Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally

By Luis Gonzalez

Last week in the Sanctity of Life class, everyone was challenged to recognize that you are coming into the Church at a time of unprecedented attack and the Church needs willing disciples to stand as a light for others and to stand for truth.  This Friday, March 23, a call is going out for people of faith to come together across the nation to Stand Up for Religious Freedom.  Our voices need to be heard, our presence felt, to send a strong message to this administration that this country was founded on the premise of religious freedom and we will not stand by silently and helplessly while our religious freedoms are trampled upon.  The rally in Dallas will take place at Noon at City Hall - please make every effort to attend and exercise our rights.  For more information: 

http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/

Feds threeaten Texas over defunding Abortion Providers

The Obama administration and the liberal left continue to try to ram the Abortion issue down our throats.  Religious freedoms guarantee us the right to be free of this sort of tyranny.  This is the same reason that we left England and fought a war of independence. So that we can be free to exercise our own religious beliefs.  And here we are 200 years later being forced to be Atheist murders.  It's time to say no, and to vote in some leaders who will stand up to such tyranny.  Fortunately, Perry has the guts to do just that down in Texas.

By Tina Korbe

When the Texas state administration first considered a rule to ban Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from participating in the Texas’ Women’s Health Program, which is jointly funded by the state of Texas and the federal government, the Obama administration retaliated by threatening to cut funding to the program entirely. Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Thomas Suehs signed the rule anyway.

I wrote at the time:

Does Obama want to actually cut funding and potentially jeopardize the Texas Women’s Health program, which might not be able to survive without federal funding? That sends the message that Obama cares less that women have access to health care than that they receive health care from certain providers — namely, providers that also offer abortions.
Either Rick Perry just called Obama’s bluff or this is about to be an interesting issue. Planned Parenthood has already retorted with its typical demagoguery: “No one’s politics should interfere with a woman’s access to health care,” Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast President and CEO Peter J. Durkin said in a statement. “It is shameful that Governor Perry and Commissioner Suehs continue to politicize lifesaving breast cancer screenings and birth control access for low-income women.”
Would Planned Parenthood stand by that statement as it applies to President Obama, too? Surely other providers in the Texas Women’s Health Exchange provide breast cancer screenings and birth control access. Eliminating abortion providers from the exchange doesn’t jeopardize women’s health access — but eliminating the exchange altogether would.

The answer to my original question is: Yes, the Obama administration actually does want to cut funding and jeopardize the Texas’ Women’s Health Program entirely. He cares more to protect Planned Parenthood than he does to protect women’s health, in general. Fortunately for low-income women in Texas, Rick Perry won’t stand for it.
Via Guy Benson:

Perry, who slammed the federal government constantly during his short-lived bid for the Republican presidential nomination, has directed state health officials to find the funding to keep the program going from other parts of the budget, but he has promised not to raise revenues to cover the costs.

Incidentally, this is one of the things I most respect about Rick Perry: He is willing to forgo federal funds, recognizing that federal dollars always come with strings attached. He rejected Race to the Top funds, for example, and now he’s saying “no” to federal control of another state-level program. The business-friendly atmosphere he created in Texas has ensured a thriving economy there, such that Texas doesn’t have need of federal funds, either

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/16/feds-to-texas-you-defunded-planned-parenthood-now-were-defunding-you/

Killing babies is "OK" in Oxford

A group of so called "medical ethicists" linked to Oxford University has argued that parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to [perfectly legal] abortion.

By Stephen Adams

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

How can an ethicist, someone whose judgement on ethics and ethical codes is supposed to be trusted and whom is supposed to serve as a moral guidepost for others, ever come to such a horrendous unfeeling and wicked conclusion?



Pray for these people to come to their senses.  Pray for the immorality of our modern world.  God help us.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html