Not Viable for Life but Viable for Sale

If “fetal tissue” is the woman’s right to destroy, should she not be reimbursed for the parts of the baby that are sold?  Would it not make sense that the body of the destroyed baby belongs to the mother and therefore she should be paid for giving these body parts to the clinic or at the very least offset the cost of the surgical procedure of the abortion?  If a body part is good enough to harvest and sell, dead, then how is it not of more value intact and alive? Why is there more value in piecing out a baby’s body, then in the infinite value of a living child?  But wait, it is ILLEGAL to sell body parts, not to mention IMMORAL.

The much talked about undercover video produced by Center for Medical Progress interviewed Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services, over lunch.  She shared the need for these body parts in medical research. She is heard on the video saying, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact…”  She also discusses the estimated dollar amounts for various body parts, admitting the illegality of selling parts, yet also seemingly looking for reasons to get around the law.

§274e. Prohibition of organ purchases

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce. The preceding sentence does not apply with respect to human organ paired donation.

(b) Penalties

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Definitions

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section:

(1) The term “human organ” means the human (including fetal) kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, cornea, eye, bone, and skin or any subpart thereof and any other human organ (or any subpart thereof, including that derived from a fetus) specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation.

Planned Parenthood’s rebuttal statement was as follows:

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field. A well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.”
Because unborn babies are fetal tissue and Planned Parenthood is altruistic, they “…help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research”.  Obviously the tissue belongs to the mother and it is her consent alone that matters in the donation of a heart, liver, leg or head of her unborn child, and thus this is for the greater good.

The full video, unedited can be seen here.
The Center for Medical Progress edited the video to get across their message, that baby body parts are for sale for “scientific research”. Whether one disagrees with their method of procurement of this video dims in light of the greater question of morality. What is more immoral, the undercover nature and editing of this video, the “entrapment”, or the sale of aborted baby body parts?


To Sing or Not to Sing in Church, That is the Question for the Gilroy High School Choir

4efb31eb4f085.imageChoir practice in a church makes sense, unless it is the Gilroy High School choir, which was told it was no longer allowed to utilize church buildings for practices or performances as mandated by the Superintendent, according to Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom.

Senior Legal Counsel, Jeremy Tedesco, disagrees, “Gilroy Unified School District is wrong to end its longstanding tradition of allowing choir groups to perform in acoustically superior churches, hurting both the musicians and the local community. The choirs are not performing in the churches for any religious reason.”

Gilroy High School choirs have been performing for years in acoustically superior facilities, ranging from a variety of church buildings,  to the South Valley National Bank and the Elks club, to showcase their exceptional talent in the best facilities. The district is updating their facilities and talking to acoustic experts to make their own facilities a better place for the choir to practice, according to Jaime Rosso, Board President of Gilroy Unified School District. The board says it desires the students to use the facilities that are available in the school district.

Yet in the mean time, the choirs miss out on great sounding venues due to a few misguided complaints, and a Superintendent who does not understand the Establishment Clause. In a letter written by Jeremy Tedseco to the School board, he states that the nature of choosing a variety of neutral venues, based on the excellent acoustics upholds the Establishment Clause, and by denying the choir access to these venues, the School District may very  well be violating it.

Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 839 ( “[A] significant factor in upholding governmental programs in the face of Establishment Clause attack is their neutrality towards religioñ’); see also Gaod News Club, 633 U.S. at 114 (“For the `guarantee of neutrality is respected, not offended, when the government, following neutral criteria and evenhanded policies, e~ttende benefits to'” religious and secular beneficiaries alike).

The board is re-evaluating their decision according to Central Coast News and will allow the choirs to practice in whatever facility they desire until the school buildings are renovated and the acoustics meet a higher standard.


Tim Donnelly and Rob Schneider Make Strange Bedfellows

1375916_439283946180400_1314186376_nHear ye! Hear ye! Will the people of California in favor restoring freedom and liberty to this great State, by removing Jerry Brown from his throne say, “Aye”?

This is a call that every Californian, no matter where their political ideology falls, should be able to support. The state of our State is grim, the leadership is negligent and the people are suffering at the hands of a progressive governor and legislature who are not only out of touch with the people, but aloof to the needs of those for whom they work.

We need someone who listens and represents the people. We need leaders who are defined by their actions, as servants of the people, not taskmasters. We need a Governor who has spine and stands up for the everyday citizen who daily rolls out of bed to support his family or the small business woman who dreams of growth, but is hampered by regulations and taxes. California needs a man or woman who will use this position of leadership and authority to move on behalf of the people and not on behalf self or special interest groups.

Is this impossible? Many say that it is, that this state is too far left and entrenched in a socialist agenda that it is past the point of return. Many say the Leviathan has grown too large. The State, however, is the People. The People are the ones who either starve the Leviathan, or feed it by not removing the corrupt caretakers from office. It is truly up to the citizens of California to give an “Aye” vote and replace Governor Brown.

Does anyone meet these demands? Who can rally both sides of the political spectrum to work together to restore this State?

Tim Donnelly, Assemblyman for the 33rd District, has been actively pursuing the hearts and minds of the people in California. He is fairly new to politics, running for Assembly in 2010, but has been successful in Sacramento, gaining unanimous support for his bills. His voting record demonstrates his core beliefs.

For the past year, Donnelly has been out talking with the people of California, listening to their needs and sharing his hope for California. In a conference call, he shared his strategy on garnering support. He said, “No one has really attempted a real grassroots campaign, a year solid, building out an infrastructure. I am grass-rooting business owners. One of the things that will help me is that I take an extremely strong position on the issues. (Such as) Immigration and the 2nd Amendment….” He gave numerous accounts on issues that both parties can get behind, and therefore where he can gain support. Single-issue voters can find a voice in Donnelly. He is willing to use his position as a bully pulpit to get the message out, and hammer away at the issue until there is resolution.

Conservatism and Hollywood generally don’t come together, they are more like archenemies, than playground buddies, yet early in October, Rob Schneider of Saturday Night Live fame endorsed Tim Donnelly. Schneider is a life-long Democrat.  He is giving his support to Donnelly in an all out effort to save California. He told the Washington Times, “As a lifelong Democrat, I am horrified by what’s happening in this State with the Democrat Supermajority now in the legislature in California. The Democrats in my party have abandoned me, and so I have abandoned them…..It’s not about being a Republican, it’s not about being a Democrat … it’s about doing what’s best for the State of California.”

Donnelly  finished his interview saying, “Most think this battle is impossible. It is an uphill battle. All I can say, that if the original Founders felt that way, we would not have a Country. I feel that about California, something has changed in the air. People who have money are sitting down with me. Sometimes we were born for such a time as this. There is nobody else in this state who wants to fight it. I understand the media gorilla warfare, I do. I think that this is one of those times that you have a message that appeals to people’s hearts, the message transcends political party.”

Photo Credit: Tim Donnelly Facebook


The School Success and Opportunity Act aka California’s Transgender Student Bill

ab-1266-dunk3Once again, my dear state of California has stepped out in what some call ground breaking legislation, paving the way for other states to follow.  It is ground breaking for certain, even earth shaking, which is apropos, coming from earthquake prone California.  Governor Brown has signed AB1266 into law, which “gives students the right “to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities” based on their self-perception and regardless of their birth gender.” This K-12 legislation will take effect in January 2014, but will face many lawsuits stemming from it implementation.

“They will be able to participate in activities, consistent with their gender identity…. rather than singling kids out specifically who are transgender identified, this is a way for them to feel like, they are just like their peers. They are treated exactly the same way” stated an advocate on a Foxnews.com interview.  Yet, this legislation, which helps such a small minority in comparison to the overall population of school children, does not in fact treat the students exactly the same but creates a legislative niche for the few, amongst the majority, whose voice has been muffled over the din of the organizations which have supported it.  For the transgender student who has had to deal with the struggle of which bathroom to use, the individual school district should make arrangements and not make it a big government mandate.

Proponents claim that this legislation will help with bullying, yet I submit that we have only seen the beginning of bullying that this legislation will ultimately foster.  Because the language of the legislation does not require bona fide evidence that one is transgender, any student may decide to be transgender for the day, giving them license to enter the opposite sex’ bathroom and locker room at will.  Bullying at it’s worst will happen.  I can imagine initiations and hazings to benefit from this law, where the perpetrators can cry protection under it’s umbrella, while the victim will be forever violated by what was supposedly meant to protect students.  Imagine showering after physical education, or a track meet with your fellow athlete, only to discover one’s body parts don’t match.  Imagine the junior high girl who has just gotten her period, walking out to find a junior high boy washing his hands in your once private sanctuary.  Imagine the 7th grade boy, hormonal, confused and naked with a bunch of girls, eager to humiliate the kid they are forced to shower with. The restroom, a place of escape and privacy, is now a facility of discomfort and embarrassment for all who don’t embrace this law. Bullying will take on an entirely new meaning.

According to Foxnews.com, Randy Thompson of savecalifornia.com, says the law would “damage” kids.

“This radical bill warps the gender expectations of children by forcing all California public schools to permit biological boys in girls restrooms, showers, clubs and on girls sports teams and biological girls in boys restrooms, showers, clubs and sports teams,” Thomasson said. “This is insanity.”

The very kids which this legislation was intended to “help”, will ultimately hurt all and the indoctrination of the youngest child “protected” by this law is perhaps the most heinous aspect.   What parent really supports telling their kindergarten boy that his gender identity, his penis, doesn’t matter now, and that if a little girl comes into his bathroom, he is just to be polite and ignore her?  The confusion that will occur at school for the elementary age child, a place where learning and play should be the priority, cannot be understated.  No longer is grammar school about reading, writing and arithmetic, but for the promotion of extreme propaganda, with the intent to inoculate young children to this radical agenda.

Parents of public school kids must have a new conversation with their children.  No longer is the golden rule enough, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, but rather the new rule, “avert your eyes when your transgender peer comes into your locker room or bathroom”.   “It’s not polite to stare” takes on a new meaning under AB1266.  No longer does the benign question, “how was your day at school” have an equally benign answer, as parents could have in response “fine, until a six foot tall man walked into the bathroom while I was changing.”  This is what progress looks like?

The supporters of this law have cataracts that cloud their mental vision and ultimately their ability to see the unintended consequences of the legislation.  They blindly lead their followers to the answer the seems to be the best, without regard for the whole of society.  It is “all about them” and their desires, without reflecting on how to meet the need they represent with the least amount of damage and disturbance to the rest of society.  If the need is a bathroom for the transgender student, then give them a bathroom, like a family restroom one finds at a department store.  If the transgender student wants to play on the opposite sex’ sports team, then allow the districts to work it out at the local level.  The organizations that have pushed for this legislation don’t want to take into account the whole of society, but want to force society to revolutionize from the top down, in a mass power grab.

The majority is without a voice in California.   We speak, and the liberal courts over turn, at the beckoning of the radical few who scream the shrillest.  We protest and we are labeled as haters. The good of society as a whole is no longer what drives the legislature here, but rather the radical ideas propagated by the loudest and many times most politically connected voices.  Our school kids suffer for it, and ultimately, the fate of California lies in the ayes of it’s liberal leaders.


Papyrus Fragment Claiming Christ had a Wife

Matthew was written A.D. 65-70, Mark was written A.D. 48-55, Luke was written A.D. 57-62, and John was written in A.D. 90, all of the authors were disciples of Christ or in the case of Luke, able to talk with eye witnesses about  the events of Christ’s life. This is the verified truth. Any document, especially one that comes several hundred years after Christ walked on the earth and does not line up with biblical record must be found wanting. Jesus talked about the Church being His bride, thus His wife, and perhaps this is where an error was made in this manuscript.  To believe that the inspired Word of God would leave out the fact that Jesus was married, when it covered every other aspect of His walk here on earth is absurd.

Papyrus Fragment Claiming Christ had a Wife

Karen L. King,  Hollis Professor of Divinity, a historian on early Christianity did caution that this fragment of papyrus, which according to the article in the New York Times is smaller than a business card and its origin unknown,

“should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.”

Her excitement hinges on her hope to show that marriage and sex, was part of Christ’s life and therefore a life of celibacy not a requirement to be a follower.  However, the translation of the text is lacking much context and similar to the Gnostic writings of Gospels of Thomas and Mary, and not included in the Canon of the Bible.

Somehow the idea of a tiny fragment, lacking clarity and context, hundreds of years after Christ walked the earth, and  upheld as the proof text that Jesus was married, seems reaching at best.  The documents most closely written to when Jesus walked on earth are  the Gospels found in the New Testament and these do not allude to such a life.   Because God  created marriage and does say much about it through out the Bible, it follows that had Jesus been married, He too, being God, would have spoken about His own married life and how to live and love successfully.  But the text of the Bible, not silent on marriage, but deathly silent on Jesus being married, makes suspect any text found that makes such claims, especially when it is so many years past the time of Christ.


Phoenix Father Begins Jail Sentence For Hosting A Bible Study In His Home


Micheal Salmon, who arrived at Maricopa County jail to self surrender and serve his sixty day sentence was sent home by jail officials back in mid-June. Today, July 10, 2012, Salmon began serving his sentence. Salmon was convicted of several fire and zoning code violations in conjunction with the Bible study he hosts at his home.

In 2009, more than a dozen police officers raided Salmon’s home and the 2000 square foot building in his backyard, Fox News Radio reported in its coverage of the arrest. Micheal contends that his Bible study is not a church, nor is his building a commercial building, but just a regular meeting with friends to study the Bible, but City Code enforcement states that it is in fact a church and therefore in violation of sixty-seven codes. Some of the violations ranged from not having fire sprinklers, to exit lights above the doors or having handicap parking. In an earlier report, Salmon explained that his guest do not park on the street, they are friends who come to visit in his private home.

“If I had people coming to my home on a regular basis for poker night or Monday Night Football, it would be permitted,” he said. “But when someone says to us we are not allowed to gather because of religious purposes – that is when you have discrimination,” said Michael Salmon.

Tony Perkins of Family Research Council told Fox News Radio:

“Any time religious freedom or the freedom of speech is infringed upon, Americans should be concerned. We are seeing jurisdictions using zoning ordinances to crack down the exercise of religious freedom.”

Salmon and his attorney plan to file a motion with the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals Court in hopes to quash the sentence, reports Ray Stern of the News Times.

Salmon’s wife, in a video made in response to her husband’s arrest, pointed out that God is faithful and the Micheal will be sharing the Gospel to those in jail. She courageously thanked those who have reached out and who are praying for them as they stand for what the believe is their right as American’s, to worship God, with others, in the privacy of their own home. The video documenting the tearful good-bye can be found here.


Counter Argument to Spanking Linked to Mental Illness

Misleading. The American Academy of Pediatrics shared its findings in a July 2, 2012 press release stating evidence that: Spanking (is) Linked to Mental Illness.  The article would have been more accurately titled:  Of those with Mental Illness, Only 2-7% Were Exposed to Harsh Physical Punishment based on the data collected by the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions during the years 2004 and 2005.   There is a definite angle to the press release and without reading the entire article, as well as the linked study, one would jump to the conclusion that the Bleeding Heartland blog opined in Evidence mounts against spanking children. However terms are ill defined and manipulated to make the case against spanking in the Bleeding Heartland blog, as well as in the study’s results articulated in the in the press release.

The study states, “The current research investigated the possible link between harsh physical punishment (ie, pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, hitting) in the absence of more severe child maltreatment (ie, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, exposure to intimate partner violence) and Axis I and II mental disorders.”

The results of the study according to the AAP:  “Harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction.”

The conclusion gleaned from the study:  “Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders in a general population sample. These findings inform the ongoing debate around the use of physical punishment and provide evidence that harsh physical punishment independent of child maltreatment is related to mental disorders.”

The aim of the study was to investigate a possible link between harsh punishment and mental disorders, such as, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders.  The result of harsh punishment, defined by the study as “pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, hitting” was increased odds of having an Axis I or Axis II disorder.

The following is a description of these type of disorders found in the DSM-IV.

Axis I lists most major mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders. In general, researchers view these disorders as acute problems that are superimposed on individuals’ preexisting functioning.

Axis II lists personality disorders and mental retardation, which ostensibly differ from Axis I disorders in their greater persistence over time. Personality disorders are extremes of personality traits, such as impulsivity, dependency, and anxiety, that are inflexible, maladaptive, or both. Mental retardation is characterized by an IQ (intelligence quotient) of approximately 70 or below, severe deficits in adaptive functioning (e.g., inability to cook or dress oneself), and onset prior to adulthood.

According to a 2005 study, conducted by Ronald Kessler and his colleagues, it was found that “between 25 percent and 30 percent of Americans suffer from anxiety disorders such as phobias, about 20 percent suffer from mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder, and about 15 percent suffer from substance-abuse disorders such as alcoholism.” The survey also revealed that there are “important gender differences in the prevalence of some mental disorders, as well as some notable race differences found is specific psychopathologies such as post traumatic stress syndrome and alcoholism.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics findings of “possible link and increased odds” states that 2% to 5% of Axis I and 4% to 7%  of Axis II disorders reported experiencing harsh physical punishment.  In context of the numbers found in Kessler’s report of 25-30% Americans who sufferer from these disorders, the results are very small.  To conclude that “These findings inform the ongoing debate around the use of physical punishment and provide evidence that harsh physical punishment independent of child maltreatment is related to mental disorders” is misleading and erroneous.  To make the leap that spanking is the cause of these disorders is also an egregious error, with an obvious agenda tainting the findings of the report.

Many have argued, including the American Association of Pediatrics that spanking should not be practiced and they utilize any evidence that helps support their claim.  However there are a great many people who have properly and sparingly used spanking as a way of discipline and have children who model the very essence of a well brought up child, secure in the love of his parents and able to live well in society.

Child abuse is heinous. No child should ever endure harsh physical, emotional or mental punishment.  Children need love and consistency in their lives to grow into well adjusted citizens.  Children also need discipline, wise and loving guidance that many times include penalties for behavior that is unacceptable.  Chip Ingram, pastor and author says, “The discipline should fit the misbehavior and the age and understanding of the child.  Sometimes, spanking does come into use, but only in a calm and loving manner, after a clear warning to help lead the child away from danger and a clear understanding that the action was not a mistake, but a case of disobedience. The discipline of spanking should always include these seven steps, or it should not be used.”

  1. Clear warning- Your first interaction with your child about a situa­tion should be verbal. It should always be preceded by a clear warning, both for her sake and for yours. You want to know whether your child deliberately crossed a line or made an honest mistake. A clear warning will help her steer clear of danger and will help you know you’re correcting intentional disobedience.
  2. Establish responsibility- It’s important for your child to own up to his misbehavior.Remember that your child can’t learn without being able to own up to his responsibility. No one can. When you put your child in a position of having to do that, you’re preparing him for responsible adulthood. Remember to always keep your focus on the child’s behavior, not his identity.
  3. Avoid embarrassment- Never embarrass your children in front of their friends, siblings, or even strangers. Embarrassment can do a lot of damage that you’ll have a hard time undoing later on.
  4. Communicate grief– Let your children  know that more than being angry, you are disappointed and heartbroken when they disobey. Early on in their lives, let them know that you trust them and when that trust has been violated, they need to know that the relationship is wounded.
  5. Provide a sting as a deterrent- Remember the point of a spanking: It’s to sting, to provide a painful deterrent to misbe­havior, not to injure.
  6. Sincere repentance– Help them clearly relate the discipline to the behavior, not to them as a person. Tell them how special they are, both to you and to God, and that they were disciplined to correct mis­behavior, not because they were a bad person.
  7. Unconditional love– after disciplining your child, let me encour­age you to take him in your arms and pray, give him a big hug and go do something fun. He’ll know he’s still accepted and that there’s absolutely no barrier between the two of you.  (Taken from: The Biblical Approach to Spanking, Seven Steps to Disciplining Your Child, by Chip Ingram)

If the goal of the study, “Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders: Results From a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample,” was to help those with mental disorders live a well rounded life, or even to determine how actual child abuse can be prevented in these types of living situations and scenarios, then the findings could lead to better ways in which to help this percentage of the population.  But the desire and driving motivation came with an agenda and a misinterpretation of the findings. In the authors own words, the reduction of physical punishment and therefore spanking is the desired end.

Study authors conclude pediatricians and other health care providers who work with children and parents should be aware of the link between physical punishment and mental disorders. From a public health perspective, study authors conclude reducing physical punishment may help decrease the prevalence of mental disorders in the general population.

Once again, all forms of abuse are never acceptable.  We should be looking for ways in which to help those with mental disorders. But for the scientific community to make a connection between a possible link and the increased odds of mental illness as related to harsh physical punishment, while manipulating the terms and statistics to push an agenda, is insincere.  Spanking has not been proved to be linked to mental illness in this report, but rather the facts were manipulated with the intent to build a case for opponents of spanking. When a child misleads his parents he or she is taught not to lie.  When a scientific community misleads the public they too should be reprimanded.  Perhaps a spanking is what is needed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.