Abortion Doc Defends Doing Abortions

Abortion Doc Defends Doing Abortions: “My Christianity Leads Me to a Place of Non-Judgment”

Micaiah Bilger  

This blog covers the latest from the "Pro-life" world

Every month, abortionist Willie Parker flies from his home in Chicago to abort unborn babies in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia.

On Saturday, Parker told a Massachusetts crowd why he makes the journey each month – because of “my Christianity.” A well-known abortionist who often seeks the public spotlight, Parker regularly has made claims that his Christian faith justifies his job of aborting unborn babies.

The Massachusetts Republican reports more from Parker’s speech:

“First of all, abortion is health care,” Parker said.
Secondly, the Christian faith means different things to different people. His calls his service to those in need.
“For me, my Christianity leads me to a place of non-judgment,” Parker said.
An obstetrician, he refused to perform abortions for many years. But reading a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the Bible story of the Good Samaritan changed Parker’s mind.
In the sermon, King pointed out that the Samaritan in the parable acted out of concern for the injured man, not out of concern for what might happen to himself if he stopped to help.

Parker is the same abortionist who told Esquire in 2014 that his abortion clinic is a “ministry” and compared himself to the Good Samaritan in a recent op-ed for The New York Times.
On Saturday, Parker tried to flatter himself by describing his deadly practice as a “human service.” Later, he all but admitted that he does kill living human babies.
“I’m never in conflict about if an abortion ends a life process,” Parker said. “Pregnancy is a life process. But all life processes that occur in the body of a woman are subordinate to the well-being of that woman.”

“Women’s agency and power to determine all the processes that go on inside their body allows me to place their well-being first and foremost,” he said.
What the article failed to mention is that Parker does later-term abortions up to 24 weeks, when a baby is viable outside the womb – a practice that horrifies most Americans. Though African American himself, Parker also has defended the discriminatory targeting of African American babies for abortion.

France takes a big step towards euthanasia with new ‘terminal sedation’ law 

France's Parliament approved new "end of life" legislation on Wednesday, creating a new "right" for terminal or gravely ill patients to obtain "deep and continuous sedation until death" on demand. The French National Assembly and the Senate both voted for the same text after it had been streamlined by a mixed parliamentary committee, following a protracted battle between the two chambers seeking to modify the bill. While it stops short of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the "Claeys-Leonetti law" – the names of its two proponents, one socialist, the other a supposed conservative – is ambiguous enough to be considered a step toward euthanasia, and in some ways it is even more extreme than Dutch and Belgian euthanasia laws.

Both the National Assembly and the Senate voted by a show of hands, making it difficult to know which representatives and senators voted for or against.
The law's main novelty resides in its proclamation of a "right to a dignified end of life including the best possible alleviation of suffering." This goes beyond best palliative care – even though the bill does call for that – insofar as "a dignified end of life" is at its best a subjective notion and at its worst a way of suggesting that some ends are not "dignified."
Emmanuel Hirsch, professor of medical ethics at the university of Paris-Sud, wrote an op-ed in the Catholic daily La Croix last year showing that the true notion of dignity would be dulled by such a law: "Our concern for dignity will henceforth satisfy itself with the outlook of sedative and pain-killing treatment," he criticized, "dying well" becoming simply another way of "dying quickly and painlessly." He warned that the new law would "legitimate a form of medical and administrative management of euthanasia that will surreptitiously insinuate itself into medical practice."

The vote was sparsely attended.

That aspect of the text is still very present in the amended text. It confirms a general obligation not to commence or maintain treatments that constitute "unreasonable obstinacy" with regard to the patient's situation. "When they appear to be useless, disproportioned or when they have no effect other than artificially maintaining life, they can be suspended or waived, in accordance with the patient's will, and if the patient is unable to express that will, at the conclusion of a collegial procedure," the text reads. It goes on to say that "artificial nutrition and hydration are treatments that can be stopped according to the dispositions" above.
This is doubly worrying. On the one hand, besides the traditional practice of not imposing "disproportionate" treatment on patients who are not in a situation where they can benefit by them, the law speaks of "useless" treatments – a throwback to the doctrine of "futile care" that allows for a utilitarian interpretation. Is it "useful" to maintain medication for a patient in a vegetative or minimally conscious state, when everything points to the fact that he or she has no hope of healing?

Sign a petition urging Canada's Parliament to stop assisted suicide!

The fact that "artificial nutrition and hydration" are now officially deemed to be "treatments" under French law means that people kept alive through feeding tubes can now be considered to be receiving "useless treatment." To put it bluntly, Terri Schiavo and her French counterpart Vincent Lambert, under this law, would be clearly considered "artificially kept alive," and stopping the administration of food and fluids would be considered good practice as long as they were deeply sedated during the process. When incapable of expressing their will, and in the absence of a living will, the doctor is required to "consult" their family or near ones and can then decide.
In France, there is now less protection than before for this type of patient.
Deep, terminal sedation will also be possible in several cases at the patient's request, and in order to "avoid all suffering," which is rather extreme. In the name of the patient's right to reject "unreasonable obstinacy" on the part of doctors, these are required to install "profound and continuous sedation, impairing consciousness until death, associated with pain-killers and an end to all life-sustaining treatment." This means pulling food and fluids, which inevitably leads to death.
Two situations justify the procedure. The first is acceptable on its face: it applies when the patient is suffering from a "grave and incurable condition that is life-threatening in the short term and presents suffering that cannot be alleviated." New, however, is the patient's "right" to demand an end-of-life procedure that up to now was left to the doctors' experience and conscience.
Provision has also been made for non-terminal patients who decide to forego treatment for a "grave and incurable condition" when stopping treatment is "susceptible of causing unbearable suffering." This means, for instance, that a gravely handicapped person who relies on artificial food and fluids to stay alive can refuse these insofar as they are legally considered to be "treatments" and obtain deep and continuous sedation on demand.
Doctors will be obliged to accede to these requests and legally required to provide deep sedation when they are clearly made and repeated and the patient has been fully informed of the consequences of the procedure. They will also be obliged to respect any advance directives regarding treatment and investigation, save cases where they are "obviously inappropriate" in a given medical situation, or in cases of emergency, to allow medical staff to take time to assess the patient's situation.
What is extreme about the law is that it creates an obligation for doctors to prescribe death for their patients. Even Dutch and Belgian euthanasia laws do not go that far, insofar as it is up to doctors there to assess requests and to decide whether "mercy killing" is acceptable in a given situation.
The French solution is less spectacular but more individualistic. It derives logically from a proclaimed "right" to "avoid any suffering," while at the same time it widens the gray zone between palliative care and outright killing, instituting what for some will be genuine and compassionate alleviating of suffering through sedation at the very end of life, and for others a deliberate hastening of death, where the patient dies not of his "illness" or, as the law more widely puts it, his "condition," but of thirst.
It must be noted that when François Hollande was campaigning for the presidency in 2012, he promised to promote a law that would afford all adults in an advanced or terminal state of illness "medical assistance" allowing them to "reach the end of their life with dignity." It the early stages of the debate, it appeared that he wanted to go farther than the present Claeys-Leonetti law. Perhaps the public uprising – the hundreds of thousands of marchers of the "Manif pour tous" – against same-sex "marriage" discouraged Hollande and his socialist government from adopting frontal tactics. Things could have been much worse.
But already euthanasia proponents are calling the new law only a step in their desired direction. The fight isn't over by far.

US Marks 43 Years Since Roe v. Wade, Nearly 60 Million Babies Aborted and Counting

January 22nd marks 43 years since the issuance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 60 million American babies and counting through “legalized” abortion. As previously reported, the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade dealt with an admitted false claim of rape by a single Texas woman named Norma McCorvey, who challenged the state’s laws criminalizing abortion with the exception of the life of the mother. McCorvey is now pro-life and speaks against abortion.
Out of the seven justices that ruled in favor of Roe, five were Republicans. The court discussed the reasons why abortion has historically been outlawed in the nation, including the binding vow of the Hippocratic Oath and the influence of Christian ethics. It also noted that in pagan nations such as Greece and Rome, “[a]ncient religion did not bar abortion.” Judge Harry Blackmun, nominated by Richard Nixon, wrote the majority opinion issued on Jan. 22, 1973. Blackmun stated that the Constitution does not include the unborn as being persons, and therefore, they may not receive equal protection. FULL REPORT

 

NO SURPRISE HERE!

Warren Buffett and George Soros Gave $6.6 Million to Leading Pro-Abortion Political Group

Illuminati Much?

During Super Bowl 50, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) wasn’t about to let biology get in the way of their propaganda.

While live-tweeting its reactions to Super Bowl commercials, NARAL threw science out the window to bemoan “humanizing” a fully-developed fetus.
The ignorance might be comical if NARAL hadn’t been given more than $ 6.6 million from liberal billionaires Warren Buffett and George Soros to promote their dangerously ignorant propaganda.
NARAL’s tweet was a response to Doritos’ Super Bowl 2016 ad which starred an expectant mother and her husband making their last ultrasound visit before the birth. At the beginning, the doctor is clearly heard saying “And there’s your beautiful baby! Any day now!,” letting viewers know this is a fully developed baby ready for delivery.
If “humanizing” a fully developed fetus is “antichoice tactic,” then it follows that the appropriate pro-abortion tactic is to dehumanize that baby. And that’s what NARAL has been doing for years, with the support of liberal donors.
Between 1989 and 2013, NARAL alone has received at least $6,667,969 from George Soros and Warren Buffett together.

Buffett is responsible for $5,453,119 of that through The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, while the remaining $1,214,850 came from Soros.
NARAL is just a fraction of Buffett’s total pro-abortion spending. Between 2001 and 2013, he was singlehandedly responsible for giving more than $1.33 billion to pro-abortion groups.
In 2013 alone, Buffett donated $99,809,148 to pro-abortion groups, including $62 million to Planned Parenthood and $756,236 to NARAL.

Euthanasia movement destroys its archives? There’s one BIG reason they may have 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/euthanasia-movement-destroys-its-archives-theres-one-big-reason-they-may-ha

 

Kentucky governor sues Planned Parenthood, alleging 23 illegal abortions 

FRANKFURT, Kentucky, February 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Kentucky's new governor has sued his state's Planned Parenthood chapter for allegedly conducting 23 illegal abortions.
According to a lawsuit filed by Governor Matt Bevin on Thursday, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (PPINK) operated "an unlicensed abortion facility without hospital and ambulance transfer agreements" that ended the lives of 23 unborn children. Planned Parenthood did the abortions as its license and transfer agreements were being processed – something Bevin says is illegal.

"Although I am an unapologetically pro-life individual, I recognize and accept that there are some laws on the books that I do not necessarily agree with," Bevin said in a statement. "However, we are a nation of laws, and my job is to ensure that they are followed regardless of my personal opinion. This administration will have no tolerance for the type of brazen disregard that Planned Parenthood has shown for both the safety of women and the rule of law. We will hold Planned Parenthood accountable for knowingly endangering their patients by providing illegal abortions at a facility that

PPINK says it has stopped abortions at the clinic while the license dispute is ongoing; however, it also said in a statement that "[w]e ask that the executive branch continue the licensure process rather than continue to make politically motivated accusations." In January, president and CEO Betty Cockrum said, "We in no way, shape or form would contemplate offering abortion procedures in anything but a legal environment."
In a press conference on Thursday, PPINK said it had permission from the administration of Bevin's predecessor, Governor Steve Beshear, to conduct abortions as the license was being approved. Bevin, however, said in his lawsuit that former Cabinet for Health and Family Services inspector general Maryellen Mynear falsely gave retroactive permission to PPINK after it started doing abortions at the clinic and that a "long standing OIG policy" allowing abortion clinics to operate without licenses had no legal foundation.
LifeSiteNews was unable to attend the PPINK press conference, where reporters were given documents allegedly backing PPINK's claim that it had permission to conduct abortions without a license – something PPINK said was done in order that the group would be engaging in all of its professional activities before an unannounced inspection by the state.
An e-mailed request for those documents was not immediately returned by PPINK.
"We applaud the Commonwealth of Kentucky for taking this important and strong action," said Indiana Right to Life president and CEO Mike Fichter in a statement. "If the allegations made in this suit are proved correct, Planned Parenthood should be permanently barred from doing abortions in Kentucky. We also encourage Indiana officials to exert the highest degree of scrutiny to ensure that Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky is operating within the law in our state."
Bevin's lawsuit claims that fines could total anywhere from $500 to $10,000 per day if PPINK is found guilty of breaking the law.

“Girl Meets World” Star Rowan Blanchard Calls Planned Parenthood President Her “Role Model”

This week, Paper Magazine’s “Girl Crush” series highlighted a concerning conversation between Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards and Girl Meets World actress Rowan Blanchard. Planned Parenthood’s CEO and the 14-year-old actress discussed a host of topics from sex-education to the broader meaning of feminism, and ended with the young teen calling the abortion giant’s president her “role model.”

Blanchard spoke of how she believes Planned Parenthood’s website is necessary for teenagers. She explained that girls who are embarrassed to ask their parents questions can go there to find the answers because “it’s anonymous and it’s safe.”
Blanchard went on to say: “If you make things like Planned Parenthood and sexual health no longer taboo or scary to talk about, I feel like that would lead to much less unwanted pregnancies with teens. But now when girls talk about these topics, they’re called ‘sluts,’ or something like that.”
As a young actress and a role model for other teens, Blanchard’s endorsement of the abortion giant is very disturbing. The advice Planned Parenthood provides for teenagers is extremely alarming. For example, the abortion provider openly encourages promiscuity. As LifeNews previously reported, Planned Parenthood posted on its Tumbler account this advice from “expert” Alex: “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”

Another topic the two discussed was sexism and the need for equality. Blanchard described herself as a feminist who admires Richards for providing teenage girls with “a non-judgmental place where it’s safe.” The actress also provided her definition of feminism, “Feminism to me means equality.”
Yet this too is misleading and inconsistent with Planned Parenthood’s actions. Cecile Richards is not a feminist, and Planned Parenthood does not support equality. Rather, the abortion group places its abortion mills in areas that target minorities. And certainly Planned Parenthood’s refusal to withhold abortion for the reason of sex-selection is reflective of its lack of concern for women.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States. By teaching young women that casual sex is a normal, healthy reaction to their raging hormones, they are ensuring future customers. Perhaps someone with so much to gain shouldn’t teach sex-ed to students.
Blanchard missed this when she stated that the Planned Parenthood’s CEO is her inspiration: “When I name my role models, it’s women like you.”
Young women and parents alike should find it extremely disconcerting that the 14-year-old actress is looking to Planned Parenthood’s CEO as her role model. There are so many inspirational women who defended women and the unborn, women like Mother Teresa and Alice Paul. Cecile Richards makes her living off of aborting future women, and therefore should not be any feminist’s role model.

7 new pro-family groups added to radical leftist group’s infamous ‘hate’ list 

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is at it again, labeling seven more Christian and conservative organizations as "Hate Groups" for following the Bible.

The infamous group, once a respected civil rights champion, has become a homosexual watchdog for LGBTQ "discrimination," blacklisting any church or fellowship that questions gay activities.
The list already included of 48 "anti-LGBTQ" groups. This time, the SPLC seeks to ostracize D. James Kennedy Ministries, Faith 2 Action, Citizens for Community Values, Greenville Georgia's Faith Baptist Church, Friendship Assembly of God church in Colorado Springs, The Campus Ministry USA, and Conservative Republicans of Texas.
D. James Kennedy Ministries began in 1974 as Coral Ridge Ministries, with the mission of bringing the Gospel to America and the world. One of its most popular programs is "Evangelism Explosion," which teaches Christians of any denomination how to "share the good news of Jesus Christ."
Faith2Action's mission is "Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-ACTIVE." Its website claims that the group is "the largest network of pro-family organizations," defending "Bible-based beliefs and freedoms," specifically in sociological terms of "life, liberty, and the family."
Citizens for Community Values, based in Cincinnati, is a grassroots organization formed to promote "Judeo-Christian moral values" through "education, active community partnership, and individual empowerment at the local, state and national levels." The group seeks to strengthen families, defend children, and "maintain healthy, wholesome, safe, and happy communities." By design, they "separate issues and legislation from people," loving all while opposing sin. Their website states, "We will never condone or take part in the mistreatment of any individual who opposes our views."
Faith Baptist Church in Georgia, sometimes called "The Sons of Thunder," is an independent Baptist Church founded in 1984, about 50 miles south of Atlanta.
Friendship Assembly of God is a Bible-based church in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Campus Ministry USA of Terre Haute, Indiana is led by "Brother Jed," who believes that open rebuke is more effective and more loving (and more in line with Jesus's earthly ministry) than a gentle message of tolerance and compromise. He practices "confrontational evangelism" on college campuses and public venues, seeking to lead his listeners to repentance.
Conservative Republicans of Texas in Houston exists "to advance Constitutional liberties based upon Biblical principles." Those principles include the free enterprise system, victim's rights, gun ownership, cutting government spending and income tax cuts, parental choice in education, employment hiring based upon merit, traditional family values, and the sanctity of human life.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

The SPLC describes these Christian churches and fellowships as "in a white-hot fury" of hate, "who resent LGBT people." "These groups are really vile and nasty," they say, without citation.
Along with Christian organizations that oppose sodomy, the SPLC listed anti-terrorist groups who identify violent acts with Islam.
"I'm not really surprised that Citizens for Community Values was listed," Barry Sheets, legislative consultant to CCV, told LifeSiteNews. "Any organization that stands for morality is being targeted."
"What it really comes down to – I believe the reason why we were added – is, CCV has taken a leadership role in standing for traditional values, especially with marriage as between one man and one wife, instead of normalizing transgenderism, transsexualism and other things," Sheets added. "We believe in protecting our students in our classrooms and making safe places for our families. If they have a problem with that, then I question what the SPLC is all about."
The SPLC has doubled its blacklisting of pro-family, pro-natural marriage groups in just the past four years. They enshrine their quest as "The New Civil Rights Movement," calling homosexual behavior a civil "right."
In the last couple of years, the SPLC has become overtly pro-sodomy and has lashed out against any moral institution that disagrees with its denial of the scientifically documented fact that anal sodomy is physically, medically, biologically, psychologically, and emotionally harmful.
Millionaire Morris Dees founded the SPLC to monitor the Ku Klux Klan, but in recent years, critics say the group has become exactly the kind of hate-mongering institution that it originally opposed.
Other organizations the SPLC has labeled as "hate groups" include Liberty Counsel, which has criticized the SPLC for ignoring the difference between "racist [and] violent groups, and legitimate organizations that participate peacefully in the political process – tarring all with the same label."
The American Family Association's Meeke Addison explained, "By SPLC's definition, anyone who holds ... views contrary to those of the SPLC ... [is] hate-filled."
Because of its historic civil rights stature supported by the U.S. government, the SPLC's hate-targeting has literal life-and-death consequences. On August 15, 2012, after the SPLC listed the Family Research Council (FRC) as a "Hate Group," homosexual activist Floyd Lee Corkins entered the FRC building with a gun and 100 rounds of ammunition; shouted, "I don't like your politics"; and started shooting at Christians. He later admitted to trying to "kill as many as possible," specifically because the SPLC listed the FRC as a "Hate Group."
Family Research Council executive vice president Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (ret.) concluded that the Obama administration's FBI contributes to the SPLC's stature (and fundraising) by legitimizing the anti-Christian organization. "The FBI's past acknowledgement of SPLC only served to validate a political organization's fundraising efforts," Addison said. "The FBI's dissolution of any type of relationship with the SPLC is long overdue."
Attorney Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, opined of the SPLC, "The hard-left group has become everything it presumes to expose."
The SPLC has also come under sharp criticism for its financial practices. Morris Dees has used his multi-million-dollar direct mail marketing experience to turn his organization into a powerful fundraising machine. The SPLC has a budget of $30 million but enjoys a huge "endowment" of $223 million, some of which is stored in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The American Institute of Philanthropy, popularly known as "Charity Watch," has given the SPLC a "FAIL" rating for continuing to fundraise while sitting on such a massive pile of money.

Canadian archbishop: No last rites for Catholics planning assisted suicide 

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews

(LifeSiteNews) -- Since suicide is a “grave sin” — being contrary to the 5th commandment against murder — it would be in “direct contradiction” to Catholic values for a person intent on assisted suicide to demand last rites, that is the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, stated Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa.
“Asking to be killed is gravely disordered and is a rejection of the hope that the rite calls for and tries to bring into the situation,” the archbishop stated in an interview with Canadian Catholic News last week.
Any person who requests assisted suicide “lacks the proper disposition for the anointing of the sick,” he added.
The Sacrament of the Sick, one of the seven sacraments of the Church, is the ancient practice since the time of the apostles of anointing the seriously ill with blessed oil. While laying hands on them, the priest prays that the sick person may be helped “with the grace of the Holy Spirit” and that they will be saved and raised up by the “Lord who frees you from sin.” The grace of the sacrament strengthens the sufferer and gives him peace and courage to bear the illness and to unite himself to Christ, the Catechism states.
Last year the Supreme Court of Canada made what critics called an “activist decision” to give doctors the right in law to cause the death of patients by euthanasia and assisted suicide. The court originally gave Parliament one year to come up with a law to govern the practice, which was extended by four months until June, due to insufficient time because of the federal election cycle. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is now in the process of crafting a law to govern the deadly practice.
Archbishop Prendergast said that priests should in no way condone the sin of assisted suicide.
“Asking your priest to be present to something that is in direct contradiction to our Catholic values is not fair to the pastor,” he said. “Of course a pastor will try and dissuade a patient from requesting suicide and will pray with them and their family, but asking him to be present is in effect asking him to condone a serious sin.”
He emphasized that withholding the sacrament may actually serve as a pastoral approach to helping the assisted-suicide seeker realize the serious error of their decision.
The archbishop’s statement come days after the the Alberta bishops released their own statement on the World Day of the Sick earlier this month that called the willful act of killing oneself or another human being “morally wrong.”
“No Catholic may advocate for, or participate in any way, whether by act or omission, in the intentional killing of another human being either by assisted suicide or euthanasia,” the statement, signed by six bishops stated.
“The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada makes legally permissible in some circumstances what is morally wrong in every circumstance: the taking of innocent human life. This is unacceptable in a truly just and ethical society,” they stated.