Vandalize and get re-appointed to the student senate. That is the new operating mode at UW-Stevens Point. Oh, I almost forgot. It only works if you vandalize right-to-life displays.
Last week, this blog had video of student senator Roderick King vandalizing a beautiful cross display erected with permission at UW-Stevens Point by Pointers for Life, a group whose leader is funded by Wisconsin Right to Life. Pointers asked for disciplinary action against King. While university officials state that King is no longer a member of the student senate, a member of that body says King was unanimously re-appointed for the next year.
Pointers for Life plans to continue to push for disciplinary action in this case but will have to wait until the next school year.
Want to add your voice to this intolerant infringement on speech rights? You can contact Linda Bunnell, Chancellor of Student Affairs at email@example.com.
Here we are, talking about the ogre called Planned Parenthood again. Two interesting tidbits came to our attention recently revolving around PP’s hunger for dollars to expand its $1 billion business empire.
You may have heard about a UCLA student newspaper which reported that an actor posing as a racist donor called several Planned Parenthood clinics asking to make a donation to be specifically used to abort African American babies because he thought there were too many black people in the world. According to the newspaper, the person at Ohio Planned Parenthood who took the call said that PP “will accept the money for whatever reason” This incident wound up on national talk shows. Finally, Ohio PP is talking about it, stating the call was a sham and that the recording of the conversation left out the part where the PP person said the money would be used for black women in need. Here’s the opportunist part of the story — PP still accepted the money.
In Arizona, PP has a nurse practitioner who has been performing abortions for eight years. That’s right — not a doctor, but a nurse practitioner. So much for the infamous pro-abort argument that an abortion is between a woman and her doctor. And, so much for women’s safety. The Arizona House has passed a bill to bar anyone but a physician from performing abortions. Action now awaits in the Senate but the pro-abort governor is expected to veto the measure with PP’s blessing as it defends this practice.
More for PP’s bottom line — accept donations for any purpose whatsoever, even racist ones, and hire less expensive, less highly trained people to perform abortions. Profit-mongering at its finest.
Sex-selection abortions are rampant in India with baby girls as the target. It is estimated that at least 10 million Indian girls have been killed through abortion and infanticide over the last 20 years, seriously skewing demographics in this populous nation.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls it a “national shame.” The Prime Minister estimates that in 1981, there were 962 girls for every 1,000 boys. In 2001, the number dropped to 927 girls for every 1,000 boys.
Now, the government is fighting back to end this illegal practice, increasing penalties for doctors who do sex-selection abortions by permanently striking them off the medical roll, instituting fines of up to $17,500 and putting them in jail for three years. In an effort to influence parents, the Indian government pays poor women to have girl babies.
In a speech, Singh said: “No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women.” He described female feticide as “inhuman, uncivilized and reprehensible.”
As most people have figured out, every presidential election is about judges, judges and judges. We live in a climate where, contrary to the wishes of the country’s founders, a handful of judges is making more and more decisions for the people. Of course, the most notorious example is the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision where seven justices overturned the laws of all 50 states and gave us abortion on demand by fiat.
John McCain understands that judicial appointments are virtually the top issue for many Americans. In a recent address to students at Wake Forest University, McCain carefully and thoughtfully laid out the criteria for selecting judicial candidates and why it is so important to the future of America.
McCain said: “In America, the constitutional restraint on power is as fundamental as the exercise of power…..the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of checks and balances rarely disappoints…..There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power…..I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist.”
McCain went on to point out what we all know — that Senator Obama has very different ideas. John Roberts wasn’t good enough for him so Obama voted against his confirmation. Why? Well, explained Obama, a justice of the court should share “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” Huh??? I guess you and I could qualify under that criteria.
Howard Dean is already bashing McCain for wanting judges who will limit abortions and one day overturn Roe. Sounds good to me.
Pointers for Life is a right-to-life group at UW-Stevens Point whose leader is funded by Wisconsin Right to Life. In what they deemed a moving visual demonstration of abortion in America, Pointers set up a Cemetery of Innocents display on campus consisting of 4,000 crosses to depict the number of human lives lost each day to abortion. Great educational project for their peers — right?
Overnight, the display was vandalized with crosses slashed and broken. As several Pointers’ members were repairing the display, a group of displeased students, led by student Senator Roderick King, began to yell at them and debate with them. They demanded to know who authorized the cross project.
Not satisfied with answers, this group of rowdies began pulling hundreds of crosses from the ground and tossing them away. Pointers then called Protective Services, knowing their project had been properly approved.
King claimed that Pointers for Life had “no right” to display and that it was “his duty as a paying student” to take it down. “The freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols,” he claimed. When Protective Services stepped in, King’s groupies stopped, but King continued until the threat of having to pay for the vandalism reached his brain.
Then the media showed up to listen to and dutifully report King’s rants. More of King’s groupies appeared to buttress his outrageous claims.
Eventually, the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs showed up and restored order. Pointers for Life submitted a complaint to the student association, asking that King resign or be disciplined.
So, what caused such intolerance and disrespect, resulting in an emotionally violent reaction from King? It’s hard to understand why a group of white crosses would trigger such an extreme response. Do you think he has been touched by abortion in some way?
Almost three years ago, a Massachusetts girl was taken to an emergency room with what was described as “flulike” symptoms. There are two important and tragic parts to this story:
Haleigh’s mother and stepfather were eventually charged with causing Haleigh’s traumatic brain injuries.
After only six days of unconsciousness a court was asked for permission to remove her feeding tube and respirator.
The order was given to give up on Haleigh — and, fortunately, she began breathing on her own just 24 hours after the Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the lower court that Haleigh’s life was not worth saving.
Ironically, the stepfather’s appeals (while he was obviously trying to save his own skin) kept her on life support until that momentous day when she began to recover.
Now 14 and still undergoing intense rehabilitation, Haleigh has provided police with heartbreaking testimony about the beatings she endured.
Truly, this is a miracle child — she not only survived repeated abuse, but beat the social service system, the medical professionals, and the courts who gave up on her long before her time was up.
Nowhere in the world are euthanasia and assisted suicide practiced as freely as in the Netherlands. Going back to 1985, courts looked the other way while euthanasia and assisted suicide became standard practice. In 2002, these practices were legalized by codification of existing practice into law. It doesn’t matter if you ask for euthanasia or not because someone can do it for you.
In 2005, the Netherlands traveled down the slippery slope even further by establishing a set of guidelines, known as the Groningen Protocol, allowing newborn infants with disabilities such as Spina Bifida to be euthanized when the parents consent and the infant’s quality of life is deemed not acceptable. Sounds like eugenics at work to me.
Belgium legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002.
Switzerland has not legalized but allows assisted suicide to occur. A group called Dignitas carried out hundreds of assisted suicides for years in a downtown apartment building in Zurich, attracting patients (or should we say victims) from all over the world. Recently, Dignitas was evicted after building residents complained of body bags in elevators and ambulances in front of the building. Undaunted, Dignitas now carries out its deadly work in vans stationed in parking lots. By the way — Dignitas has changed its tactics. It now uses plastic bags with helium placed over the person’s head instead of medication to eliminate the physician as the middle “man” who has to agree to write the prescription.
Luxembourg is in the final stages of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia.
The House of Lords in Great Britain voted down legislation to legalize assisted suicide in 2006 but the debate still rages with some British physicians calling for guidelines like the Groningen Protocol to allow euthanasia of newborn infants with disabilities. Debate is occurring in Scotland about legalization.
In France, a woman with a debilitating illness publicly requested suicide from a court as the French people rallied to her side. After being turned down, she committed suicide. It became known she had refused treatment for her condition that could have restored her to full health and also pain medication.
In Germany, a former government minister has devised a suicide machine which is on loan to anyone wanting to commit suicide.
All of this activity emboldens the proponents of euthanasia to push forward with their deadly agenda. Here in the U.S., we are terrified that these ominous trends will reach our shores.
Oregon retains the infamous reputation of being the only state where assisted suicide is legal. Annual reports from Oregon indicate small increases in the number of people committing suicide with assistance, but it is believed the reports are deeply flawed. The reports do indicate that the reason people commit suicide is not primarily because of pain, but that people don’t want to live with their condition.
The proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia are working under the media radar to find more states willing to legalize assisted suicide. In 2007, major attempts to legalize through legislation were defeated in Hawaii, Vermont, and California. Wisconsin had a public hearing earlier this year on legislation to legalize assisted suicide in our state. In all, there have been 89 attempts in 22 states to legalize assisted suicide that have failed.
But the story doesn’t end here. In Washington, proponents of assisted suicide are spearheading a drive to gather enough signatures to place a question on the November 4, 2008 ballot to legalize in that state. Former Washington governor Booth Gardner is leading this effort. He poses a triple threat in that he is wealthy, well-known, and has a progressive disease. It should be noted that Gardner is already saying that the proposed question does not go far enough because it would only cover people who are terminally ill and would not apply to him. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.
Even further under the radar is a motion filed in a Montana lower court last fall to overturn Montana’s law prohibiting assisted suicide. This case will eventually reach the Montana Supreme Court and is an incredibly important one to watch. We have long felt that we are most vulnerable to having assisted suicide and euthanasia legalized through the courts (ala Roe v. Wade) than through legislative action. Hence, our preoccupation with who sits on our own state Supreme Court.
Activity in the United States is mild, however, compared to the firestorm brewing in Europe. Tune in to tomorrow’s blog to learn what is happening there.