Select Page



Video: Yale Scientist Visualizes Conception to Birth

Human Life Begins at Conception, Fertilization

We Are Winning!  /  Campus Battles & Victories

The Wisdom of Changing Minds and Saving Lives

CAL THOMAS: Pictures Will Change Minds on Abortion

Austin Suspends Law Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Resource Centers

Court Orders New York to Allow "Choose Life" License Plates

Report Shows Steady Decrease in Child Abuse and Neglect

CEO of TX Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Accused of Medicaid Fraud Will Retire / PP Continues Falsifying Medicaid Documents

‘Let Them Cut Off Aid:’ African Countries Revolt Against UK Threat to Cut Aid over Homosexuality

MOVIE — October Baby — 

My Mother Died From Breast Cancer, But I Won’t Support Komen

3 Ways to Make the Pro-Life Argument to People Who Do Not Care About the Child

Stonewalling the Truth: Sebelius & Planned Parenthood / Info Sought on Planned Parenthood Records Sebelius Destroyed

Komen and United Way Fund Planned Parenthood

Amazing Video: Yale Scientist Visualizes Conception to Birth

Watch 9:38 minute video —

    Alexander Tsiaras has made a career of using advances in visualization technology to offer vivid tours of the human body. His books have taken readers inside the human heart, the kidneys and vascular system, and also human reproduction. Back in 2002, Tsiaras published From Conception to Birth: A Life Unfolds, a book that offers a “visual diary of fetal development.” Now, nearly a decade later, he brings that visual diary to video at a conference affiliated with TED.

What’s more amazing is how he describes what he’s learned from doing these complex visualizations. Twice he talks about the “divinity” of the process of human development, and about how, even as a mathematician, the extraordinary complexity of human development is many orders of magnitude more than he can comprehend.
[Thomas Peters — November 18th, 2011,]

Scientist: Human Life Begins at Conception, Fertilization

When one considers the ethics of manipulation, the question of whether we ought to, or whether we may manipulate an organism or entity depends on the answer to the first and most fundamental question:

What is it?

Ascertaining the identity and status of the object of our intended manipulation is essential.

In the fields of obstetrical medicine and reproductive medicine the ethical debates have raged for four decades. Enlightened discourse between opposing parties must assume good motives by all involved, and then go about asking the essential questions, following where the truth of science and reason lead.

Many claim that life begins at some point distant from fertilization, always beyond the point at which they propose some manipulation (abortion, embryonic stem cell culturing, etc…). There are always a list of biological functions that are given to define when human life begins: Cognitive capacity, etc.

The simple biological truth of the matter is that the Cell Theory states that all cells arise from pre-existing cells. There is no blackout period between sperm and egg uniting, and then the emergence of ‘life’ at some point distant.

The Carnegie stages of human development indicate that human development begins in the zygotic stage. Then there is the assertion of developmental biologist and leading textbook author in the field, Scott Gilbert. In his text, Gilbert takes us through the life cycle of a dog. His text, Developmental Biology, is arguably the leading text in the field. According to Gilbert:

“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”

First, note how he sets the word dog off in quotes at one point, to communicate the very essence of the organism:

But the dog is a “dog” from the fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm…

The same may be said of all vertebrates, including cats, giraffes, chimpanzees, and humans. Substituting the word human for dog in Gilbert’s analysis gets to the heart of the matter.

We are human for our entire life cycle. We are whole and complete in form and function at every stage of our development, for that given developmental stage. The prepubescent child is fully human, even though they lack the capacity to execute all human functions, such as abstract reasoning, or reproduction.

In the same way, the early embryo is alive and fully human, though it has not yet executed all human organismal functions.
[Gerard Nadal, Ph.D. | Washington, DC | | 11/18/11,]





We Are Winning!  /  Campus Battles & Victories
I wanted to take a few minutes this morning to share with you a wonderful article that was published in The Weekly Standard earlier this week.

It is an interesting read about the current pro-life movement and Students for Life’s work mentioned by name. However, what was most thrilling was the theme present through the ent

ire article: We are winning, and the youth of America are leading the charge.

"Opponents of abortion are rarely interviewed on television these days. It’s much harder to get on TV than it used to be,' says Charmaine Yoest, who heads Americans United for Life. Bookers of guests for news shows tell her, 'We don’t want to talk about abortion. We’re tired of it.'

Perhaps the mainstream media are simply incapable of covering more than one social issue at a time…

If only the media knew. They have missed the most important breakthrough in the struggle over abortion in years: the resurgence of the pro-life crusade …

The article repeats what I often say, that this new generation is the most pro-life generation since abortion was legalized in 1973.  And they see abortion not just as a political or religious issue, but rather a fundamental human rights violation.  

And while this article highlights how far our movement has come, it also reminds me of how much work is still left to be done. 

Polls confirm that America’s young people ARE pro-life but thanks to radical professors and targeted Planned Parenthood campaigns, they, more often then not, find it hard to stand strong for their beliefs.

That’s why the need for Students for Life is so great.

We help these young people on college campuses stay pro-life despite the pressures they face and encourage other young people to join our side.  We do this by educating students on the issues as well as providing them with resources they need to educate others on campus and on help women they encounter who are facing a crisis pregnancy. 

In short, we are working night and day to equip the pro-life generation so that they will be the unabashed pro-life leaders of tomorrow.  So, that they will lead the charge for an end to abortion in America.
[3 Nov 11, Students for Life, Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director, Students for Life of America]

Help Spread the Message: Pro-Life from Conception to Natural Death
I traveled to Mississippi last week to help students teach their peers about abortion and their upcoming opportunity to stand for life…  I, along with several other students, debated people on various pro-life stances for approximately 5 hours. In that time, a professor approached me and asked me to represent the pro-life side and speak to her
class. I was given FORTY-FIVE MINUTES!!! When I walked into that classroom, I could tell that it was about half and half – pro-life vs pro-abortion based on questions and reactions. By the end of the talk, it went from 50-50 to only 2-3 people refusing to take a pro-life sticker to wear around campus.

I was able to cover nearly every aspect of the pro-life position, including post-abortive healing. I was thrilled to be able to spread this important message to these students…. especially when the pro-life movement is so frequently accused of not caring about women.

I would like to take this time to make everyone aware of just how much pro-lifers DO care about women AND the baby after he or she is born. There are countless pro-life organizations that specifically reach out to pregnant and parenting mothers (and fathers).

For post-abortive healing and support:,,

Help for pregnant and parenting students:

Pregnancy Resource Centers, Maternity homes and other things of the like are availble to help in cases of unplanned pregnancies:

The resources and people are out there to help. This is why I love sharing my beliefs in this way: pro-life from conception to natural death. I care about all human life from the earliest stages of development to the final days on earth.
[3 Nov 11, Students for Life, From the desk of: Sheri Krotzer, South Mid-West Regional Coordinator ]

The Wisdom of Changing Minds and Saving Lives
A few years ago, my colleague Chadd Inglish encouraged me to purchase a subscription to First Things. I have been richly rewarded by this recommendation, and certainly the November issue is no exception. In particular, I was moved by Nicholas DiFonzo's opinion piece "Changing Minds, Saving Lives."

DiFonzo presents a compelling case for how best to change minds and hearts of those who are pro-abortion so as to save the lives of the innocent unborn children so vulnerable in our society today.

Here I'd like to share and explore some of his suggestions while adding my own observations.  

DiFonzo begins with the admonition that there is a difference between the propagandist and the persuader. To be a propagandist is beneath the pro-life apostolate because the hope of the propagandist is that "you will not think too carefully." Ultimately, propaganda diminishes a person's ability to think. To engage in propaganda is futile "because minds changed by propaganda can easily be changed by better propaganda." Rather, we are called to change the thinking of our interlocutors as we invite him or her to consider the truth we present. DiFonzo offers the following strategies.  

1. We need to battle misinformation about the nature of abortion, and specifically the results that would follow if greater restrictions were placed on abortion. DiFonzo notes that when "pro-choice students – and pro-choicers in general – think about making abortion illegal, they base their decision on subjective judgments that bad things will happen if it is made illegal [ex. back alley abortions]…This suggests that pro-life attempts to persuade them might fruitfully focus on countering their judgments about the effects of the action or about the value they place on it, or both." We live in the midst of a world that evaluates the moral quality of an act based upon its consequences. While this (consequentialism or proportionalism) is a faulty ethical system, it only makes sense to deflate the impression that back alley abortions will become rampant and that the rights of women will become trampled on wholesale if abortion were no longer considered a legal right.   

2. DiFonzo observes that studies show those who are pro-choice are less aware of challenges to their position than are pro-lifers. This makes them more susceptible to thoughtful challenges to their pro-choice views. The recent video that surfaced in which Planned Parenthood representatives uttered numerous shockingly incoherent thoughts when their peer debaters presented scientific evidence about when life begins is a great example. With this susceptibility in mind, a strategy of persuasion should include "multiple simple challenges…that are unlikely to have been considered." DiFonzo calls to the readers attention, studies have shown that this is effective strategy at changing minds.
3. A person's position on abortion involves more than facts and knowledge; it also involves his personal, emotional, and social aspects. Arguments and attempts at persuasion are unlikely to change the mind of a person who feels threatened. Abby John

son's recent conversion is a prominent example of the fruit borne from taking a non-threatening approach. Though abortion is despicable, we should be careful not to demonize those who are pro-choice. DiFonzo notes, "in attempts at persuasion it is important to take into account underlying defensive motivations. One cannot ignore defensive sentiments and rely solely on cognitive challenges or logic."

Minds and hearts must be changed, and they are more likely to be changed if the truth is spoken with love for both the innocent child and the supporter of abortion.

4. Target specific demographics with the pro-life message. The pro-life movement has many such examples, including Feminists for life, Students for Life, and Faculty for Life. Belonging to one of these allows one to keep much of her identity while also giving her the conviction that one can be both a feminist and pro-life, for example.

Further, such an approach meets people where they are. Giving the feminist a "home" within the pro-life movement fosters a greater willingness to reconsider the commitment to abortion that seemed to go hand in hand with her feminism. According to DiFonzo, such strategies permit "people to maintain core identities that are too important to them to change, while changing some particular beliefs." 

5. Never underestimate the effect of "staying the course." Being consistently stalwart in our defense of the unborn is one of the most effective means of persuading pro-choicers. "Consistency despite the cost," DiFonzo notes, "and an appeal to common values, caused Americans to consider the issue more deeply. A courageous witness proves to be the greatest persuasion." Indeed, we have seen a number of social evils overcome over the centuries due, in part, to the advocates' faithfulness and commitment.

Nicholas DiFonzo's essay in First Things is an excellent read and a helpful reminder that engaging in effective pro-life persuasion – not propaganda – is most likely to win the day for the unborn. Naturally, his observations can and should be applied to other areas of the pro-life movement – contraception, end of life issues, conscience rights and many others. We each are called and encouraged, for the sake of all who are innocent and vulnerable, to persuade with truth and with charity.

["The Wisdom of Others: 'Changing Minds, Saving Lives'"     v. 1 n. 9, Called and Encouraged: HLI America Newsletter, National Director Arland K. Nichols Column, November 10, 2011  ]



CAL THOMAS: Pictures Will Change Minds on Abortion

["Mandating sonograms creates for "pro-choicers" an impossible intellectual, not to mention moral dilemma.  If they oppose women receiving information, they are censors … When pro-choicers stand in the way of women receiving information about such a critical decision, they place themselves where they say conservatives reside, in the land of intolerance and ignorance… [pro-choicers] embrace a right to kill while simultaneously denying the right to life… ]
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sometimes sounds as if she has cast aside any attachment to reality.

Responding to a bill co-authored by Rep. Joe Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican, that would prevent federal funds from going to pay for abortions under the slowly unraveling health care law critics call "Obamacare," Pelosi said that if Republicans vote for the measure, "they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene."

The Protect Life Act passed the House last week, but will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate

Perhaps an even greater counterattack on what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's seminal documentary on the issue "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" referred to as "the slaughter of the innocents" is a series of initiatives organized by a coalition of pro-life groups to put legislation on ballots in every state requiring an abortion-minded pregnant woman to see a sonogram image of her fetus prior to termination.

I have long favored this approach as a means to substantially reduce the million-plus abortions performed every year in the United States. It imposes no restrictions on abortion, but gives women information.

The Chicago Tribune, reporting on the "Ultrasound Opportunity Act," lobbied for in Springfield and …in Illinois, quoted Conference spokesman Zach Wichmann as saying during a news conference at the Capitol: "We have studies and statistics that show something north of 80 percent of women (seeking abortions) who view ultrasounds of their babies decide against abortion."

Mandating sonograms creates for "pro-choicers" an impossible intellectual, not to mention moral dilemma. If they oppose women receiving information, they are censors. Pro-lifers are aligning themselves with truth in labeling and truth in lending laws requiring that information be provided to women (and men) in order to help make decisions presumed to be in their best interests.

When pro-choicers stand in the way of women receiving information about such a critical decision, they place themselves where they say conservatives reside, in the land of intolerance and ignorance.

The response to this proposed legislation goes something like this: "You are insulting the intelligence of women who are smart enough to figure out these things on their own."

"Fine," I say, "then let's remove labels from cans, bottles and packages and do away with paperwork at the bank when a woman applies for a loan. Let's also rip Monroney stickers off vehicles at car dealerships because women should be smart enough to figure out the price, options and miles per gallon on their own."

The reason pro-choicers don't want women to see what their babies look like in the womb is because, for too many of them, abortion has become a sacrament.
They embrace a right to kill while simultaneously denying the right to life.
Showing a pregnant woman a picture of her baby in the womb, heart beating, can only enhance the possibility that the child will be given the opportunity to live.

Legislators who vote for these pro-life measures will put themselves on the side of freedom of information and force the pro-choicers to admit they favor a single choice: abortion.

Over many years of speaking to women who regret their abortions, the most common response has been, "If I had seen a picture of my baby, I would have made a different choice."

This legislation empowers women. It is the best way to reduce the number of abortions while waiting for the courts to catch up and restore the "endowed right to life" that stood for centuries until the Supreme Court ruled [7-2] in favor of Roe in 1973.
[Oct. 17, 2011, Cal Thomas at [email protected], Tribune Media Services, ; Cleveland Right to Life, 11 Nov 11]

Austin Suspends Law Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Resource Centers

In a move welcomed by Texas pro-lifers, the city of Austin has agreed that an Austin pro-life pregnancy resource center may temporarily take down a sign stating that the center does not provide abortions or emergency contraception.

Austin Life

Care will not have to display the sign while the city considers the constitutionality of its law that singles out pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise which services they do not provide.

The agreement puts on hold, until February 2012, a lawsuit filed on October 6 on behalf of Austin LifeCare against the City of Austin. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the sign law on First Amendment grounds.
Austin LifeCare’s Executive Director, Pam Cobern (left) and staff taking down sign today when City suspends enforcement of its sign Ordinance.

“We are thankful to the City that it will take a closer look at its ordinance, and that in the meantime Austin LifeCare can continue to offer real help and hope to women without posting the City’s message,” said Texas Center for the Defense of Life President, Greg Terra.

In April 2010, the Austin City Council passed an ordinance to restrict the operations of what it calls “Limited Service Pregnancy Centers” – facilities that help pregnant women carry their babies to term without offering abortions or referrals to abortionists.

Under the ordinance, centers such as Austin LifeCare are required to “prominently display, at the entrance of the center, two black and white signs, one in English and one in Spanish, that state as follows: ‘This center does not provide abortions or refer to abortion
providers. This center does not provide or refer to providers of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved birth control drugs and medical devices.’”

The first offense is punishable by a minimum $250 fine; a minimum fine of $350 is issued for the second offense and a minimum $450 fine for the third.

The fines only apply to individuals or organizations that primarily provide counseling information about pregnancy services or options. The ordinance does not require centers performing or referring for abortions to post any kind of signs about services that they do not offer.

In January, a federal judge struck down a similar ordinance in Baltimore. Following that victory, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund secured an initial injunction against a sign ordinance in Montgomery County, Maryland, and recently won an injunction that suspends a similar ordinance in New York City.

Sam Casey, the General Counsel for Jubilee Campaign’s Law of Life Project, Austin LifeCare’s lead trial counsel in the case, said that he and his organization “applaud” Austin for backing down on the sign law, at least temporarily. Casey said that “there is no evidence that any pregnancy resource center in Austin is doing anything but freely providing a multitude of pregnancy services to women and men who are faced with an unintended pregnancy.”
[November 11, 2011, John Jalsevac,]

Court Orders New York to Allow ‘Choose Life’ License Plates

A federal court ruled Tuesday that the state of New York violated the First Amendment when it rejected a pro-adoption group’s application to sponsor a “Choose Life” specialty license plate as part of a state program.

The court issued an order for the state to approve the plate application from The Children First Foundation (CFF), but placed the order on hold until any appeals are completed.

“It is undisputed that CFF complied with the requirements for entry into the program,” the court wrote. “As this court has found, the sole basis for Defendants’ denial of CFF’s license plate application was viewpoint discrimination. Accordingly, the court finds that Defendants’ restriction was both discrimination based on viewpoint and unreasonable.”

In addition, the court found that “New York has run afoul of the First Amendment by giving the Commissioner unbridled discretion to engage in viewpoint discrimination.”

Apparently, however, the governor must approve this plate:
Here is ADF's Press Release:
And FOX:
Our updated web site:
"Please call Governor Cuomo at (518) 474-8390 and respectfully ask him to approve the New York "Choose Life" License Plate sponsored by The Children First Foundation without further delay to help promote and support life, adoption and safe haven efforts in New York State. Be sure to sign our New York Petition!"
[November 11, 2011, John Jalsevac, ; 9 Nov 11, Children First]

Report Shows Steady Decrease in Child Abuse and Neglect

[Comment:  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishes a Child Maltreatment Report each year which provides objective documentation about the victimization of children.  The 2009 report (p. 70) states that 80.9 percent of perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents; 6.3 percent were other relatives of the victim; 4.3 percent were unmarried partners of parents.  Clergy fall under the category of “other professionals” which comprises 0.1% of the problem.  Personal devastation is experienced in each case of abuse.  Every year in the United States there are over 700,000 victims of child abuse.
Report abuse now: 1-800-4-A-CHILD]

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) today released its annual report on child abuse and neglect. “Child Maltreatment 2009” marks the 20th issuance of the report and shows a steady decrease in the number of victims who suffered maltreatment for the third consecutive year. 

Data collected through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, a voluntary data collection system, shows an estimated 763,000 children were victims of child abuse and neglect, at a rate of 10.1 per 1,000 children. Of those, 693,174 total victims were counted once, regardless of the number of reports of maltreatment.

Data from states continue to indicate the greatest proportion of children suffered from neglect and that the 87,612 child victims younger than one year had the highest rate of victimization at 20.6 per 1,000 children in the population of the same age.

David A. Hansell, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families: “The more we support and implement evidenced-based programs and services to prevent child maltreatment and promote healthy families and communities, the sooner we can ensure children are able to have the safe, happy and healthy childhood they deserve.”

ACF has been implementing major initiatives aimed at bringing down the rate of child abuse and neglect, including the recently funded Family Violence Prevention and Services Act grants geared toward domestic violence victims and organizations, as well as grants to reduce long-term foster care and develop innovative intervention strategies to help move children into permanent homes…

Thursday’s release comes four months earlier than it has in prior years, when publication coincided with Child Abuse Prevention Month. From now on, the r

eport will be released in December with a mid-year update published in April.

The full report, “Child Maltreatment 2009,” is available at:

Another interesting link:

This is a press release on 2009 figures:

Additional resources on prevention are available at the Child Welfare Information Gateway at:

Note: All ACF news releases, fact sheets and other materials are available at:
[December 16, 2010, Kenneth J. Wolfe, (202) 401-9215]




CEO of TX Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Accused of Medicaid Fraud Will Retire
The head of the Texas-based Planned Parenthood abortion business facing accusations of massive Medicaid fraud related to billing for abortions and birth control retired this past weekend. On Saturday the president of Planned Parenthood flew to Houston to participate in a swanky gala for retiring Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast CEO Peter Durkin.

As reported yesterday, a former employee of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has filed a whistleblower’s complaint with the Attorney General of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice. The PPGC employee alleges that the abortion business engaged in an elaborate Medicaid fraud scheme.

According to a report on the Culture Map website, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and daughter of the late former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, flew into Houston from New York to participate in a farewell bash for Durkin. Houston Mayor Annise Parker issued a proclamation declaring the day as Peter J. Durkin Day in Houston and the event featured a presentation by pro-abortion U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Durkin will eventually retire in April, but pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, who first noted the whistleblower lawsuit related to the Medicaid fraud, says he has numerous questions to answer now.

“After 26 years as CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Peter Durkin has announced he will retire in April 2012,” she said. “The timing works out well for Durkin to avoid publicly having to deal with a complaint filed by former PPGC employee Karen Reynolds alleging massive Medicaid fraud.”

For remainder of article —



Planned Parenthood Continues Falsifying Medicaid Documents
A new federal whistle blower lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Texas on October 28th alleges Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC) engaged in prolonged and coordinated fraud to bilk federal and state programs of millions of dollars. PPGC operates 8 clinics in Texas and 2 in Louisiana.

The suit, filed by a former employee of the abortion provider, states that Planned Parenthood trained employees to falsify medical charts to justify billing the federal government for services that were not rendered and also to improperly bill the government for abortion services.

Federal funds provided to Planned Parenthood may not be used for abortions. In the suit, however, Karen Reynolds, a former “health care assistant,” at Planned Parenthood’s clinic in Lufkin, Texas, states that Planned Parenthood: “trained and instructed the employees at its twelve regional clinics to bill the government for medical services that were not medically necessary, to bill the government for services that were not actually provided…to falsify information in patient medical charts.”[i]

Reynolds was an employee of Planned Parenthood from 1999-2009 and claims the fraud continued during the entire time of her employment.

For remainder of article, visit —


‘Let Them Cut Off Aid:’ African Countries Revolt Against UK Threat to Cut Aid over Homosexuality

The president of Ghana is leading the charge as several African countries are making their stand against Britain’s threat that they either legalize homosexual acts or be excluded from financial aid.

“I, as president of this nation will never initiate or support any attempts to legalize homosexuality in Ghana,” said Ghanaian President John Evans Atta Mills in an official statement to the UK government under Prime Minister David Cameron last Wednesday.

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia at the end of October, which Prime Minister Cameron attended, the issue of homosexuality in developing countries was raised in an internal report that recommended that all Commonwealth countries end bans on homosexual activity, reported the BBC.

Cameron, speaking to The Andrew Marr Show in Perth during his stay in Australia, said, “British aid should have more strings attached.”

“Britain is now one of the premier aid givers in the world. We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights, and that includes how people treat gay and lesbian people,” continued Cameron.

“We are saying this is one of the things that will determine our aid policy,” he said, adding that “these [African] countries are all on a journey [to overcome discrimination] and it is up to us to help them along that journey.”

However, President Mills shot back that Britain does not have the right to mandate Ghanaian cultural and moral values.

“No one can deny Prime Minister Cameron his right to make policies, take initiatives or make statements that reflect his societal norms and ideals. But, he does not have the right to direct other sovereign nations as to what they should do, especially where their societal norms and ideals are different from those which exist in Prime Minister Cameron’s society.”

“While we acknowledge all the financial assistance and all the aid which has been given to us by our development partners, we will not accept any aid with ‘strings attached’ if that aid will not inure to our interests, or [if] the implementation—or the utilization—of that aid-with-strings-attached would rather worsen our plight as a nation, or destroy the very society that we want to use the money to improve.”


Prior to Mills’ statements, Malawi’s governmental spokesperson Patricia Kaliati said that it was “unfortunate” that Britain was considering “pro-gay strings” to aid, adding that homosexual acts are illegal in Malawi. She noted that such laws are a legacy of British rule, reported Nyasa Times.


Also on October 31st, Ugandan presidential adviser John Nagenda made a stronger statement to BBC, saying that Ugandans were “tired of these lectures” and should not be treated “like children,” adding that the Cameron’s “bullying mentality” was “very

“Uganda is, if you remember, a sovereign state and we are tired of being given these lectures by people.”

“If they must take their money, so be it,” he concluded.


After Mills’ statements , Tanzania added itself to the growing list of African countries saying that they will not compromise on their cultural and moral values, even if it means losing Britain’s financial support.

“Tanzania will never accept Cameron’s proposal because we have our own moral values. Homosexuality is not part of our culture and we will never legalize it,” said foreign affairs minister Bernard Membe, according to Tanzania’s Guardian newspaper.

“Tanzania is ready to end diplomatic ties with Britain if it imposes conditions on the assistance it provides to pressurize for adoption of laws that recognize homosexuality.”

“We are guided by our tradition. We have families of a mother, a father and children. What Cameron is doing might lead to the collapse of the Commonwealth.”


Zanzibar, Tanzania’s semi-autonomous archipelago, has also come out strongly against British aid with strings attached.

“We have strong Islamic and Zanzibari culture that abhors gay and lesbian activities, and to anyone who tells us that development support is linked to accepting this, we are saying ‘no,’” said Zanzibar President Ali Mohamed Shein to journalists last Friday.

“We cannot compromise our deeply rooted culture or [allow] something which [is] completely against our religion. Let them cut off aid.”

Homosexual acts are illegal, in varying capacities, in 40 out of 53 African countries, according to a survey by the International Gay and Lesbian Association.

[8 Nov 11, Peter Baklinski, Africa,]




My Mother Died From Breast Cancer, But I Won’t Support Komen

In May 1990,  my mother lost her 7 year battle with breast cancer at the age of 57.  It was an unspeakable loss for me.

My father and I cared for her together at home until the end.  For many years following, I generously supported Susan G. Komen and Race for the Cure.  Each year, my family would walk in memory of my mother and to honor others who still struggled.

A few years later, my eyes were opened to the irony of the Komen/Planned Parenthood Connection and I withdrew my support.

First, I understood that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world.  Second, I realized that abortion had been linked to breast cancer for years and the research continued to become more clear. And third, I learned that Susan G. Komen contributed over $3 million dollars to Planned Parenthood between 2003 and 2008.

Even today, I remain dumbstruck at the continued relationship between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood.

For 25 years now, October has been a time to help raise awareness of the impact of breast cancer. 

This October, let’s help spread the word about a leading cause of breast cancer – abortion.

Komen and Planned Parenthood continue to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, despite numerous studies that clearly show the following:

The breast is the only organ not fully developed at birth

The breast is NEVER mature until after 32 weeks of pregnancy

Interruption of a pregnancy before 32 weeks leaves cancer prone lobules exposed to the DNA damaging effects of estrogen, a hormone that causes breast cell proliferation


50 out of 50 studies show that even ONE abortion places women at high risk of having pre-mature births

[ed: not related to breast cancer, but certainly a HUGE PROBLEM!!]
According to the most recent data available from the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood), Planned Parenthood did over 25 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2008, a total of 324,008 abortions.

In that same year, they performed zero mammograms – 0.

In spite of these facts and the urging of Eve Silver , a member of Komen’s Latino Advisory Committee, Komen continues to fund Planned Parenthood.  In 2010 alone, Komen donated $569,000 [to PP].

For more information:

Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood  —    

Komen’s Dark Side  —

To support prolife research and education:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer  — 

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute — Note:  Suzanne Ward serves as the Education/Public Relations Director for Georgia Right to Life.  As a medical ultra-sonographer for over 30 years, she has witnessed the widespread devastation that both abortion and breast cancer cause.
[25 Oct 2011, Suzanne Ward,DC,]





3 ways to make the pro-life argument to people who don’t care about the child

We’ve all been there, in conversation with an abortion supporter, showing them as best we can the obvious reality that life begins at the beginning, when it becomes shockingly clear that the facts make no difference.

While pro-choice rhetoric has happily softened from ‘abortion-on-demand-no-regrets!’ to ‘abortion as a morally significant event‘, it doesn’t seem to be morally significant in any particular direction.

Simply put, many are able to ignore the striking fact of the unborn child. Ultrasound images bounce off their eyes. Embryology textbooks – it seems – evade their grasps. They grow faint and distant at any confrontation over where life begins.

Are we to give up on these individuals?

No. The beautiful thing about Truth is that it is a thing overflowing; it applies to more than just the immediate issue. Thus, if we cannot meet these individu

als in their avoidance of the child, we can meet them in their stance of care for the woman. Similarly, the terrible thing about Evil is that it is a thing that truly sucks. Abortion is a black hole that pulls in and tears apart not just a human person, but our society, our culture and most importantly, women.

Here then, are three arguments to make in defense of women, and thus against abortion.

1. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. This truth, evidenced in prestigious, peer-reviewed cancer-research journals is a very important truth to disseminate. Why? Because the anti-breast-cancer movement – in its walks, marches, fun-runs, pink ribbons, shirts – is one of the most pro-woman movements in existence.

Breast cancer is a modern plague on the women of our society, and abortion is augmenting its power. To support women – one assumes – is to be against that one disease that so effects women, to stand strongly against the cancer that has caused such tragedy in the lives of our sisters. To be pro-abortion and simultaneously set against breast cancer is to say that the lack of a child is worth the risk of terminal illness. I don’t claim that this position cannot be maintained – perhaps one could weigh the various costs of feeding a baby versus having chemotherapy treatment. No, I simply claim that this position chips away at the pro-choice foundation, that their’s is a movement in defense of the woman.

2. Abortion makes women sad. I do not mean that in some vague way. A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, synthesizing data from 1995 to 2009, shows that “women who had undergone an abortion had an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.”

From the European Journal of Public Health 2005: Researchers examining deaths among the entire population of women in Finland found that those who had abortions had a 3.5 times higher death rate from suicide, accidents, or homicides in the following year.

Suicide rates among aborting women were six times higher compared to women who gave birth and two times higher compared to women who miscarried.

Have you ever brought up the issue of abortion, not knowing some one has experienced it? Now there’s a heartbreaking situation, akin to speaking flippantly about the death of a family member to someone who has experienced such a loss. I can only speak from experience: Away flies the tolerant “we all have our beliefs, you your own, and me mine” position. Instead, post-abortion women react violently, shakily, and tearfully, full of anger, or guilt, or both.

If abortion makes women sad, which seems to be readily apparent, then once again, the pro-choice movement is placed in the awkward position of claiming to have the health of women as their highest priority, while attempting to increase the availability of that-which-makes-women-sad.

A study that has never been carried out: Suicide rates in mothers who were strongly considering abortion, but chose life. Why not? Probably because it would be a very boring study, with lots of not-depressed mothers being not-depressed.

3. There are other women in existence! And no, I’m not talking about the fact that most children aborted are girls, though it is an interesting question to ask: When, exactly, do women’s rights begin? I’m talking about mothers who want to adopt! A 2008 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 33.1% of women have at some point considered adoption. Of that number 4.9% were currently seeking adoptions. That’s 901,000 women looking for babies. By most recent statistics, there are approximately 129,000 children seeking adoption. Now I’m no mathematician, but that’s 772,000 women who want to adopt a child, but will not. It seems that if we killed less of our children, this would not be a problem. Shoot, even if we take the women who were currently seeking adoptions AND had already begun taking steps – 560,000 – there aren’t enough children to go around.

Why, oh why, do we put women at risk of cancer, depression, and in the terrifying position of violence against their own children, when there are so many women looking for children to adopt? It seems obvious that between hurting one woman and helping two, the most pro-woman action one could take would be to counsel a woman to consider adoption. The most pro-woman action one might take would be to rapidly reduce abortions in America, and thereby increase adoptions.

Though I understand why there exists the rather insane idea that the better choice for all women would be an abortion: Abortion brings in cash. Who is going to pay for all those Planned Parenthood ‘don’t-defund-us’ campaigns if everyone’s putting their children up for adoption?

So there you have it. Three effective ways to make the pro-life argument to people seemingly unconcerned with the moral question surrounding the unborn child. I plan on bringing up a few more, so if there any you would like discuss, just let me know!

Reprinted with permission from
[October 28, 2011, Marc John Paul,,]


Stonewalling the Truth: Sebelius & Planned Parenthood

For the past four years, I’ve spotlighted the fight to bring Planned Parenthood’s predators to justice in Kansas. In October 2007, then-AG Phill Kline filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the PP racket, with counts ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions. In February of this year, I noted the prolonged witch hunt against Kline — which blew up in the radical abortion lobby’s face. Today’s syndicated column scrutinizes the overseer role Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has played throughout the PP/Kansas health bureaucracy’s stonewalling of the truth. See Life News and Planned Parenthood Corruption for background and documents.
Shredding Kathleen Sebelius
by Michelle Malkin

If a private health insurer had engaged in the kind of criminal obstruction that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been tied to in her home state of Kansas, it would be a federal case. Instead, it’s a non-story in the Washington press. Nothing to see here. Move along.

On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials “shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces.” World Magazine reported: “The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records.”

The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents — which they sheepishly admitted had “certain idiosyncrasies” — was “routine.” Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.

As governor of Kansas, Sebelius fought transparency

motions in the proceedings tooth and nail for years. Prosecutors allege a long-running heinous cover-up to manufacture false records of patients who had late-term abortions — and to whitewash Planned Parenthood’s systemic failures to report child rape.

Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline’s investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller’s bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.

Where are Joe Biden to decry actual rape atrocities and Nancy Pelosi to decry dire hazards to women’s health when we need them?

A Kansas district judge found probable cause of criminality in the abortion providers’ records; another district judge found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts. Sebelius’ response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller’s, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline’s subpoenas and appeals.

Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state’s disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.

Where there’s obstructionist smoke, there’s corruption fire. Under Sebelius’ watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had “applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators,” according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Entirely fitting, of course. The war on whistleblowers and inspectors general has been a hallmark of the current White House. And the radically pro-abortion rights Sebelius has ruled ruthlessly from her Beltway perch: policing citizen critics of Obamacare through a taxpayer-funded Internet snitch brigade; threatening private companies and insurers who have increased rates to cope with Obamacare coverage mandates; lashing out at newspapers who dare report on the costly consequences of the federal law.

As she bullies private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands, Sebelius has yet to be held accountable for overseeing state government agencies that conspired to hide the deadly truth about the Big Government/Big Abortion alliance from taxpayers…
[Michelle Malkin, October 28, 2011,]

Info Sought on Planned Parenthood Records Sebelius Destroyed
A leading pro-life organization is seeking more information on the public records destroyed by the former administration of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in connection with a case the state attorney general filed against Planned Parenthood.

A hearing on the case, which sees the Planned Parenthood of Mid-Missouri Kansas abortion business facing 107 felony charges of violating state abortion laws, was delayed for two weeks because 23 Planned Parenthood-specific state abortion reports have been discovered as destroyed.

Now, Operation Rescue has filed the first round of open records demands with the Kansas governor’s office and with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) seeking public records that might reveal who was involved in shredding incriminating evidence against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri in 2005.

“There is no way that this was routine evidence destruction, as Planned Parenthood attorneys are so desperately trying to make us believe. This was a brazen act that was meant to destroy the evidence against,” OR president Troy Newman told LifeNews today. 

For remainder of article, visit —

Komen and United Way Fund Planned Parenthood

Figures from 2008 show United Way chapters made $1.9 million in donations to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

Although the organization funds hundreds of other worthwhile charitable groups, there's no excuse for some United Way chapters to send your hard-earned dollars to the biggest abortion business in the country that snuffs out of the lives of over 300,000 U.S. babies annually.

Of course, the United Way isn't the only organization with massive public support that donates to Planned Parenthood.

As LifeNews has repeatedly reported, Komen for the Cure chapters gave $730,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2009, and $569,000 in 2010.

While abortion is linked to breast cancer — something Komen refuses to admit to women — and while Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms for women, Komen chapters send the money anyway. Planned Parenthood has to farm out the mammograms to legitimate health care centers that actually have women's best medical interests at heart.

[ ed.: The SG Komen Foundation also gives Millions of dollars to Human Embryo-Destructive Stem Cell Research, which has yet to achieve even one successful human treatment.
Why doesn't SG Komen fund ethical Adult & Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Research, which has provided over 50,000 successful human treatments for over 70 diseases/conditions such as cancers, auto-immune conditions, sickle cell anemia, heart conditions, burns, and is getting very close on many conditions such as diabetes.

For more information on stem cell research, visit  and ]

[27 Oct 11,]