Q's View on QTube! Check back daily for new videos :]

Pregnant women can give birth AND have cancer treated!

Pregnancy and Cancer: Two Lives at Risk

It's Now Possible to Treat a Woman's Cancer Without Harming Her Unborn Child

Linda Sanchez received news of her pregnancy and breast cancer diagnosis in the same week. (Barbara Friedman/ABC News)

From World News with Charles Gibson

Nov. 28, 2007
E-mail
Print
Share

Seven months ago, 26-year-old Linda Sanchez got the best and the worst of news. She was told she was pregnant with her first child and within days she was also told she had breast cancer.

Video

The Miracle Child

On Monday -- one month before her scheduled delivery -- Sanchez gave birth to a 5-pound, 2-ounce baby after being induced into labor Sunday. She needed only 15 minutes of pushing to give birth to Isabella, who measured 18 inches long.

The dark hair covering Isabella's tiny head was evidence that her mother's chemotherapy did not affect the baby's development.

Without an innovative new treatment for pregnant women with breast cancer, Isabella would have never had a chance.

'It Was Me or the Baby'

Just months ago, a doctor presented Sanchez with an excruciating choice. She could either start chemotherapy and risk severe birth defects to her baby or delay treatment and risk losing her life.

"My doctor basically said it was me or the baby," she said.

The message was that Sanchez should consider having an abortion. It's the same advice many other women in this situation receive.

Click here for FAQ's on pregnancy and cancer.

Story

Your Pregnancy and Cancer Questions Answered

Hope for Both Lives

But pioneering research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has shown there's a better way -- that it's now possible to treat a woman's cancer without harming her unborn child.

"Yes, chemotherapy is toxic. But what we have found is that when given in the second or third trimesters it appears to be safe," said Dr. Jennifer Litton, breast oncologist at the MD Anderson Cancer center.

A specific "regimen" of chemotherapy used for pregnant cancer patients has enabled the births of dozens of healthy babies.

Amazingly, even when the chemotherapy can make a woman bald, her baby can be born with a full head of hair.

"[The] placenta is protecting the baby. That baby is not getting the same side effects as the mother," Litton said.

Looking Forward

Over the next several months Linda had a series of chemotherapy sessions. And while she still needs more treatments and surgery after she gives birth, her tumor has already shrunk 60 percent.

"Oh, she's doing great. She's meeting all the milestones of any normal pregnancy," Dr. Mildred Ramirez of the University of Texas Medical School in Houston said in early November.

Isabella was due next month, but her birth was pushed up so that Sanchez could continue to receive cancer treatment next week and have surgery afterwards.

This afternoon, the hospital confirmed to ABC News that both mother and baby were healthy and ready to go home tonight for some well-deserved rest.

CHARLES GIBSON and JOHN McKENZIE contributed to this report.

Many "Christian Conservatives" are lost!

From the LA Times October 1. Giuliani is concerned about security for who? Not for the 3,700 babies slaughtered each day in the USA, that's for sure!

Christian right is split over GOP field

Jeff Reinking / Associated Press

SECURITY FIRST: Concern over security could lead Christian conservatives to overlook disagreements with Rudolph Giuliani, shown at a campaign stop in a Kirkland, Wash., cafe last month.

Conservative evangelicals haven't found a perfect fit among the Republican presidential candidates — and that could benefit social liberal Giuliani.

By Michael Finnegan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 1, 2007

WASHINGTON — Barely three months before the voting for a new president begins, the religious right has yet to unite behind a Republican candidate, heightening concerns among evangelical leaders that social liberal Rudolph W. Giuliani will capture the party's nomination.

The splintering of religious conservatives, if it endures, could ease the way for New York's former mayor to emerge as the party's first nominee to explicitly support abortion rights since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973.

Doubts

click to enlarge

Related
-	California voter registration information
Related Stories
-	Background aside, GOP women still really like Rudy Giuliani
-	Bay Area gives Clinton a boost

But the lack of a consensus choice for president is only one of the troubles facing conservative evangelicals, a powerful force within the GOP for more than a generation.

"It's low tide right now for our movement," said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Assn.

Opportunities for the religious right to press its agenda suffered a blow when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in last year's midterm election.

Making matters worse are sex scandals besetting Republicans who have championed family values, most recently Sens. Larry E. Craig of Idaho and David Vitter of Louisiana. Their troubles -- after the sex scandal last fall involving then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) that contributed to the GOP's midterm losses -- have diminished enthusiasm for the party among many social conservatives.

Also hobbling the religious right is the decline of the Christian Coalition of America. A mobilizing force in the 1990s, the South Carolina-based group has suffered financial setbacks and now plays a marginal role in Republican politics.

At the same time, evangelical leaders are roiled in internal debate over whether to broaden their agenda beyond opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. Some argue that they have a responsibility to also fight poverty, AIDS and global warming.

"The old Christian right that automatically could be mobilized against a few issues -- that movement is being diluted," said the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, whose appointment as Christian Coalition president was cut short last year amid an outcry over his push to widen the group's focus.

In the presidential race, several of the lower-tier candidates have cast themselves as staunch supporters of the Christian right's priorities -- most obviously Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. But few observers see those candidates' prospects as realistic. And many social conservatives have doubts about the higher-profile contenders vying with Giuliani.

"There's just no enthusiasm for this crop of first-tier candidates," said Richard Viguerie, a veteran conservative activist and author. "Not one of them is a principled conservative, so why support them?"

Leaders of Christian conservative groups are threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop Giuliani from winning the nomination, the New York Times reported Sunday.

Some evangelical leaders hoped that former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee could be their standard-bearer. But his early stumbles have raised doubts about his capacity to rally support. And some evangelical leaders have questioned his commitment to battling same-sex marriage and abortion.

James C. Dobson, one of the country's most influential evangelicals, told allies in a recent e-mail that Thompson could not "speak his way out of a paper bag."

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to,' " the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family wrote. "And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

Also vying for the backing of the evangelical community is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. His heavy spending on TV ads in Iowa, where religious conservatives dominate the GOP caucuses that traditionally launch the nomination contest, has vaulted him to the front-runner's spot in polls there.

But he is still struggling to surmount guardedness toward his Mormon faith and his switch to conservative stands on abortion, gay rights and other matters after campaigning in Massachusetts as a moderate on social issues.

"He's come to a lot of those positions late, and there's a lot of concern that he's come to those positions only for political convenience," said Danielle Vinson, associate professor of political science at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

Another Republican, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, seems a natural fit for evangelicals: An ordained Southern Baptist minister, he has deep ties to the religious right. But Huckabee's lackluster fundraising so far has made it tough to convince many that he is a viable contender.

For Christian conservatives, a GOP loss of the White House would end eight years of advances under President Bush. He has put two conservatives on the Supreme Court, signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, imposed restrictions on stem-cell research, and put political muscle to work for state bans on same-sex marriage.

Some evangelical leaders expect Christian conservatives to rally behind one Republican alternative to Giuliani once the field of candidates narrows.

Even if Democrats take the White House and keep control of Congress, the religious right is sure to maintain significant clout within the GOP. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in June found that 31% of Republicans identified themselves as part of the religious right.

"This is not an auspicious historical moment for the Republican Party or social conservatives, but they will continue to be a formidable force," said political scientist Ted G. Jelen of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Giuliani has remained the leader in national polls of Republican voters in part by showing wider appeal than many anticipated, given his record on social issues (as well as his three marriages). A Gallup survey released Friday found he was the top choice among Republicans who attended church at least once a week.

As the race proceeds, a key question is whether concern among evangelicals over national security could lead many to overlook disagreements with Giuliani. Many have ranked national security as a priority since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorism is the core issue in Giuliani's campaign.

Also in the mix: which candidate stands the best shot at defeating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), should she win the Democratic nomination.

"Perhaps more than ever, electability is part of the thing that social conservatives are weighing, because the prospect of Hillary Clinton is so disturbing to them," said Gary Bauer, a conservative activist who ran for president in 2000. "They're looking for both the candidate who is closest to their views but also the candidate that they credibly think can win."

Giuliani argues that he fits that bill, even as Bauer and others continue scouting for someone else.

For now, some key evangelical leaders say religious conservatives must soon join forces to back Romney, Thompson or another candidate -- whatever his flaws -- to stop Giuliani.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the early caucuses and primaries in January would show whether conservative evangelicals understood "that politics is the art of the possible, and you don't make the perfect the enemy of the good."

"Sometimes," he said, "three-quarters of a loaf is better than none."

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

----------------------------------
Comment on this article here!
http://zeke1319.chatango.com

THE VALUES TEST - Is James Dobson coming around?

The Values Test

by James C. Dobson, Ph.D., founder and chairman

Dr. Dobson says winning an election is important, but not at the expense of our core beliefs.

Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

(This piece originally appeared as an op-ed in today's New York Times.)

----------------------------------
Comment on this blog here!
http://zeke1319.chatango.com

Planned Parenthood to close 5 killing centers!

Planned Parenthood Will Close Five Michigan Clinics

Planned Parenthood of West Michigan and Northern Michigan is facing a combined 40 percent cut in state and federal funding this year, prompting the closure of five clinics. Facilities in White Cloud and Hart closed Monday; centers in Grand Rapids, Muskegon and Mount Pleasant will close by the end of the year.

"It is good news because Planned Parenthood is America's No. 1 abortion provider and promoter," said Pam Sherstad, director of public information for Right to Life of Michigan. "Women deserve better than Planned Parenthood."

The reduction stems from changes in how the state allocates money. Under the new formula, funds are distributed according to the percentage of recipients below the poverty line. This year, Planned Parenthood will receive $1 million in state and federal funds, down from $1.7 million last year.

Sherstad said there are more than 100 pregnancy and adoption centers in Michigan serving women — centers that are not run by Planned Parenthood.

"We do have the resources in Michigan to help women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy," she said.

----------------------------------
Comment on this blog here!
http://zeke1319.chatango.com

Hear me out - Don't go to the Middle East and ignore the war at home

Christy's Story

This is a story that a lot of people still dont know about me, but some do. When I was 16 I was dating a guy who I was serious with, or as serious as you can be when you are 16. I thought I was in love, which in fact it wasnt at all.

I got pregnant while I was a sophomore in high school. Jamal was a senior ready to graduate. I found out I was pregnant on the day he graduated from high school. I broke the news to him that afternoon. He immediately told me to get an abortion. I thought about what he had said but also had my parents to face, having to tell them that I was pregnant. At this time I was one month along. I went home and avoided my parents. The next day, I knew that I couldnt ever have an abortion, while I was too young to be trying to raise a child, I was still responsible for having made that child. The next day I went to my mom and told her that I needed to talk to her, I told her I was pregnant, although she already knew because the doctor called the house and told her. She was waiting for me to come to her. My father already knew too.

My mom and dad sat me down and asked me what I was going to do. I told them I had no clue. We started talking about options, because at this time I still believed that Jamal was going to be there for me. My dad told me to face reality, Jamal had a basketball scholarship and wasnt going to give that up because I was pregnant. I refused to believe it. Sure enough, a month later I found out that Jamal refused to have anything to do with me and the baby and had another girl a month pregnant. He denied my baby and told me that I had to be pregnant by someone else, although I wasnt. That was the last I heard from Jamal, I never saw him again after the day that I told him I was pregnant.

My parents and I sat down and started figuring out what I was going to do with my life and my child that I had growing inside of me. I was two months pregnant at this time. I started looking at adoption. My parents are religious and we were looking into different agencies. I chose a Christian adoption agency. I met with the woman who ran the agency and fell in love with it. I began looking through differnet peoples books that they had put together. I looked at this one couple and immediately knew that I wanted them to raise my child. I began talking with them on the telephone. We set up a breakfast for them to come and meet me and my parents.

When I met them, I knew right away. They were who I wanted to raise my child. I was about three months at the time. I wanted to make sure that the people I had chosen knew what they were getting themselves into. I am white and was pregnant by a black man. They were both white and wanted them to know that they would face some ignorance because people would look down upon them like the wife had cheated or something like that. Not to mention the fact that when my little girl grew up she was going to be faced with it. They were prepared and were willing to face those issues. They attended every doctors appointment with me and even recorded some of the ultrasounds. They were the greatest people that had been brought into my life in a long time. They were a blessing.

They were there for the birth. The husband told me when the contractions were coming and the wife was there to help me breathe. They were my coaches during lamaz after all. They would drive every Tuesday after work, 2 hours to be there with me. The day after the birth I signed all of the adoption papers and named her what her parents wanted her named. I spent that whole night before up with her, just holding and talking to her. I knew what I was doing was the right thing. She deserved so much and these two wonderful people could give her all of that. They had so much love to give.

I watched them drive off with her in their backseat and it crushed me. It was the first time that I had cried over the whole thing. I was worried that they would never call me again, never let me see her. All these thoughts ran through my mind.

The following day they all vanished. She called me to see how I was doing. I once again felt everything was perfect and have never regreted it. My little girl is now 3 1/2 years old. She has a wonderful life with two wonderful parents who love her dearly. She is a gift, for both of them and for me. I still get letters and pictures. I get together with them as often as I can. When she is old enough to understand she will be told what took place. I love my littel girl and this is the best life that I could give her. Adoption was the best thing that I could ever have done, for both me and my child.

BELLA - Hits theaters October 26!

The Over-Population Myth

Stop Over-population?

by Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

Six people just survived the sinking of an ocean vessel. They are afloat in a lifeboat with only enough water for five. On board are a doctor, a carpenter, a nurse, a blind elderly woman, a sailor, and a counselor.

Millions of public school students given this scenario are then asked, "Who should be thrown overboard?" Environmentalists designed this exercise to teach public school students to solve problems by "eliminating" excess people.

Jacques Cousteau said, "to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say," he admitted, "but it's just as bad not to say it." This Hitlerian sentiment, published in UNESCO Courier in November 1991, is not rare among envirochondriacs.

Britain's Prince Philip, president of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, is quoted by The New American's Robert Lee, Sept. 5, 1994 saying that he would like to be reincarnated as a "killer virus to lower human population levels." Prince HIVlip, perhaps?

How does anyone know there is only enough water for five? Utterly discredited, yet an authority to liberals, is Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, who has apparently not had a single prediction come true. America, he declared: would have widespread food rationing by the late 70s, would be "literally dying of thirst" by 1984, and would have 65 million famine deaths in the 80s.

Jack Fish, Brighton, Colorado public school teacher, school board member and local columnist insisted on KGOV.com's Bob Enyart Live that the reason for Somalia's famine was their over-population:

Enyart: What is Somalia's population?

Fish: I'm not sure.

Enyart: I'm not asking for an exact number, just to the nearest million.

Fish: I don't know.

Enyart: Well, then, if they are over populated, what is their population density per square mile?

Fish: I don't know.

Somalia's density is 29 people per square mile according to The 1994 World Almanac. Apocalyptic doomsayers, these enviro­chondriacs flatly invent their facts. Somalia is under-populated, which often does produce famine. Compare Somalia's population density to countries in Western Europe. As a rule of thumb, countries with greater population density have higher standards of living, literacy rates, and life expectancies. The following numbers indicate the people per square mile for:

Nice Places Lousy Places (people per square mile)

Austria 243 Angola 18

Belgium 848 Bolivia 17

Denmark 310 Botswana 5

England 613 Ctrl. Afr. Rep. 12

France 259 Chad 10

Germany 583 Congo 17

Ireland 129 Laos 48

Israel 605 Liberia 64

Italy 497 Libya 6

Japan 830 Mozambique 50

Luxembourg 400 Namibia 4

Netherlands 958 Niger 16

Poland 317 Panama 84

Rhode Is. 848 Paraguay 31

Spain 200 Peru 45

Switzerland 428 Russia 22

Athens 30,237 Sudan 29

Boston 8,172 Somalia 29

Paris 20,185 Uruguay 45

Rome 43,949 Venezuela 58

San Fran. 9,315 Zaire 43

Sydney 10,460 Zambia 30

Toronto 20,420 Zimbabwe 73

Countries with lower population densities generally have lower standards of living. Notice the scarcity of human beings in the poor nations. Whereas some of the most beautiful places on earth, and certainly the most prosperous and desirable, have tremendously dense populations. Naples, Italy has 48,032 people per square mile and Madrid, Spain has 68,385 ppsm!

In the Far East, Japan, at 830 people per square mile, has a much higher standard of living than countries liberals argue are over-populated such as China, at 315 and India at 700. Taiwan has one of the highest standards of living in the East, with 1,503 people per square mile, with five times the density as those of much lower prosperity on the mainland.

People are assets, not liabilities. Socialists and communists, however, since they must provide for so many helpless dependents, see people as consumers, rather than the producers most are. A few hundred years ago, famine was rampant in North America. Today, with a nearly thousand-fold increase in population, we not only feed ourselves but much of the left-wing world.

If the world's five-billion-plus people went to Colorado for a day, they could fit easily into one speck on the map of Colorado, the 404 square miles of Rocky Mountain National Park. They would not have to squeeze together like sardines, but could stand comfortably. The world's population would double before spilling over into the nearest town.

The sky is falling only in the chicken little minds of the over-population purveyor. Rather than a full house or a crowded lifeboat, an orbiting alien would view our world as nearly empty, as airline passengers can attest. Paul Ehrlich publicly bet a conservative economist that during the 1980s, natural resources would grow more scarce. Ehrlich chose five minerals to monitor. In 1990, losing the bet, Ehrlich made his wife sign the check, which amounted to over $500. The resources he was sure would become more scarce and therefore more expensive, in reality sold at reduced prices due to their greater availability world-wide.

Even the end-of-the-world prophets admit there is no global food shortage. Famine, like that in the former Soviet Union and in Somalia, results from false ideas, harmful religions and interventionist governments, not from too many people.

The Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University has estimated that, with current technology, the world could feed 100 billion people, while it is home to less than one-tenth that number, according to Robert Lee. Rapid progress in agri- and aqua-culture make it impossible to determine the upper limit of our future food supply.

Who do you throw overboard? The sailor, the doctor, the nurse? "No, the old woman is already sick," countless students have decided, "it's her time to go anyway." Planned Parenthood's founder and longtime president Margaret Sanger wrote that the handicapped, including the "blind, deaf, dumb, mute and epileptics," were the "dead weight of human waste." See her Pivot of Civilization, page 112, available through most public libraries.

With that anti-handicapped attitude from Planned Parenthood's founder, it is not surprising that they support killing handicapped unborn children, since they are only "human waste." It is not surprising that Planned Parenthood still gives out awards in Sanger's name.

When people decide that others are better off dead "for their own sake," it is not a far jump to Jacques Cousteau saying they are better off "eliminated" for the good of all. Whatever happened to one-for-all and all-for-one?

Historically, the over-population myth encouraged the brutal slaughter of the French Revolution. Greek philosophers feared the overcrowding of their ancient world. And even further back in time, the Babylonian and Assyrian accounts of the great flood held that, "the gods led by Enlil, agreed to cleanse the earth of an over-populated humanity."

Those who want ultimate control over others have long wielded the over-population myth. Yet 2,800 years ago wise Solomon knew that, "In the multitude of people is the king's honor, but in the lack of people is the destruction of the prince" (Proverbs 14:28).

Bob Enyart PO Box 583 Arvada CO 80001

Listen to Bob Enyart Live anytime on Internet radio at KGOV.com [1] or in select cities around the country. You're also invited to call Bob's show at 1-800-8Enyart. Read The Plot [2], Bob's popular unpublished manuscript about the Bible, and watch our God and the Death Penalty [3] DVD by purchasing them online or calling 1-888-8Enyart.

Abortionist Carhart attempts to run over sidewalk counselor

Bellevue, NE abortionist Leroy Carhart deliberately drove over the curb and public sidewalk and into sidewalk counselor and abortion protestor Joe McDaniel on February 11. While waiting ten minutes for Bellevue police to arrive, the abortionist and his wife sat in their car taking photos, called the police repeatedly to request police assistance, and told the sidewalk counselor he was in violation of the FACE act by standing on public sidewalk ten feet from the abortion clinic garage drive entrance.

This isn't the first time this has happened.

Abortionist Carhart previously drove on the sidewalk and struck McDaniel and the police made an incident report after the incident, but no action was taken by the Sarpy County attorney's office. This is the same Sarpy County attorney - Lee Polikov - that has conducted the malicious prosecution of seven abortion protestors, including McDaniel, on ludicrious charges of disturbing the peace and unlawful picketing. On one occasion, they were simply praying and reading the Bible in front of the home of Karen Pender, and arrested. Apparently, it is against the law in Bellevue to read the Bible and pray in public

Shortly after Carhart ran into him, Joe McDaniel took some video to show just how far off the road Carhart had to drive in order to run into him. Look at how far onto the sidewalk Carhart's car is! I hope they sue the living hell out of Carhart and the town!

"We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29

Judie Brown endorses Focus On The Strategy

ALL's Judie Brown gave a strong endorsement of Bob Enyart's Focus On The Strategy DVD on his talk radio show Bob Enyart Live last Wednesday. Listen to the show HERE.

Here is her endorsement.

"Focus on the Strategy is one of the most invaluable resources for anybody who wants to claim the label pro-life and work for the true end to abortion in America. Focus on the Strategy is all about doing right, and risking the consequences!" -Judie Brown, president of ALL.org, American Life League

That's one big blow to the Legal Positivist legions out there and a big gain for the pro-life movement that is not willing to compromise when it comes to killing the innocent.

Praise the LORD!!

"We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29

Three cheers for Missouri Governor Matt Blunt!

Praise is due for the actions of Missouri Governor Matt Blunt who ended state funding for Planned Parenthood and directed those funds to clinics that do not encourage the slaughter of innocent babies.

I am very happy that he took this action, but AP reporter James A. Finley who wrote a piece for Time Magazine against Blunt's action, isn't happy at all. According to Finley, Blunt is "playing politics with cancer sccreening". HA!! As if the world of government-funded health care is not subject to "politics"!

Finley wrote

For fifteen years, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Missouri clinics in Joplin and Springfield have offered free breast and cervical cancer screenings as part of the state's "Show Me Healthy Women" program. Now Governor Matt Blunt has announced that he will cut off all program funding to Planned Parenthood and redirect it to other health clinics. "Patients should not have to go to an abortion clinic to access life-saving tests," Blunt declared. Refusing to fund cancer screening at the clinics, he said, "ensures women may access important preventative care without contributing to abortion providers' goal of facilitating the destruction of innocent life."

Clearly, Matt Blunt doesn't want to take the funds from pro-life tax payers in his state and direct them to pro-abort groups such as Planned Barrenhood. That's a good thing, since most people don't want the government to pay for or encourage slaughtering babies. And much more importantly, its evil and wrong for a government to fund the killing of the innocent. The government does not have the right/option to legalize killing the innocent.

Here is what Finley wrote immediately after he wrote the above paragraph in order to justify his claim that Blunt is "playing politics with cancer screening".

Here's the twist: The clinics in question do not provide abortion services, though they will discuss the procedure and make referrals.

HA! As if that gets Planned Parenthood off the hook! Finley does not understand that encouraging moms to murder their babies and helping them to rationalize committing such an evil act is actually worse than the act of killing their innocent babies. Why? Because apart from the encouragement to kill their baby the killing is unlikely to occur. Without the Planned Parenthood rationale in their head, the baby killing process is stunted.

And that is why, folks, we must oppose Planned Parenthood and any other organization or group that promotes the baby-killing rationale. And that includes the LARGEST supporter of the abortion holocaust in America - the public school system.

Public school counselors (who are largely pro-aborts) can talk to your children and help them to get an abortion without your knowing! So, get your children out of the public school system before something like this happens.

"We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29