New Terri Dailies Theme...
Bobby Schindler continues to make sure the truth is told!
Posted on 11/14/2010 10:59:10 AM PST by wagglebee
The left deliberately misrepresented Terri's condition so that they could kill her and gain public support for future death panels to kill the elderly and disabled.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Thread by topher.
November 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Throughout his presidency George W. Bush was unapologetically pro-life, but a strange anecdote found in his about-to-be-released autobiography, Decision Points, has provided new insight into the genesis of his views on the issue.
In a recent interview with NBC's Matt Lauer about the forthcoming book, Bush explained that when he was a teenager his mother, Barbara Bush, suffered a difficult miscarriage.
Barbara obtained the miscarried fetus, and put it in a jar in order to bring it in to the hospital. However, first she showed her teenage son his deceased sibling.
"I never expected to see the remains of the foetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital." He added: "There was a human life, a little brother or sister."
"There's no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life."
According to the New York Post, however, Bush told Lauer that "the purpose of the story wasn't to try show the evolution of a pro-life point of view."
"It was really to show how my mom and I developed a relationship."
Ironically, Barbara herself appears not to have been quite as affected by the incident as her son: her views on abortion have been less clear.
In 1992, during her husband's presidential run, she famously argued that abortion should be left out of the Republican Party's platform: "The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions."
Meanwhile, Mrs. Bush was coy about where her personal views fell on the issue. "I'm not being outspoken or pro or con abortion," she said. "I'm saying abortion should not be in there, either pro or con."
Threads by Mr. Mojo and me.
Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in its fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 and paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation.
Also, according to a “fact sheet [2]” published by the organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.
Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 is the latest year for which the organization has publicly released an annual report [3] and published the annual sum of grants and contracts it received from the government.
The $385,163 in pay Planned Parenthood President Richards received in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 was recorded in the organization’s publicly available Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filed for that year.
Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization’s Form 990 for that year.
Planned Parenthood did not respond to repeated inquiries from CNSNews.com about Cecile Richards’ compensation.
____________________________________________________
November 8, 2010 (pop.org) - It will come as no surprise to learn that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards believes that government-funded health care should pay for all birth control, including abortions. After all, since much of this funding would flow to Planned Parenthood, America's number one abortion provider would profit mightily from such a policy.
Of course Richards is smart enough not to say that PP wants to devour our money as well as our children. Instead, she trots out the lame argument that eliminating people will somehow save us all money.
Appearing on the “Bill Press Show,” the Planned Parenthood honcho claimed that “birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money.” She went on to say that “we actually feel that covering birth control is not only the right thing to do for women, it's good for women, it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy. An investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.”
We at PRI regard Richards's views not only as self-serving, but also as short-sighted. Children do indeed cost money to raise — as every parent knows — but they grow up into productive citizens who produce wealth, pay taxes and, on the whole, leave America a better place than they found it.
If you crunch the numbers, as we have, you will find that the average American baby born today will contribute several million dollars to the economy over his or her productive lifetime. Oppose this to the hundred-odd thousand dollars or so that it will cost to raise the child to adulthood, and you see just how valuable an asset these tiny human beings really are.
Planned Parenthood is an offensive organization because it not only advocates the wholesale destruction of defenseless human beings, but also actually carries out hundreds of thousands of such lethal acts each year in its hundreds of abortuaries. Now it wants us to subsidize, through Obamacare, these immoral acts, telling us that they are saving us money by doing so.
No one denies that it costs money to raise children, of course, but those who do so are making a fundamental investment in the future. Children grow into adults, who not only contribute to the GDP by entering the workforce, but also contribute, using their own special gifts, to creating families, communities, and societies. To view babies solely as economic liabilities, as Richards does, is not only dehumanizing; it makes no economic sense whatsoever.
Now Cecile Richards would probably respond that she doesn't want to eliminate all children, only those that are “unplanned.” But how does one define “unplanned?” If your parents were not planning on conceiving a child in a particular cycle, does that make you unplanned? Does Richards not know that an element of chance enters into any conception, meaning that it takes up to twelve months for a couple of average fertility to conceive a child? Or is she focused on aborting all single mothers, as they do in China? I don't know about Richards, but I was unplanned and, therefore, by her simplistic calculations, should have been eliminated as an unnecessary expenditure.
Planned Parenthood's position is all the more nonsensical because the very government health care that Richards promotes so fervently can only be paid for by taxpayer funds. And every single taxpayer starts life in a mother's womb.
Last spring, Nancy Pelosi tried to add hundreds of million of dollars in birth control funding to the so-called “stimulus package” using these same arguments. We opposed this move in interviews with FOX and other media. At the end of the day, her amendment proved too much even for many Democrats to stomach, and it was rejected.
People are not just liabilities, they are assets. In fact, they are the ultimate assets. And they all start out as babies.
Thread by me.
The interview takes place at an abortion center where Stacy Cutler watches the image of her viable late-term unborn child on an ultrasound monitor.
“Cutler listens to her 22-week-old unborn child’s heartbeat – and her eyes fill with tears,” the Sun reports. “The grainy scan shows the fully developed foetus moving around inside her. But Stacy’s tears are not of joy at seeing her baby for the first time. She has made the heartbreaking decision to have an abortion at this late stage.”
Repeat abortions have long been a problem in England, where thousands of women have had three or more.
Cutler says she had the abortions because she was not emotionally secure enough to have the baby and, despite the multitude of resources, not financially able to do so.
“It was certainly not an easy decision to abort four of my unborn children,” she told the newspaper. “But I realised that it would be unfair to bring those children in to the world when I barely had the money to look after my son.”
Cutler resorted to using abortion as a form of birth control even though she was on the pill each of the four times in which she became pregnant.
She is of the mindset many women who justify their abortions and abortion advocacy groups have about abortion being better than giving birth to a baby in less-than-stellar conditions.
“Women who choose to have an abortion are criticised and looked down on,” she todl the Sun. “But it is far better than bringing a child into the world that you are unable to look after or afford. Obviously I’m not proud of what I have done and I know people will judge me. Abortion should be the decision of the woman who is having the baby – no one else.”
Josephine Quintavalle of the Prolife Alliance commented on Cutler’s story in her own comments to The Sun.
“Stacy’s story is horrifying and it is the reality of the abortion-on-demand state we are living in,” she explained. “As part of the ProLife Alliance, I am anti-abortion and her choice is just incomprehensible to me.”
The pro-life advocate said Cutler should have consdiered adoption and the abortion practitioner used an excuse for the abortion that essentially allowed it to be used as birth control.
“For a woman to choose to terminate a healthy baby that was nearly 22 weeks simply because she realised she didn’t want it is beyond belief. Babies can and have been known to live from 23 weeks. I cannot understand why she could not go full term and give the child up for adoption,” she added.
“The doctor clearly felt that it was in the interest of her mental health but, if that is the case, this should certainly be looked at more thoroughly,” she said.
I see that abortion has been brought into the room now and i understand the culture of death and nonperson status here as a whole.
but inregard to Terri,how was it that her own family was denied the right to bring home their own chld and care for her at home ?
they were willing to.
who made that decision ?
and how did they get away with this ?—the denial-
It's very simple, Terri was murdered to fulfill an agenda (and probably to cover-up crimes). The media was taking round-the-clock polls to determine which "talking points" the public found most believable. For the first time in history an innocent person was murdered live on TV for the whole world to see and they stretched it out as long as possible.
Thanks for the ping!
Terri was still married to Michael Schiavo, so he was the one making all the decisions concerning her “care”. Some years after the incident that started her situation (no one seems to be sure what caused her problem in the first place, as far as I understand it), Michael moved in with a woman, and they had several children together, and yet he refused to divorce Terri and allow her family to care for her. He never offered a convincing reason for not divorcing Terri, either. A huge legal battle ensued but poor Terri was killed. there’s no other way to put it. She was killed. God Bless her, and the entire Schindler family. They are true American heroes.
"If GOD does not judge the United States of America,
then HE owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology."
Mikey certainly did pretend to care for Terri before she got a huge financial settlement.
Ultimately, he abandoned Terri, became an adulterer and murdered her.
Ping
Let’s all save that story in post No. 14, so we can use it to inform others through the years.
“Michael moved in with a woman, and they had several children together, and yet he refused to divorce Terri and allow her family to care for her.”
I think Michael refused divorce as revenge for Terri’s dad speaking up for Terri so much, plus Michael wanted to save his own butt by hiding the truth.
Thank you, wagglebee, for the information. I did not know there had been a Terri Schiavo Day in 1991.
I do remember that in court documents of the malpractice suit filed by Schiavo, he stated under oath that Terri was a Catholic and would have wanted treatment no matter how serious her situation might be, and yet after he got major $s in the suit, he wanted to stop her care and, again under oath during the long legal battle with her family for custody, stated he “just happened to remember” that she once told him she would never want to be “kept alive” if something terrible were to happen to her.
The whole thing was beyond horrible. At least now she’s at peace, and her dear Father is with her.
Keep in mind that Mikey used TERRI'S MONEY, not his to kill her. He would later turn down millions of dollars to let her live.
My belief is that he was terrified to let her get better. His quest to murder her began after they got the money AND after she started to improve.
Judges: The New Assassins.
Obamacare: The New Final Solution.
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.