[Tragically, this information did not convince the Mexico Supreme Court to overturn the Mexico City law allowing abortion.]

International abortion advocates are desperate to get a favorable abortion ruling from the Mexican Supreme Court.  Abortion is still illegal in virtually all of South and Central America so "abortion rights" advocates are trying to make a breakthrough in the region.

They have pulled out the usual justification that thousands of women are dying annually due to "unsafe abortions".  They got the pro-abortion Mexico City government to support this questionable statistic.

This claim, however, was shattered by data submitted to the Supreme Court last week, which shows that only eight women died in Mexico City as a result of abortions in 2006, when the procedure was still illegal.  The statistics were produced by Mexico City's health department.

This same falsified claim was used to make the case for legalizing abortion in the United States.  Claims of 5,000 to 10,000 maternal deaths annually from illegal abortions turned out to be 39 deaths in 1972.  Dr. Bernard Nathanson revealed the invented origin of this falsehood because he was there when it happened.  His later conversion to the Pro-Life cause allowed the truth to gain more prominence, but apparently not enough to prevent abortion advocates from going back to this same lie when they promote abortion anywhere in the world.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008  --  Abortion was always seen as a moral evil

Abortion advocates want to change both science and church history.  First, Barack Obama responded to the question "when does a baby receive human rights?" with the response, "whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to expand on Obama's response by claiming, "I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins."  She asserted that "over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition."

Apparently, when Pelosi described herself "as an ardent, practicing Catholic," that did not reflect any knowledge of the Catholic faith on her part.  In response to her inaccurate representation of church teaching, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a statement.

The USCCB statement points out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law." (No. 2271)

Further clarifying the point, the statement observes that over 150 years ago "scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization.  In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church teaches that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life."

Thus, even though the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development, science added more definitive information to support that teaching.  Exactly who is out-of-touch with science?

Friday, August 22, 2008  --  Abortionists charged with criminal conduct

Abortion advocates never give up repeating the lie that laws against abortion result in many women dying from unsafe illegal abortions.  In fact, many women are injured or die at the hands of "legal" abortionists.  In early 2007 I compiled a list of ten enforcements actions taken against abortionists in less than seven months, followed by more evidence that legal abortions are not safe later in 2007.

Operation Rescue actively tracks the outrageous actions of abortionists across the nation.  They just reported that a Michigan District Court has issued a twelve-count warrant against WomanCare, a Detroit area abortion mill owned by Alberto Hodari, for illegal dumping of women's private medical records.  Hodari is a troubled abortionist who has been sued 23 times in the past 20 years and was responsible for the botched second-trimester abortion death of a 15-year old girl in 2004.

He later shocked a collage campus audience when he told them that he seldom washes his hands between patients to prevent skin chaffing, even though he knew that it increased risks to his patients.  He also told the same group that he believes abortionists have a "license to lie."

Other abortionists facing criminal prosecutions include Howard Pfupajena of California, who violently attacked a pro-life sidewalk counselor, Rapin Osathanondh of Massachusetts, who is charged with manslaughter for killing Laura Hope Smith during a botched abortion, and Bertha Bugarin of California, who faces 28 felonies for committing abortions without a medical license. Bugarin's associate, Laurence Riech was arrested and charged in February for continuing to do abortions even though his license was revoked after a second conviction of having sexually molested his patients. Two Florida abortion workers, Belkis Gonzales and Siomara Senises were both also charged with practicing medicine without licenses at a Miramar abortion mill. Late-term abortionist George R. Tiller of Kansas faces 19 charges of committing illegal late-term abortions.

Given the extra effort required just to get law enforcement interested in investigating violations by abortionists in most jurisdictions, these cases most likely represent only "the tip of the iceberg" in the scope of problems to be discovered in abortion mills around the nation.  Legal abortion is not safe!

Thursday, August 21, 2008  --  Warning about euthanasia threats here in Illinois

Responding to information offered by IRLC about potential dangers posed by some hospices, I have had an email conversation with an impacted family that wants to warn about the deadly scenarios they encountered here in Illinois. 

The anti-psychotic, zyprexa is a path to murder for elderly with dementia.  The La Bounty family lost a loved one to this anti-psychotic drug, coupled with the "right" to refuse to eat.  Mrs. La Bounty stated, "My husband's mother entered long term care with early stage dementia, walking, talking, eating and going to the bathroom by herself.

Prior to institutionalization, she ate breakfast out daily with a group of friends.   Five weeks later, she was a vegetable having lost 20 pounds and all abilities, including communication of affection. She was ripe for hospice. A "Do Not Resuscitate" had been placed on her illegally along with the administration of the anti-psychotic drug."

She added, "Those with court-appointed guardians are most at risk.  The federally funded Ombudsman Program would not intervene because in Illinois 'if the guardian is pleased with care', it is fine; despite what federal regulations state.   There is no possible intervention in Illinois for a ward assigned a court appointed guardian."

Based on this family's experience, please be aware of the serious risks for euthanasia posed by both court-appointed guardians and the anti-psychotic drug zyprexa.  This is not the first time I have been told about the willingness of public guardians to deny food and water, with or without an executed living will to justify it.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008  --  Distorting his voting record on abortion

Barack Obama said that National Right to Life is lying about his position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that he opposed while an Illinois Senator.  He opposed this Illinois bill in 2001, 2002, and 2003.  Why did Obama oppose the bill?  In 2001, he spoke against the bill saying it "would essentially bar abortions."  

Obama now claims he would have supported the Federal bill that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate during 2002.  So why did he so vigorously oppose the state bill?  In 2004 he responded to an open forum question by claiming there was already a law that applied.  When reminded about case of the baby Jill Stanek held until it died, he responded, "Jill Stanek works for Alan Keyes."  This attempt to connect Stanek to his opponent for U.S. Senate was incorrect, but he evaded the issue, and refused to discuss it further.

Later during that campaign Obama began claiming he would have supported the state bill, but it was worded differently than the Federal bill.  However, all the evidence now shows the state bill was virtually identical to the Federal bill, undermining any basis for his claim.

What next?  Oh, the legal situation in Illinois is different so the same wording is not sufficient to protect the right to abortion.  No, how about, there was already a law so this bill was unneeded?  Does it make any difference to know that then Attorney General Jim Ryan found no existing law had been broken before the Born Alive bill was first introduced?

Doesn't the quantity of constantly changing explanations for opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act raise some serious concerns about the credibility of these claimed reasons?  Will anyone in the "mainstream" media ever admit that Obama's position on abortion is extreme?

Tuesday, August 19, 2008  --  Distorting the record on abortion

The subject of abortion produces the need by abortion advocates to move from one distortion to another as they promote their agenda with a now skeptical public.  During the presidential forum at Saddleback Church in California on August 16th, presidential candidate Barack Obama stated "The fact is that -- although we have a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years -- abortions have not gone down."  Apparently, his intent was to suggest that a Pro-Life President has no impact on abortion. 

Such a claim is not supported by the facts.  The Guttmacher Institute, affiliate of Planned Parenthood, reported the latest abortion statistics in January 2008.  That report indicated just over 1,210,000 abortions in the United States for 2005, down from 1,313,000 they reported for 2000.  The same report revealed the abortion rate for 2005 was 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 (down from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 2000, and the lowest rate since 1974).  

Monday, August 18, 2008  --  Maryland Truth Tour participants exonerated

Truth tours have been held around the Chicago area for years.  In some cases police in a few suburbs have attempted to violate the First Amendment rights of participants as they showed pictures of aborted babies along roads.  However, the worst result was calling off the display earlier than planned.

In Maryland, Jack Ames of Defend Life has been conducting Truth Tours similar to those in Chicago.  No major difficulties have occurred in previous years, but the 18 participants at this year's last stop were all arrested without warning. 

Harford County's State Attorney Joe Cassilly dismissed the charges last week against the eight adults and ten teenagers.  While none of those taken into custody were told why they were being arrested, they were later charged with loitering, failure to obey a lawful order, and disorderly conduct.

Defend Life Director Jack Ames observed, "This decision by the State of Maryland to drop the charges shows that our side of the story was the true story."  A lawsuit against the state troupers who violated the participants First Amendment rights is being considered.

Friday, August 15, 2008  --  'Brain Death' is not Death - Organ Donors are Alive

Have you heard any appeals recently from Secretary of State Jesse White to become an organ donor?  If you have already become, or are thinking about being, an organ donor, you may want to reconsider.  An article in the August 14, 2008 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) admits that organ donors are alive because 'brain death' is not death.

The NEJM article was written by Robert D. Truog, M.D., and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D.   Troug and Miller, after admitting that the scientific literature does not support the criteria for 'brain death' and 'cardiac death' as being real death, suggest instead that ethicists should simply remove the requirement for dead donors.  "The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead," they write.

Troug and Miller suggest that this inconvenient finding should not inhibit organ donation as long as there is valid consent by the patient or surrogate.  Since doctors are already killing people both by organ removal and by ending life support, these decisions have been accepted as ethical.  In other words, if doctors decide the patient will die, it is ethical to take actions that help it happen.  The following paragraph presents their seriously flawed logic in support of euthanasia as an ethical means to obtain vital organs for transplant:

Many will object that transplantation surgeons cannot legally or ethically remove vital organs from patients before death, since doing so will cause their death. However, if the critiques of the current methods of diagnosing death are correct, then such actions are already taking place on a routine basis. Moreover, in modern intensive care units, ethically justified decisions and actions of physicians are already the proximate cause of death for many patients - for instance, when mechanical ventilation is withdrawn. Whether death occurs as the result of ventilator withdrawal or organ procurement, the ethically relevant precondition is valid consent by the patient or surrogate. With such consent, there is no harm or wrong done in retrieving vital organs before death, provided that anesthesia is administered. With proper safeguards, no patient will die from vital organ donation who would not otherwise die as a result of the withdrawal of life support.

Tell that to the patients from Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Paris, France who were each declared 'brain dead' over just the last six months.  All of them were found to be alive under circumstances that delayed removal of their organs.  They all continue living and have each experienced recovery in varying degrees. 

These patients would all be dead using what Troug and Miller suggest is ethical medical procedure for obtaining donor organs.  Obtaining consent and other safeguards can never justify directly taking the life of any human being.  Euthanasia is immoral.

In his August 29, 2000 address to the 18th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, the late Pope John Paul II stressed: "vital organs which occur singly in the body can be removed only after death, that is from the body of someone who is certainly dead."  He would never have accepted the justification of Troug and Miller as ethical.  Their admission that organ donors are not dead can only confirm that donation of vital organs is always unethical and immoral.

Thursday, August 14, 2008  --  What is the definition of "wanted"?

The American Psychological Association (APA) has published a report this week declaring that "there is no meaningful connection between abortion and subsequent psychological disturbances in women."  However, the APA report does concede that a woman can have negative psychological consequences, but only in cases where a "wanted" child was aborted for eugenic reasons.

David Reardon of the Elliot Institute has done numerous studies producing data showing the impact of abortion on women.   Reardon's research of post-abortion women showed that over 60% of them felt "forced" into unwanted abortions by people or circumstances.   Other studies show that 90% of abortions are done to please someone other than the woman.

If such a large majority of women who have abortions believe the abortion was not their choice, were those children wanted or unwanted?  Why would a woman feel pressured or forced into abortion if she truly considered the baby unwanted?  Apparently, when they learn of the pregnancy, many women who have unplanned pregnancies decide they do not want to kill their children.  Abortion advocates, including the APA, may describe these children as unwanted, but that conclusion is not correct just because the pregnancies were unplanned.

In other words, it is not correct to interchange the words "unplanned" and "unwanted."  For example, the APA report states, "Among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy."  That statement implies that "unplanned" and "unwanted" are effectively equivalent. 

This misleading equivalence is further conveyed when the report states "It is when a wanted child is killed or dies that a woman experiences subsequent negative mental consequences."  If the APA would recognize that many more babies are wanted, even though unplanned, they would be forced to conclude that many women have negative mental consequences after abortion.

Ironically, the report does admit abortion can cause "psychological distribance."  The real causes of psychological disturbance surrounding abortion, the report says, involve the "stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision" as well as "a prior history of mental health problems."  Apparently, if abortion causes psychological disturbance because of the negative viewpoint others have about abortion, that does not count.  Why not?  Obviously, the cause of their psychological distribance would not exist if they had delivered that pregnancy.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008  --  Living will becomes a license to kill

While the Terri Schiavo case was in the news back in 2004, another Florida case got much less publicity.  Hanford Pinette had signed both a living will, and a durable power of attorney for health care that designated his wife as agent.  When he had congestive heart failure, he needed a ventilator. 

His doctors insisted he had no hope of recovery so the provisions of his living will should be exercised by removing the ventilator.  When his wife Alice refused, hospital officials took the case to court and won.  Even though Hanford was still conscious, doctors removed his ventilator and he suffocated within two hours.  

Today in Rochester, NY local TV news reported on the case of Dorothy Livadas, 97, who lives with the aid of "life support."  Though she had signed documents giving her daughter, Ianthe Livadas, the power to make medical, legal, and financial decisions for her, she had also signed a "living will" instructing that she be taken off life support if she lapsed into a state where there was no reasonable expectation of recovery.

The dispute over her mother's condition forced Ianthe Livadas into a five-month legal battle against doctors, attorneys, and the Catholic Family Center.  "You don't expect a hospital to be threatening you that they're going to put aside your mother's choice of health care proxy and power of attorney, and replace you," Ianthe said.

Medical "experts" testified in court that there is no chance Dorothy will awaken or communicate.  Livadas’ daughter disagrees. "Just the other day, I saw a sneer on her face when I mentioned someone she doesn't like very well.  When you know someone all their life, you can tell what they're thinking by subtle movements in their face that others would miss," she said.

However, the courts have ruled that Ianthe Livadas no longer has a say in her mother's care as Justice Harold Galloway awarded custody to Catholic Family Center.  He said that Ianthe "fails to appreciate her mother's true medical condition," and that she "lacks the objectivity and insight to make necessary decisions."

This is just the latest known case where signing a "living will" allows the medical profession to stop "life support" of a conscious individual because they have "no hope of recovery" even when the agent designated by a durable power of attorney for health care disagrees.  The living will simply makes it that much easier for the medical profession to get the agent declared incompetent. 

The news report did not identify whether "life support" consists simply of a feeding tube or includes a ventilator as well.  From past experience, I would be suspicious that use of the generic phrase "life support" would likely indicate that only a feeding tube was involved.  If that be true, they plan to starve Dorothy to death because doctors have agreed she has "no reasonable expectation of recovery."  That is called euthanasia!   

Tuesday, August 12, 2008  --  More real world results show birth control failure

Abortion advocates continuously claim that abortions would be reduced if only there was better access to birth control and more education of young people on using it.  A new report on the abortion rate in New York City shows an extremely high abortion rate despite the ease with which women can get free or low-cost birth control. 

This result in New York City contradicts the claimed benefit exponded by abortion advocates.  Further confirming the point, a few years ago the Guttmacher Institute affiliate of Planned Parenthood recognized positively the access to birth control in places like New York while criticizing access in states like Nebraska.  Ironically, Nebraska just released figures showing their abortion rate is the lowest since 1974.

How much evidence is needed to demonstrate that ease of birth control access generates a large increase in abortions rather than a reducion in abortions?  These facts reconfirm the point made in my August 6th blog.

Monday, August 11, 2008  --  Democratic Party support for abortion softened?

Media reports suggest that the draft abortion plank of the 2008 Democratic Party platform "softens" the party's stance on abortion.  Here is the new draft language:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Compare that text to the 2004 Democratic Party plank on abortion:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Phrases such as "strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade" and "oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine" suggest to me a stronger statement of support for abortion under any circumstances. 

Beyond that unequivocal statement, the draft plank also "strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education" and proclaims that "such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions" when there is no legitimate evidence to support such a claim.

I do not think that support for taxpayer-funded abortion under any circumstances along with support for teaching casual sex to children so they will get pregnant and need abortions is "softening" support for abortion.  Rather, it is unconditional support for the agenda of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Friday, August 8, 2008  --  Infertility treatments found ineffective

Would you be concerned to learn that commonly prescribed treatments for infertility accomplish virtually nothing?  What if you learned that another method, found to be very effective, was totally ignored, or even rejected, by the medical profession?

UK researchers studied 580 women who experienced infertility, dividing them into three groups.  One group tried naturally for a pregnancy with no medical interventions; one took oral clomifene citrate (CC) which is believed to correct subtle ovulatory dysfunction; and the other had unstimulated intra-uterine insemination (IUI) of sperm.

The researchers found that women who had no interventions had a live birth rate of 17%, the group taking oral CC had a birth rate of 14%, and the group having unstimulated IUI had a birth rate of 23%. The researchers pointed out that to have a statistically meaningful and significant improvement in the live birth rate, the difference in live births between unstimulated IUI and no intervention would have to be much higher than the 6% reported in this trial.

In contrast to these long established medical interventions, now shown not to help couples with infertility problems, NaProTechnology has a success rate of 76% in assisting couples to achieve pregnancy when used to treat infertility.  Why is only one physician in the entire state of Illinois skilled in using this significantly more effective NaProTechnology treatment?

Thursday, August 7, 2008  --  40 Days for Life planned for at least 173 locations

What is 40 Days for Life?  40 Days for Life is a community-based campaign that draws attention to the evil of abortion through the use of a three-pronged effort: prayer and fasting, constant vigil, and  community outreach.   40 Days for Life takes a prayerful, peaceful approach to highlight the consequences of abortion.  It puts into action a desire to cooperate with God in the carrying out of His plan for ending abortion in America.

Though the registrations are still being processed so all the details are not yet available, 40 Days for Life will occur in at least 173 cities this fall (Sept 24 through Nov 2).  These cities are spread over 45 states, the District of Columbia, two Canadian provinces, and one American territory. 

Two of these cities are Chicago and Aurora, Illinois.  The Chicago 40 Days for Life vigil will be held at the notorious Family Planning Associates late-term abortion mill at Elston and Cicero.   The Aurora vigil will take place at the Planned Parenthood abortion fortress at New York St and Oakhurst Dr.

Day captains are still needed for some of the 40 days.  If your church would be willing to get involved, contact Illinois Right to Life at 312-422-9300 for Chicago, or contact Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood at 630-896-1200 for Aurora.  Consider teaming with one or more churches in your area to sponsor a day if you are concerned about the scope of this effort for your church alone. 

Abortion is an evil that only pray and fasting will overcome.  40 Days for Life is one means to come together, encourage, and support each other in prayer and fasting for the end of abortion.  Please do not ignore this tremendous opportunity to make a difference.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008  --  Does birth control reduce abortions?

Planned Parenthood is trying to make "contraceptive freedom" a campaign issue.  Two aspects of this propaganda push are insurance coverage of birth control and opposing Bush administration efforts to protect health care workers from violating their conscience or losing their jobs.

Of course, Planned Parenthood claims that better access to birth control will reduce the need for abortions.  Dr. Michael New, professor of political science at the University of Alabama, is one of the foremost researchers in determining the effect of abortion laws on society.  He comments:

However, easier access to contraceptives might encourage even more sexual activity among unmarried people. This is especially the case if contraceptives are made available to populations which include a high percentage of sexually inactive people, such as young teens. It would send powerful messages about the sort of sexual behavior that is both expected and acceptable.

The increase in sexual activity among teens during the 1960s provides good evidence of this. The birth-control pill was first approved by the FDA in early 1961 and put on the market later that same year. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (hardly a pro-life outfit) found that women who turned 15 between the mid-1960s and early 1970s were more likely to engage in sexual activity at a younger age than their counterparts who turned 15 between the mid-1950s and early 1960s.

Furthermore, the Guttmacher study partly attributes this increased sexual activity to the availability of the birth-control pill. The widespread use of birth control in the 1960s seems to have shifted the culture in such a way as to hasten rather than delay the liberalization of America’s abortion laws.

From the very beginning, Planned Parenthood, through research performed by their Guttmacher affiliate, knew that access to contraceptives increased sexual activity, leading to more unwanted pregnancies, and more abortions.  More access to birth control has never reduced abortions!

Tuesday, August 5, 2008  --  Another recovery after push for euthanasia rejected

What do you think doctors would recommend if you or a relative had a serious auto accident, went into a coma upon impact, and had no measurable brain function for 18 days?   They would either declare you "brain dead" and push for organ donation, or claim that you would never be anything but a vegetable and push for "pulling the plug."

That is what happened in the case of a 25-year-old Wyoming man, but the doctors were wrong.  Kevin Monk is very glad that his parents did not listen to the doctors.  Though he has difficulty remembering things and had to relearn virtually everything, even how to walk, he is very thankful to have his life and to have a mission to help others.

Kevin does remember one thing clearly.  While he was in coma he talked to God who said, "My son, I'm not ready for you yet. You still have many things to do for us down there, and when it's your day, I'll bring you back home, but not yet."   Kevin teaches a class at the Sierra Hills Assisted Living Community.

But his favorite part is witnessing to the people living there.  He doesn't want them to be afraid of death because he knows there is something more.  "He brings a lot of comfort to the people at Sierra Hills because he tells them about heaven and how wonderful it is," his mom Janice said. "He's made a big difference in a lot of people's lives."

In addition to Kevin Monk's case in Wyoming, other known cases over just the last six months where lives were saved after declaration of "brain death" have been reported from Minnesota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and even Paris, France.

Monday, August 4, 2008  --  The secret is getting out about how to prevent AIDS

Good news is coming from India.  A July 31st report indicates India is rejecting the international push for so-called comprehensive sex education.  Under the justification of fighting the spread of AIDS, sex-education was introduced into Indian schools that promoted condoms and 'safer sex' techniques.

This content had been formulated under the direction of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF).  Discovery that the material included a flipchart with graphic illustrations of the human anatomy was met with a nationwide uproar.

In parallel with such offensive sex education material, UNICEF is known for dumping condoms into developing nations as a means of fighting AIDS, despite the absence of meaningful data showing that any nation has ever significantly reduced their AIDS rate using this method.

A spokesperson for India's National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) told the media last week that sex-education taught to students will focus on abstinence and fidelity, not condoms and 'safer sex.' 

Given the experiences of the Philippines and Uganda reported previously, the available evidence indicates that India will effectively address the risk of AIDS by executing this strategy.  Pray that India provides even more evidence of the folly of condoms and "safe sex" by reducing AIDS cases through focusing on abstinence and fidelity.

Friday, August 1, 2008  --  Simply outrageous!  Second PP porno site giving bad advice

Maybe you already know about the Planned Parenthood web site targeting young people called teenwire.com.  Anyone who has checked out teenwire.com finds outrageous advice for teens there, offered by Planned Parenthood "experts" who answer questions placed by teens, and offer other unsolicited advice, all aimed at encouraging casual sex among teens to generate business for Planned Parenthood.

Commenting on Planned Parenthood's media offerings, STOPP Int'l observes,   "It creates sleazy web sites such as teenwire.com and puts out absolutely filthy TV commercials.  Planned Parenthood sells sex. It doesn't matter what type of sex; it sells it all." 

But one outrageous web site was not enough.  Planned Parenthood's local affiliate for Oregon and Washington has created a new website, TakeCareDownThere.org.   Both STOPP and Family Research Council (FRC) have expressed concern about this site's outrageous material.  FRC notes that TakeCareDownThere.org posts a series of videos so revolting that members of the FRC staff were visibly shaken.   STOPP notes that the web site is "not appropriate for anyone at any age. Yet, Planned Parenthood feels this site is appropriate for teens."

Just awareness that such outrageous material is regularly aimed at teens by Planned Parenthood should be sufficient to recognize they endanger teens by encouraging immoral and risky behavior.  If you need more evidence, you will need to check out these web sites, but I am not recommending that you do because I agree the material is not approrpriate for anyone.