Showing posts with label Planned Parenthood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Planned Parenthood. Show all posts

Monday, April 1, 2019

Plan to See Unplanned

We were among the surprisingly large number who went to see the movie Unplanned this past weekend.

I tend to be skeptical of movies with a message. But I’d heard enough about this movie to be open to it, because it's more about story than message.

Abby Johnson, now a pro-life speaker, whose story
is told in the movie Unplanned,
screenshot from here
I had heard the book author, Abby Johnson, who is the main character portrayed in the movie, being interviewed a number of times. She has a compelling story. So, it was a matter of whether this would be well told or not.

I don’t see R-rated movies—if the movie is rated for R based on sex, language, or violence, as you’d expect. I skip a lot of PG-13 movies for those very reasons. This movie has none of that. But there is some intensity. And there is some realistic blood.

Last week Glenn Beck talked about the movie quite a bit. He traveled to Utah for the opening—to encourage people who don’t usually attend an R-rated movie to make this one an exception. Reports are that attendance there was double the per screen rate of the rest of the country. In the country overall, the movie got a very good first weekend reception on about 1000 screens. I saw one report that it was a higher per screen rate than Captain Marvel, maybe because this is about real life female power against evil.

Glenn Beck had suggested that telling this story could end abortion in our lifetime. That might be an exaggeration. But it is powerful. It may be that telling this story truthfully to young people will reveal something about abortion—and about Planned Parenthood in particular—that will change the culture. The challenge, then, will be getting young people to see it.

It’s odd how the motion picture rating system works. Something can be truly vile and immoral, and shocking, and still get a PG-13 rating, meaning parents are cautioned, but no one asks any questions of teenagers going to see such a movie. But an R-rating means that a minor must be accompanied by an adult, because the material is so inappropriate that only a parent can override that decision.

Some of the promotional material has pointed out that a 13-year-old can get an actual abortion without parental consent, but can’t see this movie depicting what will happen during that abortion without parental consent.

The movie was closer to home than I had been aware. We were talking to our son on the way to the theater, and he says, “Oh, the one about the woman from Rockdale?” That’s a town a short distance from where they live; they drive there to their church building. I hadn’t known Abby Johnson was that local. I hadn’t been aware that the abortion clinic where she had worked was in Texas—Bryan, Texas, a suburb of the town where Texas A&M University is located. And there’s a portion of the story related to the Houston Planned Parenthood building, which I’ve seen so many times from the freeway on the way into downtown.

Here's the trailer:



The movie does a couple of things really well. It describes what is going on in the minds of many of the pro-abortion (pro-choice) people. And it depicts the experience at the clinic.

One point Abby Johnson makes well is that scaring someone and yelling at them that they’re going to hell, when they’re facing a traumatic crisis in their life, is not likely to persuade them. Actually, the pro-life people who most frequently talk with her through the fence agree with that. They’re much more about loving-kindness and caring than you might expect, and that’s probably crucial to the story.

Most of us pro-life people have never seen the inside of an abortion clinic, let alone seen the actual procedure. This movie, by all reports, worked hard to be accurate. Even the doctors playing the role had been former abortion doctors.

You may have heard that the “violent” scene that garnered the R-rating depicts an actual abortion—CGI version (no babies were harmed in the making of this film). It shows a baby on ultrasound, dodging the suction tube, avoiding its own destruction, before being caught and sucked down a tube that suddenly becomes bloody.

This is actually the life-changing moment from Abby Johnson’s life. She was a career abortion provider, confessing that she was complicit in some 22,000 abortions over eight years with Planned Parenthood. But she had been able to convince herself that it was about helping young women in crisis, and working to make abortion rare—by offering birth control that would prevent the crisis pregnancy.

She was from a pro-life Christian family, with parents who continued to pray for her and love her anyway. And her husband—her second husband—was pro-life all along. It’s mystifying that he loved her when her job was so against his moral beliefs, but that is also probably key to her eventual epiphany.

She had gone through two abortions herself. The first was during her first year of college. First time away from home, and she let herself become a party girl right away. She had a relationship with a man ten years older. When she became pregnant, he insisted on the abortion. She was a freshman, afraid to tell her parents what she had become. And she knew she was not ready for parenthood. Pressured by the guy, she lets him take her to the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic. The guy doesn’t pay for it; she has to get a credit card on her own, and work her way out of the debt, to avoid telling her parents.

She marries that guy, to the dismay of her parents. He’s a bum. A year later, she finds out he’s unfaithful and immediately gets a divorce. And then finds out she’s pregnant again. At this point, the very idea of having a child that will connect her to that man is horrifying. So, again, abortion seems like the answer.

This time she goes to the local clinic in Bryan, TX, the one where she eventually works. Because it’s so early in the pregnancy, she is persuaded to do a chemically induced abortion—the RU-486 pill. She is told that she will have some mild cramping, and then her body will gently eliminate the pregnancy. She gets ready at home, takes the prescribed pills. And then suffers intense cramping, bleeding, clumps, more bleeding, more cramping—so that she fears this is how she will die. For 48 hours. Followed by twelve weeks of continued bleeding, passing clumps, and cramping.

This was the most affecting part of the movie for me. And possibly the most graphic. TMI, but my own pregnancy that ended prematurely was followed by very painful afterbirth, as if I were being ripped inside, more painful after birth than my full-term babies, and then about ten weeks of bleeding. But, as traumatic as it was, I wasn’t alone and uncared for or stricken by shame.


Abby angrily contacts the Planned Parenthood clinic. They tell her this is normal. And she demands to know why they didn’t warn her. How could this be normal and they not let her know ahead of time? They dismiss her and hang up.

It’s another year or two later, when she’s recruited to volunteer. By then she’s forgotten her anger toward Planned Parenthood, and has replaced it with self-loathing. Looking for a way to volunteer and do something better with her life, she at first resists the girl in the pink hat at the recruiting table. But pink girl insists to her that they’re about making abortion rare; that’s why they’re about birth control and women’s health. And to that she says, “Sign me up.”

For a person who wants to think of herself as doing good, she finds it surprisingly easy to lie. There’s a father that she knows who brings in his daughter, whom he clearly cares about. Abby Johnson assures them it’s a simple, safe procedure. She’ll be done shortly, and then following a short recovery time, they can go on their way. It doesn’t quite turn out that simple. The doctor perforates the uterine wall, something that can happen quite easily when no ultrasound is used during the procedure.

They did ultrasounds before the procedure—which they did not show to the client; they used it only for the purpose of determining size of the fetus, which then determined difference in cost. But they didn’t generally use ultrasounds during the procedure, despite increased safety for the mother, because it would require an extra several minutes to set up (added cost) plus the use of another worker (added cost).

Anyway, when this procedure goes badly, Abby is very upset. She had promised this girl and her father that all would be well. And now there was the possibility the girl could die. Abby’s quick work and that of the rest of the staff eventually saves the girl, who is unconscious throughout, so they do not even tell her there was a problem. Abby wanted to call 911, but her supervisor absolutely forbade her; it would look bad with all the protesters outside to see an ambulance come. They couldn’t afford the bad image. And then she chastised Abby for getting upset about a little blood. (It wasn’t a little.)

The supervisor orders her to go explain the delay to the father in the waiting room. She does, with a lie. She says there was an allergic reaction with another patient they were dealing with that took some extra time, but that his daughter was fine, and after a short time in recovery she’d be brought out to him.

There’s a day before Hurricane Ike (2008) that she reschedules all the Saturday clients to Friday to get them done ahead of the storm. She and her staff think of it as heroic work. She comes home exhausted and wet from the rain. Her little girl questions her about the blood on her shoes. She casually lies that a person at the clinic got a nosebleed.

Lying is too easy for her. That must come from shame.

The day of her change of heart, Abby was called in to help during a procedure, because the doctor who had been called in that day refused to do the procedure without the ultrasound help. She hadn’t, in all her years of working there and even running the clinic, been witness to the baby on ultrasound during the procedure.

There were a couple of other details leading to her being ready to recognize the truth that day. I’ll avoid any more spoilers. But there’s a lot of reality here.

Once she has left the clinic, and has begun her redemption journey, she talks through the fence to a girl arriving for an abortion, and she gets her to listen to the basics of what is going to happen inside that clinic. They aren’t going to offer her options; they are going to push her to have an abortion. She knows this, because she used to be really good at it. This was maybe one of the less natural moments in the film, but it is an effective speech—because by this time we’ve seen the truth. An abortion doesn’t make the problem go away. You can’t go through those clinic doors and come back out to the way things used to be; things are never the same.

Planned Parenthood is an ironic name. It’s not about planning to be a parent; it’s about avoiding being a parent. At all costs. It’s a political organization. And it’s a money-making “non-profit”; and money is made by doing more and more abortions.

There ought to be some truth in advertising. They wouldn’t have made such inroads into the culture if they’d honestly called themselves “Baby Killing and Disposal for Profit.” But that is their true name.
For those of you, like me, Christians, maybe even Latter-day Saints, who avoid R-rated movies, there’s one thing this movie depicts rather well. When we say Christ descended below all things, that He has atoned for all our sins—He really means it. Redemption is possible even for a woman who was complicit in the deaths of two of her own babies and tens of thousands of others. That’s a message of hope for our troubled, wicked world.

Abby Johnson speaks out against abortion. She also started a nonprofit (And Then There Were None) to help abortion workers leave what in some ways resembles a cult. In six years or so she has helped over 500 leave, including several actual abortion doctors. As she says, the goal isn’t to shut down clinics; the goal is to change the hearts of people so our culture says abortion is an unacceptable practice for civilized people.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Forcing Evil

Counties of Ireland
image from Wikipedia

The first of this year abortion became legal in the highly Catholic country of Ireland. That “victory” is apparently not enough for those who promote the killing of unborn human babies. Right now 95% of Irish doctors refuse to perform abortions. That still leaves 179 doctors willing to perform them (although 30 of these ask that their names not be included on a national government list). There are four counties left without any abortionists.

How far does someone have to go, then? The maximum length of the country is just over 300 miles, and width is 170 miles. The whole length is about what we would drive to Baton Rouge, just outside Texas, into Louisiana. Or a tad further than from Houston to Dallas. But you’d never have to go that far. The four counties are spread out, all of them near counties with an abortionist. So the furthest drive is probably an hour (depending on road conditions).

But that isn’t good enough for the promoters of baby killing. The new law (through their Parliament in December and almost immediately enacted)

·         Forces taxpayers to pay for abortions.
·         Forces Catholic hospitals to provide abortions.
·         Limits conscience protections for doctors and nurses.
·         Allows girls 15 and under to have abortions without parental consent or notification.



Also, because there have been peaceful pro-life protests, the promoters of abortions are calling for government to censor pro-life speech and set up no-protest buffer zones around abortion facilities.
All this is in a faraway country. We would certainly find protection of life and liberty (including free speech) here in America, right?

Convincing black women that killing their babies
is self-care, which would have delighted PP founder
Margaret Sanger intended; billboard image found here
Next story. In New York City, more black babies are aborted than are born, 42% of all abortions in the city. Including all races, one in every three pregnancies is aborted. That’s not enough for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Earlier this week he promised to veto a budget that doesn’t make getting an abortion easier. Abortion is already legal in that state up to 24 weeks. [My first child was born alive at 23 ½ weeks. I wrote about that story here. And there's another sad story of a 24-week birth here.] Cuomo wants that expanded. He—along with pal Hillary Clinton—wants abortion legal up to birth for casually undefined “health of the mother” reasons, and to guarantee “abortion on demand” if there should come a time that Roe v. Wade were overturned, returning abortion decisions to the states. Pro-life groups, such as the New York State Catholic Conference, are already admitting that fighting this bill in New York is fruitless.

They’re making sure common-sense limitations, such as parental consent or limits on taxpayer funding of abortions, are squelched. Limit the opposition; allow no limits to killing babies—their tacit motto.

Here are the latest stats, which they wish to “improve”:

In 2016, 82,189 unborn babies were aborted in New York, with about half being taxpayer-funded, according to the local news. Of those babies, 1,763 were at least 20 weeks, meaning they may have been viable outside the womb.
Earlier this week, the new Planned Parenthood president clarified their mission, in a rare moment of candor, on Twitter: 

image of tweet found here

First, our core mission is providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight—it’s a fundamental human right and women’s lives are at stake.
What is a mission? A special quest, or core purpose, often carried out to propagate the faith. The core purpose of Planned Parenthood is not to plan parenthood, but to prevent it—even after parenthood is underway, with a new person alive and growing.

Meanwhile, Facebook—a supposedly nonpartisan platform—has been censoring pro-life messages for being “hateful, threatening or obscene.” The Warriors for Christ page was one such target. While they do not promote anything hateful, threatening, or obscene, they have received death threats for their pro-life and pro-purity messages. Facebook hadn’t, at the time the story was written, explained what their specific violation was. Meanwhile, the group tried using their former youth ministry page, but when that also became inaccessible, it wasn’t clear whether that was a technical or censorship problem.

As with other conservative messages, pro-life advocates are noticing more online censorship on various social media platforms—which only have platform status because they do not censor based on political or religious views, but only speech that would be illegal, such as defamation or calls for violence.

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn was prevented from placing an ad on Twitter in October, because she mentioned Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby body parts—a decision Twitter had to reverse when news outlets reported on that issue.

Live Action, a youth-centered pro-life organization that has done undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood, found in September that Twitter had been censoring its ads. Founder Lila Rose said they were told to change information on their website before they could get their ads accepted—not content of the ads or on the platform where advertising was being placed, but content they supported in greater detail on their website, which Twitter workers apparently had time to comb through before accepting ad money. Hmm.

The Susan B. Anthony List used the phrase “killing babies,” not of course in favor of such a heinous crime, but against it. But Twitter objected and refused to run their ad.

It’s hard to prove that a platform is actively suppressing certain viewpoints, because they don’t always tell the person or group what they supposedly did wrong. But Facebook employees in 2016 admitted that they were suppressing conservative messages and favoring liberal ones. 

There’s a new movement to “shout your abortion,” to praise yourself for killing your offspring—killing the living being growing inside you. This is a movement started by Amelia Bonow. There’s a book, aimed at children, I believe. And a video, in which she tells children (with children sitting in her presence being told this) that abortion is just a doctor appointment, “like a crappy dentist appointment”—sort of uncomfortable but not that bad, in other words: “You go to the doctor, and they put this little straw inside of your cervix, and then inside of your uterus, and then they just suck the pregnancy out,” she explains. Easy peasy. This ghastly page is easy to find on Facebook.   Now that I’ve checked that fact, I’m a bit concerned Facebook’s algorithm will start marketing pro-abortion messages to me. What is most disgusting is the propagandizing of children in service of, ironically, killing children.

How do you know which side to be on?

One side is about life, perpetuating the species, civilization, persuasion, helping people who are in the position of taking accountability for their actions, and affirming the miraculous life-giving power of women.

One side is about killing, coercing, censoring, savage disregard for human life, refusing to take responsibility for their actions, and denigrating women for their feminine power of life.

It’s a stark difference.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Mature Conversation

Image found here


To begin, I’ll just place here some story headlines from the news this week.

Planned Parenthood's Richards Details Secret Meeting With Ivanka And Jared About Funding And Abortion

Richards revealed details of the meeting in her book. Trump and Kushner offered full funding for Planned Parenthood, even increased funding—if Planned Parenthood completely stopped doing abortions. She refused. Because Planned Parenthood isn’t about “women’s health”; it’s about doing abortions.

Next, this:

She recommended adopting shelter dogs, rather than buying a dog. LifeNews had this response:

Planned Parenthood is so obsessed with making a buck that the idea of adoption rarely — if ever — comes up. Sure, the organization will take credit for a few moms choosing life to feed the lie that it does more than abortion, but the numbers are hardly flattering. In its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood could only claim one adoption referral for every 83 abortions. If Cecile wants to rescue dogs, she might want to show a little more concern for their prospective owners.
And a few days earlier was this:

Of course, removing a tweet after it’s gotten a lot of attention means it’s not really gone.

The tweet, found here


It was discussed today on the Michael Knowles show, worth hearing (requires subscription, but audio is free).

From my viewpoint, I’m not surprised when I learn yet one more unfavorable thing about Planned Parenthood. I believe the people within Planned Parenthood are guilty of heinous wrongs of the worst savagery. Chances are you agree.

Abortion is one of the most polarized issues in our society. And yet, it’s horrifying to a huge majority. The Democrat platform position is restriction-free abortion. But only 12% of Americans agree with that position. Not even the majority of the so-called “pro-choice” position agree. Only 22% of women go along with the Democrat position.

Put another way, on this most polarized issue, 88% of Americans agree that there should be some restrictions on abortions. A hefty 76% favor limiting abortion to the first trimester, or limiting it to only certain very rare circumstances (rape, incest, or to save the mother's life), or barring abortion entirely. In fact, 78% of women favor limits.

That’s a lot of agreement.

During a class lecture last May, Dr. Jordan Peterson was asked his opinion on abortion. He’s a thinker, and his answer was careful and much deeper than for or against. But he started with this:

Abortion is clearly wrong. I don’t think anybody debates that. You wouldn’t recommend that someone that you love have one.
Jordon Peterson
screen shot from the video

He’s right. The data bears that out. And yet it seems a surprising thing to say. He gives a larger answer, to address why this wrong thing still presents a problem for society:

So, the discussion regarding the legality of abortion is nested inside a larger discussion about the morality of abortion, and that’s nested inside a larger discussion about the proper place of sexuality in human behavior. And, to me, that’s the level at which the problem needs to be addressed.
If that’s the level at which the problem needs to be addressed, why aren’t we addressing it at that level?

He goes on to touch on the importance of marriage quite beautifully:

It signifies a place where people can tie the ropes of their lives together so that they’re stronger. It signifies a place where people can tell the truth to one another. It signifies a place where sexuality can properly be integrated into life. That’s no easy task. It’s a place where children, at least in principle, can be put first and foremost, as they should be once they exist.
But he believes our culture isn’t mature enough to have this conversation on proper sexual behavior.

He’s hardly ever wrong, and probably isn’t now. But maybe we help the culture mature by having the conversation anyway. Think about having a conversation with children around. Sometimes you interact with the kids, but eventually you’re going to have a conversation with the grownups, and the kids will be bored and tune you out. Maybe leave the room, or find some other way to occupy their interest.

But if you have a long series of these conversations around your children, eventually they mature enough to get interested. Long before they're ready to contribute, they start to pay attention, and start to think about what the grownups are talking about. And eventually the listening children have matured enough to join in. By then they’ve been exposed to grownup ideas over and over, and have thought about them, and started to think through their own opinions.

We shouldn’t wait until the immature are matured before having a conversation among the grownups.

The growing awareness and agreement that abortion is wrong is evidence of some maturing among previously less mature listeners.

So, in hopes of more maturing to come, I will say, sex outside of marriage is always wrong.

Look, for example, at the formula for avoiding poverty in America. I’ve written about it before, had this data for more than 15 years. It shows up in Brookings Institute data in 2013. Ben Shapiro mentioned it in a speech last October. It’s essentially the theme of the Charles Murray book Coming Apart. It’s this:

1.       Don’t have sex before age 20.
2.       Don’t have sex until after marriage.
3.       Stay married.
4.       Obtain at least a high school diploma.
Regardless of race or economic level of the family-of-origin, 98% of people who follow this formula move up to the middle class.

If “planned parenthood” meant this formula, that would be a societal help. The euphemistically named Planned Parenthood doesn’t tell anyone this. They tell you that everyone has sex outside of marriage, and that the inevitable resulting pregnancy is an inconvenience to you and therefore you have a right to kill. Does that really make a contribution to a person’s life? Or to society’s?

So there are economic reasons for following the formula. Beyond that, the next part of the conversation has to do with reasons for confining sex to within marriage.

I jumped in to that side of the conversation back when I wrote the original Spherical Model material. It’s in the “Family Is the Basic Unit of Civilization” section. Absolute monogamy is a necessary feature of a thriving civilization. This isn’t new information. Giambattista Vico knew it in the mid-17th Century. Nearly a century ago Joseph Daniel Unwin demonstrated it with data about pretty much all the world’s civilizations.

And if that weren’t enough, Moses got that information straight from God about 2300 years ago (Exodus 20:14).

It’s a mature civilization that has figured out how to build on the wisdom of the past, rather than throw it out as old-fashioned. Not every tradition is worth keeping. But when the wisdom of the ages tells us something, maybe we ought to believe it until there’s incontrovertible evidence that it’s not true—instead of assuming it’s worthless regardless of mounds of evidence, which is what our immature culture has been doing the past several decades.

So, this is my effort to get that grownup conversation going. I'm sure we'll talk again.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Worse than We Imagined, Part II

Sometimes it’s prudent to fact-check the fact checkers.

This Snopes headline came to my attention:

Reading, Writing, and RuPaul
Reports of revised curriculum standards for Washington state led to false rumors claiming that schools there will be teaching "transgenderism" to Kindergarteners.
That relates to what I wrote in my last post, “Worse than We Imagined.” So I began to read, wondering if I had missed something and would need to write a retraction.

But Snopes is…not fully accurate.

They claim that the Daily Caller article on Washington State Board of Education changes to standards to include teaching transgenderism to kindergarteners is “mostly false.”

Image from here

The original Daily Caller article actually begins with this: 

By fall 2017 Washington state public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners under newly-approved health education learning standards that designate sexual health a “core idea” of public K-12 education.
Here is what Snopes says is actually true:

Washington State has released updated curriculum guidelines in 2016 that include directives regarding gender and gender expression.
So, Snopes agrees with the Daily Caller so far.

What they don’t seem to like is the conclusion drawn by the Daily Caller opinion piece, that teaching “gender expression” to kindergarteners can easily be construed to mean teaching “transgenderism” to kindergarteners. Snopes says the guidelines don’t actually use the word “transgender” except in the glossary section.

But why would they include transgenderism in the glossary (on page 53 of the .pdf file) of their standards if they did not assume it would come up? The word itself may or may not be used in kindergarten. The state standards writers seem less concerned about the teaching of the word transgenderism than they are about the teaching of the various ways gender can be expressed— which, of course, to them, must include transgenderism, else why change the standards?

The Daily Caller article included the link to the .pdf file (which I also linked in Monday's post and above), and Snopes shows page 29, which is at issue—below.



Snopes uses this to show how overblown the Daily Caller claims are. But I look at the chart and see that the Daily Caller point of view is totally justified.

One point the Snopes piece makes is that the standards are not curriculum; curriculum and lesson plans decisions are made at the local school board level. But, to fact-check Snopes, that’s not entirely accurate.

It has been a long time since I worked as a curriculum writer. I worked in California, writing hi-low textbooks; that is, high interest level (middle school to high school) but low reading level (around second grade). I didn’t write for kindergarten, or even for elementary school. But I think some practices translate across grades.

I wrote mostly government and civics related books and workbooks. But one big project was a biology text (which I did not complete at that job). A publisher looks at who is most likely to buy. The biggest markets then, and probably still, were California and Texas. As a writer I referred to the California and Texas standards; they were different in significant ways. For a biology text, human reproduction had to be handled very differently for the two markets. A publisher might decide to aim for a California market or a Texas market, or might do separate versions, with different chapters for materials for which the standards were disparate.

It was unlikely that a publisher would do a special version of a text just to fit Washington State standards, or Utah standards, or Mississippi standards. The other states would look at what was available and choose from among the variety of available materials—which had been aimed mainly at the California or Texas markets. On the topic of transgenderism, Washington State would probably choose materials aimed at the California market.

Smaller niche marketers, often coming from interest groups, might provide supplemental materials on certain subject matters, and try to sell those to individual states or school districts. (We’ll talk about one of these below.)

In Texas the SBOE does not write curriculum; it reads it and deems it acceptable or not. Then local school districts can adopt what they choose. Local school board members, who are unpaid for their school board work and probably make a living elsewhere, are unlikely to read every text. They might have committees set up to do that. The committees might include community members and parents—or, more likely, they include only teachers and administrators. (I have known parents who volunteered for this work in Texas, because Texans are proactive that way.)

Parents who disapprove typically get involved after they see the chosen materials and then must work to get something inappropriate removed from their schools by going through a long and challenging process.

So, when the Daily Caller says that the standards changes, which clearly include talking about “gender expression” to kindergarteners, might be a way of teaching the LGBTQ agenda on transgenderism, that isn’t alarmism. It isn’t making things up. That is likely to happen across the state—unless parents become aware and speak loudly their disapproval.

The Daily Caller article was originally written in June 2016, shortly after the standards changes were announced and approved. The hope is to get enough attention so that parents can prevent implementation of things they do not want their children to be taught, so those materials will not be forced on them by fall 2017, which is now upon us.

By the way, who might be one of the special interest groups offering materials they hope the schools will teach? Planned Parenthood might be one. In my last post I mentioned obscene materials they were trying to force on teens.

Two days ago I came across a story about Planned Parenthood’s new guidelines for talking to
Image from here
preschoolers about sex. These include, "Boy, girl, man, and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities “boy” or “man” have vulvas, and some with the gender identity “girl” or “woman” have penises/testicles. Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl.”

This differs from their previous guidelines (which also include vocabulary not normally used by preschoolers): "I’m a woman—a girl who is all grown up—so I have a vulva instead of a penis. And you’re a boy, so you have a penis instead of a vulva."

Body parts don’t tell you anything anymore, they say. Because of new science? Of course not. Because they’re pushing an agenda. And they’re aiming it at our children. We can also assume they’re using taxpayer dollars to produce the indoctrination.

Will this new Planned Parenthood preschool material make its way into elementary schools in Washington State? I have no idea. But they meet the new state standards.


So, until the Washington State standards are changed back to something closer to sane reality, assume the standards changes likely means that confusing, biology-denying lies, along with immoral values, are going to be foisted upon your children—unless you stand up and refuse to let that happen to your children.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Worse than We Imagined

I have a good imagination. But imagining the ugly, savage, creepy, disgusting—I don’t spend a lot of time doing that.

So I didn’t imagine that things would get so bad so soon.

Washington SBOE seal
image found here
Let me share the easier bad news first. This is from schools in Washington State, where we lived when my kids started school. The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has put out a new set of Health and Physical Education Standards. They begin their 126-page document with this reassurance:

The 2016 Health and Physical Education K-12 Learning Standards were developed collaboratively with teachers, administrators, subject matter experts, state and national association, and stakeholders in health and physical education. Teams of Washington state health and physical education teachers started working on drafts in September 2014 with the aim to develop the most comprehensive, relevant, medically-accurate, and inclusive set of health and physical education learning standards for our state.
That is to reassure you parents, who were NOT consulted and were excluded from the process, don’t worry; experts are in charge.

Here’s what the experts are planning for Washington children:

·         Beginning in Kindergarten, students will be taught about the many ways to express gender.  Gender expression education will include information about the manifestations of traits that are typically associated with one gender. Crossdressing is one form of gender expression.
·         Third graders will be introduced to the concept of gender identity.  These children will be taught that they can choose their own gender.
·         Fourth graders will be expected to “define sexual orientation,” which refers to whether a person identifies as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; they’ll also be taught about HIV prevention.  Children in fourth grade will be told that they can choose their sexual orientation.
·         Fourth and fifth graders will learn about the relativity of gender roles and why such roles are social constructs that are not inherent to who we are as male or female human beings.
·         Seventh graders will be expected to “distinguish between biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.”
·         High school students will critically “evaluate how culture, media, society, and other people influence our perceptions of gender roles, sexuality, relationships, and sexual orientation.”
In case you, as a parent, are confused about terms, they provide a glossary. [The definitions below were reported by The Daily Caller, but the link to the glossary was no longer available.]

Gender: “A social construct based on emotional, behavioral, and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex.”
Gender expression: “The way someone outwardly expresses their gender.”
Gender identity: “Someone’s inner sense of their gender.”
So, kindergarteners will be told they don’t know what “boys” and “girls” are, that it’s up in the air, and they ought to go ahead and try out being something they are not, or invent something that is neither boy nor girl and be that.

And fourth graders, who are still in the stage where the opposite sex has cooties, are being told that they might be homosexual if they do not feel attracted to the opposite sex.

Parents are, of course, outraged. Back when we had children in Washington schools, I met personally with the health teacher to go over the curriculum and verify that it met my standards, and that she shared my values. I could have opted out if I had not felt comfortable.

Parents worry that is no longer the case; the LGBTQ agenda is being incorporated fully into the entire health education curriculum. So it’s not a matter of sending a child to the library during the teaching of a particular lesson. It will be multiple days, in multiple ways, over multiple years from K-12.

School board member John Torre claimed parents will be able to opt out, “including the sexual orientation and gender identity lessons.” But Torre also told the Washington Times, the proposed curriculum changes (put out in March, approved in May) have nothing to do with the previous week’s vote to allow boys who identity as girls to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice. That’s just an unrelated coincidence.

Andrea Lafferty, president of Traditional Values Coalition, one of several opponent groups, said, “They are not being forthright with the information. They are not telling people the truth.  They are bullying parents. They are intimidating and they are threatening.”

Meanwhile Torre admits that he cannot provide either the science behind the curriculum changes, or examples of lessons; those things have not been written yet.

I might remind you that schools originally took on the role of informing children about sex for the purported purpose of preventing out-of-wedlock births. And I’ll repeat one of the Spherical Model maxims:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

There’s another, related piece of news that goes beyond what I could imagine. It’s about Planned Parenthood, that bastion of savagery that exists because of taxpayer dollars. I am going to have to quote from an article, because I could not make this up, and I fail to be able to put it in my own words:

Pro-life advocacy group Live Action released a second investigative video on July 15 showing what Planned Parenthood “counselors” teach minors in the name of “sex-ed”: sexual bondage and sadomasochism, and steering them to sex stores to “get educated.” In the latest video, a Colorado counselor told the Live Action investigator (posing as a minor) that “sexual exploration is normal”—and went so far as to suggest defecating and urinating on men as an option. Really. Only conservative media found the film worth reporting….
According to the counselor, “sexual exploration” is “normal” and “can be really fun.” For ideas to imitate, she referenced 50 Shades of Grey as well as porn. She even offered some creative techniques of her own: “There are so many different fetishes out there,” she stressed. “Like, some guys like for women to urinate on them” or “pooping.”…
During a “Hannity” interview on July 15, [Live Action President Lila] Rose, elaborated on Planned Parenthood: “Their interest is not protecting these girls. Their interest is abortion and in pushing a sexual ideology—a sexology—that's very destructive and dangerous on our teenagers.”
Obamacare provided this particular Planned Parenthood with additional funding for educating teens. That means in schools. Rose encouraged parents to contact their principles and school superintendents to find out what their school’s relationship was with Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood Houston
image from here


That is a good first step wherever you are in the country. We think our schools are somewhat safe from such indoctrination here in Texas, because we are vigilant. And yet the huge Houston Planned Parenthood office is guilty of selling baby parts (another abomination I couldn’t have imagined until proof was placed before us), but they were temporarily successful in getting the reporters prosecuted, rather than the actual perpetrators. The reporters were eventually exonerated, but no real justice has been done yet.


I’ll say one more time, homeschooling is a lifestyle choice worth looking into. If there is any way you can do it, your family will benefit—both educationally and socially. If you are in an area where schools are already imposing this savage, anti-family doctrine, you must find a way out now.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Science and Economics of Life

Our local Tea Party recently visited the local office of our state senator to let him know what bills we were following, and what we are encouraging him to do. The biannual legislative session is underway in Austin, so we met with the staffer.

Normally a staffer is pretty circumspect about saying where the legislator stands on any given issue. But we have a conservative state senator who is generally in agreement with us. He had already authored or signed on as a co-author on most of the Senate bills we were looking at, so we just wanted to thank him. Some had already passed through the Senate and had been sent to the House. A few others hadn’t been moving, so we encouraged paying attention to those. Then there were a few House bills we wanted him to be aware of for when they pass through the House and reach the Senate.

So the staffer was friendly and comfortable with us. He said it was like a breath of fresh air to meet with people like us (people who weren’t hostile or complaining, I’m assuming). He said last week he had Planned Parenthood visit him, from the clinic here in Houston that was filmed selling baby parts.* The Senator represents them as well, so the staffer’s job is to listen politely and let them know he’ll pass along their views to the Senator.

But he shared with us that one of their points was that we should be in favor of abortion, because that would mean fewer people, and that would mean a lower tax burden. So it would be fiscally conservative to favor abortion. The staffer told us they said this with a straight face.

It’s a good idea to try to understand how people with differing opinions think. So I thought I’d explore this belief. It requires some surmising on my part, but this is what I think is their though process:

·         They know our state senator has an excellent long record of being all about lowering the tax burden on his constituents (he used to the be county tax assessor, and was outspoken about making sure homeowners got every property tax advantage they could get). Therefore, a lower tax argument must get his attention.
·         They believe, because he favors lower taxes, he will favor them above any other issue, including abortion.
·         They believe he doesn’t actually value life of the unborn when weighed against money issues.
·         They believe more people mean more tax burden. That must also be true of immigration, and emigration from other states into ours as well.
So a person who is pro-abortion is making some negative and erroneous assumptions, about life in general, and about those of us who disagree with them.

All the while the governor (a conservative) is attempting to attract businesses to the state, and we’re generally pleased about being a state that’s growing. That growth includes children. But there’s an assumption among conservatives that parents take care of their children. There are school costs, but the parents’ taxes plus their neighbors’ taxes cover that so that we have productive adults in the rising generation.

That pro-abortion lobby is assuming babies are nothing but a burden—of money, energy, life.

That’s an unbridgeable divide.

This morning on Glenn Beck’s radio show he referred to a 2013 Melissa Harris-Perry news clip, in which she denies the science that a human fertilized egg is human life. She was holding a model of a fertilized egg and said,
Glenn Beck shows antique zygote models
screen shot from here


[T]he very idea that this would constitute a person, right? And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this.  Look, I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?
Glenn Beck also had, in his studio, some antique models of the developing fertilized egg—which were used to teach the science of human development.

The thing is, there isn’t anything a fertilized human egg can turn into except a human fetus, and eventually a full-grown human being. There isn’t any point from the moment of egg and sperm coming together that this “thing” is either “non-living” or “non-human.” That is scientific fact, not “faith,” as she claims. Melissa Harris-Perry is a science denier.

And, like the Planned Parenthood lobbyists at the state senator’s office last week, she is making the economic claim—that life is not worth protecting if a person deems it not economically worthwhile.
By that argument, who besides the not-yet-born human should it be legal to kill?

·         The already born child, if the parent doesn’t want to bear the expense of raising him/her.
·         The elderly, who are no longer contributing economically.
·         The chronically ill or disabled, who are not contributing economically.
·         The mentally ill, or disabled, such as Down’s Syndrome children, who cost more economically than they contribute.
·         Prisoners on death row or life imprisonment, who cost more economically than they contribute.
·         Anybody receiving government support long-term, costing more economically than they contribute.
·         Anybody costing another person economically—tough competitors in the marketplace, unsatisfying employees, dependent spouses and children, doctors and other service providers who charge too much for their services, etc.
What is the purpose of earning wealth? To provide for our lives—our shelter, food, clothing, and other needs and wants. Money is not the goal; it is the tool. It is to be used to support life, not measure its worth and deem it disposable.

Now, I don’t actually believe most on the pro-abortion side are in favor of murder in any other cases. I think they are not deep thinkers; they simply want what they want—sex without consequences—and believe if they keep insisting loudly enough, the entire culture will capitulate.
fetus at 20 weeks
image from here


But as science advances—so that human life is recognized earlier, and is shown more clearly, and the age of viability is lower—more people come to recognize their error. 

It will be the science deniers who hold out the longest. At some point it’s not just a difference of opinion; it is people who rebel against truth. As clear thinker Ezekiel put it millennia ago, “thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.” [Ezekiel12:2

  
_______________________________________________________

* The journalists in this case were later exonerated.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Grand Jury Questions

Blog post 2-1-2016  Grand Jury Questions
This past week a grand jury in Harris County, Texas, where Houston is located, declared that Planned Parenthood was completely innocent on all charges of trafficking body parts and Medicaid fraud. And, in a further surprise, the two investigative journalists who filmed the videos were indicted on felony fraud charges, because they produced fake IDs to get access to make the videos. [  http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Harris-grand-jury-indicts-pair-behind-Planned-6782865.php     ]

There has been an immediate backlash. How could they decide against the evidence before our eyes? Plus, they had subpoenaed records as additional physical evidence.
I’m going to link the various videos—links, including links to full-footage video, which is available for most. The main argument against the videos is that they are “highly edited.” That is the reason for the full-footage. The short videos are clips, usually 8-12 minutes long, but not distortions. Planned Parenthood hired experts to prove that there was distorting editing; their experts found that was not so. Yet that lie continues to be trumpeted by Planned Parenthood shills, including gleeful commentary yesterday by Leonard Pitts.

The law at issue, screen shot from video

So, below are the videos. The final three, from January, respond to an interview by Planned Parenthood head Cicile Richards; they use footage from the earlier videos to discount her claims of innocence, but they do not show new, previously unseen footage.
After the videos, we’ll talk about the grand jury. 

Here is what I think is the full list of videos shared by The Center for Medical Progress.

1.       July 14, 2015 “Planned Parenthood uses partial-birth abortions to sell baby parts” Shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, describing how some doctors carefully conduct abortions that leave fetal body parts intact.  [   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/14/undercover-video-claims-planned-parenthood-uses-partial-birth-abortions-to-sell-baby-parts/    ] video: https://youtu.be/jjxwVuozMnU   full-footage video:  https://youtu.be/H4UjIM9B9KQ
2.       July 21, 2015, “Senior Executive Haggles over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods” Showing a Planned Parenthood executive negotiating compensation for extracted baby organs.    This is the one in which Mary Gatter quipped, “If it’s still low, we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.” [   http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/planned-parenthood-proves-that-pro-choicers-hate-women/    ] video: https://youtu.be/MjCs_gvImyw  full-footage: https://youtu.be/vwAGsjoorvk
3.       July 28, 2015, “Human Capital—Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts”  video: https://youtu.be/Xw2xi9mhmuo
4.       July 30, 2015, “Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments Specific to the Specimen”   video: https://youtu.be/GWQuZMvcFA8  full-footage video: https://youtu.be/wV2U9unI1NM
5.       August 4, 2015, “Intact Fetuses "Just a Matter of Line Items" for Planned Parenthood TX Mega-Center”     video: https://youtu.be/egGUEvY7CEg   full-footage video: https://youtu.be/MCiD9_ICt44  supplement to full-footage: https://youtu.be/wISHuLTKhYE
6.       August 12, 2015, “Human Capital - Episode 2: Inside the Planned Parenthood Supply Site”  video: https://youtu.be/ABzFZM73o8M  
7.       August 19, 2015, “Human Capital - Episode 3: Planned Parenthood's Custom Abortions for Superior Product”  video: https://youtu.be/FzMAycMMXp8  
8.       August 25, 2015, “Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Buyer StemExpress Wants ‘Another 50 Livers/Week’”  video: https://youtu.be/cz1gRNPgMvE   full-footage video: https://youtu.be/jCQno6hdU6s
9.       September 1, 2015, “Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Vendor ABR Pays Off Clinics, Intact Fetuses ‘Just Fell Out’”   video: https://youtu.be/ndJMawjoyPc  full-footage video: https://youtu.be/fWJb78ynVT8
10.    September 1, 2015, “Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest Dr. Katharine Sheehan”  full-footage video:  https://youtu.be/69mC-B9aFJk
11.   September 15, 2015, “Top Planned Parenthood Exec: Baby Parts Sales ‘A Valid Exchange,’ Can Make ‘A Fair Amount of Income’”   video: https://youtu.be/c9EU_02c5bM
a.       Dr. Carolyn Weshoff, Planned Parenthood’s senior medical adviser, talks of dividing up the dead babies over dinner and wine. She says her clients don’t want stem cells, but “particular tissues” like “cardiac” or “eyes” or “neural” or “spinal cords.” She says they can sell any part. Laughing, she says even “gonads—oh my God, gonads.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/oar7sw0UtOg
b.       Dr. Vanessa Collins, another high ranking Planned Parenthood official, admits that these transactions could “destroy” their organization if they don’t “time the conversations correctly.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/1y1X1IaU2gQ
c.       Deb VanDerhei, the national director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, asks the buyer (filmmaker) if he “just wants livers.” He says he’s looking for everything. She asks about “remuneration”; i.e., money. She worries that these money issues must be handled “carefully” because “the headlines would be a disaster.” She says PPFA doesn’t have a policy on “tissue procurement,” which, she admits, “is relatively intentional.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/2m7VbmHXwcU
d.       Dr. Deborah Nucatola, (who was in video 1) says there “are no guidelines” concerning pricing and procedures for procuring body parts, and “there will never be guidelines.” PPFA affiliates can’t violate a nonexistent policy; they are free to do whatever they want. “Nothing is written,” she says again.
e.       VanDerhei, still concerned about the “headlines,” says she wants clinics to sell baby parts if it’s “worth it”; i.e., if the compensation is enough. She says she knows they can “generate a fair amount of income doing this,” despite public claims to the contrary. She talks only face-to-face with a buyer, but says she’s “not comfortable having the conversation through email,” which could be used as evidence. Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/_69Brx1-OaI
f.        Vanessa Russo, an official with Planned Parenthood Keystone, says she “won’t be bullied by ridiculous law.” She doesn’t think Planned Parenthood “should curtail its business for ridiculousness”; i.e., the law. VanDerhei tells Russo that PPFA has given approval to “go for it” and collect “remuneration.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/Y8fmFDRZqEs
12.   October 27, 2015  “Planned Parenthood TX Abortion Apprentice Taught Partial-Birth Abortion to ‘Strive For’ Intact Heads”  video: https://youtu.be/2tgez97aG74  full-footage video: https://youtu.be/ZkaZYQ8ZGTE
13.   January 5, 2016  “’PROFIT’—Planned Parenthood's Illicit Moneymaking From Baby Body Parts”  video: https://youtu.be/9K82Oyd-lv8
14.   January 12, 2016  “’HARVEST’—Planned Parenthood's Custom Abortions for Better Baby Parts”  video: https://youtu.be/J_k1d0dt2ac
15.     January 19, 2016  “’COVER-UP’—Planned Parenthood's Attempt to Hide their Baby Body Parts Scheme”  video: https://youtu.be/GBXRzmqBdGY

I don’t know if you were able to get through even all the short clips. This is grisly and disturbing stuff. But that is reality in the baby-killing culture.

Given the evidence, does Planned Parenthood appear to be completely innocent, worthy of exoneration of all charges? Thinking, law-abiding citizens wouldn’t think so.

The standard for a grand jury is not the same as a trial; the standard is probably cause. Is there enough evidence to merit a trial? Nine of twelve jurors must believe the evidence is adequate for probable cause to go ahead and indict. With less than ¾ of the jury, they no-bill; they say there is insufficient evidence to indict.

The purpose of the grand jury is to prevent a prosecutor from running rough-shod. They are a back-up, to prevent political persecution, for example. In theory, it’s a good idea.

The grand jury is called from among the citizens, not for a single case, but for as many cases as come up during a time frame. In HarrisCounty, this is six months. Ten grand juries are impaneled each half year, with five grand juries serving for three-month periods. They meet two days a week during their assigned months. They receive nominal pay, as do other jurors.

Unlike other juries, the grand jury handles as many cases in a day as can be fit in. So, while they were presented the evidence generally, they probably did not spend a full day or two watching all the videos and examining the subpoenaed documents. They would have received a briefing of what that evidence entailed.

They didn’t, as it appeared, throw out the Planned Parenthood evidence and then say, “But, wait—getting that evidence on video must have crossed a line; let’s indict the undercover filmmakers.” That would have been an additional, separate case brought before them.

Both of those cases had pressure behind them. Governor Abbott, a good judge and attorney himself (Texas’s Attorney General before becoming Governor), said there was evidence against Planned Parenthood based on the videos and subpoenaed documents, and we would prosecute. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations insisted that they had been set up, and distorted, and insisted the filmmakers must have done something unlawful.

There have been instances where prosecutors don’t get what they want with one grand jury and “shop” for another, and another. The Harris County District Attorney is sticking with a policy not to do that.

A friend, who is a prosecutor under DA Devon Anderson, reposted her video statement, which I appreciated. She cleared up several misconceptions.

[I've tried to embed the video, but I'm unable. Please follow this link for the 2 1/2-minute video.]

I’m willing to respect her, and to trust, for now, the system generally. But I do think we have a problem, if we have jurors who, because of personal leanings, ignore evidence and the law. We can’t know what happened; we weren’t in that grand jury room. But Harris County is exactly 50% Democrat and 50% Republican. A high percentage of Republicans see abortion as evil and recognize the evil shown in the videos—even the evil that might be legal but is clearly unethical and disturbing. A high percentage of Democrats are pro-abortion and repeat the Planned Parenthood lies that they do mostly women’s health, not abortions, and that they follow the law. They are quick to believe whatever talking point Planned Parenthood puts out.

So, is it possible that the jury ignored the evidence and the law because of their personal leanings on the abortion issue? It would have only taken four of twelve of them to do so. That is my guess.

Is that the end of the story? No. This was one case, against the local Houston multi-story facility of Planned Parenthood. Not all the videos applied to this location. Other suits will go forward. Other grand juries are likely to indict.

If nothing else, the world got a glimpse of what abortionists say and do when they think they’re talking with people approve of their baby-killing culture. We witnessed their cavalier butchery. They are savage. And we have seen the evil with our own eyes.

As for the indicted filmmakers, I don’t know what will happen. DA Anderson says that the case would have been an easily handled misdemeanor, except that they crossed state lines with the false IDs. I wish them well in trial. They did a risky, disturbing job, and we sincerely thank them.