Brutally Honest

Meat, crockpot, pickaxe, drill bit

Words used by a late term abortionist to describe the horror of what he does to children in the womb.

This should leave you nauseous.  And if it doesn't, you should check your moral bearings because you are quite lost.

LifesiteNews:

Late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart, who made headlines in February when one of his patients died in his care, likened a dead, full-term baby inside its mother's womb to “meat in a Crock-Pot” in a new sting video released by Live Action this morning. He also tells the mother to call him instead of 911 if she faces any complications.

In the footage, Carhart jokes about dismembering the unborn baby with “a pickaxe, a drill bit.”

Two separate stings were filmed at Carhart's business in Nebraska, one before and one after the death of Jennnifer Morbelli at his Germantown, Maryland, facility.

At one point Carhart confirms to Live Action's investigator that she will be carrying a dead baby inside her for three days. When the mom asks if the baby will begin to decay, Carhart says, “No, it’s like putting meat in a Crock-Pot, OK?” The child merely “gets softer.”

Carhart counsels the woman to call him instead of dialing 911 in case of an emergency, because “they’ll take you to the hospital, right? They won’t bring you to the clinic.”

He adds he or his assistants will call emergency assistance “if we think you need 911.”

Instead, he hands the mother a packet containing “little drapes and sheets and gloves” in case she goes into labor in her hotel room or home.

It includes a bag to put the baby in. He gives no instructions about what to do if the baby is born alive, insisting, “it's not going to happen.”

But Live Action founder Lila Rose told LifeSiteNews.com that a live birth is a possibility.

“Carhart prides himself on making sure that the child is dead within three hours,” she said. “Carhart is certainly denying that infants are born alive after his abortions. He's very proud of his 'success rate,' as he calls it.”

“But...if he misses the child's heart with the Digoxin shot, if it's entered into the amniotic sack or otherwise, sometimes these children have been born alive,” she added, “We know from other testimonies and from studies done in the UK and elsewhere that children do survive abortion attempts.”

Carhart seems to acknowledge as much on tape, telling the mother if her baby “came out? Oh, yeah, it probably could” survive. “Probably.”

If a mother instead calls 911, her “baby will be given the life-saving care it deserves and that the law provides [for] it,” Rose told LifeSiteNews. “I think that this recommendation to not call 911 is very dangerous for women, because that is another layer of protection for them in case the abortion is putting their health at risk.”

Carhart is all-too familiar with one such instance. Jennifer Morbelli died in his care, after being unable to contact him.

There's more, including the doctor's denial about the woman he essentially killed.  The guy clearly missed his calling.  He'd have fit in nicely with the Nazi doctors at Auschwitz.

Sick SOB.

It's difficult for me to ask God's mercy on him.

So at this time, I won't.

Prayers for "Katherine Russell that she escape this cult now that her jailer is dead"

That from Mark Shea as he links to a piece likely seen as problematic in the eyes of many but most bluntly proper in my own:

At this moment the dominant theme of “Boston Bomber” headlines is motive. The secular mainstream media, having failed to get their wish for redneck extremist Christians protesting tax increases orcelebrating Hitler’s birthday, are casting about for any alternative narrative (from “bored punks who acted alone” to “products of America’s violent video-game culture” to “we’ll simply never know”) to replace the obvious and emerging one: that the Tsarnaev brothers were spearheads of an organized effort to bring Muslim jihad terror to America.

One hopes that the facts about motive will come to light sufficiently to overcome all but the most willful attempts to ignore them. Meanwhile I wanted to look at another aspect of this horrendous story: a victim whose suffering may not be getting its due: Katherine Russell, the widow of dead bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Many years ago I worked in the chancery at a Midwestern diocese. At one of our weekly staff meetings a colleague brought up a prayer intention for a friend of her daughter’s, who the previous year had met a Saudi man in college. She had fallen hard for his charm, refinement, and attentiveness. He was so different from the farm boys she’d grown up around! After a whirlwind courtship she had married him, and in short order bore a child. After the birth they’d gone back to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly for a family visit.

But she never returned. She was a Muslim wife now, a prisoner, property. Her formerly devoted-seeming husband became, at the flip of a switch, cold and abusive. Now her parents were pressing every legal and political means they could to bring their daughter and grandchild home.

I never found out what became of this poor girl. But as Katherine Russell shows us, her story was no isolated exception. In fact, in some parts of the world it has become common enough to get its own name:love jihad.

Read the rest and become informed about the war on women the left ignores while attacking the Catholic church for its alleged misogyny.

Will the birth control link to breast cancer now be given a serious look?

This story yesterday caught my eye:

The likelihood that a woman age 25 to 39 will be diagnosed with advanced breast cancer has steadily increased since the mid-1970s, researchers from Seattle Children’s and Oregon Health and Science University have found.

Analyzing data from hundreds of thousands of cases collected in three national cancer registries, the researchers, whose work is published in Wednesday’s issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), found no other age group had such an increase.

Although breast cancer overall is relatively rare in younger women, it is the most common malignant tumor in young adult women, who tend to experience more aggressive disease and have lower survival rates, the study’s authors said.

The study looked at the extent of disease at the time of original diagnosis, comparing the change in incidence in each age group from 1976 to 2009.

The increase in incidence of metastatic disease in the 25-39 age group was small — an increase of 1.37 cases per year for every 100,000 women — but statistically significant and steady throughout the time period, said the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Rebecca Johnson, medical director of the Adolescent and Young Adult oncology program at Seattle Children’s.

Since 1992, when data on race and geographic location were added to the databases, the increase among women in that age group occurred in all races and ethnicities evaluated and in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the researchers said.

Non-Hispanic white women and African-American women, as well as women with estrogen-receptor positive subtypes of cancer, appear to have been most affected.

186 percent increase

Over the time period analyzed in the study, the number of women ages 25-39 in the U.S. grew from about 22 million to approximately 28 to 30 million — a figure that’s been steady since the 1980s, Johnson noted. That’s an increase of about 36 percent.

But in the same period, the number of women in that age group with an original diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer increased from 293 in 1976 to 838 in 2009, an increase of 186 percent.

No other age group had a similar increase.

...

“We’re interested in these trends,” Johnson said, “with the hypothesis that cancers of adolescents and young adults may have unique biological features that more research may uncover.”

She hopes future studies may reveal why the rate of metastatic breast cancer in young women has increased.

“The rate of this change has been so rapid we think it’s likely there’s some sort of external factor,” she said — perhaps a “modifiable risk factor”such as obesity, alcohol use, the age when a woman first gives birth, an environmental toxin exposure, or a combination of factors.

“It could be complicated, it could be simple, or something we haven’t thought of yet,” Johnson said.

Or it could be something that would not sit well with a certain ideology and thus needs to be suppressed:

1) How could the Pill cause breast cancer?

Two of the most important types of hormones that control reproduction are estrogens and progestins. Birth control pills are made from synthetic estrogens and/or progestins. Experiments have shown that these hormones cause women’s breast cells to divide more rapidly. [1] Cells which divide more rapidly are more prone to develop into cancer cells.

2) What is the evidence that the Pill and breast cancer are connected?
In 2005, the World Health Organization classified oral contraceptives as a Group I carcinogen—the most dangerous classification known.[2] Also, a comprehensive meta-analysis* published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in October, 2006[3] found that 21 out of 23 retrospective studies done since 1980 showed that women who took oral contraceptive prior to the birth of their first child sustained a 44% average increased risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer, [see Table A]. ] This risk rose to 52% for women who took the pill for at least four years prior to the birth of their first child.

3) How serious of a problem is breast cancer?

Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in U. S. in women age 20-59. In the U.S. about 211,000 women are diagnosed annually and over 40,000 die from this disease.[4] More than one in five women who are diagnosed with breast cancer (ie, 47,000 women annually) will develop it before menopause. About one in eight women will develop breast cancer at some time in her life and one fourth of such women will die from this disease. Using the birth control pill, especially at a young age, markedly increases a woman’s risk for developing breast cancer. This risk is increased even higher when combined with other breast cancer risk factors such as induced abortion, hormone treatment (such as estrogen supplementation), family history of breast cancer, and other factors.

4) Do some contraceptives cause more risk than others?

Yes. Research studies show that breast cancer risk is almost tripled for women who used Depo-Provera for 2 years or more before age 25. [5]

5) Are other types of cancer affected by oral contraceptive pills?

Oral contraceptives decrease the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, while they increase the risk of cervical and breast cancer. [6] Since breast cancer is far more prevalent than the other three types of gynecological cancers, the pills overall effect is detrimental to women.

6) Are there other risks from contraceptives?
Yes. Well known side effects of the Pill include an increased frequency of blood clots, high blood pressure, and heart attacks, as well as migraines, depression, loss of libido, and a variety of other disorders. Less well known is that oral contraceptives and injectable progestins (such
as Depo-Provera) significantly increase the risk of contracting and transmitting HIV (the AIDS virus). [7,8] In addition, medical studies strongly suggest that oral contraceptives work at times by causing an early abortion. [9]

Next time you hear someone talk about the war on women being waged by Catholics, perhaps it'd be good to have them open their eyes to this.

"Who is driving this agenda?"

USMC Captain Katie Petronio is giving strong opinions on the women in combat issue, opinions that will be ignored, opinions likely to hurt her career... they just don't fit the agenda being driven:

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

...

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There's much more, all of it cogent, relevant and... counter-cultural.

Isn't it enlightening that those who decry the alleged Catholic war on women are the same people attempting to ensure that women wage war?

What's angering feminists these days?

Some might ask what doesn't anger feminists these days, but what follows seems particularly silly:

My 4-year-old son, Emmett, swallows a spoonful of cereal and asks me if I know what a gentleman is. Surprised, I tell him I have some idea; then I ask what the word means to him.

“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys.

His explanation, along with the quiet solemnity with which he delivers it, is completely endearing and yet it makes my heart ache. This adorable little boy, who is only beginning to learn the ways of the world, just got his first lesson in sexism — and from a teacher who, I don’t doubt, believes she’s doing something wonderful for womankind.

She isn’t the only one.

Start to complain about your preschooler adopting gentlemanly behavior and you quickly discover how out of step you are with the rest of the world. Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?

The implication, of course, is that I’m overreacting, and as a parent, I’ll admit to being prone to the occasional bout of hypersensitivity. For months, I grumbled that the inappropriately breathy tone of Cinderella on Emmett’s LeapFrog Princess laptop was warping a generation of impressionable young minds.

But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions. Worse than that, he’s actively being taught to treat girls differently,  something I thought we all agreed to stop doing, like, three decades ago. That the concept of selective privilege has been introduced in preschool of all places — the inner sanctum of fair play, the high temple of taking turns — is mind-boggling to me. How can you preach the ethos of sharing at the dramatic play center and ignore it 20 feet away at the toilet?

Yet as much as this double standard offends me as a mom, it’s nothing compared with how much it infuriates me as a feminist. Forty years after the tender, sweet, young thing in “Free to Be You and Me” gets eaten by a pack of hungry tigers after asserting that ladies should go first, we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations.

Letting girls use the bathroom first isn’t a show of respect. It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight. A true show of respect is paying us equally for the same work, not 77 cents on the dollar, which is the current average. That’s the world I want my son to live in and I seriously doubt it will ever happen as long as women believe men should hold the door open for them.

Global economic considerations aside, the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others. Nobody is giving them the opportunity to be gallant. Instead, these fabulous little creatures, who absorb everything joyfully and tear through barriers gleefully, are being fitted for the same old corset. The stays are a little looser but the whalebone is just as rigid.

I'm hard-pressed to understand how teaching a young boy how to be a gentleman translates to a ban on teaching young girls the fine art of yielding to others but then... there's not much of this entire piece that makes any sense to me.

Into that senselessness steps John Paul II:

In 1988, John Paul II sent out an Apostolic Letter, Mulieris Dignitatem, or, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women. In this letter he began the use of the term the “genius of women” in describing the special attributes and contributions of females. He outlined the special characteristics that set us apart from men. And in a refreshing move, he upheld these unique talents as both beautiful and necessary to compliment the traits of men. This came not long after a time when women’s gifts were often belittled and considered “female weaknesses”.  A woman was considered a “weak” leader if she felt empathy for those working under her. This deprecation of natural feminine characteristics is what led many women in the decades before Mulieris Dignitatem to leave their roles as wives and mothers and seek the recognition and appreciation they needed elsewhere.  While he encouraged all women in their roles as wives and mothers, JP2 also encouraged further participation in politics and economics. JP2 never said women’s gifts were only useful in the home raising children. Instead he first worked to affirm that these traits were innately good and necessary, and then made the move seven years later to more directly challenge women to bring them to every aspect of their lives.

In 1995 JP2 wrote Evangelium Vitae, and called for a “New Feminism” to take root in the heart of the Catholic Church. He called for the women of the Church to infuse our world with our “feminine genius” and return to our culture the role of motherhood and the beautiful truth about women’s true talents and contributions. He called for us to “promote a “new feminism that rejects the temptation of imitating models of “male domination” in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, exploitation, and violence.” He even went so far as to say that this was a prerequisite for creating a Culture of Life and placed this task in the hands of the women of the Church. (EV n.99)

There has been some debate about his use of the term “feminist” saying that what he called for was something so completely foreign to the Feminist mantra that we should avoid using the word altogether when describing this new movement of women who embrace and love the feminine genius. Some have suggested the term “Complimentarianists” is a better fit. (Although even typing it is honestly a trial!) And others have just not wanted to create confusion and be mistaken with the women we talked about so fondly earlier.  They fear creating scandal by association with that word. I tend to think John Paul II knew exactly what he was saying when he chose to send us forth as New Feminists.

Of course there's more and it's rich with that which makes sense to me and with what brings a renewed hope I think Catholicism brings to the thinking.

You?

"Benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality"

The new enemy of woman is the gentleman:

Here’s the latest from the Psychology of Women Quarterly. It’s an abstract of an article by Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker on benevolent sexism. If you’re wondering what “benevolent sexism” is, think gentlemanly behavior. I offer the abstract partly as a window onto the wonderful, wacky world of modern sociological prose and partly in despair at the use of the word “thus” to open the final sentence. I have put the key passages in bold.

Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality. But despite its negative consequences, benevolent sexism is a prevalent ideology that some even find attractive. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.

You, like me, perhaps thought that abortion, or more particularly the inability to have one, defined today's feminist.

You, like me, were wrong.

What defines today's feminist is a deep seated hatred for men, and what makes a man a man.

Which is why they embrace girly men and are doing their level best to emasculate real men.  Your choosing to be a gentleman is a choice they're abhorring.

Open a door for a woman, allow her to enter that doorway before you do, and men, you are practicing benevolent sexism and fostering inequality.  Next time you seat a woman before you take a seat, next time you gently slide that chair underneath her as you do so, know that you're perpetuating her subservience.

You misogynist.

“Male students earn points for documented engagement in sexual activities with female students”

The fruits of progressive thinking on human sexuality and the commoditization of women that results:

Some Piedmont High School students have been involved in a “Fantasy Slut League” in which male athletes “draft” female students and earn points for sexual encounters with them, school officials have told parents.

The league has been in existence for 5 or 6 years but only came to school officials’ attention several weeks ago, according to a letter Piedmont High School Principal Rich Kitchens sent out to families Friday.

In discussions following a date-rape awareness assembly on Oct. 3, students brought the league to the attention of officials, who then followed up with an investigation.

“It has been reported that students on some of our Varsity Teams have set up a ‘Fantasy Slut League’ in which our female students (unbeknownst to most of them) are drafted as part of the league,” Kitchens wrote in the letter. “Male students earn points for documented engagement in sexual activities with female students.”

The school is not planning to discipline the students involved, said Randall Booker, an assistant superintendent of educational services, nor would he discuss how many students might have been involved.

“Our focus really isn’t pinpointing the who or the details,” he said. “Our focus is really about having this continued conversations with kids, getting them to feel comfortable, getting them to learn why this is disrespectful, inappropriate.”

I'm thinking they're feeling pretty comfortable there Mr. Kitchens.

Pretty damned comfortable indeed.

Sandra Fluke could not be reached for comment.

 

"Feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture"

I can officially say now that I'm completely out of touch with feminist culture... and I do mean completely.

The last time I came across the name Hanna Rosin was when I tripped over a piece she'd written blaming Christianity for the economic woes the country was in, and this back in November of 2009.

So given that as background, I guess we can't be too surprised by her latest piece of deductive reasoning:

America has unseated the Scandinavian countries for the title of Easiest Lay. We are, in the world’s estimation, a nation of prostitutes. And not even prostitutes with hearts of gold.

Is that so bad? Or is there, maybe, a different way to analyze the scene that had just unfolded? Admittedly, what the Argentinean and I had just witnessed fills the nightmares of those who lament the evil hookup culture: ubiquitous porn, young women so inured to ubiquitous porn that they don’t bother to protest, young women behaving exactly like frat boys, and no one guarding the virtues of honor, chivalry, or even lasting love. It’s a sexual culture lamented by, among others, Caitlin Flanagan, in the pages of this magazine as well as in her nostalgia-­drenched new book, Girl Land. Like many other critics, Flanagan pines for an earlier time, when fathers protected “innocent” girls from “punks” and predators, and when girls understood it was their role to also protect themselves.

Girl Land, like so much writing about young women and sexuality, concentrates on what has been lost. The central argument holds that women have effectively been duped by a sexual revolution that persuaded them to trade away the protections of (and from) young men. In return, they were left even more vulnerable and exploited than before. Sexual liberation, goes the argument, primarily liberated men—to act as cads, using women for their own pleasures and taking no responsibility for the emotional wreckage that their behavior created. The men hold all the cards, and the women put up with it because now it’s too late to zip it back up, so they don’t have a choice.

But this analysis downplays the unbelievable gains women have lately made, and, more important, it forgets how much those gains depend on sexual liberation. Single young women in their sexual prime—that is, their 20s and early 30s, the same age as the women at the business-­school party—are for the first time in history more success­ful, on average, than the single young men around them. They are more likely to have a college degree and, in aggregate, they make more money. What makes this remarkable development possible is not just the pill or legal abortion but the whole new landscape of sexual freedom—the ability to delay marriage and have temporary relationships that don’t derail education or career. To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind. For college girls these days, an overly serious suitor fills the same role an accidental pregnancy did in the 19th century: a danger to be avoided at all costs, lest it get in the way of a promising future.

I honestly don't know if this sort of thinking best represents typical feminist thought or not but supposing that it does, can there be little doubt as to the cultural divide that separates this country? And can we understand a little better why Sandra Fluke is seen to be a leading spokeswoman for progressive women today?

I envy not any father of a young lady on her way to college.  My heart would break to think that a daughter of mine would buy into any part of Rosin's twaddle.

As an uncle to six beautiful nieces, all of an age to make their own decisions as to how to live and as to who they are becoming, I hope and pray they see Rosin's piece for what it truly is.

A delusional discourse on depravity.

[Image Source]

"Up to one in five pregnant women who die is killed by an abortion"

Have you heard about the war on women?  You know the one waged against females by the Catholic Church and those wascally Wepublicans?

You can't help but wonder if all that talk is merely projection:

The idea that legal=safe is succinctly represented at pro-choice rallies by a “No Coathanger” image, like the one to the right. But facts, as John Adams once said, are stubborn things. On May 21, 2005, Dr. Gunta Lazdane, European Regional Advisor to the World Health Organization on Reproductive Health and Research, told attendees at a conference on population that “up to 20 percent of maternal deaths are due to abortion, even in those situations where abortion is legal…there is a question whether legal abortion is safe.”

Yes, you read that right: Up to one in five pregnant women who die is killed by an abortion--even in countries like ours, where abortion is legal.

* * *

Abortion rights advocates have promoted the “legal equals safe” myth from the beginning, claiming that illegal abortion claimed the lives of 10,000 women per year prior to Roe v. Wade. But as former abortionist and NARAL founder Bernard Nathanson admitted in his autobiography The Hand of God, he and other abortion advocates literally fabricated the statistics about illegal abortion’s death toll. Then they’d watch gleefully as sympathetic journalists quoted their made-up figures as gospel truth.

Of course, the stubborn facts tell a dramatically different story about illegal abortion. The American Medical Association reported that the actual number of abortion-related deaths in 1950 was 263 and even those figures were dropping, with 119 deaths in 1970.(1) Even Planned Parenthood’s research lapdog, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, published stats that abortion deaths fell from around 200 in 1965 to 110 in 1967.(2) The Centers for Disease Control confirmed these trends; its records show that beginning in 1940, the death rate from illegal abortion was falling faster than the overall maternal death rate.(3) The stunning thing is that before abortion was legal, it was actually safer to have an illegal abortion than to give birth.

Read the whole footnoted piece and pass it along.

Truth can be a real bitch to bear but do your part in bearing it and spread this message about.

There really is a war against women.  Which side of the battle are you on?

Him and Her are anathema in Sweden

The GLBT influence in Sweden is strong, very strong... oops, those words would also be seen to be problematic:

At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.

Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.

Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.

Those bent on shattering gender roles "say there's a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value," she says. "Why is there higher value in playing with cars?"

At Egalia — the title connotes "equality" — boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, waving plastic utensils and pretending to cook. One boy hides inside the toy stove, his head popping out through a hole.

Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.

Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase, she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.

Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

My guess is that other kinds of fairy tales are now in vogue in Sweden.

Sweden, leading the way in societal decay.

Crossposted at Wizbang.