Pro-life leaders condemn murder of abortionist George Tiller

Abortionist George Tiller was shot to death at around 10:00 a.m. local time at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita Kansas. A nationwide alert has gone out for his alleged assailant, who is described as a white male of 50 to 60 years of age, balding grey hair, 6’1” in height. He is thought to be driving a 1993 Ford Taurus sedan bearing the Kansas tag "225 BAB".

I want the culprit caught, prosecuted and jailed for life.

Predictably, the opposition will use this to smear all pro-lifers as violent, even though when a small number of people in any other group are violent, they denounce generalizations.

---

"If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me. ... It's madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It's madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing." - John Cardinal O'Connor



source

The Bishop of Recife tells his side of the story in the affair of the raped Brazilian girl #tcot #roft #catholic #pro-life

Recently, I had published translations of excerpts of an interview with the Bishop of Recife that was featured in the French magazine Present. The excerpts were first posted in French at Le Salon Beige.

Jeanne Smits, an awesome French language pro-life blogger (from South Africa, no less!), published the interview in its entirety.

What you will learn:

• The doctors themselves told the Bishop that the girl was not in danger of dying.
  
  
• The girl was not rachitic or in a state of malnutrition.
  
  
• She knew she was expecting children. We learned late that the twins who died were girls.

And other good tidbits...

Catholics and other pro-lifers, I recommend that you link to Jeanne Smits and spread the word about this worthy interview.

VIDEO: World's worst deadbeat dad....fathers 21 children by 11 different women... and he's only 29

This raises many questions in my mind.

After the 5th or 6th unforeseen pregnancy....wouldn't it be time to step back and think about what you're doing wrong?

And the women...how do you date a guy and not know that he has at least a dozen children? How do you not know a man well enough or long enough before you engage in sexual relations? And if you do know, how could you?

Some women are just plain dumb.

And those are the women that he's had kids with.

And he's 29, making minimum wage? Something tells me he can't keep a job. You don't stay at minimum wage if you work for any decent length of time.

Folks this is exactly many why traditional societies expect people to wait until marriage to have sex and to remain monogamous.

VIDEO: Canadian Deficit Kills Captain Kirk

It's just a cheesy video, but it put a smile on my face. More people should make parodies about this!

VIDEO: Sidewalk Counselling...what it's all about

The Pro-Life Action League has produced a series of videos on what sidewalk counselling is all about, in the hopes of attracting more people to this calling.

If you can't watch all seven, just watch the first. It's really worth it.

Quebec Government sues parents for $16 M for a criminal fire their kids started

The Quebec government is suing the four parents of two boys guilty of setting fire to a school in Berthierville. The offices, the gymnasium and the auditorium had to be rebuilt at great cost to the school board. The Quebec government is asking for $16 million in damages, including accumulating interest payments.

At the time, the boys were 16 years old. They were intoxicated and entered the school by night and set fire to it, causing thousands of students to relocate, in January 2007.

The boys are now adults, but cannot be identified due to Canada's Young Offenders' Act. They are also named as defendants in the lawsuit. They pleaded guilty to the crime in Youth Court, and served three and seven months respectively (the article doesn't say, but I imagine it must have been in a detention centre).

The lawsuit says that the parents are responsible for the damages created by their kids. Quebec law says parents are responsible unless it can be proven that they are not at fault. It also states that if it can be proved that the parent raised the child inadequately, he can be liable.

Interesting case. Maybe more parents would pay attention to their kids if they knew the potential consequences.

Canadian Feminist Comments on Partial Birth Abortion-- Denies There Is a Debate on Abortion

When deBeauxOs denounced the Irish Catholic Church's role in the abuse of children, I called her on the fact that she and her blogging partner fern hill support the legality of Partial Birth Abortion. It did not strike them as ironic in the least that they denounce kids getting savagely beaten upby clerics, while supporting the legality of a procedure which involves stabbing a half-born late-term baby in the head and sucking his brains out.

I also raised the issue of the abortion debate

What did fern hill have to say about that?



There you have it folks. There's no debate because she says so.

Do you understand where they are coming from?

If they say there's no debate, then there's debate. It's there fiat.

If they do not like the terms of a debate, it does not exist for them.

How convenient.

What if everyone did that?

I don't like the terms of the global warming debate, so there's no debate.

I don't like the terms of the Muslim debate, so there's no debate.

And magically, all arguments, all opinions, all opposition, all concerns magically disappear.

Everybody walks in lockstep in my world! Wow! Nobody contradicts me. I am intellectually unchallenged. I have nothing to answer and nothing to justify. I don't have to think, I just have to assert, and it's true! And if someone says otherwise, I just have to shut him out. La la la la, I'm not listening! I'm ignoring you! It's my opinion, so it's true, your opinions are wrong because I say so!

It's all so very easy.

Doesn't this fit with the image that they project of fundamentalists-- of people who assert and will not listen or reason? Fundamentalists are supposed to boil down their arguments to "because God said so" whereas feminists just say "because I said so." When I consider how they consider fundamentalists to be stupid, unthinking and unable to argue, it just all seems so ironic. It's so easy to say the other side can't argue when you won't argue.

Their only power seems to be their assertion. Not the quality of their facts, their argumentation, their logic or their consistency.

Because that would actually require thinking about one's beliefs, and attempting to go above and beyond the general terms of the debate into intellectual territory they're not used to.

They're used to dismissing any religious person as unable to reason because they cling ignorantly to the idea that if a religious person emits an opinion, it must be Revelation-based, and it cannot be debated, as it is has no basis in reality.

(And yet here I am, using words and concepts accessible to people of all faiths and none.)

And so, when they are presented with the challenge that partial birth abortion is child abuse, it's only natural that fern hill responds:

I thought your attempted parallel between child abuse and abortion too stupid to address.

She thinks it, so it's true. There is no concern whatsoever about the pain the unborn child suffers, the technicality of allowing to kill a baby who's hanging out of the mother, his lack of personhood because he's still attached to an umbilical cord.

Most people would consider these things as worthy of consideration, that the unborn child deserves more than being put into an ideological category of "non-personhood" in the name of safeguarding feminist power.

When hardcore feminist pro-aborts look at a fetus like this, they see a "non-entity":



You have to wonder how brainwashed and heartless do you have to be too look at a late-term fetus and consider him to be undeserving of any other label than an "appendage".

The strength of the pro-life movement is that we are willing to face head on any and all issues related to fetal rights. Perhaps it's just as well that they are in denial. The rest of the world operates on a very different intellectual plane. Their abortion ideology will implode under the weight of its own contradictions, and people will come to see the ugliness of what it proposes. Their calling pro-lifers "zygote zealots" won't hide those truths. It's only a deflection from the substance of the debate, which is precisely what they want.

EXCLUSIVE: Bishop of Recife defends excommunication (MUST READ) #pro-life #tcot #roft

May 30th UPDATE: Jeanne Smits has an even better translation of the full interview. Merci!

---

The French blog Le Salon Beige has republished lengthy excerpts of an interview that the Bishop of Recife gave to the French magazine Present. Unfortunately, the entire article is available to subscribers only. But there's enough to edify any Catholic hungry for no-non-sense leadership on the abortion issue.

---

Some, when they speak about the publicity surrounding this affair, affirm that it was not “appropriate” to speak of excommunication. I do not agree with that point of view. I am told that we should have almost forgotten what Canon Law says concerning excommunication. My opinion is different. I say that that law exists for the good of the Church. And that it was not I who excommunicated anyone, as I have repeated countless times. Those who accuse me say that it is I who “excommunicated”, and that’s totally false; I simply drew attention to a law that exists in the Church, canon 1398. And I ask: is it appropriate to remain silent, as many claim? Would it have been better that I not speak at all about excommunication? Well, I answer that I do not agree. It is a law of the Church for the good of the Church. It has existed for many centuries. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983 be the Servant of God Pope John Paul II, reiterates this law, just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church does, published by the same pope in 1992, repeats and comment this law. Would it have been better to keep silent? Well, in my opinion, it is of the highest importance to draw everyone’s attention, especially that of the Catholic faithful, to the gravity of the crime of abortion. That is the reason the law exists.

We, in our diocese, have received many messages from many people who have told me “Now, I understand better the gravity of abortion, and I will change my conscience.” In my opinion, the act of the drawing attention to the existence of this excommunication produces a spiritual benefit among the Catholic faithful, but also among others, who, apparently, quietly undergo abortions and who, I believe from now on, will weigh in their conscience the gravity of what they are doing. And this is the final goal of this law of the Church, of this penalty of excommunication: it is medicinal. It is a remedy in view of the conversion of all. And for the person who comes across it, it is a means to make him understand that he will have to answer for his act before God. With the Church, we desire that all people, even those who follow in the path of error, come to live according to the law of God. We do not want the eternal condemnation of that person. In my opinion, silence—not speaking of excommunication—would cause grave damage to the Church.

In addition, I have the impression that among those who spoke against me are practically insinuating that it would be better to abrogate the canon on excommunication. But the Church does not believe this. The Church maintains this law, because it is necessary for the common good of the Church, when it comes to grave offenses, that there is a clear law, and that this law be applied. These are principles of great importance. For me, silence would be equivalent to complicity. […] It is a spiritual remedy. The Church is invested with a mission, which is to bring all men to eternal salvation, and to make them live in the grace of God. In fact, it [silence? Trans: unsure] is from people who “quietly” perform abortions, and who say, just as quietly, that they will continue. We, as Catholics, and above all as pastors of the Church, we cannot remain silent, as if this were all well and good. This is why I repeat that not speaking up, not drawing attention to the gravity, to the seriousness of the problem, and above all to the fact that the Church, for the common good, applies this penalty, would be complicity. It would practically amount to accepting this grave situation.

Here in Brazil, we are in the process of preparing a law to legalize abortion. We Catholics must speak first on moral responsibility. Evidently, there are Catholics in our Parliament who defend the law of God, but there are others who defend this bill, beginning with the president of the Republic. We cannot remain silent! […] It is very important to me to recall that the doctors who committed the abortion had declared that they had practiced abortion for a long time, and with “pride”. And they affirm that they will continue. We cannot remain silent in the face of that. […]

It must be understood: since the very first centuries of the church, there have been laws on excommunication in the Church. They sought to protect the common good of the ecclesial society: it is for this reason that we need a canon law; the juridical aspect of the Church as a human society is indispensable. We cannot simply hope that each person follows his conscience. Evidently, the Church must first of all take care of the spiritual life of each person, but the common good, in the technical sense, is also very important: it consists of an adequate environment in which each may live peaceably. The penalties foreseen by the Code in canon law also have this goal.

As for myself, my conscience is in peace. I did not expect nor did I wish for these repercussions which have taken on an international dimension. I repeat that the common good of the Church needs these latae sententiae laws, which serve as a permanent alert and which she will never abrogate. She has always condemned abortion and she always explained why: because it does not only hurt the person, but it damages society. Today, I repeat: there are 1 million abortions every year in Brazil, 50 million around the world: our silence would be connivance.

[…]

Two weeks ago, we met at the National Assembly of Bishops in Sao Paulo: all the bishops with whom I spoke approve; None are against me. However, I read what some French bishops wrote about me. It seems that many do not know all the circumstances.



Wow. A bishop who speaks like a bishop is supposed to speak. No modernist crap, just straight talk on the Catholic Faith. Now if only every bishop in the world had the same line. Nobody could be ignorant of the fact that you cannot be Catholic and oppose fetal rights. Many souls could be saved.

Sobrinho has guts. I say give him a red hat. He deserves it. I would love to see him elected pope.

Extremist Pro-Abort Feminist on Partial Birth Abortion and Motherhood

Priscilla J. Smith:

In Section III, I discuss Gonzales v. Carhart and argue that while the ruling itself is limited and much of the Casey standard remains intact, the decision reflects this diminishing sense of abortion as serving the woman’s interest in motherhood. The Court’s opinion reflected a view that abortion destroys motherhood, rather than the view that abortion enhances motherhood and enables women to mother their children in the best conditions possible, and in conditions closer to equality.

Stabbing half-born babies in the head enhances motherhood?

Did this woman STOP and THINK about what she's saying?

Yeah, well slavery served white men's interests, too. But there's a REASON why it was no longer accepted.

VIDEO: March for Life Ottawa 2009 Youth Conference Speech Father John Lemire (Parts 1, 2, and 3)

Usually I hate long videos. But I do think this speech is worthwhile. Fr. John Lemire addresses the youth conference that was organized surrounding the March for Life.

Show it to all the young pro-lifers around you.

Extremist Pro-Aborts

This is what extremist pro-abortion zealots sound like:

First, and very importantly, abortion is not a “heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make.” A great many women are not conflicted at all about their abortions. Many feel relief and even joy at having their lives and their futures more fully back in their control.

This is as it should be. The simple fact is that a fetus is not a baby, it is a subordinate part of a woman’s body.

You know, people chastise fundamentalists for their anti-scientific views. Someone should tell these poor-choicers that treating a fetus as a woman's body part is not correct biology. Frankly, that whole meme is really outdated. This sounds like a 70's feminist throwback.

A woman has no moral obligation to carry a fetus to term simply because she gets pregnant. And a woman who chooses at whatever point and for whatever reason to terminate a pregnancy, should feel fine about doing so and should be able to.

Well, you got to give them credit for moral consistency. They think that if a woman wants to have their fetus stabbed in the head in the third trimester as part of a PBA, that's A-OK.

How unfathomably callous do you have to be to hold that position? They only care about one group of humanity-- women-- but not another-- babies.

It's feminist supremacy gone wild.

When it comes to abortion, there really is only one moral question: Will women be free to determine their own lives, including whether and when they will bear children, or will women be subjugated to patriarchal male authority and forced to breed against their will?

It's easy to dismiss the only real question at the heart of the abortion issue, when you hold scientific ideas about the fetus. The only question is this: is the fetus a human being, and does he have rights.

The rest is details.

But, as I wrote previously, “To talk today of reducing the number of abortions is to talk about strengthening the chains on women. The goal should NOT be to reduce the number of abortions. The goal should be to break down the barriers that still exist in every sphere of society to women’s full and equal participation as emancipated human beings. In this society, right now, that means there will be—and therefore should be—more abortions.

Oh joy. More abortions. More destruction of human life, as if killing a fetus were a completely banal act, like squishing a bug.

Do these people have kids?

Right now, as you read, real women’s lives are being foreclosed and degraded due to lack of accessible abortion services.

Oh.my.God. The rhetoric. "Foreclosed." IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! OH MY GOD, I HAVE TO GIVE BIRTH, MY LIFE IS OVER!!!.

Give me a break.

If, for some reason, you really cannot take care of a baby, here's an idea...

Place the baby for adoption.

After nine months, you no longer have the responsibility of a baby. You can go on to fulfill your dreams without a baby hampering your existence. The kid will have parents who love him. You can choose anything that you want to do.

What’s perhaps even more outrageous is the fact that Obama—rather than challenging the mandate embedded within the “original sin” mythology that women become obedient breeders

Because mothers are "breeders"-- like dogs and horses. (Oh brother)

I don't think this person really understands the motivation for pro-lifers.

When I think of the right to life cause, I don't think of Adam and Eve. That's what anti-Christians think of, because of their ideology.

If I think of a Bible passage, it's more likely to be Luke 1, where the unborn John the Baptist prophesizes prompting St. Elizabeth to acknowledging Mary to be the Mother of God, that is the unborn baby Jesus.

The think that somehow we're all out to make women into some kind of oppressed breed.

They've got to be joking.

The motivation is and always will be the right to life of the unborn child.

Whether a woman has kids or doesn't have kids is so far from the minds of the average pro-lifer. That's not the "emergency".

VIDEO: Maggie Simpson in an Ayn Rand Parody ("The Fountainhead")

Maggie speaks in this one. I wonder if she'll grow up to be a libertarian, in contrast to her socialist sister.



H/T: L'Antagoniste

Ireland's 'blasphemy law' worries religious liberty proponents

I'm concerned about this trend. From what I understand the law would criminalize "insult to religions".

If you notice the first story, it's from the Adventists. The hardcore Adventists are the biggest insulters of the Catholic religion.

Should they be fined for their ignorance? I don't think so.

And of course there's the issue of insulting Islam. You can see the charges coming fast and furious from that crowd.

I also believe dialogue is necessary for religious peace. But peace can't be built on censorship. False beliefs can only be corrected if they are exposed.

The Future of Catholicism is in...China?

What do the Chinese know that the average secularist Westerner doesn't?

First Things:

Far less predictable is the unprecented sympathy that China has shown toward Christianity. The leadership views Christianity in a fundamentally different way from how it sees the religions rooted in traditional China. Christianity is inherently open to the modern world and a scientific outlook. Just as China imported science and Western methods of industrial organization, so it could import what Beijing understood to be the spiritual counterpart of Western science. In the view of the party, the naturalization of Christianity in China is not essentially different from the importation of socialist ideology two generations earlier. Christianity, like socialism, can be translated into Chinese characters.

Once it seemed to be sanctioned by the government, Christianity redoubled its rate of expansion. It is now fashionable to wear a cross, hanging from a small chain at the neck, fully exposed on the chest. Asked about the meaning of the cross, the wearer will answer proudly and clearly: “Yes, I am a Christian”—though few of them can give a clear explanation of what they believe. Most Chinese Christians do not know the difference between being Protestant (jidujiao) and being Catholic (tianzhujiao).

Many of these new Chinese Christians are converts to modernity and Western culture as much as they are converts to a religion that, in China, is associated with Westernization and the American way of life. Attending Christian services forms part of a new embrace of Western culture, including everything from classical music to Kentucky Fried Chicken (the fastest-growing field of study and restaurant chain in China, respectively). In the same way that they add soy sauce or rice vinegar to American-style food, Chinese frequently spice their evangelical faith with belief in feng shui (“wind and water,” traditional Chinese geomancy) and the Yijing (an ancient soothsayers’ manual).

While these qualifications make it difficult to assess the depth of Christian conversion in China, the breadth is astonishing. China’s government is still trying to assemble a comprehensive picture of the Chinese who profess faith in Christ, but it has not succeeded in doing so. Catholics—including those registered with the official Patriotic Association and those officially considered “still underground”—number between 12 and 14 million. The rest are Protestants, with a smattering of Russian Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons.

My latest at No Apologies

Pro-Life Women: Challenge the Feminist Monopoly

Feminists run away from explaining how partial birth abortion is not child abuse

And that they are therefore not in the wrong for denouncing abuse by Catholic priests and religious.

Let's refresh our memories as to how a partial birth abortion is performed. In court testimony, Dr. Leroy Carhart describes the procedure in a 1997 hearing that struck down the first PBA ban:

*Question: Let's take the situation where you haven't divided the cord because you couldn't, and you have begun to remove a living fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?

Carhart: We remove the feet and continue pulling on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax came through the cavity. At that point, I would try ... you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the fetal ... the base of the fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.

*Question: What do you do next?

Carhart: And you can reach that, and that's where you would rupture the fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out. [Translation: The skull is punctured with scissors and the contents sucked out]

*Question: At what point in that process does fetal death occur between initial...removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I'm sorry, the decompressing of the skull?

Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I'm not sure what fetal death is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don't think it has any brain function, so it's brain dead at that point.

*Question: So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out the cranium?

Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and the don't die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.

Somehow, this isn't child abuse in their eyes. They will go on about how this is all about the "babies" but they never address the "babies". Isn't that interesting?

The philosophy of personhood deniers

Peter Kreeft:

Thus the crucial issue is: Are there any human beings who are not persons? If so, killing them might be permissible, like killing warts. But who might these human non-persons be? Jews? Blacks? Slaves? Infidels? Counterrevolutionaries? Others have said so, and justified their genocide, lynching, slavery, jihad, or gulag. But pro-choicers never include these groups as non-persons. Many pro-choicers include severely retarded or handicapped humans, or very old and sick humans, as non-persons, but this is still morally shocking to most people, and many pro-choicers avoid that morally shocking position by including only fetuses as members of this newly invented class of human non-persons, or non-personal humans. I think no one ever conceived of this category before the abortion controversy. It looks very suspiciously like the category was invented to justify the killing, for its only members are the humans we happen to be now killing and want to keep killing and want to justify killing.

VIDEO: Susan Boyle doing "Memories" from Cats

That voice is like butter.

I think she needs to work on her delivery. She's a little stiff.

But the singing...she does it so effortlessly. It's like chocolate for the ears.

One woman talks about her choice: the Crisis Pregnancy Centre

In response to the pro-abortion feminist picket at a Winnipeg CPC, Maggie says:

I really dont understand why there are women who are “pro choice” trying to attack other women who just believe in giving life a chance. I have been to the CPC. Im an 19 year old with a baby. When I thought i was pregnant again, they really shed light on not just how hard it would be to raise two children on my own but also how abortion affects a woman, the father of the aborted child, and the grandparents of the aborted baby. The truth is that if I was going through my first crisis pregnancy, i would of rather known about the CPC then go to a teen clinic at the Women’s health clinic. Some people think just because your young your not ready for responsibilities or that you would automatically want an abortion because you didnt plan on having a baby. The truth is that no one ever really plans their children. And that Unless if you havent been in a true unplanned/crisis pregnancy situation, you wouldnt know whats needed more then a listening and caring person who can tell you about your true options now and later.

But feminists want to discourage women from taking that route. I guess they only want choice that they agree with.

Women are too stupid to make their own decisions. Feminists have to decide what's true for them.

Feminists should get off their moral high horse

Feminist deBeauxOs at Dammit Janet castigates the Catholic Church for not bringing child abusers to justice in a post (ironically) entitled "They hate children, don't they"? In their bid to smear the Church, they cite a post from Canadian Cynic who alleges that the Catholic Church is a haven is haven for pedophiles, rapists and child abusers, as if every other priest is a sick pervert ready to pounce; as if the vast majority of faithful priests and laity are somehow in favour of this outrage.

But they don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear. It's not about truth for them. It's about mudslinging.

What's ironic about that post is that while the vast majority of Catholics despise pedophilia and child abuse, and want all the thugs and perverts gone from the midsts of the Church and condemn this unequivocally, the feminists think stabbing the head of a half-born baby and sucking out his brains and KILLING him is morally allowable and should be legal regardless of the situation!



The guys who do this are not disgusting baby killers. They're HEROES in the eyes of feminists.

If this were done to a born baby, we'd be outraged. A half-born baby? Well that's not child abuse, that's female empowerment.

But we're the ones who hate children.

I can only call it Orwellian.

UPDATE:

What does fern hill have to say about charges of supporting child abuse?

Nary a word. Except a sarcastic reference to the "BAYBEEZ".

Because these BAYBEEZ don't matter! Their suffering doesn't indict the Catholic Church.

Heck, even Henry Morgentaler has problems with them:

Morgentaler said he has concerns about late-term abortions.

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.

"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."

Morgentaler said the late-term abortions are mainly performed on women who have learned of severe birth defects during tests performed late in pregnancy and on teenage girls who have tried to hide their pregnancy.

"What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually council the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," he said.

And what does a "non-abused" baby victim of Partial Birth Abortion look like:



So generations of child abuse by Catholic religious: denounced, because they can indict the Catholic Church and make it look bad, and thereby advance feminist goals.

A decade or so of babies having their head stabbed and their brains sucked out: Approved! Defended! It's female empowerment.

See, it's okay when they do it.

But they're not baby haters. No siree!

The Rule of Thumb: Feminist Fiction

Where did phrase "rule of thumb" come from? The myth goes like this:

As it is told in the opening essay in one of the most popular textbooks in women's studies, Women: A Feminist Perspective, "The popular expression 'rule of thumb' originated from English common law, which allowed a husband to beat his wife with a whip or stick no bigger in diameter than his thumb. The husband's prerogative was incorporated into American law. Several states had statutes that essentially allowed a man to beat his wife without interference from the courts."[49]

Christina Hoff Summers debunks the claim:

The "rule of thumb," however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. [51] It is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.

That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.

The reality:

According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."

H/T: Diogenes Borealis

R.I.P. Faith Walker

Yesterday, Faith Walker died peacefully in her mother's arms.

It was around 4:40 in the afternoon. I had just finished changing her diaper and I decided to pick her up and wrap a blanket around her. She made a very sweet smiling face and held it for several seconds... I thought it was very cute. I waited for her to take her next breath, but she didn't. She looked up at me and opened her beautiful eyes, and I realized what was happening. I told her to go with Jesus. I told her that I loved her and that it was ok, that I would meet her in Heaven. I held her close and cried tears on her face. I felt her chest and there was no longer a heartbeat. But she still looked so beautiful. And even now, she is still so amazingly beautiful...

And how does Myah feel about all this?

I am so grateful for all the time I had with Faith and for all the photos and videos and for the memories we shared. And I can't wait to see her again... I don't know how she could get any cuter but I'm sure she is even more beautiful now that she is living it up in Heaven.

Faith Walker's life had purpose. She gave joy to her mother and those around her. I am so glad she was born.

God put Faith Walker on this earth to be a pro-life witness. She brought all the ugliness and hatred in all the mean-spirited people who do not love humans as they are to expose them and underscore how ugly their philosophy is so that people of good will could reject it. She also brought out the kindness and goodness of so many, and made many people happy.

If you are a mother whose child has been diagnosed with anencephaly in the womb, consider the joy that Faith brought to her mom by being born, even in her short life. Even with her disability, she embodied beauty, and we need more beauty in the world. God is beauty, and in her existence she reflected the beauty of God.

God Bless You Faith. I hope to meet you, too, in the Resurrection.

VIDEO: VOCA People....amazing music video

It's a 3-minute music video that's rather out of the ordinary. You'll be impressed. A very worthy time waster. Don't let me ruin it for you. Just watch it.

Fetus survives abortion assault, possibly injured

Naples, Utah:

NAPLES, Utah - A man in Utah beat a pregnant teenager who asked him to do so in an effort to induce a miscarriage, police said Friday.

Arron N. Harrison, 21, was jailed in lieu of $10,000 bail for allegedly beating a 17-year-old girl whose name authorities haven’t released. She is also in custody.

"I haven’t decided who’s more at fault," Mark Watkins, police chief of Naples, 200 kilometres east of Salt Lake City, told The Associated Press. "She was just as cold as the assailant - we’re not going to treat her as a victim."

(...)

"Her intention was, in fact, to abort the child - to terminate the pregnancy," he said.

The six-month-old fetus survived, but doctors won’t know for certain what injuries it may have sustained until it is born.

If this occurred in Canada, there would be no justice for him. (At least not until he was born.)

According to the law, his injuries only began to exist at birth.

If he's born alive.

Those are the mental gymnastics supporters of legal abortion must exercise in order to state that abortion doesn't kill a human being.

Legal fictions have a strange way of being completely illogical and disconnected from reality. But that's what feminists have to rely on to sustain their abortion-on-demand regime.

And if the unborn child sustains injuries in the womb and then dies?

"So what?" Say feminists. "Too bad, so sad, no justice for you."

Judging Sin is an Act of Love

Some time ago, I wrote a blogpost debunking the erroneous liberal interpretation of "Judge not lest ye by judged".

As a follow up, I'd like to quote an excerpt from an article that addresses that very same topic:

Society only tolerates sexual sins and sins against life. And that tolerance is strictly enforced. People trudge out the “do not judge” phrase and use it like a club to silence anyone who might speak against such license. People trudge out the “do not judge” phrase and use it like a club to silence anyone who might speak against such license. Society also rewards anyone who abides by its rules and strikes the word “sin” from his or her vocabulary. Christians are just as susceptible to wanting to be liked as anyone else.

(...)

A pillar of holiness according to St. Francis de Sales, is hatred; hatred of all that is evil, hatred of all that God hates. We know “what” God loves. God loves us unfathomably! He created us in His image. He suffered the most painful death in human history to save us from our sins. He dwells intimately within us in His Holy Spirit. But God does not force us to love Him. He would never have had it that way. There is always that chance we will pick sin over His love and He will lose us forever. So, what does God hate? Sin! He hates sin in the same way a mother hates the cancer that is devouring her precious child. The way a father hates the drug addiction that is destroying his son. God hates sin because it kills us. And if we love God and are our brother’s keepers, we should hate it too!

That is why we need to judge.

And in sporting news...the Clericus Cup

Rome, Italy, May 22, 2009 / 11:01 am (CNA).- Romans will have their soccer appetite whet for the May 27 Champions League final—a match that will pit Manchester United against Barcelona—by Clericus Cup, a soccer tournament between the different groups of seminarians in Rome.

The SIR news agency reported that on Saturday, May 23, at 11 a.m. local time, the North American Martyrs will face off against the Neocatechumenals of the Redemptoris Mater seminary in the final match, organized by the Centro Sportivo Italiano.

This will be the third trip to the finals for the Neocatechumenals, led by Simone Biondi, associate pastor of Holy Mary Queen of the Martyrs in Rome, after they won in 2007 and lost in 2008 against the Mater Ecclesiae team.

On the other hand, the seminarians of the North American Martyrs, led the Australian Gannon “Ball” Jones, will have their chance for revenge, since they lost to Redemptoris Mater in the first annual Clericus Cup. The came in fourth place last year after Ucro, a team made up of Ukrainian and Croat priests and seminarians.

Source

Too bad it's soccer. I can watch almost any team sport except that.

I always thought someone should organize the Catholic Games. The sports would provide an excuse for a large scale religious gathering, with lots of sacraments, sacramentals, talks, etc.

SoCon or Bust: The Problem with Frank Klees #roft #pcpo

John Pacheco quotes REAL Women:

Mr. Klees openly admits that he is pro-life and a Christian. However, he states that he will only support pro-life initiatives if he has the support of the PC caucus. Unfortunately, this is not likely to occur.

Exactly.

Mr. Hillier is not pro-life, however, he would, if PC party leader:

 Defund abortion;

 Abolish Ontario’s Human Rights Commission; and

 Enact freedom of association and conscience legislation which would protect medical workers and marriage commissioners from participating in procedures that violate their conscience or conflict with their moral views.

Great. But why would Randy Hillier be any more able than Frank Klees to get the caucus to move on pro-life issues?

The PC's may prove themselves once again that they're useless when it comes to the right to life.

The Family Coalition Party is the only party worth supporting.

And by the way, John says:

Mr. Klees was also a little too comfortable in supporting John Tory’s leadership in the past.

I received this from my inbox right after I made my final edit:

Elliott and Klees wrong on human rights

Christine Elliott and Frank Klees, who are also seeking the leadership of the PCPO, have both stated that they are against dismantling Ontario’s HRC, preferring instead to “reform” the discredited agency. Both cite the prohibitive expense of the justice system as the reason why a commission is needed, arguing that people who have legitimate grievances are unable to rely on the courts to protect their rights because it’s too expensive. They also insinuate, none too subtly, that shutting down the HRC would be akin to abandoning the disadvantaged of our society.

This latter assertion is unwise. It’s bad enough when Liberals equate a common-sense conservative policy like “one law for everyone – one justice system for all” with indifference to the suffering of others, but when they (Liberals) can rely on conservatives to level the accusation at their fellow conservatives…well, you get the picture.

Ironically, the high cost of bringing a case to court today does make the justice system inaccessible to the average citizen as Elliott and Klees claim. That’s an argument for fixing the justice system though. It’s not an argument for retaining a badly broken government agency like the HRC, especially when the sole purpose for its retention would be to by-pass the badly broken justice system.

(...)

Conservatives don’t win in Ontario by appealing to left-of-centre voters who vote Liberal or NDP, they win by appealing to conservative voters who either don’t vote on election day, or who hold their nose and vote Liberal, because they don’t want an NDP government and there’s no sensible conservative alternative to support.

As Randy Hillier wrote in the National Post recently, the people of Ontario deserve a clear choice between a Liberal Party that’s liberal in name only, and a genuinely conservative party that is courageous enough to stand by and defend it’s principles in the public square, and that is prepared to deliver a legislative and policy agenda that reflects those principles once elected.

Fifth US Poll This Month Shows Pro-Life Trend

LifeNews:

The poll found a plurality, 47 percent, took a pro-life position while 45 percent said they were "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion.

However, a second question, asking respondents to delineate their specific position on when abortion should be legal, found a 14 percent pro-life majority.

The poll found 55 percent take one of three pro-life positions saying that all abortions should be prohibited (10%), abortion should be legal only in cases to save the life of the mother (16%), or abortions should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother (29%).

A number of lefty commenters have tried to explain away the Gallup Poll.

In fairness, one positive poll can be a blip.

Five positive polls from five different organizations is a trend.

It is becoming more and more part of the US culture to accept the unborn as people.

It will only be a matter of time before this becomes part of the Canadian mentality.

Canada: 40 years of legal abortions: 3 Million deaths

The Telegraph Journal:

One boilerplate rationalization for legal abortion is prevention of deaths from "back alley" or "coathanger" illegal abortions, but prevalence of that in pre-legalization says has been grossly exaggerated. According to Statistics Canada (Reported Abortion Deaths in Canada, 84-203) there were 11 deaths of women from illegal abortions in 1969 and 13 in 1966 - tragic for the handful of victims and their loved ones to be sure, but hardly the butchery holocaust abortion advocates have made it out to be.

And completely preventable...if they just hadn't opted for abortion.

Don't want to die from an illegal abortion? Don't have one! It's in every woman's power.

From their ethically stunted perspective, the abortion question is based in sophistry about "controlling one's own body," conveniently ignoring the fact that more than one body is involved. A pregnant mother is custodian of the human being growing inside her womb, but that occupant is not part of her body, but an individual human being who should be accorded full human rights and protections.

(...)
Encouragingly, there's evidence the tide of public opinion is turning.

Well, it does provide some encouragement, but let's keep things in perspective.

What would really be a change is if larger numbers of people advocated for more restrictions on abortion.

To me, that is the true measure of pro-life sentiment. Polls about labels might underscore who has momentum, but I want actual support to go up.

Canadian Journalists cite HRC's for Code of Silence Award

Harper, Yukon and Alberta governments among the nominees for the Canadian Association of Journalists' Code of Silence Award

Canada's human rights commissions, federal and provincial, for their efforts to censor speech that merely "offends." Given enormous powers by the state, even to issue gag orders for life, human rights commissions and tribunals are not bound to give an accused the same rights they'd get in a court of law. The accuser has their case paid for by the state, while the defendant must pay out of pocket, even when the charges are absurd.

H/T: Blazing Cat Fur

Ontario Knights of Columbus Throw Full Support Behind March for Life - Will Subsidize Bus Trips

"We must spill over into the streets of Ottawa with not 8,000 but 80,000," resolution says.

Thank the Knights of Columbus.

If you're pro-life and reading this, please-- write the email. A sentence or two. Let them know that you REALLY appreciate it.

Add this to the Glories of Mary

Msgr William Kerr's claim to fame is having administered Last Rites to Ted Bundy. He recently died.

Dom Bettinelli tells the story that his friend Kevin (now Fr. Gabriel Gillen, OP) told to him.

[Fr. Kerr] got the call from the police in the middle of the night to rush out to the sorority house. When he arrived he was told that all but one of the girls in the house were dead or near death, killed by a serial killer who was later to be known to the world as Ted Bundy. After giving those last rites to the dying college girl, then-Fr Kerr was asked by the police on the scene to talk to the girl who survived unscathed. They wanted to know how she survived the brutal attacks, because Bundy had stopped right inside the door to her room, dropped his weapon, and left without touching her. But the girl would talk to no one but a priest.

When Fr Kerr approached the near-catatonic girl, she told him that her mother had made her promise before going off to college for the first time that she would pray the Rosary every night before bed for protection; even if she fell asleep praying the Rosary, which she had that night so that when Bundy came into her room with murder on his mind, the beads were still clutched in her hands.

Later, Bundy would tell Monsignor that when he entered the girl’s room, he just couldn’t go on, he dropped his weapon, and he fled. Such is the power of our Mother’s protective mantle.

H/T: Holy Whapping

Damian Thompson

Originally read at: Five Feet of Fury


And for those who don't get the reference: The Glories of Mary.

Pro-Life Film Festival in Sudbury, Ontario June 5-7th

REAL LIFE Film Festival du cinéma
J u n e 5 - 7, 2 0 0 9

Sudbury - Ontario
Glad Tidings Auditorium

A film event that keeps faith and family in mind.

More than 15 films, documentaries and award-winning shorts!

For the film list, schedule and ticket depots, please visit www.sudburycinema.com


Purchase tickets in advance and save up to 30%!

Top Ten Unconservative Things the Conservative Party of Canada Has Done

ThePolitic.com:

There isn’t anything quite as infuriating as watching a political party say one thing and then do another. In the case of the Conservative Party of Canada, they talk a lot about being conservative, but their actions (or inaction) has led certain critics to pan their “un-conservative” ways. We at the ThePolitic.com have never shied away from an opportunity to point out some of these inconsistencies and we would like to give our readers the opportunity to join in on the fun.

So here is your chance to win a signed copy of Mark Steyn’s Book, America Alone. Submit your suggestions for the top ten un-conservative things the Conservative Party of Canada has done since their election in 2006.

Sorry I haven't updated

I generally update every day, but it's been two days and I haven't blogged anything. I'm busy with something else right now, so I'm just not in a blogging state of mind.

I highly recommend scrolling down to my sidebar for some great links.

Also, if you can read French check out my French blog.

I'll be back. Maybe even later today, who knows? When I get a minute. I seem to blank out when I try too hard to update.

Werner Patels: Wasteful Conservative Attack Ads

Werner:

But forget campaigning for now; Canadians would be just as happy if Ignatieff finally explained his position on the issues that matter to them. He is still an empty page that begs to be written on. As a result, both Liberals and non-Liberals have used the opportunity and written their own thoughts and interpretations into the empty spaces. Right now, Ignatieff is not whatever he is or intends to be, but rather every possible label others have pinned on him in the meantime: Is he a Liberal, a “classical liberal” or even, gosh, a conservative? Is he a true Canadian, or merely a former Canadian who prefers to be American or British?

(...)


The Conservatives were probably wrong to make Ignatieff's time abroad their main line of attack. Most Canadians may be indifferent about that, which increases the risk of the ads backfiring in some way. In this respect, the critics may have been right when they say the ads are a waste of the government's time. Instead, the Conservatives should have used the ads to prod Ignatieff into finally coming clean on what and who he is or wants to be. Since polls indicate that Ignatieff could be the next prime minister, Canadians deserve to know exactly where he stands on the key issues.

SoCon or Bust: Conservatives Better Start Acting...Conservative

John Pacheco:

For the Conservative Party to be returned to power, they need to reinvigorate their base. This means they need to appeal to the libertarian and social conservative elements within it if they are to have any chance at winning. Without these two pillars, they are going to lose the next election. If Harper only wants to be a hair to the right of the Liberal Party, this is simply not going to cut it with conservatives. We’ll just stay home and let the cards fall where they may.

(...)

If the Conservative Party wants a chance at staying in power, it had better start distinguishing itself from the Liberal Party on fiscal and social issues. For once, Canadians want a clear choice. We want an ideological choice, not a pragmatic one.

Scrap the “Michael Ignatieff spent a lot of time in the US” card, guys, and get real. Start playing the game on our turf:

1. Pass the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill.

2. Scrap the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

3. Cut significant income taxes for families.

If the Conservative Party of Canada wants to stay in power, it should start acting like a Conservative Party. They should be the Party of natural justice and Canadian families.

I saw the attack ads. Man, are they lame. They want to win an election with that?

I won't let them waste my money.

Where were Tim Hudak and Frank Klees Yesterday?

As you all know, yesterday was the annual Ottawa March for Life.

Tim Hudak and Frank Klees, two contenders for the PC leadership, did not make their presence known.

Were they there? Somehow I doubt it.

How can an Ontario politician claim to be pro-life and not show up at the annual March for Life?

If left-wing politicians can make time to be in the Gay Pride parade, why can't pro-life politicians show up for the March for Life? Is it too much to ask?

Actions speak louder than words

I noticed that Frank Klees' team was on the Hill signing up people for the PC leadership race.

You mean he couldn't make it himself?

Campaign Life Coalition just endorsed him. You'd think the least he could do is show up, even if it's only for a half and hour on the main stage.

If Frank Klees and Tim Hudak feel that being in a pro-life parade is too politically risky, what's going to happen if they get elected leader? Are they going to look for ways to protect the unborn child? What have they done so far?

Something tells me they won't bring forward a single piece of legislation. Not because they aren't pro-life, but because their party caucus wouldn't agree with it.

The PC's have got to decide where they stand on the issues. And if they want something done about protecting the unborn child, they should do it.

---

UPDATE: I just saw that the candidates in question were at a leadership event yesterday.

My Body, My Choice?

A conversation in the combox sparks this thought experiment.

Suppose a lactating mother living in the middle of nowhere finds a newborn that has been disposed of. (Not unheard of-- some mothers go through the pregnancy then dump the baby.)

Suppose the baby is obviously hungry and the mother is the only source of food. She is the only lactating mother of reproductive age in her village and formula is inaccessible for whatever reason.

Is it the mother's right to refuse to breastfeed the baby on the basis of her personal autonomy, i.e. "My Body, My Choice"?

Is she morally obligated to breastfeed that baby?

And should the baby suffer negative and long-lasting repercussions from refusing to feed the baby, should the mother suffer legal consequences?

What if "My Body, My Choice" leads to a dead newborn? Should that be legal?

Discuss.

The Archbishop of Ottawa Has a Blog!

Here it is.

It's only been publishing for the last two months.

Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus: Pro-Life Free Speech Suppressed in Canada

For Immediate Release

May 13, 2009

Pro-Life Free Speech Suppressed in Canada

(Ottawa) - “In the last 12 months we have seen an alarming increase in the number of cases where pro-life groups have had their free speech suppressed,” said Rod Bruinooge, Chair of the Parliamentary Pro Life Caucus (PPLC). “What do opponents of the pro-life viewpoint fear?”

Each year, the multi-party Pro-life Caucus holds a press conference in conjunction with the National March for Life.* This year's March marks the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Omnibus Bill which decriminalized abortion in Canada.

The pro-life caucus will use this opportunity to highlight a disturbing trend of intolerance towards the pro-life point of view. “From student unions and campuses, to advertising regulators, pro-life free speech is being treated by some as unworthy of protection,” Bruinooge said.

One particular case involved LifeCanada, after they coordinated a national billboard campaign with the message “Nine Months, the length of time abortion is allowed in Canada.” The Advertising Standards Canada body ruled that the advertising was “deceptive,” and LifeCanada was banned from using that ad among all of the major advertisers that this body serves. “It is unfortunate that we are unable to communicate the truth to Canadians that abortion is permitted in all 9 months of pregnancy,” said Gudrun Schultz, executive director of LifeCanada.

On campuses around Canada there are a number of cases where pro-life clubs have been denied club status and where pro-life students have been shouted down, prevented from speaking, been the subject of “thought police” inquiries, or have been arrested for trespassing.

“Polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians do not support Canada’s unrestricted tax-payer funded abortion regime,” Bruinooge said. “And although there are close to 100,000 abortions every year in Canada, we actually know very little about the practice. For example, we don’t know the gestational age of the unborn child in over 60% of the cases because abortion providers aren’t required to report this information. Nor are they required to report health complications or the reasons women obtain abortions. Stifling free speech allows the whole secrecy surrounding the practice of abortion to thrive.”

Bruinooge continued, “Every woman has a right to be fully informed about the potential physical and psychological health risks of abortion. The trend to clamp down on free speech on this issue is a threat to all women who seek to be adequately informed.”

Bruinooge concluded, “Student unions attempt to censor pro-lifers; school campuses attempt to censor pro-lifers; advertising bodies attempt to censor pro-lifers; but one place where freedom and democracy are still valued is the Parliament of Canada. It doesn’t surprise me that our opponents attempt to suppress pro-life messages, because the truth is powerful.”

The PPLC press conference will be held Thursday, May 14, at 11:00 a.m. in the Charles Lynch Press Theatre (room 130-S Centre Block). - 30 -

H/T: SoCon or Bust

12,000: Canadian 2009 March for Life Smashes Previous Attendance Records

May 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Under the threat of dark clouds and sometimes through pouring rain, a record-smashing crowd of 12,000 Canadians today gathered on Parliament Hill for a rally and then marched through the streets of Ottawa in protest against 40 years of legalized abortion in Canada.

The number of participants significantly exceeded last year's record-breaking crowd of 8,000, making it by far the largest crowd in the 12 years that the march has taken place. [Last year was 8700...an increase of 43% over last year!]


Those in attendance included 18 Members of Parliament.

Jim Hughes, the president of Campaign Life Coalition, the pro-life group which organizes the annual event, told LifeSiteNews that he was thrilled with the turnout. "It's a real blessing," he said, "especially the growing number of young people that are here."

"This is going to make a difference," said Hughes, who pointed out that pro-life Canadians are beginning to mark the date of the march on their calendars, and are going out of their way to make it every year. "We're having a real impact here," he said.

Today's events began in the morning with interdenominational prayer services at the Canadian Reformed Church and St. George's Anglican Church, and two Catholic masses at Notre Dame Basilica and St. Patrick's Basilica.

Eyewitnesses at the Catholic masses said that both churches were filled to, and beyond, capacity. Approximately 900 people squeezed into St. Patrick's Basilica, while over 1,100 overflowed Notre Dame. As well, an additional approximately 200 at each location had to watch the mass on a screen in the basement of each church, due to the lack of space.

Hughes said he was especially pleased by the unprecedented show of support from the Canadian Catholic bishops, with at least 12 bishops celebrating at the masses. This was the first year in the history of the march that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has thrown its official support behind the event.

At 3 p.m., after the rally on Parliament Hill and the march, representatives of Silent No More Awareness Campaign began delivering powerful testimonies about their personal experiences with abortion, repeatedly moving their listeners to tears. Just as the clock on the Hill was striking 3:00, many in the crowd marvelled that the sun suddenly broke through the clouds for the first time that day and soon afterwards the sky cleared with hardly a cloud in sight. Also, noted was that as each of the Silent No More Awareness speakers was introduced, as if on cue, a strong wind would blow, with the strongest occuring when the Canadian leader of the group, Angelina Steenstra, was introduced.

PICTURES From the 2009 March for Life in Ottawa Part 8

PICTURES from the 2009 March for Life in Ottawa Part 7

PICTURES From the 2009 March for Life in Ottawa Part 6

PICTURES from the March for Life in Ottawa 2009 Part 5

PICTURES from the 2009 March for Life in Ottawa Part 4

"The Right to Life for ALL Human Beings"





MP Guy Lauzon. Sorry about the blurry picture.







MP Paul Szabo. "My name is Paul Szabo, and I AM PRO-LIFE!"





MP Dan McTeague








Yet another MP I cannot identify.

PICTURES from the 2009 March of Life in Ottawa Part 3

The March really emphasized the new faces of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus. As I was rather far from the front, I didn't always hear the names of the MP's. Sorry. Also, some of the pictures are a bit blurry.





Unidentified MP. Too bad, he's really good.






Unidentified MP.





MP Jeff Watson






Campaign Life Coalition President, Jim Hughes







MP Dean Del Maestro

PICTURES from the 2009 March for Life in Ottawa Part 2

This year's theme.






I know a lot of pro-aborts were looking to see if the wordmark was on this year's banner. Sorry to disappoint!











This sign made me think of ProWomanProLife







The Christian Heritage Party made its presence felt.