Court Orders Municipality To Pay Over $39,000 in Michigan Pro-Life Case

The Thomas More Law Center ^ | 12/03/02 | Thomas More Law Center

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The spiritual call was not up to these people.

I don't give a warm spit about Granholm - she is a grown up, and can simply stop attending it. The others, however, who had to endure the spectacle can't be feeling too warmly about the movement.

[Bella_Bru]

I spoke up because disinformation (telling women that ectopic pregnancies are perfectly safe) is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Saundra Duffy]

GREAT NEWS! I hope they'll be successful in our lawsuit against Planned Parenthood! For victory & freedom!!!

[Desdemona]

I spoke up because disinformation (telling women that ectopic pregnancies are perfectly safe) is wrong, wrong, wrong.

While you are very right, right, right (and even we Catholics agree with the point), ectopic pregnancies are not in the same category as using a vaccuum to suction a child in the womb from it.

[Bella_Bru]

Do you think a woman with an ectopic should be told, "Screw your life! We are going to take a chance that at least the child makes it"?

[Bella_Bru]

No, I was speaking from an experience with a pro-life group. They were the hysterics, dearie, not me. I had no problem with them or their message til they through in that outright lie.

[Bella_Bru]

through=threw

[Desdemona]

Do you think a woman with an ectopic should be told, "Screw your life! We are going to take a chance that at least the child makes it"?

Calm down. No, in fact I know a few who almost died. As I said even the Catholic church makes exceptions for ectopics. Again, that is not the main point. The main point is the children who are NOT ectopic and are merely inconvenient. Please, don't confuse the two.

[Bella_Bru]

Ahh...you meant ectopics as an exception. Thanks, Desdemona. :-) I didn't want to think of you as being in the psychotic group.

[victim soul]

You made my day!!

Not only are American pro-lifers winning over the public [Check out the latest public opinion polls] but pro-lifers are now able to use very same tools that their foes used in the beginning to make abortion the law of the land -- OUR COURTS.

I say: Fight fire with fire --get these guyes in THEIR pocketbooks.!!

The guys who promote and believe it is okay-to-kill-babies -at -any -time -for- any -reason -as -long -as -I make- a- profit-or-don't-have to care-about-the poor. other


The fires today are found in our courtroooms -- from pro-life license tags to pro-life aerial banners, from First Amendment Rights to the Rights of minors to be safe from sexual abuse.

The fires today were generated by The Abortion Industry and its TRADE ASSOCIATIONS -its cheerleaders as they tried to
bypass completely our very OWN Constitution which established the Will of The People as the only determinating
factor excluding legislative action while taking off the hook the pro-aborts/moderates in our Congress who might be defeated by their home town constituencies if they found out how really Pro-Abortion they really are.

Incumbency has always been protected.

Incumbents thought they were off "Scott free".

They never had to be "specific". Look at Mary Landrieu.

They never had to defend their ideas and votes to at least half of their constituencies about how really pro-abort( or beholden to SPECIAL INTEREST Proaborts)

because they could blame The Supreme Court

(Ironically 9 men!!The only time that I can remember that NOW/Hags Feminazi women agreed with the wisdom of
MEN!!)

The Abortion Industry [Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Federation, Independent abortionists, population controllers, among others ] temporarily won in The U.S. Supreme Court.

Its cheerleaders [NOW, NARAL, the ACLU, Sierra Club,People for the American Way, Population Controllers -Population Council that brought us RU486, UNFPA, World Bank,
TheWarren Buffets, Rockefellers,Kaisers,
Fords, Gates and Turners
-- the "mainstream media psychophants"

"i.e. PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN]

had an open playing field

-- until the INTERNET!!

Thanks be to GOD!!!

Thanks to Jim Robinson for The Free Republic

and all the other independent news sources and reporters across the country that can SMELL a RAT and can not only Expose him but also can tell others that there is a RAT in The House --

and he means to destroy our traditional values, our families, and our future -- or newly created children

if we don't stop him!!

[Notwithstanding]

We are talking here about 97% or more of all abortions that are not due to any health or life risk to the mother A woman's LIFE is rarely at risk due pregnancy. If someone said NEVER, then shame on them. They should have said "ALMOST NEVER". Please do not red herring this.

Why Women Have Abortions

Pregnant Pause Home

Statistics

Search this site

---

In 1988, the Alan Guttmacher Institute conducted a survey of women who were getting abortions, asking why they had made this decision. They received responses from 1900 women at 27 abortion "clinics" and 3 hospitals. The results were printed in Family Planning Perspectives, Planned Parenthood's magazine.

Both the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood are pro-abortion, so it is fair to suspect that there may be a "pro-choice" bias to the study. Additional bias may be suspected from the nature of the survey: It is fair to ask if a woman who is getting an abortion for less-than-earthshaking reasons might not exagerrate or even invent justifications in order to make her decision sound more justified. Nevertheless, the results of their study are interesting. The following text and numbers are taken from the chart in Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988 issue, page 170:

Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life	16%
Woman can't afford baby now	21%
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood	12%
Woman is unready for responsibility	21%
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant	1%
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child	11%
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children	8%
Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion	1%
Fetus has possible health problem	3%
Woman has health problem	3%
Woman's parents want her to have abortion	<1%
Woman was victim of rape or incest	1%
Other	3%

(Totals do not add to 100% because of rounding.)

---

Comment

Pro-abortionists routinely use hard cases like rape and deformed children to justify abortion-on-demand. Even if we accepted abortion in such difficult cases, and even if we accepted the numbers from this study as authoritative (and other studies by pro-lifers find much lower incidence of these hard cases), we could still summarize the above as:

Deformed baby	less than 3%
Threat to life or health of mother	maybe 3%
Rape and incest	1%
Mother has social problems	93%

Now don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that these social-problem reasons are all frivolous. Sometimes they are legitimate, serious problems. But ... under what other circumstances would we accept the idea that one person has the right to kill another person to solve his or her social problems?

---

Pregnant Pause Home

Statistics

Search this site

Copyright ©1995, 2000 by Ohio Right to Life and Pregnant Pause
Contact Pregnant Pause

[Notwithstanding]

Well, actually, two human lives are at risk. Executing one them should not be the solution, since doing so is saying that one life is more valuable than the other.

The law should not allow the execution of an inocent person even if the end in mind is saving a life. The direct taking of an innocent human life is never moral, and should not be legal.

[livius]

All riiight! Thanks for posting, subliminal.

[MHGinTN]

I once read of a case (sorry, can't link you to it) where the court intervened to remove a woman's right to choose to NOT have an abortion when she was with ectopic pregnancy. Her husband and father of her other three children went to court to prevent her from 'russian roulette' with possibly removing the living childrens' mother from this earth. as I said, this is all about life support, or should be, rather than convenience.

[Notwithstanding]

I believe that removing the inflamed tube knowing the child will likely die as a result is moral, but killing the child directly to keep the tube intact is immoral.

Direct killing as an objective is not moral.