The pastor and priest of St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence refused to give communion this past Sunday to Former Vice President and Presidential Hopeful Joe Biden.
Biden attended the church’s early services during hiscampaign stop in the Pee Dee.
The church’s pastor, Rev. Robert E. Morey, released the following statement on the matter:
“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to Former Vice President Joe Biden. Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching. As a priest, it is my responsibility to minister to those souls entrusted to my care, and I must do so even in the most difficult situations. I will keep Mr. Biden in my prayers.”
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Finally, a priest in the Catholic Church willing to stand firm on church doctrine and this involves Joe Biden.
Gateway Pundit: Former Vice President Joe Biden attended mass at St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina on Sunday. The priest, Father Robert Morey, refused to give Communion to the pro-abortion Democrat.
Blacks should be the second largest contingency in America, but they are one of the smallest ethnic groups - thanks to . . . . . .
Report: Abortion Accounts for 61% of Black Deaths in America
A report Thursday analyzed research using data from the latest year for which all the pertinent information is available (2009) and found that induced abortion was responsible for 1.152 million deaths, making it the number one cause
A report Thursday analyzed research using data from the latest year for which all the pertinent information is available (2009) and found that induced abortion was responsible for 1.152 million deaths, making it the number one cause
While most of the nation was preparing lunch, Senate Democrats made a move to ban all anti-abortion procedures in a blatant attempt at appeasing the Abortion Lobby, in D.C.
51 share
strong read interest
Midknight Review report:
Wednesday, July 16, at 11:06 pt., the Seante began the voting
process to end floor debate as to Senate bill S.2578. 61 votes were required. The bill failed with only 56 "yes" votes.
Harry Reid, a sponsor of the bill, voted “no”
but only on procedural issues,
his vote allowing this bill to be reconsidered sometime in the
future. The vote demonstrates the increasing divide existing between the two major political parties; even moderate Democrats have come to support contraception and abortion at all levels, and, in every term of pregnancy including the infamous “late term” abortion. Understand that a “late term abortion” is not abortion at all, but the killing of a fully born child except for a hand, a shoulder, a foot, or, the very top of a baby’s head, remaining in contact with the vagina during the birth process.
In effect, this bill would have institutionalized all
forms of contraception and abortion procedures, including those
given exception in the Hobby Lobby decision of the High Court. With its passage, every legislative prohibition to abortion at
the state and federal levels, would have
been eliminated. The proposal was an effort, by the abortion
lobby, to turn a Supreme Court defeat
into a comprehensive victory, extending
far beyond the reinstatement of the four contraction methods included in the Hobby
Lobby decision, a legislative maneuver
designed to institutionalize all abortion procedures, as well.
The bill,
itself, bears the title: Protect
Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014. In the reading of the bill’s title, the reader should understand that this bill
was intended to be nothing less than a pejorative
action against “corporate America ”
to include small, individual and family owned, private businesses (not traded on
the Stock Exchange). The "Hobby Lobby decision" is not
about “corporate America ”
if corporation stock is publicly
traded. All such companies continue to
be required to insure for all 20 ObamaCare stated contraception procedures. The High Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, exempted 4 of the 20 procedures named in ObamaCare, on the grounds that they constituted “abortion”
in the minds of those who filed suit.
Understand that the Democrat Party, abortion freaks all, based this bill’s “necessity” on an
outrageous lie detailed in point #15 of this law’s justification. It reads as follows:
(15) On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court held, in Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell, that
some for-profit corporations can take away the birth control coverage
guaranteed to their employees and the covered dependents of such employees
through their group health plan.
Understand that “for-profit” is used, in this case,
as a pejorative, designed to bias the reader against a business; to the Progressive Socialists, profits are evil and, so too, those who work for profit. Secondly,
the charge that Hobby Lobby took away “birth control coverage” could not
be more of a lie. The fact of the matter
is this: the High Court’s decision, institutionalized
- once and for all – 16 specific
contraception methods while allowing for faith based objections to the
remaining 4 methods defined in the healthcare law. Further,
the decision did not outlaw anything.
It only allowed for the religious conscience of privately owned
businesses.
Every Senate Democrat voted in favor of this bill along with two
Republicans, Senators Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins from Maine .
______________________
After notes:
The bill’s justification is reproduced, here.
It is a part of the congressional record here.
(1) Access to the full range of health benefits and
preventive services, as guaranteed under Federal law or through Federal
regulations, provides all Americans with the opportunity to lead healthier and
more productive lives.
(2) Birth control is a critical health care service for
women. Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women use birth control at least
once in their lifetimes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
declared it one of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the 20th
Century. While the most common reason women use contraception is to prevent
pregnancy, 58 percent of oral contraceptive users cite noncontraceptive health
benefits as reasons for using the method. Fourteen percent of birth control
pill users, more than 1,500,000 women, rely on birth control pills for
noncontraceptive purposes only.
(3) In addition to providing health benefits for women,
access to birth control has been directly connected to women's economic success
and ability to participate in society equally. Women with access to birth
control are more likely to have higher educational achievement and career
achievement, and to be paid higher wages.
(4) The independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine Institute
of Medicine
(5) Affordability has long been a barrier to women being
able to use birth control and other preventive health services effectively. A
national survey of women who were currently using some form of contraception
found that one-third would switch to a different method of contraception if
they did not have to worry about cost. Women citing cost concerns were twice as
likely as other women to rely on less effective methods of contraception.
(6) Three separate studies have found that lack of health
coverage is significantly associated with reduced use of prescription
contraceptives.
(7) Cost-sharing requirements can dramatically reduce the
use of preventive health care measures, particularly among lower-income women.
Studies have shown that eliminating cost-sharing for the most effective forms
of contraception (intrauterine devices, implants, and injectables) leads to
sizable increases in the use of these methods.
(8) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public
Law 111-148) sought to remove the barrier to care by requiring all new health
plans to cover recommended preventive services without cost-sharing, which
include women's preventative services. These services include all methods of
contraception and sterilization approved by the Food and Drug Administration
and related education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider.
(9) The contraceptive coverage provision has been a success
in increasing access to this critical health service for women. As of 2013,
47,000,000 women were covered by this requirement. Women have saved
$483,000,000 in out-of-pocket costs for oral contraceptives with no copayments
in 2013 compared to 2012.
(10) The Journal of the American Medical Association reports
that 7 out of 10 people in the United
States support coverage of contraception,
with significantly higher support among women, Hispanic Americans, and Black
Americans.
(11) An estimated 76,000,000 people in the United States ,
including 30,000,000 women, are newly eligible for expanded preventive services
coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A total of
48,500,000 women are estimated to benefit from preventive services coverage
without cost-sharing.
(12) The most appropriate method of contraception varies
according to each individual woman's needs and medical history. Women may have
medical contraindications and thus not be able to use certain types of
contraceptive methods. It is therefore vital that the full range of
contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration be available
in order to ensure that each woman, in consultation with her medical provider,
can make appropriate decisions about her health care.
(13) Covering proven preventative services like
contraception lowers health care spending as it improves health. The Federal
Government experienced no increase in costs at all after it began covering
contraceptives for Federal employees. A study by the National Business Group on
Health estimated that it costs employers 15 to 17 percent more to not provide
contraceptive coverage in employee health plans, accounting for the employer's
direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs related to employee
absence and reduced productivity.
(14) Dozens of cases have been filed in Federal court by
employers that want to take this benefit away from their employees and the
covered dependents of such employees.
(15) On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court held, in Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell, that
some for-profit corporations can take away the birth control coverage
guaranteed to their employees and the covered dependents of such employees
through their group health plan.
(16) In a dissent in those cases, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg states that in this `decision of startling breadth . . . the exemption
sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga . . . would deny legions of women who do
not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA
would otherwise secure.' Justice Ginsburg also notes that the decision opens up
the door to religiously grounded employer objections to a whole host of health
care services like `blood transfusions . . .. antidepressants . . . medications
derived from pigs, including anesthesia . . . and vaccinations.'.
(17) The Supreme Court's decision in those cases allows
employers, that otherwise provide coverage of preventive health services, to
deny their employees and the covered dependents of such employees contraceptive
coverage and to treat a critical women's health service differently than other
comparable services. Legislation is needed to clarify that employers may not
discriminate against their employees and dependents.
(18) It is imperative that Congress act to reinstate
contraception coverage and to protect employees and the covered dependents of
such employees from other attempts to take away coverage for other health
benefits to which such employees and dependents are entitled under Federal law.
(19) This Act is intended to be consistent with the
Congressional intent in enacting the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-141), and with the exemption for houses of worship, and an
accommodation for religiously-affiliated nonprofit organizations with
objections to contraceptive coverage.
Support the effort to fund a movie that promises to tell the whole story of the most prolific serial killer ever, and he was an abortion doctor at the time.
23 share
Kermit Gosnell is a medical provider who killed three or four adult women, and scores of born-alive bebies designated for abortion.
This case is about a doctor who killed babies ... What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors .... Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it. (Report of the Grand Jury)
Because the media did not care about this story, fearing a negative backlash to the current trends pushing abortion(s), they did not cover the story, all but ignoring both facts of the case and the end result, Gosnell three life term sentences.
To get the story out there, a historic effort to fund and produce a movie about this, the most prolific serial murderer in American history.
$1,928,081USD
RAISED OF $2,100,000 GOAL
92%
6 days left
This campaign started on Mar 28 and will close on May 12, 2014 (11:59pm PT).
The war on poverty was to make blacks a permanent Democrat class. Abortion was a gimmick too eliminate poor blacks from the larger population.
86 shares
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong ~ Margaret Sanger.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/103457/#okyz4msllMA54koD.99
Understand that the war on poverty has spent 7 trillion dollars since the mid-1960's, and the black community remains blindly committed to the Democrats while suffering terrible unemployment and the highest rates of educational and financial disparity of any constituency in this country.
Those of us who oppose abortion, have known for years and years that abortion was intended to be a solution to unwanted populations, within this country. We have know for decades, that the KKK was Democrat invention designed to hold blacks "in their place." We have known for years that Jim Crow laws were ALL written, by empowered Democrats. Not one Jim Crow law was the creation of Republicans. We have known for years, that welfare enslaves, but since the descendants of the Democrat Party invented slavery, who in that party, really gives a whoot?
The video, in this post, is a great argument against abortion. Now, in addition to this video and others, like it, the Right has a strategy that shows concern for the "wanna-be unborn mother," and public opinion is on their side.
52 share
<<<< Here is a 33 minute, anti-abortion video. This sort of rhetoric and historical review, has been the only weapon used, by the anti-abortion lobby, since Roe v Wade was passed into law. It (the video) is quiet good. But the unwanted-baby-hating-Left, has arguments in place, to deal with what is said in the video. Now, the Right has something, the Left is not prepared to deal with --- its called "popular opinion."
(Excerpt taken from The Guardian.com): Last
November, a new law went into effect in Texas: abortion clinics would now be
required to have an agreement with a local hospital so that patients needing
treatment could be transferred.
Now that
sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Sounds “reasonable”
because it is reasonable. These are “restrictions,” they are “health and welfare standards.” So the “don’t wanna-be mother” has a serious problem during an
abortion, yet, the clinic she is in, has no agreement with a local hospital, for such emergencies -
should that be corrected?
Perhaps,
until you consider the fact that it caused one-third
of health centers to stop providing abortions. Women in the Rio Grande
Valley now have to travel hundreds of miles (if they're lucky enough to have
the transportation and resources) to get access to a safe, legal abortion.
Again, the only argument for maintaining all
existing abortion clinics, is that those who cannot or will not meet specific
health standards, must close UNTIL they
bring their facilities up to par.
AND, the Supreme Court has deemed
this, fair and reasonable,” so it is, now, the law of the land. Clinics,
in the future, will meet these
standards, so what is the fuss?
The Texas
legislature has become an extreme example of new restrictions on abortion
continuing to sweep statehouses in 2014, and the particulars buried by all
those Wendy Davis profiles showcase a slick new tactic of the pro-life
movement: a requirement for admitting privileges. At first glance, that kind of
rule appears designed to protect women's health – to have an abortion provider
make an arrangement with a local hospital in case of an emergency seems
harmless, even helpful.
But this
law, like so many others in the works, also imposes all kinds of obstacles to
providers and clinics actually gaining these privileges.
They are only “obstacles,” because up until now, the abortion rights movement has shown no
real concern for the health of a woman during her abortion. Sorry, but THAT is not a good thing, and reveals the abortionists for what they
are: politically driven with no concern
for either the unborn or its host “parent.”
The end
result: abortion
clinics are shutting down all across the country. And because the
(often Evangelical) bill-crafting language is so deceptively reasonable and so
effective at defusing public outrage, we might not even have noticed that our
constitutional right to safe and legal abortions is being steadily eroded.
So the Marxist/Socialist/Secular
world hates “Evangelicals” and wants to
blame all this on them.
Seriously? Look, the Evangelicals
I know, do not believe in
compromise, when it comes to the war
against abortion. This is NOT their
idea. And that is why it is agreeable
with the public and Constitutionally,
sound.
Here is a 33 minute, anti-abortion video. This sort of rhetoric and historical review, has been the only weapon used, by the anto-abortion lobby. It is quiet good. But the baby-hating Left, has arguments in place, to deal with what is said in the video. Now, the Right has something, the Left is not prepared to deal with --- its called "popular opinion."
Friday's Document Dump: From Life News (10 headlines)
National Pro-Life News 110 views in 24
From Bump to Buzz: Couple’s Adorable Viral Video Shows Time Lapse of Pregnancy
Washington, DC | 3/21/14 1:10 PM
Video Shows Humanity of Baby With Trisomy 13 Who Doctors Said “Was Incompatible With Life”
Washington, DC | 3/21/14 11:41 AM
The Clinic Turned the Sprinklers on Them But They Still Saved a Baby From Abortion
Washington, DC | 3/21/14 11:08 AM
Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Sees Number of Clinics Drop to Lowest Point Since Roe
Washington, DC | 3/20/14 4:28 PM
A new report released today provides excellent news for the pro-life movement as it shows the number of clinics run by the Planned Parenthood abortion business drop to its lowest figure since Roe v. Wade, the infamous Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited abortions.
Nine Years Ago My Sister Terri Schiavo Was Starved to Death, Our Health Care System is Worse Now
Washington, DC | 3/20/14 1:45 PM
Pro-Life Group Turning Abortion Clinic Where Kermit Gosnell Worked Into Food Pantry
Wilmington, DE | 3/20/14 12:27 PM
New Smart-Phone “Appcessory” Allows Moms to Hear Unborn Child’s Heartbeat
Washington, DC | 3/20/14 9:55 AM
Abortion Industry Awards Ceremony? The Abortion Industry Honors Itself
Washington, DC | 3/20/14 9:09 AM
StandUpGirl: Helping Women and Saving Lives Via Abortion Alternatives
Washington, DC | 3/20/14 9:09 AM
Pierre, SD (LiveActionNews) — Imagine you’re a young girl facing an unplanned pregnancy. You’re scared, confused, and you feel alone.
Who is Your Hero? You’ll Be Surprised Who These Children Say is Theirs
Washington, DC | 3/20/14 9:09 AM
Planned Parenthood Prez Cecile Richards: "When life begins not ‘really relevant’ to abortion." Of course not. They are going to kill the little people anyway.
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards told an interviewer on Thursday that “I don't know that it's really relevant” to consider when life begins when discussing abortion. The abortion industry leader appeared on Fusion TV's America with Jorge Ramos before a backdrop featuring pictures of herself and Wendy Davis.
“For you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?” Ramos asked,. “This is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries,” she said. “But for you, what's that point?”. . . . . . . "It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation,” she said, stuttering and clearly shaken. “I think every woman needs to make her own decision,” she finally said.
Editor's notes: Too bad the little people don't get a say. Too bad these women were given charge of our young. They sure as heck hate the job . . . . and "no," I am not going to apologize for hurting someone's feelings.
Abortion in NY kills more black babies than other ethnicities. Accident??? Question: If abortion can be used for "family planning," why can't it be used for population control? Isn't that what "family planning is," population control???
.jpg)
Despite the fact that a New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene report found that more black babies were killed by abortion
in the city than were born there in 2012, Mayor Bill de Blasio has pledged to
partner with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to expand their
businesses and to wipe out pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.
How many times have this blog said, "Abortion is more about killing off black babies than a demonstration of 'family planning' ?" Well, here is proof. And we ask, If abortion can be used as "family planning," why can't it be used as "population control?"
_____________
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Justice Ginsburg, here.
for you folks who have no clue how to win a political victory against the odds, learn the word "incrementalism." It is how we are winning the war against the abortion of living human beings.
<<<< Abortion, if ever an option, is certainly not at and after 12 weeks.
For you folks who have no clue how to win a political victory against the odds, learn the word "incrementalism." It is how we are winning the war against the abortion of living human beings. The fantasy that a politician can win a national election running against abortion, promising to take down all abortion laws immediately, while a worthy goal and needed humanitarian effort, will not win an election. Abortion as a legal choice, is a fact of life and will be with us for as long as we can imagine.
And to argue against this point, is to refuse present-day realities.
BUT !!!!! to fight the battle to save the lives of the unborn, in the arena of incremental changes to current law, well, that is a winning strategy. An anti-abortion strategy that demands health standards for abortion clinics, that works against late term abortions beginning with the second trimester or even the 21st week of pregnancy or, my choice, before a heart beat and the development of the human form (7 weeks) can be a winning strategy. If we can't end this destruction of life at all levels of physical development, certainly we must try to end it at some point during the pregnancy. Absolutely, we must stop the killing of viable, unborn infants . . . . . a murderous function that has killed more children than anything Hitler and Stalin did, combined.
Strategies for defeating "abortion" are, here, outlined . . . strategies that do not include legislation, by the way . . . . strategies that ALREADY have the approval of the voting majority.
 |
| Click "here" for more on the digital movement |
“We” are winning the fight to end abortion or, at the very least, to greatly
curtail this terrible practice. The
rather lengthy excerpt, below, is
evidence of that fact.
Question: if this is true, why can’t we win an election with this at its
center?
Answer: I believe it
is because we allow the debate to change course. The Left never allows “abortion”
to be the defining issue. Rather, it changes the issue to one of “a woman’s
right to choose for herself.” The Left
argues that the opposition seeks to order a woman’s life and her right to
choose for herself.
As long as we allow the Left to define the issue, as long as "we" are perceived as being opposed to what a woman does with her own body and the unborn life to which she is given charge, we will never see the kind of success we desire. Understand that the unborn are not "wards of the state."
If we cannot legislate murder out of existence when no one thinks of "murder" in an approving way, how, then, can we rationally expect to end all abortions?
January 10, 2013, (National Right to Life News)—A
new Marist poll conducted for the Knights of Columbus reveals that 83% of
Americans favor significant limitations on what is now essentially abortion on
demand. That is up 4 points from last year.
A total of 56% of respondents believe either that abortion
should never be permitted (10%), allowed only to save the life of the mother
(12%), or only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother
(34%).
The telephone survey of 1,246 adults conducted in early
December found that 27% would limit abortion to the first three months of
pregnancy, at most. Another 6% would allow abortion during the first six
months of pregnancy while only 11% would allow abortion at any time.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58%) also believe abortion is “morally
wrong.” And in many ways perhaps most important of all, a full 84% of
Americans say laws can protect both mothers and unborn children.
“After four decades
of legalized abortion in this country, Americans have had ample time to
understand that abortion has terrible consequences,” said Knights of Columbus
Supreme Knight Carl Anderson.
An anti-abortion strategy that cannot be resisted
More editor's notes: the anti-abortion "movement" should be involved in a grassroots movement more than a legislative one, including free pregnancy counseling, legal and religious assistance in the adoption process, homes for unwed mothers, per-abortion counseling and laws that support that practice, laws banning late term abortions, and educational strategies that help women to understand that the life they carry has the same right to choose, as does the mother, the same right to life. Understand that the majority who would vote against making abortion illegal, will support each of the above suggestions, including the two legislative propositions. Who knows . . . since we have not really tried . . . using the above strategies, we just might get the abortion rate down to 100,000 or less, about what might be expected if legislation were passed.
Understand that back in the day when abortion was illegal, there were still abortions. People, women, bent on ending "the unborn life within," will find a way to do so. In fact, abortion pills such as RU - 486 (made legal under the anti-abortion administration of GW Bush and his Republican controlled congress) is now available to any woman who cares to ask.
Abortion upon demand, is something that is the case, in today's social economy. We can continue to dream of a day when all of the unborn have been given life in a welcoming world, but, sadly, that is not the case.
I no longer care about Roe v. Wade, because the societal/moral arguments against abortion are stronger than the legislative and imagined alternatives. While we are trying to deal with the issue in terms of legislation, millions of babies are dying. If the "movement" committed itself to saving lives rather than passing legislation, millions of unborn lives could be save while we are fooling around passing laws that will never be accepted.
We need to get this in our heads: the same people who oppose abortion, statistically, ALSO oppose anti-abortion laws, when it comes to voting for one position over the other. If we cannot appeal this particular contingency, a majority of this nation's voting women, we are doomed to failure. That need not be the case.
___________________________
Update: In "comments," below, we have a baby killing lib citing several survey's showing popular approval for abortion at several levels.
Here is a Gallup proves otherwise and this is why I urge the pro-life for all movement to embrace populace ideas while staying miles away from taking "choice" from women.
___________________________
Update: In "comments," below, we have a baby killing lib citing several survey's showing popular approval for abortion at several levels.
Here is a Gallup proves otherwise and this is why I urge the pro-life for all movement to embrace populace ideas while staying miles away from taking "choice" from women.
Now the Eugentics Crowd is celecbrating Xmas by holding a pro-abortion party in the heavily black populated communtiy of D.C.
Understand that, in the very beginning of Federal sanctions favoring abortion (Roe v Wade – 1973), those in the eugenics movement believed abortion to be a convenient tool to be eventually used by Central Planning, to purge society of its more undesirable elements, namely, the poor, the indigent, the grossly uneducated -- you know, blacks, Hispanics, and the Appalachian hillbilly white crowd. Supreme Court justice, Ruth Ginsburg believed this to be the case from 1976 until 1980 (at least). Here are her words, recorded in a Time interview in 2009:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in
populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily
Bazelon of the New York Times.
And it gets worse.
Now the eugenics crowd is scheduling parties, celebrating the killing of nearly a million
unborn babies per year.
The following announces a pro-abortion party held at a D.C.
bar/lounge, this coming December 11th. The fact that this is a celebration in D.C.
means, of course, that this is a
celebration of black abortion more than anything else.
It’s that time of year again, for the hottest party of the
holiday season: the Peace, Joy and Choice Winter Holiday Party!
On December 11, we will live it up at Capitale (formerly K
Street Lounge), from 6-9pm. Get your tickets now, while they’re still at the
early bird rate! It’s not often enough that we get a chance to relax and say
thank you to our amazing supporters. So, come out and join us! There will be
drink specials until 7pm, as well as hors d’oeuvres. In addition, 5% of all
drink orders go to support our work (in case you needed another reason to toss
a few back). And as we know all too well, there is a lot of work to do, so
bottoms up for choice!
There is a great need in our community, and we will continue
to meet it, we just need your help. Last year, DCAF disbursed over $100,000 in
patient grants, a 77% increase from just the year before. Please help us ensure
we never have to say no to a woman who calls
According to lifenews.com, "This particular holiday
event is to benefit the DC Abortion Fund. Their sole purpose is to help fund
abortions. They do nothing else, and – as they so proudly state on their
website – they’re the only organization in D.C. to focus only on making
sure women can get abortions. And they’re exploiting the holidays to ensure
that they can raise money for abortion."
The good news is that less than 800,000 unborn babies were murdered in 2011, down from a running average of 1.2 million in previous years. The bad news is that 800,000 unborn and defenseless babies were murdered in 2011, up from Zero in a holistic and compassionate society.
_____________________
For the Record:
Rick Santorum's efforts at making the presidential race a referendum against abortion is ill-advised, to say the least. That battle can be best waged at the state level. We cannot change the culture if we cannot win elections. Santorum cannot win a presidential bid. It is already too late for him. His decision to turn the 2012 GOP primary campaign into a push to rid the nation of Roe v Wade lost him his GOP primary bid, period. The Democrat fearmongers will have a heyday with a Santorum candidacy.
_____________________
For the Record:
Rick Santorum's efforts at making the presidential race a referendum against abortion is ill-advised, to say the least. That battle can be best waged at the state level. We cannot change the culture if we cannot win elections. Santorum cannot win a presidential bid. It is already too late for him. His decision to turn the 2012 GOP primary campaign into a push to rid the nation of Roe v Wade lost him his GOP primary bid, period. The Democrat fearmongers will have a heyday with a Santorum candidacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)