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.
- FRC Blog points out how Roe v. Wade itself, not the idea of overturning it, is what is truly radical.
- Fletcher Armstrong updates us on the case of the director of the UK’s Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, Andy Stephenson, who is on trial for violating the Public Order Act, which states no one can harass or cause alarm or distress to the public. What did Stephenson do that caused such alarm? He displayed a graphic photo of an aborted baby:
- Live Action reports on the Virginia Legislature’s vote to make VA
abortion clinicsconform to the same health regulations as other outpatientsurgical centers. The board of health had planned to use a “grandfather clause” to allow the existing 20 clinics to opt out, but the state’s attorney general stepped in and “warned that personal liability could result if the current grandfather clause was kept in place. The Board then voted 13 to 2 on Friday to reverse the earlier grandfather clause decision.”
- The Abolitionist Society of OK demonstrates how abortion proponents show their extreme pro-death mentality even when they might not mean to:
A pro-abortion user posted a photo intended to mock the abolitionist position [pictured left]….Clearly the implication is that it would be better for this child to have been aborted….
If we’re going to make the decision for someone else that their life is or is not going to be of what we think is sufficiently high quality, why stop with killing preborn children? Why make an arbitrary cutoff point at any age?
- ALL’s Judie Brown has some strong thoughts on the “hit parade of pro-abort Catholics” on display at the recent Democratic National Convention.
- Euthanasia Prevention Coalition writes about a Seattle attorney and two Montana senators who attempted to correct an inaccurate article on assisted suicide in the New England Journal of Medicine and were rejected. The “prestigious” publication first stated that they would not accept a rebuttal, no matter how inaccurate an article was proven to be. Later, they decided they would accept a rebuttal, but demanded the authors sign a non-disclosure agreement, even if the publication refused to print their rebuttal.