December 2008
DUNEDIN, New Zealand, December 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Women who have an abortion face a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, according to a new study from the University of Otago, Christchurch.
The study, led by Dr. David Fergusson and funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, was published in the December issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry.
The conditions most associated with abortion included anxiety disorders and substance use. In contrast, none of the other pregnancy outcomes was consistently related to significantly increased risks of mental health problems.
The researchers estimated that exposure to abortion accounted for between 1.5% and 5.5% of mental disorders in the general population. The research findings could have implications for the legal status of abortion in New Zealand and the UK, where over 90% of abortions are authorized on the grounds that the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the woman's mental health. This research indicates than in many cases the opposite may be true: that terminating the pregnancy is in fact the riskier choice for the woman’s mental health.
Professor David Fergusson, John Horwood and Dr Joseph Boden, studied the pregnancy and mental health history of over 500 women, who have taken part in the long-running study from birth to the age of 30.
The researchers took into account factors which might be associated with increased risks of abortion and/or mental illness, including childhood environmental factors, adolescent and parental adjustment, individual characteristics, and achievement in school.
This newest study backs up other research which concludes that having an abortion may be associated with increased risk of mental health problems. An article recently published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, summarizing a survey headed by Prof. Priscilla K. Coleman of Bowling Green State University, concluded that abortion could be blamed for an increase of various anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders.
In August, a study of 768 women by the University of Oslo in Norway also determined that abortion specifically puts women at higher risk for mental health disorders.
The University of Otago, Christchurch, previously the Christchurch School of Medicine, is part of one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in the southern hemisphere, boasting New Zealand's highest average research quality.
"This study is part of a growing body of research which challenges the current popular misconception that abortion carries no risks to the health and wellbeing of women," said Family Life International NZ spokesman Brendan Malone.
Malone also emphasized that the rigorous methodology of the study pinpointed abortion, and not contingent factors, as specifically causing the increased mental illness - avoiding a common criticism from abortion advocates against similar studies.
See full report here: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/6/444
From The Mail box... I personally know many Christians that do not attend, nor have faith left in the church. The Broken Series by Steve Jalsevac helps explain why. It is worth a read. -- Pablo
Final Comment on Broken Window Series
Steve Jalsevac
Managing Director
LifeSiteNews.com
Dear Readers,
Once in a while we send out our Special Reports to you because readers have
requested them for their records and want to forward them to others.
This series, primarily regarding the Catholic Church, was written to address a
major factor in the advancement of the anti-life, anti-family forces - the
negligence and weak response and even deep complicity in that advancement by
Catholics who have been very badly shepherded in recent decades.
The Popes have thankfully been courageously outspoken, but they have generally
been ignored on these issues by many of their clergy and religious at all levels
and therefore also by the Catholic laity.
The series is a constructive one, trying to address the root cause of a decline
of religious belief and practice and provide a possible strategy (simply based
on the reality of fundamental human nature) that may help willing, faithful
Church leaders to counter the serious problems that still exist in most Catholic
dioceses.
If various dioceses succeed in cleaning house and the faith is renewed, it is a
win-win for everyone, regardless of denominational theological differences. Core
Catholic teaching on the sacredness of life, family life and sexual morality is
based not only on scripture but also on natural law, which can be accepted and
understood by anyone. This body of teaching is incredibly thorough and of great
practical benefit to all cultures. It compliments similar principles held by
many other Christian denominations and even many non-Christian denominations.
Natural law is written in the human heart.
The missing army in the battle for life and family has been the Churches,
especially the Catholics in the developed Western nations. Yes, many have
responded heroically and endured years of personal sacrifices, but any seasoned
pro-life leader will tell you their sad tales of crushing disappointments,
frequent weak responses and even active undermining of their efforts by Church
leaders and also ordinary Christians.
There has been great frustration and heartbreak over this, especially since it
has always been clear that if many more Church leaders and their flocks had done
what they should, what their faith demands, this battle would have been over
long ago.
A good number of Catholic Church leaders appear to have finally comprehended
what has happened and are responding as shepherds should, with true faith and
courage and right priorities. A promising wind is definitely now blowing through
the Church. Many Catholics and others were overjoyed to see the passionate
statements from Catholic bishops on the necessity for Catholics to vote only
according to their faith principles - above all, for life and family.
However, there are still a majority of bishops who are too quiet and more than a
few still complicit in the corrupt culture.
Still, there are strong indications that the Church is finally on the right road
again. There is real hope now for an increase of repentance, renewal and
rebuilding of the Catholic Church in the United States. The broken window series
is our attempt to help that along - because it is crucial to the defence of
life, family and our very freedoms.
Nothing will happen or can happen to stem the evil tide until all Christians
return to living lives of Christian belief and practice. That is the key to
winning the great culture war in our opinion and according to our many years of
involvement in the struggle.
Steve Jalsevac
Managing Director
LifeSiteNews.com
To read more on the Broken Window Series:
U.S. Election Message to Catholic Bishops: Time to Clean House
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111012.html
Part II
US Election Message to Catholic Bishops Part II: This week's Bishops' Assembly
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111412.html
Part III
US Election Message to Catholic Bishops Part III: The Broken Window Strategy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112014.html
Series on US Election Message to Bishops Concludes With Part IV
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112810.html
The Broken Windows in the US Catholic Church
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/081128a.html
On The Wire... Gender Mainstreaming? What is next? Talking monkey-man??? -- Pablo
“Gender Mainstreaming”: A Silent Revolution Dismantling Civilization
By Hilary White
November 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Gender mainstreaming,” an ideology that proposes to erase the foundational unit of western society, the natural family, is being infiltrated into laws and institutions around the world under the rubric of “equality” legislation and guidelines, says author Gabrielle Kuby.
Kuby, the author of a 2003 book, endorsed by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, warning Christian parents of the danger of the Harry Potter book series, has written on the threat of the work of ideologues on the far left who are working to create a “new man” who can arbitrarily decide whether he is a man, a woman or some other “gender” unrelated to the natural distinctions of biology. “According to them,” she writes, “there are not two sexes, but six or more, depending on sexual preference.”
“Behind the facade” of equality, “lurks the general attack on the moral standards to which we owe the Western culture. Without it, neither the family nor Christianity can survive.”
In her article, “Gender Mainstreaming – The Secret Revolution,” to be published in German in this month’s edition of Vatican magazine, Kuby warns that the new ideology is being carefully inculcated into international law and particularly into the materials made available to educators to create school curricula. Kuby writes, “This view of freedom and sexuality, according to the will of the UN, EU and most European governments is to be imprinted onto the minds of children from the nursery onwards.”
In the case of one national government, Germany’s, the “gender mainstreaming” ideology is part of the guiding principles of every ministry of the government. The homepage of the German government’s Ministry of Science says, “The Federal Government has established an equal opportunities policy based on the political strategy of gender mainstreaming as a universal guiding principle.”
Kuby’s contention is supported by John Smeaton, head of the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, who wrote this weekend that people in Europe who adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian values and ideas are under threat by anti-family ideologues working to enforce their anti-family policies and silence dissent.
“Pro-life and
pro-family campaigners,” he wrote, “must expect to see the publication of
documents, funded by the European Union, which promote abortion, euthanasia and
other anti-life and anti-family practices - with a special emphasis on zero
tolerance for dissent.”
Kuby’s thesis also corresponds with that of Babette Francis, a long-time
campaigner for life and family at the international level who in 2004 told
LifeSiteNews.com that the fight over the definition of “gender” has become
the cornerstone of UN and other internationalist ideology. This ideology also
links closely to the efforts of the international agencies to impose legal
abortion on countries in developing nations.
Francis said that the gender ideology was first raised at a seminal conference on women, Beijing +5, in 1995, when delegates argued that gender was a socially malleable concept and that human beings could not be restricted to the mere biological categories of male and female. The argument was that there is a “continuous spectrum and that there were all kinds of genders.”
Kuby also relates that the gender ideology first found fertile ground when it was brought forward by a powerful group of feminist and lesbian NGOs at the Beijing conference. Since then gender mainstreaming has been pushed into international law with the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of Nice (2000). As a negation of the traditional values of the family, Kuby writes, “abortion follows automatically as part of the global agenda” of the gender ideologies.
Kuby concludes with an admonition that Christians fight the incursions of the new ideologies.
“At this stage of history, the main attack of evil is in the field of sexuality. Christians need to meet the enemy there, otherwise they will have lost. If the young generation is pushed into moral degeneracy, the human condition of family and faith will be further destroyed and abortion will never be overcome.”
(To read the complete article by Gabriell Kuby, see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008_docs/GenderMainstreaming.pdf)
From The Archive... Silence from the pulpit is a death sentence to the unborn. --Pablo
The Silence of The Shepard
“Personally, I am ProLife. Politically, I am pro-choice”. —Pontius Pilot (paraphrased)
Pastor:
"Hey Pablo, I just took a quick look
at your website. I appreciate your
passion and commitment to the pro-life stance on abortion.
You are right that the PC (USA), (Presbyterian
Churches USA, the Pastors denomination. --P), does not come out with
a firm position on it. My personal
opinion on it is one of pro-life and on the occasions when I have counseled
persons, I have preached it, successfully, to my knowledge."
Pablo:
"I am thankful that you express a pro-life attitude. I though am concerned
with PC USA’s vague position, I also understand and can see that we are in a
time of change as regarding consensus opinion on abortion. I believe the
pro-life movement, while grass-rooted and under-funded, (we
do not get government grants or funding, and generally don't get paid for our
efforts, as abortion-for-profit providers do. Note: our tax dollars at
work!), more accurately reflects the pulse of Americans."
"I have not gotten involved
politically with the issue nor preached it directly from the pulpit, nor do I
intend to. The same goes with other life and death issues - border crossers,
capital punishment, the war in Iraq, etc."
"I can't agree there. Abortion is far more than simply a political issue. Consider: if there can be a message from the pulpit in the aftermath of a tragedy, such as Columbine's 15 dead; the 2,752 9/11 victims; or the murder of Terri Schiavo, why not a message on the murder of over 46,000,000 (and counting: at the rate of approximately one every twenty seconds, or around 3,000 nationwide per day!), human beings since Roe vs. Wade? Abortion is in reality a matter of public policy, which the pulpit and the Church's lay-ministries have every right, more a mandate, to influence."
"I preach to equip the people with the Word of God and honor their faith and their responsibility for their own lives, as stewards, of the gifts God has given."
"As well you should, for that is your gift, and your passion."
"I believe the appropriate forum for addressing those issues is in a dialogue setting, such as a class or conversation, where there can be a give and take, rather than in the one sided communication that takes place in the pulpit."
"Get this: according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 73% of women getting abortions profess some affinity to Christianity, while one in six claims to be a "born again" or evangelical Christian. This means that there is a lack of knowledge from the pews. most women are not fully aware of how horrific abortion is, how performed, or how seriously abortion can psychologically affect both parents, or the future health of the mother due to abortion-related breast cancer."
"There has to be an appreciation and honoring of each person, born and unborn.
"For certain, but the bible taught me of the sanctity of life from the moment of God's working of the miracle of life. God alone has the right to give, and to take life."
"And I am much less a knowledgeable authority on these issues; when I preach, I've got to know what I am talking about is the truth."
"Then you should know that 28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Abortion supporters have conducted most of the studies. While we wait, humans are being slaughtered and women's futures are placed at certain risk. In the twenty minutes that it took us to read, consider, and respond, sixty more babies were condemned to death by abortionists."
"Our conversation on this subject begins. I'm off on vacation for a couple weeks starting Monday; so I may not have a chance to reflect on your replies till after I get back."
-------------
On
The Wire... Nat Hentoff sounds off against what our new dictator
president-elect has planned.
Monday,
November 24, 2008 The
Washington Times
HENTOFF: New president, more abortions
Nat
Hentoff
OP-ED:
Our
new president-elect has not equivocated in his reverence for abortion rights.
Speaking at a Planned Parenthood event on July 17, 2007, Barack Obama pledged
that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. It
is the most radical attack yet on the deep beliefs of millions of American
pro-lifers.
As
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, a champion of the bill, exulted: "Women
would have the absolute right to choose whether to continue or terminate their
pregnancies before fetal viability, and that right would be protected by this
legislation. The Freedom of Choice Act also supersedes any law, regulation or
local ordinance that impinges on a woman's right to choose," she said. With
regard to "fetal viability" - the ability to survive on his or her own
- the ardent supporters of FOCA slide over the language in the surviving 2007
version of FOCA bill that, as Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life
Committee points out, "contains no objective criteria for 'viability,' but
rather, requires that the judgment regarding 'viability' be left entirely in the
hands of 'the attending physician.' "
Guess
who that would be? The abortionist! There's more. The restrictions on "the
absolute right to choose" would also apply even after "viability"
if a woman wanted to abort what would undeniably be seen during pregnancy as a
baby in ultrasound for reasons of her health.
But
the Supreme Court in 1973 (the same year as Roe v. Wade) in Doe v.
It's
no wonder that Mr. Obama opposed the Supreme Court decision that eventually
ruled against the lawfulness of "partial-birth abortion," which the
late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (who was pro-choice) said was
infanticide.
The
rabidly pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act Mr. Obama supports would - unless
there is an unlikely successful filibuster in the Democratic controlled Senate -
invalidate parental-notification laws; any state's requirement of full
disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion; and (can
you believe this?) all laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed
physicians from performing abortions because such restrictions might
"interfere" with access to this absolute right to abortion.
This
is respect for women? As of now, before our abortion president gets his wish, 26
states have informed-consent laws, 36 have parental-involvement laws and 34
states have restrictions on funding for abortions.
Also
disposed of will be the "conscience rights" in many states. They
include, Mr. Johnson reminds us, "all laws allowing doctors, nurses or
other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health care
providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions." What about
religiously based hospitals and clinics that refuse to perform abortions? At
presidential press conferences, can we depend on at least some members of the
Matt
Bowman, an attorney with the pro-life Alliance Defense Fund, projects that if
FOCA is passed into law (Lifenews.com, Sept. 24), there will be an increase in
abortion "by 125,000 per year" in the United States because of the
abolition of laws in states that have parental involvement, informed-consent
laws and funding restrictions. "Even with this minimum," Mr. Bowman
adds, "that's 125,000 children that were not killed this year because we
(still) have these laws, and 125,000 (added to the existing 1.3 million
abortions) who will be killed in 2009" and beyond.
On
Jan. 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Mr. Obama said with pride:
"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of
reproductive justice and have consistently had a 100 percent pro-choice rating
with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America ... To truly honor (Roe v.
Wade), we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves
and their children from violent relationships."
What,
Mr. President, can be more violent than murder by abortion? Alveda King, niece
of Dr. Martin Luther King, said on Nov. 11 (Lifenews.com) that "his dream
of full equality remains just a dream as long as unborn children continue to be
treated no better than property. The elections are over. The pro-life battle
begins anew."
Nat Hentoff's column for The Washington Times appears on Mondays.
On The Wire... from American Life League
Wednesday
STOPP Report November
19, 2008
In
this issue:
Planned Parenthood pushing another major bill
What is the Prevention First Act?
What is the status of the Prevention First Act?
What does Planned Parenthood say about the Prevention First Act?
Planned Parenthood also pushing PFA in states
What can you do?
Planned Parenthood pushing another major bill
We
continue our analysis of Planned Parenthood’s plans following the election of
Barack Obama. Last week, we told you about the Freedom of Choice Act. This week,
we will give you a quick look at another major piece of legislation being
championed by PP and supported by Obama: the Prevention First Act.
What is the Prevention First Act?
The
Prevention First Act has several components, all of which would fund programs
that are promoted by Planned Parenthood and would put millions more of our tax
dollars into PP’s coffers. These components include
•
Making Title X (family planning) a permanent program and funding it at $700
million or more. Since its inception in 1970, Title X of the Health and Human
Services Act has always been a major funding source for PP. However, Title X is
not a permanent program and must be reauthorized every year. Title X was funded
at $300 million for fiscal year 2008. PP receives about 25 percent of the total
or $75 million. Thus, the PFA would more than double the tax dollars given to PP
($175 million) by this one program. It would also make Title X a permanent
program.
•
Mandating that health insurance programs that cover prescriptions must cover
abortifacient contraceptives. There are several reasons why some insurance
companies do not include birth control coverage in their policies. Chief among
them is that many of their customers belong to religions that are opposed to
birth control and do not want to be forced to pay for this coverage. The PFA
would take away the ability of consumers and insurance companies to seek the
coverage they want and would force every insurance plan that covers prescription
drugs to pay for birth control. This is an outrageous intrusion into the
religious beliefs of millions of Americans.
• Creating a government program to push abortifacient “emergency
contraception.” Selling emergency contraception is one of PP’s most
lucrative activities. PP routinely purchases Plan B for $4.25 a kit and then
sells it for $30 a kit, thus making a $25 profit on each one of the 1.5 million
it sells each year. But still, PP is not content. The PFA would create a
government-funded five-year “educational” program to promote emergency
contraception and drive even more Plan B business to PP.
•
Taking all federal money away from any hospital that refuses to administer
emergency contraception (an abortifacient), to rape victims. Many hospitals,
doctors and pharmacists have problems dispensing emergency contraception because
of its abortifacient nature. Indeed, in the above-listed educational program, PP
wants the government to tell the public that emergency contraception works by
“preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a
uterus.” Yet, this section of the PFA demands that hospitals tell patients
that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.” In addition, it
would require that every hospital, even Catholic, Baptist and others opposed to
abortion for religious reasons, MUST provide patients with emergency
contraception or lose all of their federal funding.
•
Creating additional massive government funding for PP-style sex education
programs (abstinence-only programs are specifically excluded from funding).
Under the subprogram named “At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Act,” the PFA would create a program to conduct research and educational
sessions for the purpose of reducing teen pregnancy. All kinds of organizations
(e.g. Planned Parenthood) would receive taxpayer funds, and all kinds of
theories and ways of preventing teen pregnancy could be researched and taught
EXCEPT abstinence-only programs. The PFA specifically stipulates that “funds
under this section are not intended for use by abstinence-only education
programs. Abstinence-only education programs that receive federal funds through
the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, the Administration for Children and
Families, the Adolescent Family Life Program, and any other program that uses
the definition of ‘abstinence education’ found in section 510(b) of the
Social Security Act are ineligible for funding.”
•
Permanently including family planning services as part of the Medicaid program.
The Medicaid program was never intended to pay for family planning services.
Yet, beginning in the 1990s, states started applying for Medicaid waivers to
allow them to add family planning for Medicaid-eligible recipients. The federal
government has approved these waivers, and their approval must be renewed, on a
state-by-state basis, every five years. Because of the waivers, Medicaid is now
the largest single program providing taxpayer money for PP. The PFA would do
away with the need for waivers and write family planning services permanently
into Medicaid, thereby opening the floodgates of taxpayer funding for PP even
wider.
What is the status of the Prevention First Act?
It
is important to note that the election ushers in a new Congress in January. The
current Congress, the 110th Congress, will cease to exist at the end of this
year. In January, the 111th Congress will begin, and all of the newly elected
members of the House and Senate will be part of the 111th Congress. All existing
bills must be re-introduced in the new Congress and assigned new numbers, and
the legislative process for each of them will start "from scratch."
The current House bill (H.R.819) was originally introduced on February 5, 2007,
was immediately referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce (in addition to
the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Labor), and no further
action was taken. It has 164 co-sponsors. The current Senate bill (S.21) was
originally introduced on January 4, 2007 and referred to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, where it still sits. It has 34
co-sponsors, including Barack Obama.
Again,
these current bills will disappear with the start of the new Congress, and the
bills will have to be introduced once more. Under normal circumstances, it would
take months for them to be voted on, but they could be fast-tracked.
What does Planned Parenthood say about the Prevention First Act?
Here
is the statement by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, on
February 5, 2007, when the Prevention First Act was introduced in the House:
Today's
introduction of the Prevention First Act signals a real step forward for health
care in America. Currently, more than 17 million women in the U.S. need publicly
funded family planning services, and there is not enough funding to meet the
need. Nearly 750,000 teenagers in the U.S. will become pregnant this year.
Prevention is the key to building strong, healthy families, and the Prevention
First Act will help women and couples plan their families, plan their futures,
and plan parenthood by expanding access to critically needed family planning
education and reproductive health care services.
On
February 13, Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates and their
supporters will hold a nationwide Day of Action, calling on elected officials in
all 50 states and the District of Columbia to pass the Prevention First Act and
state legislation that are key to preventing unintended pregnancy and reducing
the need for abortion by expanding access to birth control and real sex
education.
Planned Parenthood also pushing PFA in states
In the statement above, Planned Parenthood mentions its intent to push PFA not
only at the federal level, but also at the state level. A typical state bill is
one that is currently being considered in Ohio. It is known as House
Bill 251 and also Senate Bill 179. Among other things, these bills seek to
do the following:
•
Force insurance companies to cover birth control if they cover other
prescriptions;
• Mandate that every hospital in the state provide emergency contraception to
rape victims and tell the victims that emergency contraception does not cause an
abortion;
• Replace abstinence-only sex ed with programs that gives equal time to the
use of birth control and don’t tell children to save sex for marriage;
• Put taxpayer money into “teen pregnancy prevention” programs;
• Do away with the right of pharmacies and/or pharmacists to refuse to sell
products that conflict with their religious beliefs;
• Rewrite the Ohio health funding bill to ensure that PP is directly eligible
for taxpayer money for family planning services.
What can you do?
Despite
the fact that Obama is actively supporting this horrible bill and the Democratic
Party is firmly in control of the both chambers of the United States Congress,
passage of this bill is not inevitable. We have spoken with a number of pro-life
members of Congress and their staffs, and they believe that the Prevention First
Act can be stopped.
But,
in order to do so, it will take an active campaign of pro-lifers across the
country. Here is what you can do:
1.
Contact your members of Congress and let them know how you feel about the
Prevention First Act.
2. Watch for updates in future Wednesday STOPP Reports. We will let you know as
soon as the bills are introduced in the next Congress and give you the correct
bill numbers.
3. Monitor the activity in your state and take action to prevent a state PFA
from passing.
Mormons, Knights of Columbus
Face Chilling Threats and More Vandalism for Prop. 8 Support
By Kathleen Gilbert
OLYMPIA, Washington, November 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Homosexuals are continuing to vent their rage against Mormons for supporting true marriage in California, and are issuing increasingly hostile threats to accompany a steady stream of vandalism.
"The Mormon church (just like most churches) is a cesspool of filth," writes the anarchist homosexual group Bash Back!, in a statement flaunting the vandalism of an Olympia Mormon stake center over the weekend. "It is a breeding ground for oppression of all sorts and needs to be confronted, attacked, subverted and destroyed."
The group fumed over the Mormon Church's "disgusting commercials" and "their despicable sermons," saying, "The Church has to pay.”
"The Mormon church teaches us to hate our bodies, not to trust ourselves or our desires," the statement continued. "This ends up deforming us as healthy sexual and communal beings. This is unacceptable.
"Let this be a warning to the Mormon church, dissolve completely or be destroyed. The choice is yours."
According to the police report, vandals spray painted phrases such as "pro-gay" and "feel no shame in your love" as well as anarchy symbols on the doorposts and back wall of the building.
The Bash Back! statement acknowledged that the group committed the vandalism "because we are angry at the amount of money and propaganda that the Mormon church pumped into the homophobic Proposition 8 campaign." Proposition 8 is the California amendment, passed by popular vote on Nov. 4, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Mormons were among many religious groups supporting the true marriage ballot measure, joining Catholics, Muslims, orthodox Jews, and evangelical Christians.
At least eight Mormon buildings in Salt Lake City, the religion's headquarters, have also been vandalized with spray-painted epithets criticizing the church's support of Proposition 8.
Envelopes containing white powder were sent to Mormon temples in both Los Angeles and Salt Lake City on Thursday, forcing the buildings to be evacuated before an FBI hazardous material crew determined that the powder was innocuous.
Anthrax mailed as white powder to lawmakers and media outlets killed five people in 2001 following the World Trade Center attacks, and since then there have been occasional reports of harmless lookalike powders mailed as a hoax.
A similar envelope, sent from California, arrived on the same day at a mailroom and printing plant at the Knights of Columbus headquarters in New Haven. Results on the powder's identity have not been confirmed. The Knights of Columbus have also been targeted for supporting Proposition 8, having raised slightly over 1 million dollars for the "Yes on 8" campaign.
Homosexualist protesters are also boycotting and picketing business owners who supported the proposition, assisted by AntiGayBlacklist.com, where the names of individuals who contributed to Yes on 8 are publicized and subjected to boycotting and other pressures.
The LA Times reports that one restaurant, El Coyote, came under siege by hundreds of protesters because the owner's daughter, Marjorie Christoffersen, had privately contributed $100 to Yes on 8. The rioting became so out of control at one point that the LA Police Department was forced to quell the disturbance in riot gear.
Christoffersen met with protesters and even broke down in tears, but the picketers were not satisfied, and continued their protest both in front of the store and online, where they deluged the restaurant with bad reviews.
"She had a chance to make nice and blew it. I was almost feeling a tiny bit of sympathy for her. Not no more!!" was one blogger's response.
"No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement.
"Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials,” said campaign co-manager Frank Schubert.
"Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening. Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger while churches are being attacked? And where is Senator Dianne Feinstein while people are losing their jobs and grandmothers are being bullied by an angry mob?"
From My Mail Box... What to do, what to do? an open letter to my sister, Eve Sanchez-Silver. --Pablo
Doc,
All
I have been and keep hearing is what barack ohbummer, (I refuse to call him the
president. The thought of doing so stirs the bile in my stomach), is going to
do, I.E.: force tax payers to pay for abortion programs here and abroad; un-sign
legislation removing protections from late-term abortions; sign the Freedom of
Choice Act; on and on… ad infinitum.
The
question is what are we going to do while this loose cannon fulfills the
promises he made to his supporters? There is no question as to how he won: by
promising change, throwing huge amounts of dollars at his campaign, and spinning
the truth. Just what will change remains to be seen. He promoted his
agenda of death to the people who could best make it happen. Organizations like
The International Planned Parenthood Federation, NARAL, and poor misguided
citizens desperate for a change from the Bush-ranch-cow-patty way of doing
things that has been bringing this country to it's knees… simple people who
did not understand, or were ignorant as to the complex ramifications of
ohbummer's agenda. For instance, he won the black vote because most black
Americans were unaware of the over 13 million black babies murdered in and out
of the womb since Roe v Wade. And lest we forget, he sweetened the pot for
money-hungry politicians so full of self-interest, special interest, and
personal ladder-climbing agendas.
I
am ashamed to be an American.
So
what can we do to stop this megalomaniac, Doc? The stress is overwhelming me.
Urbrother
who loves his country
On My Mind… The pangs of a dying nation. -- Pablo
The Electoral College Rules
What
is happening to our country? Can anybody say “Electoral College”? Does
anybody understand what that means? What it boils down to is this: in a
presidential race we the people may overwhelmingly vote for candidate
“A”, but we may lose the election to candidate “B”, because the
Electoral College can go against the will of the people and select a candidate
from their own agenda.
Just
what is the Electoral College?
The
Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives who formally
select the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964 the
Electoral College has had 538 electors. The Electoral College
is an example of an indirect
election. (1)
Rather than directly voting
for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for
electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be
President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates [2]
and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential
candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.(3)
Most states allow voters to
choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential
and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the
most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state.
U.S. presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a
combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than
campaigning to win the most votes nationally.
What this boils down to is
that we, the people, can vote for candidate “A”, but the Electoral College
can select candidate “B”.
This is no longer a country
by the people, for the people. Not when we
elect an Electoral College that can vote its own special interest,
lobbyist, or personal agendas. The Electoral College can be bought.
I do not know how it can be
done, but I believe it is time for a change. The current administration (elect)
will exercise it’s own agenda, unless we the people step up and
"fight" for change that will better reflect the will of the people.
(Wikipedia cited):
The
number of electors is equal to the total membership of the United States
Congress (composed of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators) plus three
electors from the District of Columbia.
Electors
are not required by federal law to honor a pledge, however in the
overwhelming majority of cases they do vote for the candidate to whom they
are pledged. Additionally many states have laws designed to ensure that
electors vote for pledged candidates.
This process has been normalized to the point that the names of the electors appear on the ballot only in a handful of states.
Can you hear the woeful pangs of our nation? If you stop and listen you can hear the sounds carried by an ill-wind. Do you hear it? I can.
(all italics from Wikipedia excerpts mine -- Pablo)
On My Mind... It is over. Now what remains is to rally and design a plan of action. --Pablo
This is a sad state of affairs, citizens. We have become a divided country, no longer indivisible, with freedom and justice for all, a country where our voices go unheard. Now that John McCain chose to concede, the battle lines will be drawn. How long this new travesty of a government will last is anybody's guess. We must make our great nation a model of By The People, For The People! We must return the government of this great nation of ours to its citizens. Do not give up the good fight!
May God have mercy on our souls, and this nation!