Archive for February 26, 2012

FYI–New Pages

Posted: February 26, 2012 in This N That

Just wanted you to know I’ve added new pages to my blog, took some old ones off, just to refresh it a little.  Just wanted to add a few new pics to the pages I thought were interesting.  Hope you like.  Have a blessed day!!


Over the last few weeks, an intense controversy has raged in Virginia, where Republicans have introduced a bill that requires — among other things — that women undergo an ultrasound prior to getting an abortion.  The pro-abortion lobby has hysterically opposed the legislation (does their opposition ever take any other form?), going so far as to compare it to forcible rape.  Their point, to be charitable, is based on the fact that one form of ultrasound involves a more invasive probe than the over-the-abdomen method many people associate with the practice. The usual crowd of media dupes have carried water for the extremists, parroting various interations of the “mandatory ultrasounds = rape” talking point.  The problem?  It’s thoroughly bogus.  Commentary’s Alana Goodman has emerged as a one-woman debunking machine:
 

The complaints are the ultrasounds are needlessly invasive, not medically necessary, and would be forced on women seeking abortions, even if they don’t want them. This criticism misses one crucial point: Planned Parenthood policy already requires ultrasounds before abortion procedures. “That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”

According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards. “…If she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure,” Schreiber told me.

So the outrageously invasive rape-like affront to “women’s rights” is actually Planned Parenthood’s standard medical practice.  Subsequent reporting has established that the nation’s largest abortion provider already requires ultrasounds for 99 percent of the abortions it performs.  Therefore, according to the Virginia law’s shrillest critics, Planned Parenthood routinely “rapes” women.  Ms. Schreiber’s quote above also begs the question: If an ultrasound is tantamount to rape, how might these people describe the surgical abortion itself?  It’s an absurd argument that bears no resemblence to medical reality.  So if the loaded invocations of “rape” don’t apply, why are they being made?  What changes to current practice does the Virginia bill seek to accomplish?  Based on my reading, I see three significant changes:
 

(1) The law would codify widely-accepted medical procedures and require abortion providers to obtain the woman’s informed consent (the definition of which entails several common-sense elements — see Section C) prior to performing an abortion.

(2) It would mandate that after the ultrasound or sonogram, a copy of the image of the unborn child be included in the patient’s medical file, and require the doctor to offer to review the file with the woman.

(3) Abortion providers would be obligated to observe a 24-hour waiting period between the informed consent phase of the process and the abortion procedure.

All three of the items above provide women with important information about their choice (which some abortion providers have a history of withholding), and a reasonable period of time to think it through, based on said information.  Abortion supporters like to call themselves “pro-choice,” and sometimes the label fits.  The repulsive truth, however, is that hardcore “pro-choice” activists are really pro-abortion.  If a woman sees a photograph of the child whose heartbeat she is considering snuffing out, she might reconsider her choice — especially if she’s given one day to process the gravity of the her decision.  Pro-abortion extremists are threatened by this possibility, so they scream “rape,” lie, obfuscate, and accuse their opponents of extremism.  Unfortunately, their theatrics are often effective.  In this case, they prompted Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to request changes to the legislative language.  That hardly represents a defeat, but it shows that a relentless campaign of misinformation can force even well-intentioned politicians to abandon reason and make meaningless concessions based on narrative, not science or facts.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/02/24/abortion_zealotry_on_display_in_virginia


The revelation isn’t particularly shocking, but hey, at least it’s official now: DC is home to the nation’s highest concentration of cheaters.

More people per capita in the D.C. metropolitan area sign up for the website Ashley Madison than in any other city, according to the site, which helps people looking to stray. Washington has the highest per capita membership among the site’s 13 million users, The Washington Post reports.

The chief executive officer of the company tells the Post he believes people who live and work in the District achieve success from taking professional risks, which often pay off, and the personality trait prompts personal risks, too.

“The more successful you are, the more prone to cheating you are, and Washington is full of successful people looking for something outside their marriage,” CEO Noel Biderman tells the Post.

The site claims 38,000 registered users in the District.

There are so many jokes to crack on the matter, but honestly, it’s sad. 13 million people are so committed to cheating on their spouses that they’ve signed up for a dating site devoted to affairs? As if we needed further proof that society is in decline…

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/02/24/surprise_dc_is_nations_adultery_capital


Editor’s Note: This piece was written by Casey Maddox, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

When Amy Hamilton’s pre-born son died, as a result of what she believed were “negligent acts” by doctors in Dekalb County, Alabama, she sought justice by filing a wrongful death suit. (Alabama law provides recovery for a mother whose preborn child is killed because of another’s negligence.) But Amy faced an obstacle, Roe v. Wade.

Although Amy could feel him moving, her son was not “viable” at the time he died, or so the argument went. And Alabama lacked an interest in protecting his preborn life because doing so would be inconsistent with Roe’s trimester framework and its constitutional right to an abortion. That’s right. In other words, women like Amy should not be able to seek justice for the wrongful death of a preborn child because allowing her to do so might negatively impact others’ ability to deliberately kill their preborn children. Such is the contorted reasoning of Roe and its defenders.

State courts in California, Michigan and several others have used this “women’s rights” rationale to prevent women from seeking justice for the unwanted death of their children. Others have limited a woman’s right to sue only for the death of a viable child, as if the loss is any less to the woman who loses her child before viability. The usual pro-abortion suspects have also opposed laws empowering women to seek justice for their preborn children.

When the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act was signed into law by President Bush, a Democratic National Committee press release said the law “will weaken women’s constitutional rights by giving separate legal personhood to a fetus, equal to that of the pregnant woman, thus attempting to undermine the legal basis for the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade.” NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood also strongly opposed this supposed assault on women’s rights.

But Amy’s son was wanted. According to the opinion, when Hamilton visited the doctors’ office on March 10, 2005, worried that she didn’t feel her child moving, she was finally given the ultrasound she’d been denied three times prior. The ultrasound showed that the child had died within the previous 24-48 hours, and labor was induced. Her son was stillborn.

When the DeKalb Circuit Court sided with the doctors, Hamilton appealed her case and on Friday, Feb. 17, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously held that Hamilton could pursue a wrongful death against the doctors even though her child had died prior to being able to live outside of her womb.

In an additional concurrence, joined by three other justices, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, wrote:

Today, this Court reaffirms that the lives of unborn children are protected by Alabama’s wrongful-death statute, regardless of viability. I write separately to explain why the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), does not bar the result we reach today and to emphasize the diminishing influence of Roe’s viability standard. Because Roeis not controlling authority beyond abortion law, and because its viability standard is not persuasive, I conclude that, at least with regard to the law of wrongful death, Roe’s viability standard should be universally abandoned. 

I recommend the entire opinion to anyone needing a boost of confidence in the common sense of our courts. Justice Parker expects the decision will “engender screams of anger from the Left,” but his hope is that “it will cause Constitutionalists to write thoughtful and scholarly responses, and, in short, spark a new national debate about Roe.”

The mere fact that we should even have to pause to question whether the emanations of penumbras of the Bill of Rights prohibits a woman from seeking justice for the death of her pre-born child demonstrates how terrible a decision Roe v. Wade was. How devoted are Roe’s most faithful worshippers? They would deny a woman justice for her wanted child because that might reveal the feebleness of Roe’s logic for constitutionalizing another woman’s right to kill her unwanted child.

To be sure, the pro-abortion crowd is right. Acknowledging a woman’s right to recover against someone who takes the life of her wanted pre-born child certainly does undermine the “logic” of Roe, such as it were, that unborn children only become persons when born. It says a lot about the supposedly “pro-woman” abortion rights advocates that they would rather side with those who deliberately or negligently kill a woman’s wanted preborn child than undermine their sacrosanct right to take a pre-born child’s life themselves.

http://townhall.com/columnists/townhallcomstaff/2012/02/26/roe_v_wades_viability_argument_not_viable/page/full/


Finally, a 21st century movie that doesn’t portray our military as corrupt, stupid, confused torturers who murder innocent babies.

Act of Valor, which opened this weekend, features active (and anonymous) Navy SEALs in the re-creation of real events that showcase our crème de la crème rescuing our operatives and crushing our enemies in an OMG type of way.

I’ve got two words for the manner in which our boys were depicted in this flick … Sa-lute!

If I were a wannabe enemy of the U.S.A. (foreign or domestic) I’d be crapping my cargo pants (or tunic) after viewing Act of Valor—chiefly because our special forces are some bad mamajambas who have the tools and the tenacity to jack you up.

Yep, be afraid, villains, as our troops are effective ministers of God poised, ready and willing with stealth and style to inflict the wrath of God on those who do evil. I’m talkin’ Romans 13:1-5 style. Look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Another thing that I truly enjoyed about this film was the unambiguous patriotism of the soldiers and their families. Yep, no whining about their missions from their families or the SEALs who sacrificed their lives and limbs for God and country. It almost felt like I was in America again as I watched this movie. It was weird—but a good weird.

Even though it’s shocking to see our troops displayed in a magnificent manner within this Occuculture that loathes them, it was not a shocker to me; I have had the good fortune to spend time with many of our special ops and other soldiers in hunting camps from Alaska to Texas and have found them just as the movie displayed them: consummate class acts without a hint of the BS Hollyweird has smeared them with over the last decade.

I can’t say enough good things about this movie. In the theater in which my wife and I watched it we spotted several older gents and couples who sat in their seats and silently wept as the credits rolled. It was sacred.

I’m sure all the scabs and the venomous wood lice of the Left are going to crawl out from under the rocks where they dwell and bash this war pic, but that’s alright. Our SEALs and others have afforded you the right to be stupid and bray your insanity by keeping bad guys at bay, both at home and abroad, and thereby giving you the wherewithal to play your silly and ungrateful games against our fair land.

Lastly, parents, take your teenagers to see Act of Valor. Maybe, just maybe, some of the courage, patriotism and dignity depicted in this film will erase the film this crappy culture has slimed your kid with.

God bless America, our warriors who protect her, and those involved with this movie. Amen.

 
 
 
 
Doug Giles

Doug Giles

Doug Giles is the author of Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls. Follow him on Twitter @Doug_Giles and on Facebook. You can see and hear Doug’s video blog and talk show at ClashRadio.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/02/26/act_of_valor_trumps_hollywoods_asinine_squalor/page/full/


“In you, Lord, I have taken refuge;
let me never be put to shame;
deliver me in your righteousness.
Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue;
be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me.”—Psalm 31:1–2

Lies and false accusations against us can cause great anguish, can’t they? Slander is an attempt to turn others against you, and when it seems as if everyone is conspiring against you, it feels like there is nowhere left to go.

        At the time David penned Psalm 31, he was apparently the target of a severe verbal assault that included “the slander of many” (31:13); “lying lips” (31:18); and “accusing tongues” (31:20). When David felt as if both friend and foe had turned against him, he looked to God as his “rock of refuge” and “strong fortress.” He trusted “the God of truth” (31:5, NASB) to counter all lies, and he knew that the God of righteousness was able to right every wrong.

        David portrayed God as a strong fortress in which to wait out the verbal assault, proclaiming “Praise be to the Lord, for he showed me the wonders of his love when I was in a city under siege” (31:21). Inhabitants of a city under siege could wait out the attack in safety. Fiery darts and stones hurled by attackers could not penetrate the fortifications around the city. Likewise, we can take refuge in God when others hurl insults and accusations against us.

        There is no evidence that David tried to set the record straight with his accusers. Instead he left it up to God. David was able to do this because of his ongoing relationship with God. Like David, those who know God and know His character are able to seek Him confidently and know that God will deliver His people. We can handle adversity better when we recognize our true relationship with the sovereign God, as David did.

        While our natural instinct is to defend ourselves against false accusations and lies, we can, like David, surrender our situation to God and rely completely on Him. We can wait out the assault in safety because God is our rock and fortress. He will protect and defend us.

        Need courage for today? Remember who is our “rock of refuge” and “strong fortress.”

http://www.holylandmoments.org/devotionals/my-rock-of-refuge-2


“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.”      Isa 40:8 NIV

Let’s look once more at what some of the most notable people in history have had to say about the Bible. Matthew Arnold: “To the Bible men will return because they cannot do without it. The true God is, and must be pre-eminently the God of the Bible, the eternal, who makes for righteousness from whom Jesus came forth, and whose spirit governs the course of humanity.” George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty.” Horace Greeley: “It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible reading people.” Patrick Henry: “This is a book worth more than all other books which were ever printed.” William McKinley: “The more profoundly we study this wonderful book and the more closely we observe its divine precepts, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be the destiny of our nation.” J. Edgar Hoover: “Inspiration has been the keynote ofAmerica’s phenomenal growth. Inspiration has been the backbone ofAmerica’s greatness. Inspiration has been the difference between defeat and victory inAmerica’s wars. And this inspiration has come from faith in God, faith in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, and faith in the belief that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God. Reading it within the family circle is more important today than ever before. It draws the family together into a more closely knit unit. It gives each member a faith to live by.” Your Bible—read it every day!