Abortion has ended 52,008,665 "inconvenient" lives since 1973, and counting...

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — A 16-month investigation into a botched late-term abortion conducted by two out-of-state doctors that led authorities to find 35 late-term fetuses in a Maryland clinic’s freezer has resulted in the arrest and multiple charges of murder for the two.

Dr. Steven Brigham, of Voorhees, N.J., was taken into custody Wednesday night and is being held in the Camden County jail, according to police in Elkton, Md. Authorities also arrested Dr. Nicola Riley in Salt Lake City and she is in jail in Utah. Each is awaiting an extradition hearing.

The two doctors were indicted by a grand jury for murder under the state’s viable fetus law, authorities said.

Watch the local ABC News2 video report:

The investigation began in August 2010 after a botched procedure at Brigham’s Elkton clinic. An 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant had her uterus ruptured and her bowel injured, and rather than call 911, Brigham and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital, where both were uncooperative and Brigham refused to give his name, authorities said.

A search of the clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks, authorities said.

Dr. Steven Brigham

Brigham, 55, is charged with five counts of first-degree murder, five counts of second-degree murder and one count of conspiracy. Riley, 46, faces one count each of first- and second-degree murder and one conspiracy count.The procedure authorities say was botched resulted in the murder case against Riley and three of the 11 murder charges against Brigham, prosecutors told the Cecil Whig in Elkton, Md. The other charges against Brigham relate to four other illegal abortions he performed there, prosecutors added.Maryland is one of 38 states with a law that allows murder charges against someone accused of killing a viable fetus. The 2005 law has so far only been used for cases in which defendants were accused of assaulting or killing pregnant women.

The botched 2010 abortion led regulators to order Brigham to stop practicing medicine in Maryland without a license, and Riley’s Maryland license was suspended. Brigham’s New Jersey license was also suspended.

Dr. Nicola Riley

According to regulators, Brigham would begin abortions in New Jersey and have his patients drive themselves to Maryland to complete the procedures, taking advantage of Maryland’s more permissive laws. Brigham was not authorized to perform abortions in New Jersey after the first trimester, and regulators called his actions manipulative and deceptive.The allegations are similar to those against Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell, who faces trial in 2013 on charges that he killed seven newborn babies by having their spinal cords severed with scissors. Authorities described Gosnell’s clinic as a filthy “house of horrors,” and his wife has pleaded guilty to performing an illegal late-term abortion.Deputy State’s Attorney Kerwin A. Miller did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

An attorney for Riley said she had not seen the indictment, but said her client had been inappropriately charged.

“We believe the charges are without legal merit,” said Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum. “We believe it’s inappropriate for her to be held without bond. She is not a flight risk and she should be released on her own recognizance.”

Krevor-Weisbaum said Riley’s legal team would comment further after they had seen the indictment.

A message left for an attorney for Brigham wasn’t immediately returned.

Anti-abortion activists hailed the arrests of Brigham and Riley.

“These two individuals are now where they belong and should be in jail for the rest of their lives,” the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said in a statement. “Even those who believe abortion should be legal can join with us to stop the out-of-control practices of people like Brigham and Riley.”

For decades anti-abortion advocates have been fighting to keep graphic information about abortions and the babies they kill from the eyes of the people who need to see it the most.  Consequently, the vast majority of people who support abortion claim that “they just surgically remove a bit of unwanted tissue from a mother’s body.” Indeed, Roe v. Wade apparently only made it through the Supreme Court on the expert testimony that aborted babies in no way feel any pain during the procedure, a claim that has been repeatedly disproved over the years.

The abortionist’s era of “blissful ignorance” may soon be coming to an end, however, as the same technology that allows us to glimpse distant galaxies have allowed us to witness the miracle of creation that begins at conception and accomplishes most of its work during the first 6 weeks of gestation, the time when most abortions are performed.  Far from being a mere “mass of tissue,” embryos exhibit a level of complexity and innate intelligence that still baffles the human mind.

The video, which graphically shows the process of human progression, begins by showing an egg being fertilized and ends by illustrating a baby’s actual birth. Throughout the clip, viewers see the full fetal development, with explanations about what, exactly, is happening at each phase. But the imagery is spellbinding.

Pro-life advocates are giving the video rave reviews. While the nation continues to be divided on the abortion issue, some believe that the growth and expansion of technology is beginning to impact how individuals view the issue. The ability to see graphic details about the development of a fetus, they believe, makes it more difficult to accept abortion without sincere questions about life’s beginnings.

In addressing what he’s encountered in his research, Tsiaras says:

“The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go– the complexity of these, the mathematical models of how these things are indeed done are beyond human comprehension. Even though I’m a mathematician, I look at this with a marvel of how did these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, its magic, its divinity.”

More on Abortion:

Resources on Abortion
Is Abortion Murder? – From an Embryological Standpoint
More Articles

http://www.toomanyaborted.com/

The end of a marriage, for whatever reason, has a devastating effect on families. Not only do husbands and wives have to navigate their way through changes in finances, living situations and emotional stress, but those couples divorcing with children must take the well-being of their little ones into consideration as well.

Now a new report based on a decades-long study has found that children who experienced a divorce die on average five years earlier than those from homes where the parents stayed together.

Read entire article here.

A good article that, without putting down homosexuality or gay unions, or mentioning of God or morals, gives a compelling argument for why marriage should retain its “traditional” definition.

My Godfather was a bachelor who lived in a small cottage in East Melbourne. We called him Uncle Ernest but he was actually my grandfather’s brother and technically my mother’s uncle. He came once a week to dinner at our house and was an important influence on my development. Although my parents were by no means uncultured, he brought something extra into my life in terms of a respect for the arts and the value of refinement and taste. He was for me a model of elegance and urbanity and, most important of all, gave me a sense of style. I still remember when he took me to my first Shakespeare play in the city, performed by the visiting Old Vic Company. I believe he had a similar positive influence on some of my cousins.

He was a loved and respected member of my extended family and I never heard a word spoken against him. The family sometimes mentioned his late companion who shared the cottage with him for many years, well before my time, but there was no hint at all that there was anything untoward in this.

I am now almost certain that he was gay and I am grateful that he was. If he had been heterosexual he would most probably have married and had his own children and been too busy with them to give me the benefit of his dignified presence.

My subsequent life has been enriched by countless encounters, and sometimes ongoing relationships, with a wide range of gay people in all walks of life. Most of them were first and foremost fine people, intelligent, creative and enthusiastic, and their homosexuality, while part of their identity, was neither here nor there in the argy-bargy of day-to-day existence.

I believe my personal experience can be generalised to the whole society. Our whole culture has benefited from the presence of homosexuals in our midst, not just as mentors but as productive and creative people in their own right, and we should thank whatever evolutionary forces made it a fact that it is normal that a percentage of the population at any one time will be drawn to same-sex rather than heterosexual unions.

Homosexuality is normal, but it is not the norm. If it were the norm, the human race would have died out eons ago. The norm for human beings is sexual reproduction which requires not same-sex but opposite-sex unions. At the most basic level, our survival as a species requires the coming together of male and female gametes.

In human societies the way this essential union is symbolised is in the institution of marriage. This is how the centrality of the male-female partnership is celebrated in our culture and, in a non-religious sense, it is sacred; that is to say, heterosexuality is so important to our survival, so fundamental to the continuation of the species, that we have an ingrained sense that marriage as a heterosexual union should not be tampered with. It symbolises in the social sphere the vital role that the male-female gamete union plays at the biological level.

It is true that in the past, and even now, many societies have discriminated against homosexuals and one of the ways they have done this is to deny them the civil advantages that are bestowed on married couples. In a just society, no-one should withhold such privileges from a person or a couple simply on the grounds of their sexual orientation. But to solve this problem by introducing same-sex marriage is to strip marriage of its deep meaning as a symbol of the male-female union that it is quintessentially a part of nearly all animal life, including human life, on this planet, and to pare it down to the status of a civil union, a merely legal arrangement. This is why I feel queasy about the idea of same-sex marriage. It is achieving equality for some by taking something important away from many others, and that, I think, is not just. The just way to give equality to homosexuals is to acknowledge their relationships in civil, unions which give them the recognition and legal rights they want and deserve, without at the same time making meaningless the rite of marriage as a female/male inter-relationship in the process.

Being equal does not mean being the same. Marriage celebrates the male-female bond, which is worth celebrating, but his doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also celebrate homosexual partnerships for the contributions they have made. I think of Gertrude and Alice. Of Patrick and Manny. And so many more. The list is a long one.

But we must also recognise that there is a sense in which homosexual partnerships are not the same as heterosexual ones and this difference should also be celebrated.

I sometimes think that some members of the homosexual community are playing a game of “Let’s Pretend” – “Let’s pretend we’re heterosexual”: Heterosexual couples have children, so let’s get ourselves a baby. Heterosexual couples get married, so let’s get ourselves married. This seems to me to be at one level a denial of one’s homosexuality, of what makes homosexuality unique. Freedom is not the ability to become like other people, freedom is the ability to become more fully yourself! Isn’t this what “Gay Pride” means. There is no pride in making believe you are just like everyone else.

So by all means find non-discriminatory ways to recognise same-sex relationships but don’t do it at the expense of blurring and obscuring the unique role of sexual reproduction and its social representation in marriage in the continuing social life of our species.

Judge Vaughn Walker is in the news again, and it’s not a pretty sight for those who care about the rule of law and judicial process.

First, Judge Walker gives an interview in which he acknowledges he’s been in a ten-year partnership with a man. No less a legal scholar than John Eastman, former dean of Chapman University School of Law, argues that this heretofore undisclosed relationship   grave consequences for Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8.

Eastman writes: “Walker’s admission requires that his decision in the case be vacated. He is either a direct beneficiary of his ruling in the case, or a person with a close-enough personal interest in the case that his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned if the required disclosures had been made.”

Here’s a question no one has publicly asked yet: Is Judge Walker married to his partner under California law? Are they in a domestic partnership? Judge Walker has never directly answered this question—and California permits “confidential marriage licenses” so the public would not necessarily have any way to know.

Judge Walker has never even disclosed the name of his partner, or the nature of this partnership, so the litigants in this case still do not know if there are spousal or quasi-spousal potential conflicts of interest either.

Judge Walker does not appear to be a judge with a finely-tuned sense of what judicial ethics require.

The even bigger news story (which has been largely ignored by the mainstream press, natch) is contained in the motion filed by Cooper and Kirk, on behalf of Protect Marriage, which asks the court to order Judge Walker to turn over all copies of the videotapes he made at the trial.

You may recall Judge Walker’s unseemly zest during the trial to violate all procedural rules in order to televise the trial, over the objections of the Prop 8 supporters—who demonstrated that televising would have a negative impact on expert witnesses who feared harassment as a result.

The Supreme Court had to slap Walker down in a stinging direct order (PDF) to stop trying to televise the trial.

But Judge Walker decided to continue videotaping the trial anyway, allegedly only for his own personal use.

In fact, he directly promised Prop 8 supporters, who objected and asked him to stop the cameras after the Supreme Court order, that the videotapes would not be used for any purpose other than helping him write his opinion.

Not everybody believed him at the time.

I’ve heard that at least one witness backed out of testifying when he heard the news that the judge intended to keep on videotaping. “I’ve been around the block a few times,” this witness said. “I know if there’s a videotape, it’s likely to get out.”

But who would have expected that Judge Walker himself, just days before he stepped down from the bench, would brazenly violate his own promise—upon which the litigants relied both in testifying and in declining to pursue further legal action—by showing the videotapes during a speech he made, which he knew was being videotaped by C-SPAN?

Note that Judge Walker didn’t show, say, the plaintiffs testifying, who wanted to be televised. He singled out an expert witness for Prop 8—one of the very class of people who had expressed concerns about harassment—and broadcast him in an unflattering moment on live, national television.

As I said in a NOM press release, “What more evidence do we need that Vaughn Walker is a rogue judge with little regard for ordinary judicial process and fair play?”

You can read the whole story in the motion up on the NOM blog.

But, for my money, here’s the money quote from the able litigator Charles Cooper’s motion:

“. . . .[T]he Supreme Court had just stayed his broadcast order, then-Chief Judge Walker insisted on recording the trial proceedings anyway. In doing so over Proponents’ objection, Chief Judge Walker assured Proponents on the record that the recording was ‘not going to be for purposes of public broadcasting or televising,’ but rather ‘simply for use in chambers.’ In reliance on Chief Judge Walker’s assurances, Proponents took no further action to prevent him from recording the trial proceedings. One of Proponents’ witnesses also relied on those assurances, and now the recording of a portion of his testimony has been shown by Judge Walker to a large public audience and, in turn, has been disseminated nationally by C-SPAN.”

What kind of judge would break court rules, defy a direct Supreme Court order, and break a direct promise made to litigants in court?

One who clearly does not care much about the ordinary rules of fair play.

We now know for sure what kind of judge and man Vaughn Walker is.

A recent feature in J. Crew’s online catalogue portrays designer Jenna Lyons painting her son Beckett’s toe nails hot pink. The quote accompanying the image reads, “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” [my word choice] is not known.

In our technology-driven world—fueled by Facebook, split-second Prozac prescriptions and lots of other assaults on genuine emotion and genuine relationships and actual consequences for behavior—almost nothing is now honored as real and true.

Increasingly, this includes the truth that it is unwise to dress little girls like miniature adults (in halter tops and shorts emblazoned with PINK across the bottoms) and that it is unwise to encourage little boys to playact like little girls.

If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?

Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians?

Why should we hold dear anything with which we were born? What’s the benefit of non-fiction over fiction?

Well, the benefit is that non-fiction always wins, in the end. And to the extent that you take flights of fancy into masquerading through life, life will exact a psychological penalty.

The fallout is already being seen. Increasingly, girls show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with boys. That may be a good thing from the standpoint of gender equality, but it could be a bad thing since there is no longer the same typically “feminine” brake on such behavior. Girls beat up other girls on YouTube. Young men primp and preen until their abdomens are washboards and their hair is perfect. And while that may seem like no big deal, it will be a very big deal if it turns out that neither gender is very comfortable anymore nurturing children above all else, and neither gender is motivated to rank creating a family above having great sex forever and neither gender is motivated to protect the nation by marching into combat against other men and risking their lives.

Maybe we’ll all have shiny, colored lips, though, and pierced ears and perfect eyebrows and mommies who get applause from their J. Crew friends at the park for parading their sons through the streets in costume.

Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions a whole lot more than any creative Force in the universe.

I wonder what Jenna would think if her son wanted to celebrate his masculinity with a little playacting as a cowboy, with a gun? Would that bring the same smile of joy and pure love that we see on her face in the J. Crew advertisement? Or would that be where she might draw the line?

(Source)

Joshua is a 30-year-old active Mormon who considered himself gay until he married his wife. He requested his last name be withheld to protect his privacy. He is a computational linguist who lives in Union City and works in Palo Alto.

How would you describe your marriage?

I have been married to a wonderful woman for just over a year. Married life couldn’t be better. It is more wonderful than I could ever have imagined. For a long time I didn’t think a faithful marriage to a woman would work, but my love for her has eclipsed anything I ever felt for a man. The difference between my sexual attraction for men and for my wife is my sexual attraction for men comes more from my natural desires, where my sexual attraction for my wife has grown out of the love I have for her.

What is your history with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I am Mormon and was raised Mormon. I am very involved in the church. I am in the Elder’s Quorum Presidency — the group over men in my congregation — and I go to the temple on a weekly basis.

Did you or do you struggle with same-sex attraction? Please explain.

I have been blessed with same-sex attraction. I don’t like saying “struggle.” It is a struggle, but so are opposite-sex attractions. Until I hear some straight person say they struggle with opposite-sex attractions, I won’t say I struggle with same-sex attractions.

I have had same-sex attractions since I was a little kid. I think my same-sex attractions have helped me to be a better person, more understanding of people in different situations. I think it has helped me to be more open-minded and compassionate. Ironically, I also think it has strengthened my relationship with my wife. It has made our relationship more honest and open. In sharing my story about same-sex attractions, I have shared some of my deepest feelings with her. This has created a bond I think few couples have. I have been very blessed with same-sex attractions.

Do you feel the relationship between gay-rights supporters and Mormons in the Bay Area and nationwide needs work?

Yes. That much is obvious. Mormons are often painted as Public Enemy No. 1 by many gay-rights activists. In reality, the Mormon church has a much softer stance than most churches. They are just more vocal about it. Opposition by the church is limited to the definition of marriage. We believe the complementary nature of men and women set the ideal standard for child-rearing, and marriage should reflect that. We have viciously defended this standard, but we are OK with people choosing to live and raise children in something other than the ideal. We have a strong belief that everyone has the freedom of choice.

We did not object to civil unions in California, even though many other religions did. I think that is very progressive. In my mind, civil unions create the balance between the very real need for same-sex couples to have the rights and benefits necessary to protect their families while still recognizing the value that a man-woman relationship has for child rearing. There are more than 1,100 federal rights currently being denied to same-sex couples in California that the church does not oppose. Rather than fighting the Mormons, they should be working together with the Mormons to get those 1,100 rights to same-sex couples.

This has worked well in Salt Lake City, where the church has put in its support for employment and housing protections for gay and transgender people. You have to realize how impressive this is. Very few places in the U.S. have employment and housing protections for transgender people. In this respect, the Mormon church is more progressive than most of America.

However, if you just treat Mormons as your enemy, you are going to have a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can only tell Mormons so many times that they hate gays before they start believing you. Going back to the housing example, it did not pass in all of Utah even though it had the full support of the church. I think a large part of this is because the backlash against the church after Prop. 8 worked very well at convincing Mormons that they hate gays. Many feel they are being attacked by gay people, and get defensive. Of course, both sides are attacking each other, and both sides are getting defensive.

This is very hard for gay members of the church. The best analogy I can think of is a child seeing your parents divorce. Gays attack Mormons, Mormons attack gays, and gay Mormons feel the blow from both sides. It is horrible.

… Gay-rights activists would do well to admit that same-sex relationships are a choice for gay people, and opposite-sex relationships are a perfectly valid alternative for gay people. Mormons are OK with same-sex relationships being a choice. A core of Mormon doctrine is to allow men the privilege of acting according to the dictates of their own conscience. They can respect a person’s choice to be in a same-sex relationship. Like I said, we do not oppose civil unions. The problem comes when they tell Mormons it is not a choice, and that their family and friends who have made another choice are either lying or not being true to themselves.

I have felt enormous opposition from the gay community for getting married to a woman. Many people in my situation don’t want to deal with the pressure, and they hide their sexual orientation. If they try to come out, they get accused of not being true to themselves, and are pushed back into the closet. The closet is a horrible, awful place and no one should be forced to be in it.

I think the situation would be improved if we worked on common grounds. No one chooses the orientation of their sexual attractions. Everyone chooses their sexual behavior.

 

Do you feel the LDS Church treats gay people fairly? How or how not?

I think people in general have treated gay people unfairly. There remains much misunderstanding about homosexuality in general. I think most members of the church don’t understand it, and they are afraid of what they do not understand. They don’t understand that seminude dancers in a gay pride parade are not representative of the gay population. But I think it is getting better. The church put out several publications right before Prop. 8 that have been really helpful to gay members of the church and emphasized loving and caring for gay members.

To my knowledge, the LDS Church has done more to reach out to its gay members than any other church that teaches same-sex relationships are a sin. There really is no better place to be for someone like me who is attracted to the same sex, and yet is morally opposed to same-sex relationships. The gay community says you aren’t being true to yourself, while many conservatives attack you for simply having the attractions. The Mormon church is one of the few places that has room for me. Not to say there isn’t room for improvement. I feel the acceptance is rather forced with a heavy dose of suspicion, but I think it genuinely is acceptance, which the gay community does not offer.

Bay Area schools promote gay families in Elementary School curriculum. The ACLU orders schools to portray gays in a positive light and teach gay history:

(www.baycitizen.org)- “After a lesbian student at Jesse Bethel High School in Vallejo joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2008 to accuse the local school district of discrimination, district officials agreed as part of a settlement to show films and assign homework depicting same-sex families, beginning in elementary school….

A bill introduced in December by State Senator Mark Leno, Democrat of San Francisco, would require all of the state’s history textbooks to include figures and events in gay history and portray them “in a positive light.”

As a parent, there is a simple thing you can do to counter this.  Find out when and where these indoctrinations will take place and pull your kid out of school for the day.  Spend the time teaching them correct morals.  Encourage other parents to do the same.  If they do not warn you ahead of time, instruct your child to walk out of the classroom and call you to pick them up.  If anyone gives you a hard time, tell them that your child’s religious values are being imposed upon and say you would rather leave it at this and not go to the media and the courts.

For every day that a child misses school, that school loses some of it’s funding.  If enough people walk out on this ridiculous abuse of public education’s influence over our children, they will have to stop it.  But its about much more than liberal abuses, it is about keeping your child safe from bad influences.

If your child is scared of what other students say, you can always let them tell their friend that they’re just doing it to get out of school.  Maybe more students will join in and make your boycott more effective!

California’s attorney general is asking a judge to allow same-sex marriages to resume in the state immediately, without waiting for a ruling on whether a law banning gay marriage is constitutional.

Attorney General Kamala Harris Tuesday filed a letter with the federal appeals court that is considering the case. A federal judge has already struck down the law, known as Proposition 8, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But a different judge put the ruling on hold – stopping gay marriages – until an appeal was heard. The state supreme court is now weighing whether that appeal should go forward.  It will depend on whether or not the supreme court finds the defenders of Proposition 8 have legal standing to fight the appeal, given that the top state officials declined to do so. That ruling may not be made until the end of the year.

In her letter, Harris said it was unlikely the supreme court would support the legal standing for the lawsuit, and so keeping Proposition 8 in effect in the meantime was denying Californians their equal rights.

She said the case was also “substantially diminished” by the recent decision by U.S. President Barack Obama to stop defending a similar federal law, that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

[Source]