Planned Parenthood Hosts College "Sex Toy" Party At UNC

If you ever wondered why Planned Parenthood opposes the abstinence message, it's because they are promoters of sex among young people.  Click here to read about the "sex toy" party they promoted at University Of North Carolina Chapel Hill.  How is this not promoting sex?  If it were anyone else besides Planned Parenthood or the Washoe County Commissioners who gave $160,000 to Planned Parenthood in Reno, I'd expect them to know better.

Anyone promoting sex on colleges campuses or any notion that there is something called "safe sex" is promoting sexual roulette.  It's dangerous.  STDs are an epidemic on college campuses.  It's also dangerous but because there's no condom that can prevent a broken heart.  Maybe we could call it "safer sex," but none of the props that Planned Parenthood offers for safe sex will guarantee that you won't get a sexually transmitted disease.  The sad reality is that STDs impact women harder.  I suspect the emotional damage impact is worse too.

You say they aren't promoting sex?  Explain this.  "The theme of the event was Hawaiian, with the tag line on Facebook: 'Get lei'd with Vox.'"  Vox is Voices of Planned Parenthood. 

That's why they NEED abortion.  They can't do free love with out it and since contraception is not full proof abortion is used as a back up for failed contraception or not being "prepared."

Teri Schindler (Schiavo) We Haven't Forgotten You

It's been 2.5 years since Teri Schiavo was killed or as my colleague Fr. Frank Pavone says, murdered, by the longest state sanctioned execution in our nation's history.  In remembrance of Teri and the importance of her case to our nation, I'm posting a Nevada LIFE Press Release from March 1, 2005 which pretty well states the facts of the case.

Press Release Terri Schiavo Is Not A Right To Die Case.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 1, 2005

The Following Statement Can Be Attributed To Nevada LIFE President Don Nelson

"The Terri Schiavo case has been described in many media articles as being “a right to die case.”  It is not.  These descriptions leave readers, viewers and listeners with the false impression that Terri wants to die and is being kept alive by her parents and right to life advocates who are denying her wishes to die and are causing her pain, suffering and forcing her to live a meaningless existence.

"Terri Schiavo is NOT dying.  She is not sick.  She has no terminal illness.  She is not in a coma.  She is not on life support.  Terri is not alone and she has not requested death.  Fourteen doctors, six of whom are neurologists, flatly contradict the court’s findings that she is in a persistent vegetative state.  If Florida Judge George Greer allows Terri’s feeding tube to be removed, this will not merely allow Terri to die.  It will kill Terri.

"This case is about who gets to choose for Terri Schiavo, what kind of care handicapped people deserve and what we think of them.  Should Terri’s still legal husband Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for ten years and with whom he has two children be able to end his helpless wife’s life?  Should this man who has refused Terri any rehabilitative treatment, severely limited access to her family, friends, spiritual caregivers, kept her in a dim little room and hidden her from the media be allowed to begin the painful process of euthanasia to end his wife’s life by starvation?

"Sworn testimony from health care professionals caring for Terri swears that Terri communicates with staff and family and that Michael Schiavo has forcefully deprived her of any therapy.  He has even refused to allow her to receive anti-biotics.  If true, these actions are abuse and neglect.  Terri’s family is willing to care for her for the rest of her life.  There is no reason to call this is a right to die case.  There is no reason that Terri Schiavo should be killed.  Michael Schiavo has no moral authority to do so.  The court and Judge Greer should know better."

Don't Blame Pro-lifers If Republicans Lose in '08-A Suggestion For Republicans To Win In '08.

If the Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate for president in '08, they better be careful who they point the fingers at when they lose.  The default position is to blame social conservatives.  They tried to do this in '92 and '06, but the pro-lifers were the most reliable constituency in those elections.  In '06 it would have been far worse if it weren't for pro-lifers and pro-life candidates.

It's the other factions of the republican party who threw up their hands and stayed homes.  Who can blame them.  The Republican party threw the limited government conservatives like my friend Chuck Muth (who is not a social conservative) overboard.  They have alienated their core constituencies and the pro-life social conservatives are probably the only reliable constituency left for the Republicans going into '08.

It was that abandonment of these other constituencies, not pro-life positions, that doomed the Republicans.   

I have a solution for the Republicans if they want to win.  The Republicans have carried water for the pro-lifers.  GWB gave us two supreme court justices, has packed the lower courts, signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, re instituted the Mexico City Policy, cut funding to the UN's Population Fund for supporting China's brutal forced abortion One Child Policy, opposed treaties like CEDAW and much more. 

So Republicans, if you want to win, stop blaming pro-lifers and start treating the rest of your base like you have treated the pro-lifers.  Do what you promised them.  I'm not saying I support limited government, but if the Republicans want to win, they need to be faithful to their core values.  It's obvious to any casual observer that they thrown these other constituencies overboard.  They are not staying home because Republicans are pro-life.  They are staying home because they don't believe the Republicans when they talk about these other issues.  Uh guys, that means they think you are liars.  Who can blame them?

If Republicans are serious about winning, they should nominate a pro-life candidate and they should start rewarding their other constituencies and doing what they say.

Can Republicans Win With A Pro-Choice Candidate?

Rudy Guliani is promoting the idea that he is the only candidate who can beat Mrs. Bill Clinton-Hillary.  Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity says that the only difference that a president makes is on appointments to the Supreme Court.  Rush Limbaugh even said the same this week.

This is false and I would expect Hannity and Limbaugh to know better. Presidents Do More Than Appoint Justices On Abortion. Presidents sign and veto legislation, set policies like the Mexico City Policy, appoint officials to the CDC (Center for Damage Control), NIH and provide a presence on abortion at the UN.  CEDAW has been held off by the Bush administration and funding has been cut to the UN Population Fund for its support of China's brutal forced abortion One Child Policy. If it were not for pro-life president George W. Bush the United States would be funding abortion groups in other nations and supporting China's coercive abortion One Child Policy.  By the way, Pro-Life" Harry Reid Opposes Anti-Coercion Abortion And Sterilization Funding Amendment. 

President's also use the Bully Pulpit to advocate for and against abortion. 

So it is very wrong to say that if a pro-choice candidate agrees to appoint strict constructionist judges, which Guliani doesn't appear to have done in NYC, it's just as good as if a pro-life president were elected.   

Can Guliani win?  Is he the only candidate who can beat Hillary?  I think nominating a pro-choice Republican candidate is the best way to guarantee that Hillary, Mrs. Bill Clinton, wins.  There is such a large faction of pro-life and social conservative voters who will not support a pro-choice candidate that I see no way a pro-choice republican can win.  The single issue pro-life groups like Nevada LIFE would probably be silent on who to vote for if Guliani is nominated, but other groups are going to sit it out or look for a minor party candidate. 

The pro-life issue has had an advantage for the republicans for many elections and the Democrats let pro-lifers run for them and/or pretended to be/care about pro-life issues. 

So nominating a pro-choice candidate dooms the republicans. Pro-lifers need to get out and work for pro-life candidates and make sure that one wins so we don't face this disastrous choice.