(Prolifer)ations 8-16-11

from Jill Stanek.com

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

• Culture Campaign reveals another assault against parental rights in CA – forced vaccinations. A new bill would allow the government to administer the dangerous HPV vaccine Gardasil, and other sexual health treatments, to children 12 years of age and up without parental consent. Predictably, this is backed by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
• Jakubczyk on Life happily reports on the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision to lift the injunction against pro-life laws passed in 2009: [The court] examined the laws passed and determined that the legislature has the right to pass reasonably tailored laws to protect patients’ lives, to protect parents’ rights, to insure compliance with rights of conscience and to prevent patients’ from being at additional risk to unscrupulous abortionists.
  
• Down on the Pharm directs readers to a WorldNetDaily article on the Girl Scouts’ association with Planned Parenthood and its detrimental effects on enrollment. Many girls are leaving to join alternative organizations that espouse positive, pro-life values.
• Catholic Vote praises a victory for some UK nurses who were being forced to participate in chemical abortions once per week at an abortion clinic off hospital grounds until the Thomas More Legal Centre persuaded the hospital to respect the religious and conscience rights of the nurses. This situation could have implications even in the US.
• Christina Martin of Moral Outcry challenges Planned Parenthood’s director of African-American media relations Veronica Byrd (pictured below left) on her recent piece for the Huffington Post entitled, “Why African-Americans support abortion rights.” Martin writes:

[Byrd] did mention hearing some “noise” coming from the religious right, and “small enclaves of the far left.” “Zealots,” as she called us who “portray us as unwitting dupes of a racist “abortion industry” that wants to keep us childless – or perpetrators of a “black genocide” attempting to obliterate our race. Thankfully, most African Americans know that is nonsense.” Do they now? Your need to address the noise from the right and the billboard campaigns would say otherwise. You don’t try and swat an insect you can’t see. You save your swatter for the big bugs that are buzzing in your ears, the ones you can’t ignore because they’re disturbing your peace.
When it comes to PP, their “peace,” is directly connected to their pocketbooks. Any threat on the massive cash flow that comes from the blood of black babies must be swiftly addressed. Hey, let’s even make it seem like the growing outcry from the black community against abortion is nothing but a few “radicals.” Better yet we can focus on their religious beliefs and political affiliations which in the eyes of some diminish our black “status” and therefore our voice on the matter. In the past our skin color would have been enough to place us on the auction block together but nowadays our voting record seems to be proof of our ethnicity or lack of.
Clearly PP is worried that their support from African-Americans is waning.

• Abortion in Washington points out that the placement of Patty Murray on the Super Committee means Planned Parenthood will have a friend there protecting federal largesse toward their organization.
• Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life highlights WORLD Magazine’s “revealing story on the use of tissue from aborted babies for medical research,” cosmetics, and vaccines such as varicella (chicken pox): Some contend that since aborted unborn children have already died, we might as well make use of their bodies for a good end. But there is a moral difference between using the remains of a human being who has died of natural causes and using the remains of someone who has been unjustly killed.
  “Only if nothing can be done to prevent the ongoing evil does the argument from salvaging good have merit,” write J.P. Moreland and Scott Rae. “Surely one is not justified in obtaining a benefit from evil while doing nothing to prevent it.”
  
• Abolitionist Society posts on the final three foundational questions in the abortion debate. The first two points were covered previously here.” Questions are:
  

  1) Does a right to life even exist for anyone? 2) If it does exist, how and when is the right to life conferred to an individual?
  3) Are there instances where a person’s choice has more value than another person’s right to their own life?

[Photo via Meghan Hickey, Flickr]