Friday, November 16, 2012

Cultural Imperialism: The Sexual Rights Agenda

Cultural Imperialism: The Sexual Rights Agenda

( this can be read online..)
Obama’s Duplicity
In 2008, shortly after he was elected president of the United States, Barack Obama’s new representative to the United Nations was supporting a provision in closed UN negotiations endorsing a radical document called the “International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights.” Among other things, these guidelines call for the legalization of prostitution and same-sex marriage, and graphic sexuality education for children in all nations.
When confronted by the president of Family Watch International who asked why the Obama administration was supporting the International Guidelines, especially since during his campaign Obama had said he was against same-sex marriage, the U.S. representative responded, “We have been instructed to support it.”
So, almost from the first days of his administration, President Obama was saying one thing at home and pushing totally opposite policies at the United Nations. Thus signaled what has been a drastic, across-the-board shift in U.S. policy positions on family issues at the United Nations—away from protecting the family as the U.S. had done under the Bush administration—and embarking on an aggressive course to force the radical and highly controversial “sexual rights” agenda on nations around the world.
In doing so the U.S. operated in an arrogant and often bullying manner on these issues and showed an insensitivity and lack of concern toward deeply held religious and cultural beliefs in Islamic and African nations. In short, the Obama administration, since its inception, has been engaging in cultural imperialism at its worst.
It should not be surprising, then, that this radical shift in U.S. foreign policy is generating growing resistance, resentment and anger in these nations.
Anti-American Sentiment
Most Americans are unaware that President Obama has issued a directive to all U.S. embassies and agencies engaged in foreign activities to make advancing LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) “rights” a “top priority.” Very few are aware of the harm this directive is doing to U.S foreign policy interests in countries around the world.
Disturbing events in Libya, where the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. citizens were brutally murdered, generated intense national attention in the U.S. Multiple protests erupted in other Arab and Islamic countries. In light of the widespread protests in the Middle East one has to question the wisdom of Obama’s foreign policy priority to promote sexual rights abroad especially in countries like Libya. Is it possible that Obama’s aggressive support of the international sexual rights agenda has contributed to the hostile anti-American environment in these countries?
Cultural Imperialism: The Sexual Rights Agenda was created in response to the growing number of complaints from diplomats in Islamic and African countries who are extremely upset with the Obama administration’s attempts to impose his sexual rights agenda on their people. A number of these diplomats expressed to Family Watch International staff and others their hope that if Obama’s aggressive pursuit of the sexual rights agenda were exposed to the American people, citizens would take action to stop him.
In an Islamic country like Libya, where homosexual behavior is a punishable offense, publicly issuing a White House directive to all U.S. agencies and ambassadors, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, instructing them to advance LGBT rights in the countries where they serve was certain to generate intense opposition and resentment.
Some examples of this backlash have been widely reported. Undoubtedly, some countries are afraid to push back for fear of losing U.S. aid money. In June 2011, for example, to celebrate what Obama proclaimed was “Gay Pride” month, the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan held a “Gay Pride” event to promote LGBT rights in Pakistan. This blatant, in-your-face attack on Islamic teachings and culture fueled anti-American sentiment at the time and initiated major protests throughout Pakistan. It also led to official condemnation of the U.S. promotion of LGBT rights in Pakistan in the national legislature. Pakistan’s largest Islamist party labeled this U.S. sponsored event an act of “social and cultural terrorism.”
In December 2011, at a UN event celebrating International Human Rights Day, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced, “Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” She then carefully laid out President Obama’s aggressive campaign to promote “LGBT rights” worldwide. In doing so, Mrs. Clinton completely ignored the widespread position held by many UN Member States that while homosexuals, like all people, deserve to have their basic human rights protected, they do not qualify for special human rights based on their sexual behavior alone. This position is strongly upheld by both Christian and Islamic religious teachings, cultural norms and mores, yet Clinton categorically dismissed that fact and likely created even more resentment toward the United States.
One example of the pushback was a particularly eloquent and thoughtful speech at a UN conference by a Nigerian diplomat speaking on behalf of the African voting bloc.
Here are some excerpts from that speech:
“. . . The heads of states of governments of the African Union adopted by consensus a decision on shared values during its summit in Kampala, Uganda, on July 2010 . . . resolved not to accept or integrate concepts which have not been universally defined and accepted in international human rights law. The African leaders thereby rescind the obsession by other regions or groups to impose their own value system on other regions which are not shared by such regions.”
“The African Group does not support the current haphazard and disjointed manner in which virtually the thematic special procedures of the human rights council have many references to the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity . . . we do not want any discrimination against anybody under any condition whether sexual or otherwise. But we have to state clearly and forcefully that this concept stands against everything we stand for in Africa . . . For the Western countries it may be that it does not matter anymore because going to church there means preparing to die and not for the living… Our own concept of children is that children come from the combination of the man and the wife, under the family husband and wife. It also touches on what we regard as family because for us family stands at the heart of everything we do. We live for the family.”
“. . . right now every issue, every mandate holder, every discussion reduces the problem of Africa just to sexual orientation. It is unforgiving and unfair. And finally, we have to state clearly, that our leaders as African heads of State and governments clearly stated that every nation has the right to protect its culture and issues of life. That is every nation, particularly the African regions has the right of their culture and religions. And finally, no culture of that group should be imposed on the other. In effect, we do not hold for those that want sexual orientation to be a way of life in their cities and villages, any construct, but what we are emphasizing is that you maintain your way of life while we maintain our own.”
While Obama’s initiative was ostensibly aimed at preventing violence against homosexuals and transgenders—an objective on which there is already wide international agreement—his initiative does not stop there. Based on Mrs. Clinton’s speech, Obama’s initiative clearly is also intended to pressure developing countries using strong-arm tactics to mainstream homosexual and transgender behavior and “rights” into their societies by changing their national laws and policies. This announcement naturally increased resentment against the United States in Islamic countries and other countries that also oppose the sexual rights agenda.
Bullying and Blackmail: Obama Threatens Developing Countries with Withdrawal of Humanitarian AID
Obama’s directive states its intent to “expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct.” However, in very carefully worded terms, Obama’s directive also reveals its plans to do what officials from developing countries have reported that the Obama administration has already been doing since taking office, that is threatening to withdraw U.S. financial aid to vulnerable countries unless they advance LGBT rights in their laws.
In section three of the Obama executive order, titled, “Foreign Assistance to Protect Human Rights and Advance Nondiscrimination,” it states that “Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons.” (Emphasis added.)
This White House directive is intended to be observed by all U.S. “agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development,” including “the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense Justice, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.”
And while the Obama administration claims that this directive should not be interpreted to mean his administration will be blackmailing poor countries unless they accept LGBT “rights,” foreign officials, informally have reported that this is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing in some countries.
In addition, this administration has not been forthcoming with the details of the implementation of this policy. Obama’s administration still has not produced documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in February 2011 asking for copies of all communications between the U.S. government and foreign embassies relating to discussions on sexual rights and sexual orientation. The U.S. government has acknowledged that many documents exist but, despite repeated requests, has not made this information available.
As part of Obama’s directive, each U.S. embassy and the departments listed previously were required to report within 90 days what they had done to promote gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights in the countries in which they work. A number of U.S. ambassadors have boasted on their websites about the ways they have implemented this directive with U.S. tax dollars. In one case, the U.S. government even funded a concert by Lady Gaga to promote LGBT rights.
Also adding additional fuel to the fire, as part of Obama’s new sexual rights initiative, Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama administration has set aside $3 million in U.S. tax dollars to fund LGBT activists groups in foreign countries.
And finally, to make the Obama foreign policy initiative even more infuriating to many foreign governments, the Obama policy allows LGBT rights groups to determine what constitutes “discrimination, homophobia and intolerance.” These organizations are to be given funding and training to document anything they consider to be a violation of their claimed human rights.
LGBT activists around the world already claim their “rights” are violated by laws protecting man/woman marriage, laws preferring mother/father families for adopted children, and sex-ed curricula in schools that do not also teach the mechanics of homosexual sex. Many of these activists also consider any kind of therapy for people seeking help for unwanted same-sex attraction to be a human rights violation. And, finally, they believe any religion that teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong or that it can be harmful is in violation of human rights law.
No one should be misled by what is at stake here. What the Obama directive actually does is to direct all U.S. agencies to pressure countries to not only legalize and destigmatize LGBT sexual behavior but to also encourage countries to embrace LGBT lifestyles. Below is the continuum of laws that will likely be pushed through Obama’s initiative:
1. Decriminalizing homosexual behavior in the countries where it is illegal. (This is necessary to be able to implement the rest of the list below because once homosexual sex is legal, governments can be pressured to grant special rights based on that behavior. As long as it remains illegal, at least as a civil offense, the rest of the LGBT agenda can never be realized.)
2. Prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people in housing or employment, regardless of the nature of the job.
3. Enacting “hate crimes” laws that criminalize criticism of same-sex behavior.
4. Legalizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.
5. Legalizing same-sex marriage.
6. Legalizing same-sex adoption.
7. Mandating comprehensive sexuality education in public schools, which teaches children that homosexual behavior is healthy and normal. (The Obama administration has been aggressively pushing for language in UN documents mandating countries to provide comprehensive sexuality education.)
Demonstrating Contempt for the Culture and Religious Tradition of Other Countries—Making Even More Enemies Abroad
As proof that the Obama administration’s initiative is intended to pursue other elements of the sexual rights agenda beyond pressuring countries to prohibit violence against LGBT people, we need look no further than what the administration has already done. In addition to hosting the “Gay Pride” event in Pakistan, here are a few more examples:
  • In June 2010, Mari Carmen Aponte, the ambassador Obama appointed to El Salvador, angered Salvadorans by writing an op-ed in a major newspaper encouraging their people to accept homosexuality. Her letter caused an uproar, and a group of Salvadoran people complained that Ms. Aponte’s action was “in clear violation of the rules of diplomacy and international law” and that she was imposing on Salvadorans “a new vision of foreign and bizarre values, completely alien to our moral fiber, intending to disguise this as ‘human rights.’”
  • U.S. embassies have hosted “Gay Pride” events in Hungary and Kenya resulting in particularly strong negative reactions, and U.S. ambassadors have also marched in “Gay Pride” events in Iceland and in the Czech Republic.
  • The Obama administration itself has issued a fact sheet boasting about advancing LGBT rights across the world and in the U.S. It is one thing to champion LGBT rights; it is clearly another thing to try to force them on U.S. allies and friends through blackmail, bullying and intimidation.
In closed negotiations away from the eyes of the American people, the Obama administration has established a pattern of promoting controversial sexual rights, including a major push for mandatory, explicit “comprehensive sexuality education” in cooperation with International Planned Parenthood Federation and other radical international sexual rights advocacy organizations. (See “Targeting Children” section on this website)
A number of UN representatives from developing nations have reported that the U.S. Department of State calls officials in their capitals to threaten and pressure them to accept provisions in UN documents under negotiation to protect “sexual orientation” and other sexual “rights.”
The Use of “Combatting Violence” Rhetoric as a Trojan Horse
The Obama administration has been very clever in labeling its push for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights as the protection of basic “human rights,” and specifically the human right to be free from violence. However, the actions of U.S. ambassadors and embassies carrying out his directive go way beyond just protecting people from violence.
We wholeheartedly support the Obama administration in condemning violence and hatred against people based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or for any other reason. However, we condemn the administration’s actions to threaten developing countries with the withdrawal of essential aid if they fail to change their laws to not only protect the lives of LGBT people from violence but also “respect” and “promote” controversial and unhealthy lifestyles—lifestyles that violate the religious and cultural values of many nations around the world and of many Americans as well. International law already prohibits violence against people regardless of their sexual orientation.
Obama Administration Pressures Developing Countries at the United Nations
In 2011, the Obama administration led an effort to gather signatures on a UN statement seeking to advance sexual orientation and gender identity. Hillary Clinton boasted that the U.S. was instrumental in getting more than 80 countries to sign the petition. A number of African UN delegates reported receiving threats and intense pressure from the U.S. to force them to sign the statement, which the Obama administration claimed was a huge victory for LGBT rights.
Obama Administration Pressures the UN Human Rights Council
In 2011, the Obama administration exerted intense pressure on the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) to support a resolution ostensibly proposed by South Africa (but actually spearheaded by the United States and several European countries behind the scenes). This resolution requested that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights conduct a study “to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation.” This was the first time an official UN document negotiated by a group of UN member states (although only those that are members of the Human Rights Council) had ever included the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
Also in 2011, as called for by the U.S.-backed HRC resolution, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report on “human rights” violations based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Unfortunately, rather than focus on preventing violence against LGBT individuals, which was the intent of the Human Rights Council’s mandate, the report builds on the Commissioner’s 2010-2011 strategic plan to have the world “embrace sexual minorities.” The report does this by falsely claiming that international human rights law requires UN Member States to mainstream acceptance of LGBT behavior in every aspect of society, allegedly to prevent “discrimination.” A policy brief outlining the serious problems with the OHCHR Report on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is posted here.
A Call to Government Officials and Responsible Citizens
Stand for Families Worldwide is a coalition that is taking the lead in raising awareness of the Obama administration’s aggressive advocacy of the sexual rights agenda and its bullying and intimidation tactics. The ultimate goal of this coalition is to get the U.S. Congress to stop the bullying and intimidation that is currently taking place. Even if you are not a U.S. citizen, please sign the petition and encourage others to watch the Cultural Imperialism documentary and then to sign the petition as well. Also, please do whatever you can to circulate the documentary in your country. The U.S. Congress needs to hear from people all around the world that the Obama administration’s cultural imperialism must stop. Send the link to this website to as many people as you can, including family members, your children, your spouse, your cousins, co-workers, church groups, club members, etc.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

MOST AGREE a law is required

Not much difference by gender ...


Friday, August 31, 2012

What if the child was a Human Being...We have a RightToKnow

Let’s have the abortion debate.. 

You can print article here...

Let’s have the abortion debate

Chris Wattie/REUTERS Photograph by: CHRIS WATTIE, REUTERS
Pro-choice advocates have passionately opposed MP Stephen Woodworth’s private member’s motion to set up a parliamentary committee to examine the definition of “human being” in the Criminal Code, arguing “there is nothing to discuss.” This definition provides that “a child becomes a human being” only at birth. They fear a discussion could result in some legal recognition of unborn children and the enactment of some law governing abortion.

The Canadian Medical Association has just adopted a resolution also recommending that parliamentarians should vote against such a discussion. They, too, are concerned that parliamentarians might agree that some law is needed and physicians would then run the risk of becoming criminals and going to jail. Obviously, they must not believe that their members would obey the law.

Pro-life advocates want the debate.
So what are the issues?
First, let’s be clear that scientifically, biologically and genetically each new, unique human life begins at conception, not at birth. Everything that the new human life will become is present at the moment of conception. The law could adopt a “legal fiction” that life begins at birth, or even some time after birth as some “post-birth abortion” (legalized infanticide) advocates urge, but it would be a fiction “for the purposes of the law.”

So, how does the law, in general, view the unborn child?
The common law of successions (the law of wills and estates) speaks of the child “en ventre sa mere”— the child in its mother’s womb. Provided a child was conceived before its grandparent’s death, that child, after it is born alive and viable, can inherit property left “to all my grandchildren.” Likewise, a child negligently injured while in utero, once born alive and viable, can sue for damages in tort. So the fetus exists for the law and is recognized by it.

What can the Criminal Code tell us about the law’s approach to unborn children? Codes are meant to be comprehensive in legally governing an area and their provisions should be interpreted both individually and within the context of the code as a whole.
In codifying the common law of crime, the Criminal Code enacted a comprehensive scheme to implement respect for human life from conception to death and even beyond. It prohibited abortion (except to save the life of the mother or, as of 1969, also to avoid a serious risk to her health); made it a crime to kill a child in the act of birth; from birth onward to natural death, the homicide offences — murder, manslaughter and infanticide — were applicable; and after death the offence of “desecration of the sepulchre”, showing disrespect for human remains, was pertinent.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case created a break in this chain of protection when it held that the then-current law on abortion was constitutionally invalid because, for an abortion to be legal, it had to be approved by a “therapeutic abortion committee.” The court found that not all women in Canada had access to such a committee, so a woman who needed an abortion to save her life or avoid a serious risk to her health might not be able to obtain a legal abortion. This, the majority held, constituted a breach of a woman’s constitutionally protected right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to “security of the person.”

The pro-choice lobby has used that case to argue there must be no legal limits on a woman’s choice of abortion. But the court, except for Madame Justice Bertha Wilson, did not base its ruling on a woman’s section 7 ”liberty right” or on “choice”, but on her right to “security of the person”, and even Justice Wilson accepted there were valid limits on liberty.

The court made clear that Parliament could legislate on abortion, provided the legislation complied with the Charter, and it anticipated that Parliament would do so. However, despite several attempts, no such legislation has been enacted.
In the light of this history, let’s look at section 223(1) of the Criminal Code, the section that would be discussed by a parliamentary committee, if the Woodworth’s private member’s motion were passed.

Section 223(1) provides:

A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.
This section was intended to protect the child as soon as it was born. The definition of “human being” in the section is meant to extend back to the first moment of full birth, the protections of human life from which we all benefit. It was not intended to limit or eliminate any legal protection of the unborn child (which was provided by the abortion offence), as pro-choice advocates are currently arguing it does. Because the culpable homicide offences — murder, manslaughter and infanticide — all involve killing a “human being”, as defined in section 223(1), an unborn child, who is never born alive, is excluded from being the victim of a homicide offence. In the past, reasons for that exclusion included that proof of causation was very difficult and conviction resulted in capital punishment.

Section 223 speaks primarily of the fetus (unborn child) as “a child” — “a child becomes a human being.” That’s to recognize it as human, because only humans have and are children: cats have kittens, dogs have puppies and hens have chickens. So, the unborn child is a “human being”, just not “within the meaning of” that term in the homicide provisions in the Criminal Code.

In short, in the scheme adopted in the Criminal Code, until the Morgentaler case, the abortion provision gave legal protection to the child up to birth and the homicide provisions immediately after birth, in an unbroken chain of protection of its life.

Section 223(2) also merits noting. It provides:

A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
Consequently, abortionists try to ensure a child is dead before it is delivered. If it is delivered alive, injuries inflicted on it before birth that cause its death can constitute culpable homicide.

So, the issue now requiring discussion is what legal protections unborn children should be given. At present, they have none in Canadian law, although the CMA in its own guidelines recognizes that at least abortion-on-demand after 20 weeks gestation — the time at which they place the viability of the unborn child (it has some chance of survival if born) — is ethically wrong.

There are a multitude of other ethical issues in this context that also need discussion. For instance, an increasing number of jurisdictions have banned abortion after 20 weeks gestation because research shows that the fetus suffers pain as it is dismembered and its skull crushed in order to deliver it dead. When we face up to such facts and what’s involved in abortion, we may decide that the current state of the law is not ethically acceptable.

The pro-choice lobby might be right to be worried about a debate taking place for yet another reason. New research on decision-making about ethics shows that we use a range of human ways of knowing in determining what is ethically right or wrong. What do human memory (history), human imagination, moral intuition, and our “examined emotions” tell us about the ethics of abortion? Engaging in a debate could give us more access to these ways of knowing.

Abortion is not just a private decision; it has major societal impact. This becomes obvious if we consider the cumulative effects of sex-selection abortion or on the basis of conditions such as Down’s syndrome, or the future impact of a rapidly increasing number of genetic tests. And although individual choice is the priority value of many pro-choice advocates, even they recognize that sometimes choice should be restricted to protect society and its values.

(An interesting example is the proposal of the leader of the Parti Québécois, Pauline Marois, in the current Quebec provincial election campaign, that French-speaking young adults should not be allowed to attend English CEGEPs, but must study in French language ones for the good of preserving a French-speaking society.)

The CMA also says that recognizing a fetus as a human being or granting human rights to a fetus could severely restrict the rights of pregnant women, even without regard to abortion. But countries with which Canada commonly compares itself all have laws governing abortion, without prosecuting women for their conduct or doctors. (Only North Korea and China have no law governing abortion.) Does the pro-choice lobby believe that all these countries are failing to respect women, as they allege enacting a Canadian law on abortion would entail?

More than 100,000 abortions are performed in Canada each year. I suggest that we need to recover our sense of amazement, wonder and awe at the creation of new human life and that an in depth discussion about what our law on abortion should be might help us in this regard.

(note: my emphasis)
Margaret Somerville is director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

As a women, You have a right to know....

just a few stories from across the border

North Carolina Panel Passes Women’s Right to Know Bill 

What Reduces Abortions?
Why Opponents of Pro-Life Laws are Wrong 

Thursday, August 16, 2012

I can’t believe these people are doctors

CALLING all prolife doctors to voice their Dissent from CMA> Canadian Medical Association vote to SHUT debate over humanity of unborn children.  WHAT!    and

UPDATE new article 
Ladies, according to Canadian Doctors they are quite satisfied with the Status Quo: You are not nessessarily carying a human being until they can see the child out of the womb....Makes complete sense to Doctors..( non-sense to me).ASK you DOCTOR.

Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth

A picture is worth a million pageviews

YES ! A picture is worth a million pageviews

Many pro-choicers surprisingly responded with shock and horror that this was happening and said they were completely unaware..

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

TODAY WE PAUSE Nellie Rests In Peace...

below a letter...
I would like to share with you this morning excerpts from an email I received a matter of days ago from Nellie Gray. It was my last correspondence from her, following up on a meeting the two of us had a couple of weeks ago in which we discussed her vision for the upcoming March for Life on the 40th commemoration of Roe vs. Wade.
This email again expresses so well her heart and soul. May we all share it.
-Fr. Frank
Dear Father Pavone,
This is a follow-up note from the Meeting…

Of course, the purpose of the March for Life is still to overturn Roe v.Wade and gain protection for the right to life of each born and pre-born human – no exception and no compromise!

This purpose is expressed in the Life Principles which the March for Life Board of Directors adopted for the love of God at its beginning in 1973, and which we will continue to restate in prayer at our 40th annual March for Life, January 24-25, 2013.

ProLife Americans want “no exception” because that is the right and only position to take for our beloved country. We cannot allow our country intentionally to kill even one preborn.

We can stop this killing when all of us who say we are “prolife” become unified on the Life Principles – no exception-no compromise – and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. We can do that!

We view March for Life as all-American, all-inclusive, and we really hope that all prolife people and organizations will unify under one banner.

After 40 years and 55,000,000 killed preborn babies, we must get unity among prolife people to gain the “prolife strength and sound message”. We shall unify and stop the evil of abortion because it is evil.

Thank you again, I needed that good talk. Yes, we shall work together.

Sincerely in Life, Nellie             Copyright © 2012, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Baby Body Parts

Baby Body Parts ......You have a right to know....

Baby Body Parts ....being Canada ask Morgentaler's abortuaries if they sell Baby Body Parts 

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Abortionists see "Light" and Life..... Pro Life: A Physician's Perspective

Read this blog ...find out a true description of a conciencious person ....comment if you will....

" What If" Abortionist became ..... Pro Life: A Physician's Perspective

Saturday, July 7, 2012

The New Abortion Caravan Some highlights of the Ottawa Presentation, July 2, 2012

And here is an excerpt of a letter written in the Toronto Daily Star May 19, 1970, after the the old Abortion Caravan's Toronto Rally:

"Consummate actresses that we are, if we women keep pushing and screaming, we shall succeed in pulling off the most stunning piece of legislation ever. Abortion on demand.

A stroke of the pen, and absolute power over life and death is ours. What a heady triumpth, Why I can almost taste the glory. Even God will envy us."
and... HERE IS THE NEW.....

You may also want to check out this blog

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Hands OFF My Body

Women Right To Know....  "Hands off my body"...

Let's get one thing clear about the debate. NO ONE has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. "Hands off my body" is the rule we need to operate on when it comes to the health and well-being of every living woman. She gets to choose medical procedures for her own body.
OH ! And if you have a chance see Video Response  "My Hero of CHOICE  "

She Just Might Change Your Mind

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Thursday, April 19, 2012


Stay Tuned..come back and subscribe NOW!..

The Scale of The "What If"

The Scale of The "What If"

This is My Blog....

Let us inject a bit of Sanity in the Debate....
I am enlisting YOUR help to list all the possible "What IFs"

and let us see who is left standing....

Help me list all the possible "WHAT IFs"

I hope to make weekly entries at a minumum....

I will Fire First Shots....before the end of April 2012....

we will begin.....on your Mark...Get set....