NEWS ALERT! Brain-Injured Wife Goes Without Food or Water for Seven Weeks

September 17, 2010 (Statement from Terri's Life & Hope Network) - It has been 49 days since Trisha Duguay has gone without any food or water after her feeding tube was removed. Her husband made this decision shortly after Trisha had unsuccessful surgery for a brain tumor that was discovered just after the couple was married.

The family has started a Facebook page to lend support to Trisha and her family titled, "From Bride to Angel." So far, over 4,000 people have supported the family.

While what is happening to Mrs. Duguay is not receiving a lot of media attention, Terri's Life & Hope Network expresses concern with the manner in which some media outlets are portraying the situation, treating Trisha's prolonged death and going without food and hydration-for over 7 weeks now-as an act of compassion.

I think it is important to be reminded that dying this way is not compassionate, peaceful or pleasant. My family witnessed, first hand, something quite the opposite. Terri went through almost two weeks without food and water before she died, and it was heartbreaking. Her death was cruel and barbaric and she suffered horribly. We must continue to educate the general public that food and water is basic and ordinary care and despite ones intentions, it does not change the nature of the act.

Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network was established by the surviving family members of Terri Schiavo to protect the rights of people with disabilities. It has communicated and supported with more than 1,000 families, and has been involved in hundreds of cases since Terri's death-families who have loved one's living with brain injuries.

The death mongers abhor facts.

Thread by me.

Alex Schadenberg: Getting the euthanasia facts straight

In article written by Neil Francis in the online opinion entitled Dying with Dignity, Francis claims to be setting the facts straight but he also gets the facts wrong. Link: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11084

Francis states:

Opponents also regularly point to 1,000 deaths in the Netherlands each year being a hastened death without a current request for assistance to die, and say that voluntary euthanasia laws promote this kind of behaviour. They offer this as evidence of the slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia but they ignore the facts.

First, the data they refer to - contained in the Remmelink report was collected in 1990. The Netherlands didn’t enact a euthanasia law until 2002.

The fact is that the Netherlands government do a report every 5 years. The last report was in 2005 and it stated that 550 people died in the Netherlands without request or consent. This number may seem much lower than the Remmerlink report of 1990 unless you are one of the 550.

A recent study that was published May 17 in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association stated that 32% of all euthanasia deaths in the Flanders region in Belgium are without request or consent.

To suggest that there is not a slippery slope is just ignoring the facts.

The fact is that for many euthanasia cases, choice is an illusion.

Wesley J. Smith explains why euthanasia can NEVER be considered safe.

Two threads by me.

Australian PM Right: Belgium Proves No Way to Create a “Safe” Euthanasia System

This is a real hoot. Apparently OZ PM Julia Gillard has stated that she doesn’t see a way to create a euthanasia legalization system with safeguards that really protect. A Belgian professor–Down Under for a convention of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies–claims that she should look to Belgium to learn how it is done. From the story:

A PIONEER of Belgium’s voluntary euthanasia law has rebuffed Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s statement that it could be ”almost impossible” to find appropriate safeguards for such a law in Australia. Professor Jan Bernheim, a cancer specialist who was instrumental in creating Belgium’s voluntary euthanasia law in 2002, said Australia could learn a lot from his country about how to create a safe system. Last week, Ms Gillard said she found it difficult to conceive how there could be appropriate safeguards for such a law, but Professor Bernheim said Belgium’s safeguards had worked very well for the past eight years. ”Ms Gillard obviously hasn’t looked at the data,” Professor Bernheim said. ”I think Belgium has a system that is well worth considering.”

Belgium???? Abuses abound! Consider these stories covered by SHS and elsewhere:

The very first “legal” Belgian euthanasia violated the guidelines. Talk about proving my point.
Belgian nurses engage in non voluntary euthanasia: Only doctors are supposed to kill and euthanasia is supposed to be strictly voluntary. Yet in the study referenced, nearly half of the euthanasia deaths had not been requested.
In Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, there were nearly as many non voluntary terminations as voluntary. Obviously, a fundamental violation of the guidelines.
Belgian doctors materially under report euthanasia killings: This is a direct violation of Belgian law.
A Belgian patient was euthanized even though she didn’t qualify under the law because she went on a hunger strike. This is just an example of death on demand.
All doctors must be complicit, either by agreeing to euthanize qualified patients who ask or referring to a doctor who will.
Belgian doctors commit infanticide. Clearly a violation of every guideline on the books. Here’s an earlier entry reporting on a similar report.
Belgian doctors have coupled euthanasia with organ donation: The dangers of creating a utilitarian justification for euthanasia are clear and present.
Belgian pharmacies sell euthanasia kits to doctors for $74. Proving that killing is cheaper than caring. (Yes, I know that technically, this isn’t an abuse. But it is illuminating.)

I would say that Professor Bernheim is the one who hasn’t actually looked at the facts. PM Gillard is absolutely correct. Guidelines do not–and cannot-protect against abuse.

___________________________________________________

Belgium Euthanasia: Only Half of Patient Terminations Reported as Required by Law

Euthanasia guidelines don’t work as advertised. We’ve seen that truth evidenced again–in the Netherlands–and again–in Switzerland–and again–in Belgium–and again–in Oregon. A new study published in the British Medical Journal shows that in Flanders, Belgium, only half of the euthanasia deaths are reported as required by the law. From the study:

The reporting rate for euthanasia in Flanders in 2007 is estimated to be 52.8%. This means that only one out of two cases of actual euthanasia is reported to and reviewed by the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee, and one in two is not. The most important reason given by physicians for not reporting a case to the review committee was that the physician did not perceive the act to be euthanasia (76.7%).Alarge majority of the unreported cases (92.2%) were in fact acts of euthanasia as defined in our study but were not perceived or labelled as “euthanasia” by the physician involved. Unreported cases of euthanasia were generally dealt with less carefully than reported cases: a written request for euthanasia was absent more often; other physicians and care givers specialised in palliative care were consulted less often; the life ending act was more often performed with opioids, sedatives, or both; and the life ending drugs were more often administered by a nurse instead of a physician.

Not only is it against the law for nurses to kill patients, as we discussed here before, a study by the Canadian Medical Association found that nearly half of nurse administered euthanasia deaths in Belgium are without request or consent.

I also don’t buy that doctors don’t know when they are taking direct action to terminate a patient. But be that as it may, this study demonstrates–again–that euthanasia cannot be controlled by doctor administered death regulations. Once you let the vampire out of the coffin, it goes where it will. Guidelines are primarily there to give a comforting illusion of control.

This is a FANTASTIC strategy! All leftists should do this.

Thread by GonzoII.

Democratic candidates using abortion to mobilize support

Denver, Colo., Oct 9, 2010 / 06:05 pm (CNA).- Recent analysis from the Associate Press (AP) and the New York Times show Democratic candidates in state races using the contentious issue of abortion against their opponents, hoping to boost what is feared to be sluggish support for the party in November's mid-term elections.

According to the AP's Sept. 30 report, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino was the subject of a heated pro-abortion commercial when, after winning the nomination from his party, told an interviewer that he opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Abortion advocates aired commercials last week claiming that Paladino wants to treat women as criminals by outlawing abortion.

"It became pretty clear to us we had the most anti-choice candidate the state had ever seen," argued Mary Alice Carr, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice New York. The abortion supporting group has endorsed the state's Democratic nominee Andrew Cuomo.

Additionally, in the race for U.S. Senate, hopeful Republican Joe DioGuardi – a longtime abortion opponent – was recently and publicly questioned on the issue by incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand.

"I think the Democrats sense they are facing a turnout issue heading into election day. There's enthusiasm among Republicans and not much enthusiasm among Democrats," Siena pollster Steven Greenberg told the AP. "It is an issue that really appeals to Democratic voters."

New York attorney general candidate Democrat Eric Schneiderman, also touched on the issue of abortion on Sept. 28 to a crowd in Albany. Schneiderman, who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood Advocates of New York, told supporters that he will "aggressively defend" their rights to birth control, adding that at the age of 17, he worked at a Washington abortion clinic.

Commenting on the insight of pollster Steven Greenberg, the AP wrote that one aspect of candidates bringing up the heated topic of abortion “is the desire to rouse part of the Democratic base that may have become lethargic since President Barack Obama's win two years ago.”

On Oct. 7, the New York Times discussed a “bruising” Senate race currently underway in Colorado, where Republican candidate Ken Buck has been the focus of a controversial ad approved by his Democratic opponent, Michael Bennett. The ad features a female obstetrician in scrubs arguing that women will lose control of their bodies if Buck were to win.

Buck's campaign told the New York Times that the attacks are merely an attempt to deflect from other, more important concerns.

“The No. 1 issues are jobs and the economy, and Michael Bennet can’t run on that,” Owen Loftus, a spokesman for Buck, told the paper. “It’s a desperate effort by a desperate campaign.”

Bennett was appointed last year to replace former Democratic Senator Ken Salazar, who is now secretary of the interior. Earlier this week, Bennett presented a new agenda attempting to link advancements for women – specifically as business owners, workers and mothers – to abortion support.

Contrary to Bennett's stance, Loftus told the NY Times that Buck believes life to begin at conception and opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. However, he added, Buck's vision as a senator would highlight issues surrounding the economy.

This is an incredible editorial by Judie Brown!

Thread by me.

Judie Brown: Options and the Right to Live

If you thought the debate over providing a patient food and water had ended with Pope John Paul II’s 2004 address to health care professionals, you are sadly mistaken. The Holy Father clarified Catholic teaching, but even his profound words did not end the ongoing discussions which are taking on more innuendo and less fundamental ethical guidance as time progresses.

Pope John Paul II discussed the provision of nutrition and hydration in the case of patients in a coma, and did so as the Terri Schiavo drama was playing out in Florida. When he addressed the subject, he said that even in the case of a prolonged condition such as “vegetative state,” there is no ethical justification for ending or interrupting “minimal care” for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Further, “Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.” These are strong words and should have had the effect of ending any discussion about removing comfort care—which is really all that nutrition and hydration can provide to the dying.

So it was with considerable shock that I reviewed a brochure forwarded to me by a medical professional who learned of a presentation that will be made in her home state of Missouri. The title of the seminar is “Ethical Considerations for Withholding Nutrition and Hydration: End-of-Life Decisions.” The course director is Denise Dougherty, MA, CCC-SLP, MFT, a speech therapist in private practice in Pennsylvania. Ms. Dougherty earned a master’s degree at St. Louis University, which is a Catholic university.

Upon reviewing the description of the seminar, it disgusted me that seminars such as this—which take place across the country all the time—are being offered at Catholic facilities. One session is being conducted on October 21 at St. Clare Hospital—a Catholic institution located in Fenton, Missouri. The Catholic Church strongly defends the dignity of the human person and that individual’s right to be treated with full respect and care even when dying, yet this type of seminar goes against that teaching.

The seminar’s marketing brochure uses language which unmasks the intent of the discussions that will occur. For example, under nutrition options we find the words “appropriate and inappropriate” as well as “pulling tube.” Under hydration options we find “benefits” and “burdens.” Each of these terms are subjective—meaning that one can apply a sliding scale of ethics depending on who is making the decisions and the ulterior motives that could come into play with a particular patient and his or her family. In other words, there is no such thing when dealing with a dying patient as a “one size fits all” program of care and preparation for death. Each individual presents a unique set of challenges and questions.

This fact brings me to the question the health care professional asked in her email to me: “Are there really ethical considerations for withholding nutrition and hydration from dying patients?”

The answer to this question is a simple one: Not unless the patient’s body is either rejecting the nutrients or the provision of same is causing a high level of pain to the patient. Otherwise, to withhold or remove nutrition is, as the Pope pointed out, “euthanasia by omission.”

This is why the Holy Father encouraged the medical professionals who were in his audience “to guard jealously the principle according to which the true task of medicine is ‘to cure if possible, always to care.’”

What a blessing it would be for those gathered at St. Clare Hospital on October 21 to study and learn the health care principles set forth by Pope John Paul II in his March 20, 2004 address rather than spending a few hours learning how to apply end-of-life principles guided by moral relativism.

We have expressed our concerns about this seminar to the remarkable shepherd, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, and invite you to pray that he intervenes so that, at the very least, this event is moved to a secular location.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

40 Days for Life continues to save babies and change lives!

Thread by nina0113.

THREE ELEMENTS

Constant vigil

The visible, public centerpiece of 40 Days for Life is a 40-day, round-the-clock prayer vigil outside a Planned Parenthood center or other abortion facility in your community.

Those who are called to stand witness maintain a peaceful and educational presence.

This 24-hour-a-day presence send a powerful message to the community about the tragic reality of abortion. It also serves as a call to repentance for those who work at the abortion center and those who patronize the facility.

If you do not have an abortion facility or Planned Parenthood office in your town, you can still conduct 40 Days for Life. However, you will need to select a different location which has some strategic significance ... perhaps near city hall, a courthouse, or a highly visible intersection.

Community outreach

40 Days for Life in Greenville, South Carolina

During 40 Days for Life, the pro-life message is proactively taken to every corner of your community. This can identify hundreds, or even thousands, of pro-life supporters.

A door-to-door petition and education drive reaches out to every household in your town or city. Informational flyers are distributed in neighborhoods to raise awareness about the local crisis of abortion. Citizens are invited to sign a petition of support for the sanctity of human life, and people are given the opportunity to visibly show their support for 40 Days for Life by wearing wristbands, placing signs in their yards, or displaying bumper stickers on their vehicles.

These people can then be encouraged to pray and join in local pro-life efforts.

Church involvement begins by meeting with local pastors, other church leaders, and members of different congregations. The Body of Christ is invited to pray together and participate in 40 Days for Life, uniting in one focused mission that can save lives and make an eternal impact.

Media outreach is conducted through carefully targeted news stories, talk shows, editorials, and letters to the editor. This enables you to get the pro-life message out to many people who would never see the inside of a local church.

If your community has a college campus, many students can be impacted through an intense 40-day campus outreach. This can consist of flyer raids, sidewalk chalking, petition drives, table displays, and much more.

Local leadership with 40 Days for Life

40 Days for Life in Halifax, Nova Scotia

40 Days for Life is primarily a local campaign. Yes, there is a national team that provides information, resources and encouragement, but all campaigns are based at the local level. Each community knows best when it comes to countering the damage abortion has caused in each individual city and town.

No one is appointed as a local 40 Days for Life leader; in each community, someone must step up and accept the challenge.

The campaign is also a group effort. There needs to be a main coordinator, but there is a whole level of duties and responsibilities that must be filled in addition to the director's position:

Prayer coordinator
Vigil coordinator
Outreach coordinator
Event coordinator
Church coordinator
Communications coordinator
And possibly others, depending on your local needs.

A line from Scripture comes to mind: "Here I am, Lord; I come to do your will." Please pray for discernment and guidance. 40 Days for Life won't happen without somebody. "Somebody" could be you!

40 Days for Life - Days 10,11,12

40 Days for Life - Day 13

Charlie Crist has finally quit pretending.

Thread by me.

Charlie Crist Attacks Marco Rubio on Abortion, Fully Abandon's Pro-Life View

Tallahassee, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Charlie Crist is up with a new television commercial in the Florida Senate race that attacks pro-life Republican opponent Marco Rubio's pro-life views. The ad essentially is the final confirmation that Crist has abandoned any pretense of holding a pro-life position on abortion.

"I'm fighting to stop Marco Rubio's extremist agenda to roll back Roe v. Wade and cut your Social Security," Crist says in the commercial.

The reference is made to the Supreme Court decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy and has resulted in more than 52 million abortions since 1973.

Crist's ad will further upset pro-life and middle of the road voters who are already upset he vetoed a bill that would have allowed women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn baby prior to an abortion.

The bill would have also exempted the state from some of the abortion funding in the government-run health care bill President Barack Obama signed into law.

Then, in a move to set up an ad of this nature against Rubio, Crist scrubbed his web site of any mention of his supposedly pro-life views or opposing abortion.

The other problem for Crist is that he's changed his abortion position so many times for political gain that he has nothing left in his campaign playbook other than to accuse his main opponent of being an "extremist."

In the March 2010 debate with Rubio during the Republican primary, Crist tried to sell himself as a pro-life candidate, saying he's “strongly pro-family and pro-life and has made these issues a priority throughout his career of public service.”

But footage the Rubio campaign unearthed at the time shows Crist in 1998 saying he is firmly for abortion. The footage the Rubio campaign provided LifeNews.com showed Crist engaged in a debate with Sen. Bob Graham during a Senate campaign. Florida voters see a younger Crist passionately articulating his views for abortion.

Asked by the late Meet the Press host Tim Russert if he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortions, Crist responded with the standard pro-abortion line the 1998 debate: "No, I would not. I think this is a very personal decision. And I think it is a decision that a woman should make and have the right to make after consulting with her family, her physician, and her clergy. But not her government."

Crist followed up that statement with a response to the a 1998 questionnaire for the St. Petersburg Times.

He wrote, "I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I believe that a woman has the right to choose, but would prefer only after careful consideration and consultation with her family, her physician and her clergy; not her government."

The newspaper highlighted Crist's pro-abortion views at the time by noting he "voted against proposals to require counseling and a waiting period for all women seeking abortions" -- pro-life legislation that has proven to cut the number of abortions in other states.

In 2006, Crist appear to make a foray towards the pro-life perspective, while still retaining an underlying pro-abortion position.

"I would rather encourage adoption. I would prefer not to change law, I would rather change hearts," he said in 2006, according to an Associated Press report.

Yet, the Crist campaign, in January, released the statement saying, “Charlie Crist … is strongly pro-family and pro-life and has made these issues a priority throughout his career of public service. … As Florida’s next U.S. Senator, Charlie Crist will fight for pro-life legislative efforts."

In March 2010, Crist said he would sign a bill that would ban abortions, like the legislation that received national attention in South Dakota in 2008.
He then backtracked from his position, according to AP, and backtracked to the view that he doesn't favor changing laws to ban abortions.

“He later clarified that the South Dakota law, set to go into effect July 1, is too restrictive, and he would only sign a ban if it also allowed abortions for victims of rape and incest. Crist added, ‘Promoting a culture of life is preferable to me than passing laws," AP reported.

Related web sites:
Crist video on abortion - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFYJ3RaZVFU

Tim Tebow and his family are stepping forward for life once again.

Threads by topher and me.

Mother of Tim Tebow Endorses Colorado Personhood Amendment

DENVER, October 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pam Tebow, whose story about her refusal to abort her football star son reached millions last year, has endorsed Colorado's Personhood Amendment - the only pro-life issue on the ballot anywhere in the U.S. in 2010.

"A child's right to life begins at conception, not at birth. From conception, all children are people, made in the image and likeness of God. Thus, I support the Personhood amendment and appeal to Colorado voters to vote 'yes' on amendment 62," stated Pam Tebow, mother of Tim Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner who scored his first touchdown in the NFL as a Denver Bronco Sunday.

Pam Tebow made headline news when she and Heisman-trophy-winning son Tim Tebow appeared in a pro-life television ad during the 2010 Superbowl. The advertisement directed viewers to learn more about Tebow's story online, where Pam described her refusal to let doctors take her son's life while she was pregnant. The ad was sponsored by Focus on the Family, which has also urged Colorado voters to vote "Yes" on Amendment 62.

In an interview with Focus on the Family, the Tebows explained the circumstances of Pam's high-risk pregnancy. Pam recalled, "We went to see a doctor in the town we lived in and she said [he] wasn't a baby at all. [She said] he was a mass of fetal tissue and that I needed to abort him immediately if I was going to save my life." Despite a myriad of concerns about Pam's life and the life of her baby, the Tebows fought through a difficult pregnancy and gave their son life.

"Pam Tebow had the courage and conviction to choose life, despite desperate circumstances," commented Keith Mason, Manager of the Yes on 62 Campaign. "Parents facing difficult pregnancies should realize that the child in their womb is a person, just as Pam Tebow realized her son's humanity, value, and dignity while he was in the womb. He is just as much of a person today as he was when the doctor advised that he be aborted."

"Pam Tebow's testimony serves as an inspiration to women in difficult pregnancies," added Leslie Hanks, cosponsor of Amendment 62. "Although it was challenging, Pam did the right thing, and the world is a better place for it. Likewise, Colorado's 'Yes' vote on Amendment 62 is the right thing for Colorado. Amendment 62 will ensure that Colorado is a better, safer place for women and for preborn babies."

___________________________________________________

Video links Obama to 'Angel of Death'

A new YouTube video in support of Colorado's pro-life Amendment 62 – the only "personhood" amendment on 2010 ballots across the United States – links President Obama with the "Angel of Death."

The ominous video urges support for the amendment that would declare an unborn child a "person" under state law – and eligible for all the protections the law gives a "person," from the beginning of development.

The video has raised a stir, too, among those who support abortion.

~snip~

The campaign also is reaching out to voters with a gentler touch.

The organization announced an endorsement from Pam Tebow, mother of Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow and four others.

"A child's right to life begins at conception, not at birth. From conception, all children are people, made in the image and likeness of God. Thus, I support the personhood amendment and appeal to Colorado voters to vote 'yes' on amendment 62," Pam Tebow said in a statement.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Students saving lives!

Thread by me.

At Least 31 Babies Saved During Students’ Day of Silence

October 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – By all accounts Tuesday’s Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity, which saw students from around the world refusing to speak in commemoration of those unborn children who die through abortion, was a smash success.

For Bryan Kemper, the founder of the massive annual pro-life event, it isn’t just about the tens of thousands of students who braved the taunts of their peers, or even the disapproval of school officials, to stand up for the unborn. More than anything, it's about the lives that were literally saved through the students’ witness.

According to Kemper, so far the Day of Silent Solidarity team is aware of at least 31 babies that were saved on Tuesday. Over the years, at least 500 babies have been saved from abortion thank to the campaign.

Kemper said today that, "One thing that struck me this year was how many kids were doing this because they knew their own parents almost aborted them, but decided to give them life. They were now fighting for all those kids whose parents are in the same situation as their own were so many years ago."

Students who take part in the pro-life event typically place red duct tape across their mouths with the word “Life” written on it, and hand out pro-life flyers when asked for an explanation. While they strive to maintain silence throughout the day, in solidarity with the unborn child who is unable to defend himself, event organizers encourage students to speak to school administrators when spoken to.

One girl wrote in to the day of silence team, saying that when she arrived at school, a fellow student came up to her and said she was wasting her time and that no one would listen to her. “All I did was nod,” wrote the student, “and gave her the paper [flyer],” at which point she “threw it at me.”

But when the pro-life student walked away, she said that she saw the other girl pick up the flyer and put it in her pocket. Later that day, she said, “I saw her but her eyes were puffy, then she hugged me and said I was making a huge difference to a lot of girls, and that she was scheduled for an abortion later this week and that she will cancel it.”

The pro-life student concluded saying that she feels “happy to know that not even saying something made such a difference.”

Another student named Amanda wrote in that she talked to a girl in “my drivers ed class that just found out she was pregnant, and she decided on abortion. After we wrote back and forth, (because I was silent), she is planning on adoption.”

Other e-mails and letters from participants illustrate not only the often hostile reception that participants receive, but also their remarkable personal courage in standing up to those fellow students who mock their efforts – a silent courage that often leads to conversion.

One student named Liana described how she was “mocked” throughout her art class. “The next class,” Liana continued, “one of my peers said ‘Why the hell are you wearing this?’ and ripped the tape off my mouth! It stung, both physically and emotionally. I had been pretty good friends with this particular guy. I went on the rest of the day and ignored what I heard.”

Later on Liana says she bought “a present of baby supplies, dresses, onesies, bottles, socks, blankets, etc. for one of the girls at my school who chose to keep her child.”

Another student, Lyssa, described how when she entered the school wearing a pro-life t-shirt and the red duct tape, a bunch of students at a nearby table were murmuring about it, and “one of the guys came over with clear duct tape on his mouth, trying to mock me.” But by lunch time Lyssa had convinced 25 other students to join in the Day of Silence effort.

The Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity began in 2004, after Kemper was asked by a student at McNeese State University what he could “do to work with other students around the country, in solidarity, to help end abortion,” a question that Kemper says set off a “spark” in his head.

That first year a few thousand students on about 300 campuses participated; by last year students on over 4,800 campuses in 25 countries were involved. This year there were reports of students participating in Italy, Czech Republic, Greece, Belgium, Africa, Wales, Germany and elsewhere.

Kemper says that thanks to the Day of Silent Solidarity, “Hearts are being changed, babies are being saved, and women are being spared the trauma of post-abortive pain. People are coming together in unity to promote a culture of life. Personhood is being restored on campuses across the nation.”

“I really cannot take any credit for the success of this movement,” says Kemper. “It is only God who grants us the power to do this.”

“I believe that, through Christ, we can restore personhood to the most innocent of our brothers and sisters: the children in the womb.”

“The stories that we are hearing from students who participated in pro-life day, are stories that we hear everyday from pro-life students across the country,” said Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life. “This is the pro-life generation, and they are making a difference on their campuses every day.”

To find out more, click here.

To read more stories from this years' event, click here.

It's disgusting that this is even necessary.

Thread by me.

The Card to Protect You from “Presumed Consent” Organ Harvesting

October 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As the push for organ harvesting gets increasingly aggressive, and more and more cases of abuse by transplant teams surface, one pro-life leader has developed a card to ensure doctors respect one’s wish to live a natural lifespan.

“The card documents that they want to live as long as God gives them,” said Dr. Paul Byrne of the Life Guardian Foundation, who is a pioneer in the field of neonatology and a leading opponent of the notion of “brain death,” which is often used as the point where doctors can begin harvesting organs from dying patients.

Dr. Byrne argues that brain death is not in fact real death, but rather a set of criteria that were developed in order to be able to harvest healthy organs, including vital organs, thereby causing the patient’s true death.

“The fact of the matter is all organs that are transplanted are healthy organs and they always come from a living person,” he explained. “After they take the organ, the living person is either dead, when it’s a beating heart, or weaker if it’s one of two kidneys.”

Dr. Byrne told LifeSiteNews that it is essential to protect oneself from the presumed consent laws that have already been passed in 40 states, and are being promoted in the other states as well as Canada. Under these laws, a patient is presumed to have consented to organ donation unless he specifically opts out.

“The only way to stop what they do is to have some documentation of refusal,” he said. “This medical card gives the way to document refusal so far as being an organ donor is concerned.”

But even more importantly, he explained that the card gives life support directions. “It documents that they don’t want anybody to shorten their life or hasten their death,” he said.

The card also says that the patient does not consent to an apnea test, which doctors use to declare “brain death.” Dr. Byrne explained that because this test involves removing a person’s ventilator for up to ten minutes - increasing carbon dioxide, and thus causing brain swelling – it actually causes the patient’s condition to worsen.

Further, the card allows the patient to designate someone else to speak for him, who can ensure the person is properly treated. That person can only do what the card says and cannot take away treatment. It also allows the patient to indicate that they want a priest, minister, or rabbi to be contacted in the event of an emergency.

“Carry it with you. Have more than one. Give it to your relatives,” said Dr. Byrne.

Cards can be obtained from the Life Guardian Foundation.

This is an amazing story!

Thread by NYer.

Newborn Saved from Dumpster by Man who Later Finds Out He's the Father

CALGARY, October 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A newborn left to die in a dumpster in northwest Calgary was saved by a man who only later found out he was the boy's father.

Calgary police said that the boy's mother told them she did not know she was pregnant until she gave birth to the child. She allegedly put the living baby in a garbage bag and tossed him into the dumpster.

The 29-year-old woman's boyfriend said he had no idea she was pregnant because she was heavy set and always had "a bit of a belly."

On Tuesday, October 19, the man said his girlfriend was complaining of cramps and illness. He told police that on returning home for lunch a passerby alerted him to cries coming from a dumpster.

"A girl said, 'I think I hear a baby in the dumpster.' With no knowledge at the time that this is my kid whatsoever, I went running over there, stood beside the dumpster, heard the baby cry," the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the child, told the Calgary Herald.

"I jumped in and removed the stuff. I personally opened the bag and uncovered all the stuff off," he said.

"My first thought seeing the baby there was disgust. I just thought 'we've got to get that baby out of here' and I didn't know CPR," the man said.

The baby was immediately taken to hospital where he is reported to be in stable condition. Hospital staff said it appeared the baby had been in the dumpster for about two hours before being rescued and was suffering from hypothermia when brought to them.

Police questioned the man after the rescue, and later that evening informed him that he was the child’s father. "It was the most shocking thing I've ever encountered in my life - to find that out from police is not something I'd ever expected to happen," he said.

The father said his girlfriend's behavior was perplexing but he feels she needs help rather than his anger.

"I'm not mad. I don't know if it's just my demeanor, knowing that getting mad isn't going to solve everything, not going to help the problem," he said, adding, "I'm not happy with her but I'm not angry, either. I want to make sure she gets the help she needs."

The woman is scheduled to undergo a psychiatric assessment and is facing charges of attempted murder, failing to provide the necessities of life and child abandonment.

Staff Sergeant Leah Barber of the Calgary Child Abuse Unit said that although "Information suggests the woman was not aware of the pregnancy prior to the birth," she believes there are reasonable grounds for the charges.

"The baby was put in there with no expectation to survive ... where it couldn't be found," Barber told the media.

"There's always other options. Obviously if something like this were to happen, 911 would be the first call I'd make," she said.

According to police, the custody of the child is being discussed with Alberta Children and Youth Services. However, the child's father told the Calgary Herald today that he hopes to gain custody of his son.

"I'm just going to try to be the best dad I can be. If he wants to get involved in sports, be a computer geek, try to be the next prime minister, I'll do whatever I can do to support him," the father said.

Repulsive beyond words.

Thread by me.

It Takes a Long Time to Starve a Severely Disabled Infant to Death by Withdrawing Nutrition

Tube supplied hydration and nutrition is deemed a medical treatment, like aspirin, surgery, or chemotherapy, and hence, can be denied or withdrawn under the law. Normal receipt of food and water, is not allowed to be withheld when it can be taken, since that isn’t medical treatment. Still, take away either form of sustenance from infants (or adults) and they will die.

A disturbing study has come out about how long it takes to starve an infant to death, I assume by withdrawing tube-supplied sustenance. (I hope so!) From the study (may need to register, my links to the conditions mentioned):

Neonatal survival after withdrawal of artificial hydration and nutrition can last up to 26 days, according to a case series presented here at the 18th International Congress on Palliative Care. Although physical distress is not apparent in the infants, the psychological distress of parents and clinicians builds with the length of survival, said Hal Siden, MD, from Canuck Place Children’s Hospice in Vancouver, British Columbia.
“These babies live much, much longer than anybody expects. I think that neonatologists and nurses and palliative care clinicians need to be alerted to this,” he said. “The time between withdrawal of feeding and end of life is something that is not predictable, and you need to be cautioned very strongly about that if you are going to do this work.” He presented a series of 5 cases that clinicians at his hospice had overseen over a 5-year period. Two infants had severe neurologic impairment, 2 had severe hypoxic ischemia, and 1 had severe bowel atresia.

This means that these infants did not die from the underlying conditions:

Despite this, there is one factor that medication cannot alleviate, and that is the visual signs of emaciation, said Ms. Keats. “The longer a child lives, the more emaciated he or she becomes. This is something that we as clinicians need to anticipate. You can alleviate some of the physical symptoms, but this is one symptom, or result of our action, that we can’t relieve. A critical factor for counseling is to anticipate the kind of suffering that comes with witnessing the emaciation. It isn’t something people can prepare themselves for.”Autopsies are often encouraged in such neonatal palliative care cases to help both parents and medical staff gain a better understanding of the reasons for the death, said Dr. Siden. Parents should be warned that the report will document the technical cause of death as “starvation” — a loaded word for all concerned. It is important that parents separate this word from any notion of suffering, he said.

The study wants infants being dehydrated to become research subjects on the physiological processes of being starved:

“All of the children we’ve cared for have been in a very quiet, low metabolic state — not an agitated state — with no overt signs of hunger behavior. Whether they are neurologically capable of hunger behavior is another question, and I don’t know the answer. That’s why I am trying to understand better what they are going through, because I don’t want them to suffer,” Dr. Siden explained.
He emphasized the importance of more research into the physiologic processes that occur after withdrawal of fluids and nutrition so that clinicians can both inform and reassure parents. “There’s an ethical component to doing research. If you don’t do research yourself, you need to support those who do, because we desperately need to know more,” Dr. Siden asserted. “There’s a technical aspect to what we do, and we need to become really good at that because we need to be able to say to people, without a doubt, that we are going to do this and there is not going to be any kind of suffering. You’ve got to be very on top of your game.”

Perhaps it shouldn’t be deemed ethical and acceptable to take the extra step of withdrawing sustenance when the child can assimilate nutrition. Indeed, I think higher ethical standards should apply when deciding to starve or dehydrate any human being to death as a matter of refusing treatment than when withdrawing other interventions.

Maybe I am just too unsophisticated to not find this study very disturbing.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.