any more children (aside of say, addressing the problems instead).
I'm still going to hold the rest of the info (i.e. the names) until I can figure out if this was a matter of policy (which I imagine it was, if they did this to one person, they'll do it to others) or just a one-off. When I figure that out, I'll come full on with the story. Stay tuned.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 2, 2005
BREAKING NEWS: Planned Parenthood Flouting Illinois Law for Fun and Profit
I was skimming through LiveJournal and came across this:
==================
http://www.livejournal.com/community/chambana/954029.html?view=6356653#t6356653
Free Emergency Contraception!!
Emergency Contraception is for you when you want it.
The Great EC Giveaway
May 11 5:30-7:00 p.m.
At Planned Parenthood Of East Central Illinois
302 East Stoughton
Champaign
No exam, no hassle, and NO MONEY!!
Fill out a short application and receive a box of Plan B - absolutely free!
Tell your friends, bring them with you, and come yourself.
======================
I have called Planned Parenthood and the woman who answered the phone confirmed this event is taking place sponsored by their education department.
The problem is that EC in Illinois still requires a prescription. They COULD have a qualified person on hand to write those presecriptions but unless people are planning on scheduling their "accidents" on May 10th, it's clear they are putting these drugs in circulation for future use and not relating to any current issues. This is in complete disregard of the law. The notice itself makes clear this as well.
In short, they are giving away this prescription drug for free without a prescription knowing full well it is going to be stockpiled. This is flagrantly illegal. The police have been notified.
Here is contact info:
Planned Parenthood Champaign
302 E. Stoughton
Champaign, IL 61820-5414
(217) 359-8022
(217) 359-2683 (Fax)
Champaign Police Department
Phone: 217/351-4545
Illinois Department of Public Health
535 West Jefferson Street
Springfield, Illinois 62761
Phone 217-782-4977
Fax 217-782-3987
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
April 20, 2005
Planned Parenthood Says Prosecuting Child Rape Will Violate Privacy
Indiana Abortion-Sexual Abuse Investigation Goes to Court
The Indiana AG is finally getting around to investigating only 40 cases of dramatically underage girls getting abortion. (Though researchshows the number of cases in 2000 alone is almost 6000). Planned Parenthood says disclosing records of girls under 13 who had abortions (and were by the virtue of being pregnant raped and abused) would violate the right of privacy of the sexual predators that think raping kids is a-ok the young girls.
Apparently, the stories of desperate young women who have no where to turn except Planned Parenthood obscures one fact. That they just want to cover up the rape so the rapist can victimize more girls and increase the cash flow of this "not for profit" organization.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 9, 2005
Mae Magouirk Now Being Fed
WorldNews Daily reports that Mae Magouirk, the grandmother in Georgia who was being denied food and water without being comatose, terminal, or vegetative was airlifted and is now receiving food in water. The fight isn't over, but it is clear that the Judge and others saw what happened with Terri Schiavo and want to be much more cautious before starving people to death, certainly when the living will is OPPOSED to that action being taken.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 7, 2005
Another Woman Being Starved Who isn't Dying
The following is from Powers that Blog by way of a tip from Fr. Rob at Thrownback.
The downlow is that a granddaughter in Georgia without documentation (and turns out not only was she not, but there is no law in Georgia allowing for this to begin with) claimed medical power of attorney over her grandmother who isn't in a coma, isn't vegetative, and isn't terminal, sent he to a hospice and started to starve her. A non-lawyer judge (I guess this is possible in Georgia) let it ride. The immediate family and the living will both express that this is not the wishes of the grandmother. Apparently the granddaughter is also the sole heir.
Here's what I got.
April 06, 2005
Shiavo case Redux in Georgia: Mae Magouirknot comatose,not vegetative,not terminal, BEING STARVED AND DEHYDRATED TO DEATH (Update)
RECEIVED VIA EMAIL - EMERGENCY
Please propagate throughout the Internet!
UPDATE 1(noticed question in comments about authentication): This was confirmed by lengthy telephone call before it was posted. I personally spoke with Kenneth Mullinax, and have more details than has been posted. We do need to seek copies of court documents for posting
From: The Family of Mae Magouirk
To: BlogsForTerri and their readers
Subject: Family Seeking Help From BFT Bloggers and Media
April 6, 2005
Contact: Kenneth Mullinax Ph: 205-408-7598
mailto:Mockingbird@compuhelp.net
Why is Hospice LaGrange, Ga. withholding nourishment?
Mae Magouirk is being withheld nourishment and fluids and the Provisions of her Living Will are not being honored at the Hospice-LaGrange, (1510 Vernon Street, LaGrange Troup County Georgia, (706-845-3905) a subsidiary of the LaGrange Hospital in LaGrange Georgia.
Her family is desperately seeking to save her life before she dies of malnourishment and dehydration.
Mae Magouirk IS NOT comatose and she IS NOT vegetative. She is not terminal!
Despite these facts the Hospice and Beth Gaddy (706-882-9124), a school teacher at LaGranges Calloway Middle School and granddaughter of Mae Magouirk(who according to "heresay," may have been mismanaging funds of the 85 yr-old woman) have been denying her proactive nourishment or fluids (via a nose administered feeding tube or fluids via an IV) since March 28 without prior legal consent; against the wishes of her Living Will and against the wishes of Mae Magouirks closest living next of kin. Mae Magouirks next of kin are: Mr. A. B. McLeod (Her Brother 256-236-1331) and Mrs. Lonnie Ruth Mullinax (Her sister 205-408-7598) both of nearby Anniston, Alabama.
Under Georgia law, unless a medical durable power of attorney is in place, your closest living next of kin are stipulated to make all medical decisions. When Mae Magouirks closest living next of kin lodged a complaint with Hospice LaGranges in-house attorney Carol Todd (706-882-1411) last Thursday, March 31, Ms. Todd checked Mae Magouirks case file and upon examination of both documents discovered that Beth Gaddy DID NOT have the durable medical power of attorney for Mae Magouirk and upon closer examination of Mae Magouirks Living Will ascertained that fluids and nourishment were ONLY TO BE WITHHELD if she was either comatose or vegetative.
SHE IS IN NEITHER STATE!!!
Nor is Mae Magouirk terminally ill. Her local LaGrange, Ga. cardiologist, Dr. James Brennan (706-812-4308) and Dr. Raed Aqel, (205-934-9999) a highly acclaimed interventional cardiologist at the nationally renowned University of Alabama-Birmingham Medical Center have determined that Mae Magouirks aortic dissection is contained and not presently life threatening.
Two weeks ago, Mae Magouirks aorta had a dissection and she was hospitalized in the LaGrange Hospital in LaGrange, Ga. Her aortic problem was at first determined to be severe and she was admitted in the intensive care Unit. Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, a teacher at the Calloway Middle School in LaGrange, stated that she held Mae Magouirks medical power of attorney and thus invoked said powers against the wishes of Mae Magouirks closest living next of kin by having her moved to Hospice-LaGrange. While at Hospice-LaGrange, Beth Gaddy stated that her wishes were for no nourishment for Mae Magouirk v Probate Judge Donald Boyd (706) 883-1690)
Court CASE NUMBER: Estate 138-05
Attorney for saving Maes life: Jack Kirby, Kirby & Roberts, (706) 884-2992***
Update 2:
On the personal side, I know that many if not all of you are emotionally and perhaps physically exhausted from all of your efforts during the last week of Terri's life. I share that malady. We fought hard, but we were new at the game of trying to save a life with our keyboards, and allowed ourselves to often think with our hearts instead of our heads.
But that's behind us, and we are a larger group now and growing, we've gained some experience and contacts, we've learned a little more about how to work together and are getting better organized, and we are learning how to divide up our labors and act quickly. Let's try to avoid letting our hearts overtake us, let's use them because they are a great asset, but we have to outsmart and outwork the euthanasia crowd, and let's not forget that. We are likely to have many people like Terri that need our help, so let's move forward methodically and with determination to stay the course, together.
One last thing: We know how hateful and angry our opposition can be, but let's not fall into the trap of getting angry ourselves - let's keep our cool, be an example for others to follow, and by all means pray hard and fight hard.
--------
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack