Palin + Down’s Sydrome = Life
By Valerie Jane | September 4, 2008
I rejoiced when I heard that Sarah Palin never even considered abortion when she discovered the baby she was carrying had Down’s Syndrome. This got me thinking causing so much smoke coming out of my ears that the smoke alarms went off.
I’ve heard many times that over 90% of down’s syndrome children are aborted. I set out to find out if this was true. Unfortunately it is. According to a 1999 research paper from the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health:
Termination rates varied across conditions. They were highest following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome (92 per cent; CI: 91 per cent to 93 per cent)
92% of children with down’s syndrome are aborted. The definition of Eugenics is "the study of methods of improving the human race, esp. by selective breeding [Greek eugenēs well-born]". The definition of Genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." This is so bad that many medical dictionaries now have the term ‘abortion eugenic’ or ‘eugenic abortion‘ in them. How can the pro-choice crowd not see the evil in this? How can the genocide of a race be a "choice"?
Now, all this got me thinking again. How many false positives are there to this test? According to Medscape from WebMD there is a 7% false positive rate. (I saw on other websites anywhere from 5 - 10% false positives so I chose the research that was the middle ground.)
It is now time for a little math. According to the National Down’s Syndrome Society there is a child born with Down’s Syndrome for every 733 live births. This is going to make doing statistics a bit difficult. If 92% of children with Down’s are aborted then one would have to include those 92% in the figures to find out how many children without Down’s are being aborted today.
In 2006 there were 4,265,996 babies born. This would mean there was approximately 5,800 babies born with Down’s Syndrome. If 92% of their "imperfect" brothers and sisters were aborted then we would have to add 5,336 to the number of children diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome. 11,136 women were pregnant with so called "imperfect" children according to our tolerant society. If all these pregnancies were tested we would have 780 false positives. Assuming all these pregnancies were tested and 8% choose life there are 717 healthy babies aborted.
How can we as a nation accept that 717 healthy babies were aborted for fear of an
imperfect child? How can the liberals scream they are tolerant when they allow these healthy citizens to be killed in the war for their illusion of reproductive freedom?
These liberals better be careful. They must stop this genocide now before we can diagnose more genetic imperfections. What will they do if homosexuality is discovered to be genetic? How would they feel if these were the people targeted for abortion because of imperfection? What about known genetic learning disabilities like AD/HD or how about bi-polar or Autism? What happens when we can diagnose those in utero? Would it still be okay to choose abortion?
Thank God for Sarah Palin. Maybe now society will truly see the horror of what we are doing. There are no guarantee’s even when all tests are done. My children are "imperfect" according to American standards. It is not my choice to destroy them because I don’t want my life to be hindered by such imperfection.
*1st picture is Sarah, Todd and baby Trig Palin
*2nd picture is Katherine Mobey who publicly announced her 2nd trimester abortion of her Down’s Syndrome child. She felt her body was "contaminated" from the pregnancy. She is an example of how "tolerant" we as a society really are.
Topics: Editorials | 1 Comment »
Obama and Rev. Wright
By Valerie Jane | September 3, 2008
I knew there was a reason why it was so important we look at Obama and his connection to Reverend Wright, but no one has explained it as well as Dr. Ergun Mehmet Canar.
You can read his article here.
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
Sarah Palin is Pro-Choice
By Valerie Jane | September 2, 2008
What?? You must think I’ve gone off my rocker. Sarah Palin, the woman who happily gave birth to a child with Downs Syndrome and the mother who happily accepts her daughters unplanned pregnancy with love and support is pro-choice? Yes, she is for choice. At least if your a college student that is.
Let me explain. Right now our American College Campuses have no support for a woman who wants to choose life. The only choices for these students is abort or drop out. As a matter of fact, most colleges have been proven to bully students into not being on campus while pregnant.
So what does Sarah Palin support? She supports offering pregnant students more choices than abort or make it more difficult to establish a career. This is something that the national pro-choicers want to stop. How does she support this? She is a member of Feminist For Life who is trying to pass legislation called The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act. This act will give colleges money to provide students with resources who choose life. The college pro-choice organizations are helping with this, because they also believe that women actually do have the right to choices.
Sarah Palin understands that in order to stop the slaughter of innocent lives we must provide support for women who choose life. In no way does this inhibit a woman from choosing abortion. However, organizations like NARAL and pro-choice individuals would like to stop this legislation. Go here for an example. Nowhere in that article does it discuss exactly how Feminists for Life is going to the courts to actually help women.
Allow me to show proof of real choice - Elizabeth Cady Stanton legislation from the government website. Read the actual words and then come back and tell me how Feminists For Life is trying to stop abortion.
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
What does Pelosi and The Scarecrow have in common?
By Valerie Jane | August 27, 2008
They both need brains. Of course, the Scarecrow eventually got a brain because he actually went out in search of one. Pelosi just can’t seem to find the yellow brick road or the Wizard.
Pelosi showed her true ignorance on Meet The Press this past weekend by responding to a question about when life begins:
“I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition….St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
When Tom Brokow tried to correct her by saying the Catholic Church strongly believes life begins at conception she said:
“I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.”
She states, incorrectly, what St. Augustine said and then thinks this discussion about when life begins has only been settled these past 50 years. Do you think someone should let her in on a little secret - St. Augustine was born in 354 AD. I may not be very good in math, but I think that is just a tad over 50 years, don’t you? She also forgot to actually read what St. Augustine said. He preached that abortion was gravely wrong no matter when the baby is ensouled.
According to an article by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League St. Augustine said that an embryo received a soul at 46 days. That is 6 1/2 weeks. 3 months is over 13 weeks. (Remember - only one month out of the year has exactly 4 weeks in it. All months almost 4 1/2 weeks in them.) She is 1 1/2 months off. This may not seem like much, but one is an embryo and the other is a fetus. Huge difference is the land of science.
If she truley believed what St. Augustine said, which is what her “office” said, then she would be adamantly against abortion. The majority of abortions take place at 6 - 8 weeks of pregnancy. St. Augustine said life begins at 6 1/2 weeks. This means well over 80% of all abortions take place after St. Augustine’s theory of when life begins.
If you think this is all messed up, just hold on. Did you know that the Church is wrong because some Catholics disagree with it? At least that is what Pelosi thinks. Who wants to tell her that it is the Church that teaches what morality is and it is the people that follow that morality. One of the Catholic teachings is when in doubt, side with the lesser of two evils. I would say not aborting an unwanted pregnancy would be lesser of an evil than abortion. Actually, is allowing the pregnancy to continue naturally even an evil?
Topics: Facts, Editorials | 1 Comment »
"Pro-Choice" Confusion
By Valerie Jane | August 3, 2008
I have wrote many times that the person who came up with the phrase "pro-choice" was brilliant. If it was a marketing firm I hope they got a special bonus for such brilliance.
Why is this such a wonderful phrase? Because all it does is cause confusion. Who isn’t pro-choice? We li
ve in a country where the idea of freedom is almost a religion. We live in a country where we believe everyone has rights to religion, speech, education, vote, etc……. So why would anyone not agree with choice? Brilliant.
The latest Gallop pole (may 2008) really shows just how confused the American population is when it comes to choice on abortion. It is also interesting how the media reports these poles. We heard on the news that 82% of American’s polled believed abortion should be legal. So why is this such an issue when so many Americans want it legal? Because they didn’t tell you the entire story. Here it is according to Gallop:
May 2008:
28% think abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
13% think abortion should be legal under most circumstances.
40% think abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances.
17% think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
That changes things doesn’t it? That 82% of American’s wanting it to be legal ran the gamut of opinions from no laws to extreme laws.
So, lets’s continue the confusion. If 40% of Americans want abortion to be legal in only a few circumstances, then logic would say that 40% of Americans want the laws to be more strict, right? Wrong. Only 31% (Jan 2008) say the laws need to be more strict. What happened to the 9% that think abortion should be illegal in most circumstances? Now watch this math -
Abortion laws should be more strict - 31%
Abortion laws should stay the same - 42%
Abortion laws should be less strict - 21%
HUH? 17% want abortion legal in all circumstances however 21% believe laws should be less strict? Dizzy yet? How’s this for some added motion sickness -
33% of Americans think Roe V Wade should be overturned.
I need a Dramamine!
Let’s just add some more fuzzy math. What are these certain circumstances anyway? (numbers from 2003 or 2005 based on when the poll was done. From 2003 - 2008 the percentages of people who favor/oppose etc. remained consistent.)
Nov. 2005:
Favor parental consent for girls under age 18: 69%
Favor spousal notification: 64%May 2003:
Legal if woman’s life is endangered: 82%
Legal if child is thought to be mentally disabled: 50%
Legal if child thought to be born with life-threatening illness: 60%
Legal if pregnancy from rape/incest: 72%
Legal if woman just doesn’t want a child now: 41%
50% of people think mental illness is a good enough reason for abortion? How far of a digression would it be if I began to talk about Eugenics? And only 41% of people agree with 93% of abortions today. Oi! Wasn’t it only 28% of people that wanted what 41% agree with? Or is it 41% of people agree with 28% of people?
Now, what does all this have to do with Pro-Choice? Because we have gotten so focused on choice vs life that we have forgotten about the facts. These numbers prove that American’s have no clue what the laws are concerning 
abortion. And they have no clue what Abortion is and how it is affecting women.
We all have some delusion that this reproductive control has saved us somehow. Yet after 35 years we are still seen as sex objects with no equality making less money without respect.
Now for a true digression - why do the women at the Fox News Channel have to look like they are about to go to a "hotel" for a "date"? Is looking like a whore really the way to get a career now a days? At least they are brainy sex objects. Perhaps that will save us somehow. We can only hope, for our children’s sake.
Topics: Facts | No Comments »
Obama and Another Lie
By Valerie Jane | August 2, 2008
I have been letting the media hash out all of Obama’s lies. I have been surprised that this has been happening. However no one is catching him on this one. 
In the Relevant Magazine article Obama is quoted as saying:
“The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that stated you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster ”
He is so full of it. It had been established through US supreme court (and various state supreme courts): Stenburg vs Carhart; Planned Parenthood of central NJ VS Farmer; Roe v Wade; PP vs Casey just to name a few all agreed that the location of the infant did not matter. Under the law before the Born Alive Infants Protection Act the infant that survived an abortion had no legal rights under the constitution because the only reason that child was born was because the Mother wanted an abortion. So the “abortion” was considered finalized upon death of the “aborted” child no matter when death occured. There would be no law in the Illinois senate that would protect such a child because the mother wanted an abortion, not a live child.
As stated in the hearings for H.R. 2175 The Born Alive Infants Protection Act:
“the location of an infant’s body at the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion—delivered partly outside the body of the mother—to be of no legal significance in ruling on the constitutionality of the Nebraska law. Indeed, two members of the majority, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, went so far as to say that it was ”irrational” for the Nebraska legislature to take the location of the infant at the point of death into account. 9 Instead, implicit in the Carhart decision was the pernicious notion that a partially-born infant’s entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent upon whether or not the partially-born child’s mother wants him or her.”
also in H.R. 2175
“in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer ,10 in the course of striking down New Jersey’s partial-birth abortion ban. According to the Third Circuit, under Roe and Carhart, it is ”nonsensical” and ”based on semantic machinations” and ”irrational line-drawing” for a legislature to conclude that an infant’s location in relation to his or her mother’s body has any relevance in determining whether that infant may be killed.11
Instead, the Farmer Court repudiated New Jersey’s classification of the prohibited procedure as being a ”partial birth,” and concluded that a child’s status under the law, regardless of his or her location, is dependent upon whether the mother intends to abort the child or to give birth. The Farmer Court stated that, in contrast to an infant whose mother intends to give birth, an infant who is killed during a partial-birth abortion is not entitled to the protections of the law because ”[a] woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth.”
So basically if the mother didn’t “want” the baby then it didn’t matter how or when the baby died. If a woman wants an abortion - then she gets a dead child no matter what happens.
Obama, allow me to introduce you to a little thing called the truth. Learn the concept. It’s not difficult.
Topics: Editorials | No Comments »
« Previous Entries