from Jill Stanek.comby 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.
- Secular Pro-Life shares the story of one reader who chose open adoption for her baby girl – no thanks to Planned Parenthood:
I was expecting a physical exam and some pamphlets discussing my options. I was wrong. The woman at the desk told me that unless I wanted to terminate, there was little they would do for me. With my insurance, I could be “rid of my problem” for $8 by noon the next day. I told her I was not there for an abortion, just prenatal care. She told me prenatal care was not offered at the clinic; I would need to go to a regular clinic.The young woman instead found the adoption option presented to her at a local Birthright pregnancy resource center.
- At National Review, Michael New discusses Guttmacher’s attempt to inflate abortion numbers in Colombia. New also shares more specific demographic information from Gallup’s latest poll showing an increase in the number of people who identify as “pro-life.”
- At My Drop in the Ocean, Laura Peredo remarks on the third anniversary of the death of notorious abortionist George Tiller. She points out the blindness behind Planned Parenthood’s claim that violence should have “no place” in the issue of abortion. While pro-lifers indeed believe violence is wrong, pro-choicers ignore the extremely violent act of abortion itself.
- At The New Feminism, Marjorie Murphy Campbell notes society’s inconsistency when it comes to discrimination. Discriminating against an individual because of sex is unacceptable unless that individual resides in the womb of a woman who desires a child of a different sex.
- Pro-Life Action League calls out the media for failing to accurately report on the second round of nationwide religious freedom rallies and encourages readers to contact media outlets when errors need to be corrected.
- Wesley J. Smith notes that the British Medical Association is encouraging their doctors to no longer express opposition to euthanasia, but to remain “neutral”:
How a professional association can argue that doctors express “no opinion” on whether doctors should be able to kill their patients or assist in their suicides is beyond me. Could there be anything more impactful to the ethical practice of medicine? Could there be a more important issue with regard to proper patient care? And this at a time when the quality of patient care in the NHS is imploding. So the answer to worsening care crisis is allowing doctors to help kill patients? Good grief! This is just more evidence of the ongoing attempt to deprofessionalize medicine and turn it into an on demand technocracy.