To a European, articles like this appear entirely surreal.
I understand from it that the following applies:
1. Abortions clinic were free to operate with standards that are below those generally required in the medical profession.
2. This was challenged by pro-life group because of the desire to protect the women’s health, actually one of the stated aims of the feminazis promoting abortion.
3. The Court of Appeal decided that yeah, abortion mills must be run with the same standards as “other” “medical” facilities. Duh?
4. The desire to protect the women’s health is a great scandal for abortionist, and the matter is now expected to land in front of the Supreme Court.
5. The mere requirement to meet the minimum standards observed by all other doctors was sufficient to force four fifths of the structures to close.
I am glad such small steps are made, and welcome every event that makes abortion mills shut down. But honestly, I cannot imagine that in time the number of abortion mills in Texas will not go back to (un)normal even if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeal, and the standard of medical decency are required everywhere in the US. In the end, the end of abortion goes through its ban, not through its becoming more expensive.
Still, this is good news not only because it shows a good battle fought with intelligence and the very weapon of the enemy, but also the hypocrisy and cynicism of the “reproductive health” bull.
Texas is, I am told, also the State now planning to re-introduce open carry.
They get better and better.
Following on the Pro-Life Final Weapon blog post, it is now official that in Texas a sonogram will be mandatory before an abortion.
There are still unpleasant limitations to the measure. The mother is not obliged to see the sonogram or to hear to the heartbeat, but she will have to hear to the doctor’s description of how the baby looks like. Also, the baby result of rape does not have the same right and in this case, the mother will not even have to listen to the doctor (unless I am mistaken, expect an increase in cases of rape).
See above an example of the image generated by the sonogram. Truly impressive. The possibility of hearing the baby’s heartbeat will add to the experience.
Astonishingly, though, there are people who are against the measure because (please sit before you read this)
the law interferes in the doctor-patient relationship by adding a government requirement for a procedure that could be traumatizing to women going through an already difficult situation.
So, the mother should not be traumatised by …… letting her know that she is killing her own baby.
What sensitive Nazis we have there.
Kudos to the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who put the measure on a legislative fast track as “emergency legislative priority”, and to the heavily pro-life majority in the state legislative which made the bill possible in the first place.
Truly beautiful blog post here, from a woman who was a persuaded (so-called) pro-choice activist and has later become a pro-life activist. In her case, this happened because she saw photos of aborted babies, those shocking images I do not have the nerve to put into this blog (which I would like to be readable also from impressionable natures), but which can certainly be extremely powerful in giving someone a salutary shock.
More in general, the author of the mentioned blog post reiterates what I was saying in a very recent post: the ultra-sound images (which she calls sonograms) will be a powerful element in persuading people that abortion is homicide.
Let us read together some beautiful passage of this remarkable story of personal development. On the photos:
Most people think, as I did, in terms of “tissue,” “clumps of cells,” “the products of pregnancy,” all the euphemisms Planned Parenthood and the entire anti-life front use to dehumanize an unborn child. An image of an aborted baby says in one second what even the most well-informed and eloquent pro-life crusader could not say in two hours. It says: “This is a human being, and it is dead.” A picture of an abortion does not show you a terminated pregnancy or some discarded tissue. It shows you, clearly and finally, a child that has been killed. Legally.
On the sonogram:
The sonogram image is the most powerful visual tool in the pro-life arsenal. It is far more effective and powerful to the woman considering abortion than even the most horrifying photo of an aborted baby, because the child is alive and the child is hers.
On the pro-choice propaganda:
“Women who go to abortion clinics are bombarded with the aforementioned euphemisms: tissue, clump of cells, product of pregnancy. But a moving image of the child inside her, in some cases fully formed and active, its strong little heart beating away: this belies the euphemisms. It negates the propaganda. It is the truth, in front of her eyes, and it is the most powerful weapon we have to fight the people who would kill that child and collect their fee”.
If abortion is the empowering act organizations like NARAL would have us believe, they would shrug off sonogram law. If abortion is the nonchalant casting-off of useless tissue anti-lifers would have us believe, a woman could look unflinchingly at the “clump of cells” on the sonogram and say to the abortionist, “Go for it.” But NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, and their ilk know that the woman is going to see a baby.
But it is possible, and I like to believe probable, that it is a higher emotion that will cause a woman to keep her baby upon viewing a sonogram. I think it might even be appropriate to call it something very silly, like love.
These beautiful words truly expose the hypocrisy of the pro-choice rhetoric, and it is in fact true that if the “object” of the abortion were only a clump of cells, no sonogram in the world could ever be a deterrent to the abortion being executed.
For too long, Western societies have chosen – out of ill-conceived “feminism” or, more probably, in order to be able to do as they please – not to see. But when the sonogram or the photos are put in front of one it is really, really difficult not to see.
Therefore, it can happen that only looking at photos moves a person persuaded for years to simply change her mind. Juts imagine what happens when it is the sonogram of one’s own child.
I wish the Texan law all the best and am curious to see, in a couple of years, the effect of the 24 hour rule on a great number of abortion. It can be said that at times, gruesome photos save lives.
This is the text to be found on Father Corapi’s website. it comes from the former Bishop of Corpus Christi, Rene’ Gracida.
The text deserves to be read in its entirety:
The public controversy over the announcement of the accusations against Father John Corapi, SOLT, and his suspension from exercising his priestly ministry offers an opportunity to reflect on the flawed procedure apparently being followed in too many dioceses of the United States these days in the case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct not involving minors. The procedure is flawed because it inflicts grave injustice on the priest and serves as a deterrent to young men thinking of offering themselves as candidates for the priesthood.
The procedure operates something like this. A person accuses a priest of sexual misconduct (again, not involving a minor). The priest is immediately suspended from active exercise of his priestly ministry while an investigation is launched into the truth or falsity of the accusations.
There is no need for a public announcement to be made that gives the name of the priest and the fact of the accusation and the suspension, and yet, all to often such a public announcement is made. Such public announcement by a diocese almost always results in media exploitation of the news in a sensational manner to the detriment of the Catholic Church and its priesthood. It seems that rarely, if ever, is mention is made in the announcement of the name of the accuser.
The investigation may take days or months or years to complete. In the meantime the priest’s reputation is effectively destroyed and perhaps he is ‘thrown out on the street’ with no means of support. The accuser, on the other hand, enjoys anonymity and suffers no loss of reputation or negative material consequences and in the case of an accusation later proven to have been false the injustice to priest is great.
In cases where the priest is accused of having used force (rape or some other form of involuntary abuse) there is some justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. But, where there is reason to believe that the alleged sexual misconduct was effected through mutual consent there is no justification for not publishing the name of the accuser. Under the present procedure it is too easy for a person to allege sexual misconduct (again not involving minors) for a variety of possible unworthy motives: revenge, hope for monetary gain, hostility to the Catholic Faith, etc. Such is reported to have been the case of the accusation against Father Corapi. The only safe way to guard against damaging the reputation of individual priests and the Catholic priesthood in general is to not publish the name of an accused priest until an investigation has proved beyond doubt the guilt of the priest.
The Bishop does not intervene to say that Corapi is innocent, and rightly so. He points out, though, to the absurdity of the current praxis: priest exposed, accused protected in his anonimity (we still don’t know the name of the lady; but we all know that Father Corapi is suspended), great danger of permanent reputation damage and all this, in a case where minors are not involved.
It is refreshing to see a former Bishop intervene in favour of common sense. Bishop Gracida goes so far as to suggest that even the fact that an investigation has taken place should only be divulged after (and if) the priest in question has been found guilty. We are not talking of matters involving the police or the criminal courts here anyway.
Yup, makes sense to me.
The Christian Post has an interesting article about the 5th Circuit of the Court of Appeal (evidently rather different from the notorious 9th circuit), who has negated to a homosexual “couple” (quotation marks, because there’s nothing like that) the right to divorce because… Texas does not recognise any “marriage” (see above) allegedly contracted between them.
The ruling is interesting because whilst the two oh so “gay” people maintained that they only wanted to put an end to a “marriage” contracted in Massachusetts only four years ago; but if the 5th circuit had allowed them to “divorce” this would have been tantamount to a recognition of the legal validity of their marriage, which Texas doesn’t. One can therefore imagine that some sly tricks might have been at play here.
The ruling points out to the other interesting fact that the marriage recognised as a fundamental right is…. the marriage, that is: the union between a man and a woman (for the more visual among you, see photo above).
“Unions” with people of the same-sex (and we may add: with cats, dogs, sheep, own close relatives, and with one’s favourite car) are not fundamental rights because they are “not deeply rooted in this country’s history and tradition”. Basically is nothing to do with Christianity , nothing to do with sound thinking and a lot to do with sexual perversion.
Kudos to the judge of the 5th Court, Kerry P. Fitzgerald, who decided on this case. It is beautiful to see that sanity is, in some place, still well present in the American judiciary.