Why are the Democrats in Olympia Protecting Sexual Predators?

Video: The End of Abstinence Education in WA?

Dumb, Dumber and Just Plain Stupid

Gov. Chris Gregoire has appointed a board member of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington to the state Board of Pharmacy.

This move pretty much confirms the fact that the Democrat party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the culture of death.

They also hate the Constitution,

"We will pass a law the revokes the license of any business that refuses to dispense medication based on ethical preferences," said Senator Karen Keiser.

And science,

She [Vandana Slatter] said that emergency contraception prevents implantation of the egg.

A pharmacist on the state Board of Pharmacy that doesn't even know the fundamentals of human development and the female reproductive system. Eggs can't implant Vandana. That would be why you get your period every month. No need for Plan B.

But they sure love money,

She [Karen Cooper] reminded us that NARAL is the organization that does this work and that they cannot do it without the support of the folks in that room.
[Insert perfunctory link to donation page here.]

There you have it: Karen Cooper the smartest of the bunch.

Here we go again

I know I should let by-gones be by-gones but I read this article and realized that Rudy Giuliani sounds just like Mike McGavick during his ill fated 2006 senatorial campaign.

Admires Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Supports legal abortion.
Supports embryonic stem cell research.

If you're a Republican who liked the McGavick campaign, you're going to love the Giuliani campaign.

Support Choice (in Public School Sex Ed)

Thanks for the Free Abortion, Mr/Mrs Taxpayer (2006 numbers just in)

DSHS just released the latest numbers for the total number of abortions they paid for with your and my money for State Fiscal Year 2006. You paid for 13,830 abortions at an average cost of $546, for a total of $7,554,501.

Here is the table from 2000 on. (Column 3 is average cost.)

2000	11,281	$6,369,252	$565
2001	12,397	$7,332,227	$591
2002	13,124	$8,205,061	$625
2003	13,714	$8,288,267	$604
2004	14,165	$7,001,498	$494
2005	13,738	$6,823,267	$497
2006	13,830	$7,554,501	$546

The proportion of all abortions paid for by the taxpayer has risen from 40% about 10 years ago to 55% in 2005. Total abortions for 2006 are not yet released so the percentage change can not yet be calculated.

Here is the data in visual form.

Planned Parenthood's Riches

AIW has been analyzing the finances of Planned Parenthood of Western Washington (PPWW) and has discovered many fascinating things. The bottom line is that the bottom line of this "non-profit" organization might make oil executives blush.

Let's start with a picture:


This graph represents the revenues of PPWW from 1998 to 2005. This kind of revenue growth does not happen by accident. The number of clients has essentially followed this curve, correlated in large measure to the DSHS "Take Charge" program, which provides free birth control for a year to income-eligible clients, for which PPWW is a provider. This program has essentially enabled PPWW to use the government, and taxpayers' dollars, to serve as a massive marketing boondoggle.

More interesting numbers which paint the picture of PPWW's extraordinary financial health:

• Net assets stand at nearly $36m.
• Profits (not revenue) from the sale of "inventory" (i.e., birth control, perhaps morning-after pills) have skyrocketed from $0 just three years ago to an extraordinary $7m. This is on $2m of merchandise. In other words, they bought $2m of merchandise, and turned around and sold it for $9m, pocketing $7m in pure cash.
• In 2004, PPWW took in almost $30 million for a net profit of $5m, boosting total net worth of $33m.
• In 2005, they took in almost $34m for a net profit of almost $4m, accumulating a total net worth of $36m.
• Not included in the 2004 profit numbers was $4m in unrealized stock market gains alone.
• In their 2005 annual report, the number of pregnancy-related client visits dropped slightly, but the number of abortions performed jumped from 6,200 in 2004, to just over 7,000 in 2005. In other words, they improved their (abortion) sales conversion rate from 17% to 20%.
• PPWW gets about $3m from various levels of government each year.
• They get $5m-$6m in donations annually.
• In 2004, PPWW spent over $1 million on payroll taxes alone.
  

-- FormerFoetus

Early Childhood Sex Training Bill Needs to be Defeated

In other legislative news...As predicted in this post, Early Childhood Sex Training is coming Washington if people don't call their legislators and tell them to keep this garbage out of our schools.

Call your legislators and tell them to STRONGLY OPPOSE HB 1855 & SB 5297 - SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS -- 1 (800) 562-6000 or on the web.

Here's the link to Planned Parenthood of Southwest Oregon's "comprehensive sex education" web site for a taste of what our children would be forced to learn if this gets through the legislature.

You can also Google Planned Parenthood's "Teen Wire" site if you really want the hard truth on what's behind these bills.

Parental Notification Bill in Legislature

There is an important piece of pro-life legislation which needs support in order to get out of committee. Faith and Freedom has a page about it.

Washington Abortion Industry Spends Big Bucks to Defeat Oregon Parental Notification Initiative

Oregon Secretary of State’s Contribution and Expenditure Report

NO on 43 Special Interest Donors

Planned Parenthood ColumbialWillamette $457,722
Planned Parenthood Central Washington $ 16,250
Mt. Baker Planned Parenthood $ 1,000
Planned Parenthood Western Region Assembly $2,500
Planned Parenthood Action Fund (New York) $80,228
Planned Parenthood of the Inland Washington $10,000
Planned Parenthood of Western Washington $78,535
Planned Parenthood Health Services of SW Oregon $132,260
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountain $5,000
Planned Parenthood of Hawaii $3,000
Planned Parenthood of Western Washington $53,535
Planned Parenthood of California $30,000
Total Planned Parenthood Contributions $870,030

ACLU of Washington $10,000
ACLU of Oregon $92,968
Total ACLU Contributions $102,968

NARAL Pro-Choice America $15,000
NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon $96,135
NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon Foundation $2,500
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington $2,500
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington Foundation $25,000
Total NARAL Contributions $141,135

Basic Rights Oregon Education Foundation $3,000
Basic Rights Oregon Measure PAC $7,500
Basic Rights Oregon Elect PAC $2,500
Total Basic Rights Oregon Contibutions $13,000

Kulongoski for Governor $35,000
Total Special Interest Dollars $1,162,133

What Parents Don't Know Can Hurt Them and Their Children

What Parents Don't Know Can Hurt Them and Their Children
By Djana Milton

This past August 4, Lemuel and Julia Redd took their daughter Julianna shopping, but they by passed the local mall and drove 240 miles from Provo, Utah to Grand Junction, Colorado. Julianna's parents never planned to take her shopping. Instead, it was a last-ditch attempt to keep her from getting married the next day.

Julianna still got married, and her parents now face second-degree felony kidnapping charges.

As odd as this all sounds, it's even stranger that our legal system seeks to punish the Redds while it remains perfectly legal for unrelated adults to take minors across state lines for invasive medical procedures, such as abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Noted German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children." If the liberal obstruction in the Senate that led to the legislative failure of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) is any indication, America has work to do before it can pass the Bonhoeffer's test.

As written, the bill - which passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives during the 109th Congress - would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines in order to circumvent state abortion laws as well as require parental notification. These are unresolved problems that breed unaccountability and uncertainty. It also creates a potentially dangerous situation due to the fact that many young girls who get pregnant also say they are victims of abuse. Statistics compiled from government and non-profit organizations and posted on the web site of the group Darkness to Light note:

* Adult men fathered almost 50 percent of babies born to girls between the ages of 15 and 17;
* Of teen pregnancies in which the age of the father is known, approximately seven in ten fathers are 20 years old or older;
* One survey of 535 teen mothers found that approximately two-thirds reported to have previously been molested or the victim of rape or attempted rape. The abused teens also noted engaging in sex earlier and that they are their children were more likely to become victims of further abuse and
* A survey of 445 teen mothers found 60 percent of them said sexual encounters were forced upon them.

Additionally, according to an October 2004 special report of the Medical Science Monitor, a survey of American women seeking abortions found 64 percent said they "felt pressured by others" to do so.

Considering the likelihood that a teen entering a pregnancy center could be a victim of abuse, it is surprising that it is not already a requirement to notify parents - or at least a social worker - of impending procedures. The abortion industry and the powerful special interests supporting it, however, are steadfastly opposed to notification.

As a result, parents who are responsible for protecting their children from so many things become virtually powerless against sexual predators.

Opposition to parental notification within the abortion industry seems tied to their financial motivations. In the 2000-2001 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood declared $774.1 million in assets. That's big business! Faced with the choice of protecting the vulnerable or their income, the bottom line seems to prevail with groups of this sort.

Some extreme detractors of notification may ask, "Wouldn't notification further endanger girls who are the victims of incest?" What better way to end the victimization than to report the crime to someone who can stop it? Facilitating an abortion treats only the unfortunate aftereffect. Most minors would still have few options but to return to the environment where the problem originated. The only way truly to alleviate such a crisis is to deal with the perpetrators, which is possible through notification.

Although the apparent failure of abortion clinics to protect minors is disconcerting, it's precisely this arena in which parents can make a difference. Any marginally responsible parent would take decisive action to combat further exploitation and ensure a daughter's abuser was brought to justice. This defines the difference between parents, whose investment in their daughter is heartfelt, and an abortion provider or other adult. The kind of world we leave for our children matters to no one else as much as it does to parents - nor is the burden of responsibility nearly as great.

French philosopher Voltaire wrote, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." It is absurd to suggest that those who sow the seeds of deceit between parent and child are operating out of altruism.


Djana Milton is a member of the national advisory council of the black leadership network Project 21 and a founding member of the Washington pro-woman/pro-life organization Women First. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org. Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.

A New Visions Commentary paper published December 2006 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court NE #200, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.project21.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.

Name of Convert Revealed

In this post we speculate about the employer of Anonymous, MD. Her identity and employer have now been revealed in this post on National Review Online today.

“Ideology is getting in the way of doctors doing their jobs,” says Dr Grossman. “Why is it fine for me to care about my patients’ lungs and their arteries, but not their reproductive future, and their hearts and minds?”

That's one of the questions we've been asking on this blog for over a year now. For some reason we are attacked as "anti-science" and "crazy". There is also usually some insuinuation that we are "trying to impose are religious beliefs on others." Poppycock. Our approach has always been based in the reality of the human person as he was made, not as we would like him to be.

Dr. Grossman now wonders if she is to become a martyr in this battle between reality and fantasy, truth and lies, science and ideology.

In an interview, Dr. Grossman told me she feels very much at risk with the publication of her book. She explains: I’m discussing a taboo topic here: the dangers of radical social agendas in my profession. My colleagues are well-intentioned, and care deeply about their patients. But campus counseling centers are whitewashing the painful consequences of casual sex, STDs and abortion. They are promoting the notion that men and women are the same. They are not educating young people about future and family. In these issues, so central to campus health and counseling, we are failing our young people. Grossman Time will tell if Dr. Grossman’s candor will make her a pariah at work and in her profession.

As anyone who is following the debate over Plan B and abortion in our own state knows, it isn't only campus counseling centers who are doing the whitewashing. Legislators like Geoff Simpson and pharmacists like the UW's Don Downing (the "grandfather of Plan B"), just to name a few, who are in a position to help highlight the dangers Dr. Grossman points out seem to be working for the opposite: unhealthy, depressed, abortion prone women and men.

WA Dems Vote Against Risking Profits of Abortionists

Yesterday Congress voted on the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006." The bill would have required abortionists to inform women seeking abortions after 20 weeks gestation (yes, Virginia, that's 5+ months into pregnancy, when most moms are showing) that the baby almost certainly can experience pain, and could be administered anesthesia.

The bill garnered the support of 60% of the House, but failed to pass because it was being voted on under a suspension of rules which would have required 2/3rds support.

How did our Representatives vote?

Voting for were:
Reichert, Rodgers (formerly McMorris), Hastings [all Republicans]

Voting against:
Inslee, Larsen, Baird, Dicks, McDermott, Smith [all Democrats]

Seller of Abortion Products Dupes NYT Reporter in "Illegal" Abortion Story

On April 9, New York Times reporter Jack Hitt produced what may be called a 'hit piece' against the pro-life movement in El Salvador. The piece, laden with scare tactics, culminates in his tale of woe of a woman who he says had an illegal abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The only problem with the story is that the woman was found guilty of strangling her full-term baby shortly after her birth.

The other problem is that the organization feeding the false story to the NYT was none other than a seller and distributor of abortion-related products named IPAS. IPAS's product line includes vacuum aspirators, cannulae, dialators, and anatomical pelvic models for the training of abortionists.

It also sells the Denniston Dialators, created by Seattle abortionist, early supporter/founder of Planned Parenthood of Snohomish county, anti-circumcision activist and author, anti-Catholic bigot, malthusian, and possibly anti-semitic George C. Denniston. We'll just call him a nut for short.

This nut George Denniston is also an assistant clinical professor at the UW and president of Population Dynamics in Seattle, WA and a fan of forced starvation and state sponsored catastrophe to promote population control.

It comes down to this. Either we don't increase food supply now, so that population levels off soon, limited as it inevitably is by the food that sustains people, or we keep on adding to the food supply as we have done every year in the past 10,000 years; and when we can no longer keep up with the vertical population growth, we experience overshoot and collapse, with a sudden massive die-off of at least 10 billion people.

If we were to succeed in limiting food before that happened, we might be able to level off and then gradually lose population through the natural deaths of all those living, until we finally reach a population size that the world can sustain.

This may be the most humane way to deal with the present problem, but the attitudes to achieve it are not yet present among the people who could carry this out.

Dr. Denniston is also responsible for at least one botched legal abortion:

Denniston has performed many abortions and sterilizations without complications at comparatively low cost, but he has also made mistakes. A major cause of these mistakes is the attitude of the medical profession toward abortions specifically, and women in general. Doctors who perform abortions are part of a profession that has not yet accepted abortion as a woman's right. Most doctors see abortion only as a way to control population growth.

Despite the above writer's assertion above that abortion is a "woman's right", now might be a good time to remind pro-choice readers, fellow travellers ("I'm not pro-abortion!") and useful idiots at blogs like Sound Politics that abortion is not about women's rights, or choosing the woman over the fetus, or even freedom. It is about the right of those like Dr. Denniston to profit off the killing of unborn children. To people like Dr. Denniston women are completely beside the point.

Norma McCorvey to Return to Washington

Norma McCorvey spoke at the It's About Life Conference in Kennewick in March 2006. She was so graciously welcomed and loved by the conference attendees that she's agreed to come back again. Here are the details:

Who: Kennewick Knights of Columbus
What: "It's About Life Conference"
Where: St. Joseph Church, Dillon Hall, Kennewick, Washington
When: Saturday, March 10, 2007

Guest Speakers: Suzanne Vitadamo (Terri Schiavo's sister)
Barbara McGuigan (Host of EWTN's Open Line)
Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe from the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case)

More details to follow...

Frist Not Running

According to Powerline, pro-human cloning Senator Bill Frist is not running for president.

Anonymous, MD

"Admit the trauma, to some women and some men, of abortion. Reach out to those for whom the experience has not been an opportunity for `growth and maturation'. Provide a support group; at the very least ask about it!"

That is from a new book, "Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student" by MD Anonymous.

Dr. Anonymous was recently interviewed on the Michael Medved show, a Seattle based radio talk show. Could Dr. Anonymous be an employee of the University of Washington?

"Plan B": Abortifacient or No?

The following is a letter I sent via email to the Washinton State Pharmaceutical Association.

Greetings:

I'm writing because I need your help clarifying something. As you know, there has been much discussion lately over the rules for pharmacists when filling prescriptions/requests for so-called Emergency Contraception, or Plan B, sometimes called the Morning After Pill.

The WSPA seems to have no moral objections to this drug, and does not seem to describe it anywhere as an abortifacient.

Yet it is my understanding that one of the primary means by which this drug is designed to prevent pregnancy is by preventing a fertilized egg, or zygote, from implanting in the uterus. And since the emergence of a zygote represents the moment at which a new human being comes into existence, deliberately causing this new human life to fail to achieve its natural means of sustenance and development, via implantation, would seem to be clearly intervening to end a human life.

Does the WSPA agree with this assessment, or am I in error?

Sincerely,
Jonathan B.
http://abortionstate.blogspot.com/

I shall post their response if/when it arrives.

If you do a site search with google for the term abortifacient, one document which comes up, a PDF file called, "APhA Special Report: A Continuing Education Program for Pharmacists: Emergency Contraception: The Pharmacist's Role". In it we read:

"Misconceptions persist about how emergency contraception works, particularly the misconception that emergency contraception acts as an abortifacient."

Further, they add:

"Because emergency contraceptives act before implantation and cannot disrupt an established pregnancy, they are not considered to be abortifacients."

(Two footnotes are given here: "Glasier A. Emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1058–64," and "Grimes DA. Emergency contraception—expanding opportunities for primary prevention. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1078–9.")

And to make it clear what they believe, they add:

"Some people believe that all oral contraceptives (including those used as emergency contraceptives) are abortifacients, because they believe that pregnancy begins with the fertilization of an egg rather than with implantation of the blastocyst in the endometrium."

They cite a 1999 press release, no longer available online, from the Family Research Council. Citing a conservative public policy organization as the only source for such a widely held medical fact is disingenuous to say the least. And to lump in opposition to "emergency contraception" (which deliberately operates post-fertilization) to regular contraception (which can act post-fertilization, unknowingly to many users) hardly seems like an honest move.

Suppose we allow that a pregnancy starts with implantation, and that an abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy, the subsequent deduction that "EC" does not cause an abortion is completely beside the point. The point is:

DOES IT END A HUMAN LIFE OR NOT? AND SHOULD WOULD-BE CUSTOMERS BE TOLD THIS?

Let Us Rededicate Ourselves to the Cause of Life

Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation by Ronald Reagan is posted at Life of the Party as a reminder of what can happen when politicians have the courage to speak the truth.

Ronald Reagan was elected twice in a national landslide. A landslide that included the state of Washington.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

The Republicans party can either be known as the party that restored the promise of the Right To Life, or they can be known as the party that was an accomplice to one of the world's great injustices. The choice is ours.

Election 2006: Detachment with Love

Many times when family and friends try to "help" pro-abortion politicians by voting for them, they are actually making it easier for them to continue in the progression of their addiction.

This baffling phenomenon is called enabling, which takes many forms, all of which have the same effect -- allowing the pro-abortion politician to avoid the consequences of his actions. This in turn allows the pro-abortion politician to continue merrily along his pro-abortion policy ways, secure in the knowledge that no matter how much he screws up, somebody will always be there to rescue him from his mistakes and re-elect him next year.

Helping is doing something for a someone that they are not capable of doing themselves. Enabling is doing for a someone things that they could, and should be doing themselves.

Simply, enabling creates a atmosphere in which the pro-choice politician can comfortably continue his unacceptable behavior.

Are you an enabler?
Here's a few questions that might help determine the difference between helping and enabling the pro-abortion politician in your life:

1. Have you ever "called in sick" for the pro-abortion politician, lying about his symptoms by saying things like "He's not really pro-abortion, his position is very complex"?

2. Have you accepted part of the blame, or blamed others, for his (or her) pro-abortion behavior by telling yourself that "there's no consensus on when life begins"?

3. Have you avoided talking about his pro-abortion policies out of fear of his response?

4. Have you bailed him out of jail or paid for his legal fees?

5. Have you paid bills that he was supposed to have paid himself?

6. Have you loaned him money for his campaign?

7. Have you endorsed him in hopes of strengthening the relationship so that you'll "have a place at the table"?

8. Have you given him "one more chance" every election and then another and another?

9. Have you threatened to stop voting for or endorsing him and didn't?

10. Have you finished a campaign or project that the pro-abortion politician failed to complete himself?

Of course, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you at some point in time have enabled the pro-abortion politician to avoid his own responsibilities to the nation. Rather than "help" the pro-abortion politican, you have actually made it easier for him, and the nation, to get worse.

As long as the pro-abortion politician has his enabling devices in place, it is easy for him to continue to deny he has a problem -- since most of his problems getting elected are being "solved" by those around him. Only when he is forced to face the consequences of his own actions, will it finally begin to sink in how deep his problem has become.

Those kinds of choices are difficult. They require "detachment with love." But it is love. Unless the pro-abortion politician is allowed to face the consequences of his own actions, he will never realize just how big a problem his pro-abortion policies have become -- to himself and those around him.

HT: About.com