Sunday, August 29, 2004

Just wondering what y'all thought about the lovely little chaos going on in Manhattan, as well as the efforts of Republican mayors past and present to trip over themselves in their support of homosexuality, abortion, stem-cell research, and all that fun stuff. Fascinating really.

Friday, August 20, 2004

Planned Parenthood - Racist?

And I don't mean in their unequalled support of abortion for minorities. Apparently, Planned Parenthood has recently come under attack by its own employees for being run by "Caucasian women" who use racist slurs on their own African-American male coworkers!

In one sworn affidavit, an African-American employee said a female manager with Planned Parenthood looked directly at him and called him a "nigger."

"I am African and was shocked by her cultural insensitivity," the employee wrote in his affidavit and asked not to be identified.

I'm sure Margaret Sanger would be proud.

You can read about it here.

Wednesday, August 11, 2004


Hey cool dudes. I finally cracked and used the free web space we lame AOL-ers get to make a little pro-life page. I'll make it cool and pretty eventually, but for now it remains pathetic. You can witness the craziness here: Musings of a Pro-Life Catholic Nutjob. So... give me ideas, people. What should i use this thing for? Maybe i can post Brian's flyers there or something. Tell me what you think. And yes, i know, i stink at all things html.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

I'm tired and don't feel like re-writing some of this so...

I'm just re-posting the dialogue that took place in the comments section of one of the previous posts so it's easy to see and out in the open, as it includes some info about ectopic pregnancies, and the very small number of abortions that fall under the "rape, incest, life of the mother" category so often cited by pro-choicers (their march, while ridiculously titled, was called "the March for Women's Lives", after all).

Thanks for the comments, people!

Vanessa said...

Republicans have been doing the same thing forever. Cheney recently visited Oregon and protesters couldn't get within several blocks of him. You have the right to have a different opinion, but that does not mean politicians will ever see you picketing.

Did you know that there are a lot of babies who are born at full term, who still die. Doctors label them stillborn. You want something to get mad about, get mad that babies who are wanted, and loved, die at an alarming rate in this country and we are silent about them. I wish the pro life community would raise a fuss about that.
3:24 AM

Brian said...

Hey Vanessa, Ontop of free speech, our First Amendment Rights include:

1.) Petition the government.
2.) Meet and assemble peaceably.

If that's not the definition of picketing, I dunno what is. So our 1st Amendment Rights really were caged, girl.
10:36 AM

Jenni said...

Please look at some of the pictures posted of that cage and let me know if the experience you described was as reminiscent of a concentration camp as that -- obviously, space must be made *somewhere* for protesters to go, and often getting your message read by those who need it is often unfeasible. But, to have such a space under a construction site, with guards looking down at you and barbed wire on the fence? I don't see how that can possible compare -- and come on, if the Republicans made a "zone" such as this for their protesters, the Dems would throw such a crapfit it would all over the news for weeks. Any party that engages in such blatantly police-state behavior ought to be disbanded. I am pointing out one of the most extreme cases i've ever seen, here. Perhaps you have heard of this (doubtful), although this is also a good read about the incident, or even more horrific, this act of feminazi violence. I've been protesting these people since i was eight years old, and i know -- they are notorious for their intolerance of outside opinion, *especially* the pro-life message (even their very own Democrats for Life were completely shut out of the DNC). Read the stories above -- esp. the one about the college student literally dragged away from a public event by insane, intolerant, violent Kerry supporters. She was surrounded and dragged over gravel -- not by cops, but by Kerry-ites. Her feet were bleeding afterwards. Doesn't that strike you as just a tad insane? Absolutely nothing was done by Kerry or anyone in his campaign, and i am still wondering what happened to the media regarding this story. Maybe they were eating lunch...

I personally experienced much the same attitude when i was nearly assaulted at the "March for Women's Lies" in April, after being spit on, told my mother should've aborted me, given orders to kill myself at NYU's Bobst Library, flipped off by eighty year old women, and screamed at for a full four hours by hundreds of thousands of "open-minded" liberals. Not one person wanted to engage in any sort of thoughtful discussion (nor have they when i set up my pro-life tables and fetal models in the middle of Washington Square), or even just be respectful or courteous -- they just wanted to hate, and i have never seen such intense hatred targeted at such calm, prayerfully protesting individuals in my *entire life*. This is the hypocrisy i am pointing out, and i condemn this behavior on all sides, as i'm sure you do too. But you must admit that there is far more tolerance for "pro-choice" Republicans than there is for pro-life Democrats, who are basically unrecognized and shunned by their own party.

Finally, i assume you mean babies who die of natural causes after birth (though stillbirths are awful too). This is horrible, and so unfortunate. These deaths are not, however, induced by force*, and can only be brought to a minimum with medical advancements. Abortion is murder induced on a child because of convenience** -- forced stillbirth, forced miscarriage, whatever you want to call it. The fact is, someone willingly performs the act of murder, as opposed to death unfortunately, but naturally, occurring. See the difference?

*Although, some evidence suggests that stillbirths are more likely to occur when a woman has had past abortions.

**2% of all abortions are a result of "rape, incest, life of the mother" situations. By the way, what is normally referred to as "life of the mother" abortions is usually called an ectopic pregnancy, when the child will die and kill the mother as a result, and therefore needs to be removed -- it's a very rare, but very sad complication that is clearly a necessary procedure to save the mother from death by internal bleeding. Again, this is extremely rare, making up about 2% of all abortions. We are fighting against the other 98%, in which children die when it is not medically necessary, but only because the mother feels she has no other choice than abortion.

Monday, August 09, 2004

The "Free Speech" Zone...

The following few posts contain a lot of info on what happened to the Operation Witness protesters at the Democratic National Convention last week. As many of you know, i was all ready to go ... and actually on my way ... when my car unfortunately broke down. This, is what i missed: (and i still can't believe it ... i thought the only solid vocab dems use more than 50,000 times a conversation was "free speech" ... little did i realize that "free speech" to democrats means barbed wire and armed guards when you don't agree with their so-called "liberal" opinions).

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't see how this situation could possibly be liberating ...

Pro-Lifers' Cries Squelched During DNC in Boston
More Photos from the DNC
Gan Golan of describes the "free speech zone" -- Read this. It's sick. Also read the Associated Press article in the comment section.
Pictures of the "Free Speech" Pen -- Not only is the very idea of this zone a complete smack in the face to freedom, the place looks kind of.. well... dangerous! It's basically under a pile of construction work. How sweet. Who are the fascists, now? Tell me again?
Rick Klein of the Boston Globe weighs in, February 2004
Judge upholds "free speech zone" but permits march on FleetCenter -- Please explain to me why you "need" such a zone in Boston, meanwhile no such preparations are being made in New York?

I just want to point out that, while I saw some coverage of anti-war, workers union protests on the news during the DNC, i saw absolutely nothing about anti-Kerry, pro-life demonstrations at all. The pro-lifers weren't even allowed to be present for the media, or the delegates, at the start of the convention, as they were relegated to their "cage" blocks away from the FleetCenter. I could be wrong. Maybe the issue was covered on the news. But i highly doubt it. Compare the amount of anti-Kerry vs. pro-Kerry coverage at the DNC (and don't tell me "the anti-Kerry side just didn't show" because they did -- you just didn't see them on TV) to the amount of anti-Bush vs. pro-Bush coverage at the upcoming RNC, and then try to tell me that "there is no liberal media bias" with a straight face. Go ahead. I dare you.

I love 1984... but i don't want to see it realized. This "free speech" cage is a complete attack on our right to speak our minds and spread our message.

So, please, pro-lifers, V-O-T-E!

Fellow Operation Witness pro-lifers sent to the pen for speaking their minds...  Posted by Hello

Check out the outrage at Can you believe these are the people who claim to be the "open-minded", party of "plurality"? They should amend that a bit (nay, a lot), because apparently if you want to disagree with them they stick you in a "free speech zone" complete with barbed wire and police guards, away from the press, delegates, and the entire convention. Way to go, dems. You really showed us how wonderfully diverse your party is this time.  Posted by Hello

We've got pictures!

Just making sure this new photo-hosting thingamajigger works.. Posted by Hello

Anti-abortion activist Jennifer Login of Manhattan watches abortion-rights advocates walk past during a march in Washington April 25, 2004. The March for Women's Lives organizers estimated that more than 500,000 people participated in the march and rally that was held in the National Mall. (Ricky Flores / The Journal News )

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

From the American Collegians for Life

It is with great excitement that I send you this announcement concerning the 2005 American Collegians for Life Student Leadership Conference and the 2005 March for Life. The ACL Conference will be on Saturday, January 22 and Sunday January 23. It is tentatively set to be held at the George Washington University in DC. The 2005 March for Life will take place on Monday, January 24.

Why am I sending you this information so early? So that you can start planning early to attend both the Conference and the March. Many schools have student activity funds which will pay for part or all conference related fees and travel. You should look into it as soon as you return to school in September. Also, see if you can find local businesses, church organizations, or alumni who might be willing to help send members of your pro-life group to the March and Conference. The Conference is the best way to meet other pro-life college students from across the country, share your experiences, and learn effective activism techniques.

Our Conference Director, Adam Drexler, will be sending out an announcement in a few weeks concerning the opening of registration. At that time a preliminary schedule will also be posted. We have an awesome conference in the works and details will begin to go up soon at Keep up the great work on your campuses and enjoy the rest of the summer!

For life,

Michael Sciscenti
American Collegians for Life

PS - Be sure to update your group's contact info in our National Directory,

Visit our web site at for the latest developments at ACL.

Old news, but i'm posting it anyway...

Because everyone knows the New York Times sucks... click here to read the whole report (though the first item of this article makes my blood boil. Grrr..Pataki...)

3. New York Times Discovers Its Liberal Bias

Just about anybody who reads the New York Times knows that it is a bastion of liberalism, an allegation the Times has denied -- up until July 25, that is, when its staff ombudsman suddenly jumped the reservation and admitted that the Times really is a liberal newspaper.

Daniel Okrent, a self-described liberal Democrat and the Times' "Public Editor" (they don't want to admit they needed an ombudsman after the Jason Blair scandal erupted), let loose with a ringing declaration that the Times doesn't merely lean to the left - it is left.

"Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?" he asked. "Of course it is."

Before taking off on an extended summer hiatus, Okrent cited chapter and verse to back his assertion, noting, for example, that the Times editorial page is "so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right."

Promising to examine the Times' record in covering this election when he returns, he zeroed in on the hot social issues that divide liberals and conservatives -- "gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

The Times' coverage, he writes, is based on its views, which are solidly New York-Northeastern urban liberal and which are at odds with the views of Middle America. "But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide [devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans]; if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world."

Okrent takes a tour through the various sections of the Times, and finds lots of evidence for the paper's far left slant on the social issues.

While the editorial page is solidly liberal, he found a meager attempt to provide balance on the op-ed page, where there are "seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act)."

In the Sunday magazine, he finds that "the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left while on the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's." The culture pages, he adds, "often feature forms of art, dance or theater that may pass for normal (or at least tolerable) in New York but might be pretty shocking in other places.

The Sunday Styles section, he reports, features not only gay wedding announcements but also "downtown sex clubs and T-shirts bearing the slogan, 'I'm afraid of Americans.'" The Times "presents the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading," Okrent charged.

The sports pages report on the findings of racial-equity reformer Richard Lapchick, which have been appearing in the sports pages for decades. ("Since when is diversity a sport?" one reader complained).
The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side."

Okrent writes that his boss, Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. "He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment the Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked" and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."

Sulzberger is right, he says, explaining that "living in New York makes a lot of people think that way, and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists."

Given the paper's unshakable devotion to the reigning liberal ideology of New York, Okrent concludes that "readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast."

Unfortunately, in America's heartland the Times is an alien beast.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

New blogs in the links section...

Thanks to Jon Cipriani for allowing us to link his Conservative Contrarian blog to our site, and for linking us up as well. He also gave me the address of another blog to check out, The Dawn Patrol. Both great places for pro-life information, campaign news, Kerry bashing, and the like. Enjoy.

p.s. i'm also trying to change the format a bit, so expect some confusion in the next few days, as the html may get a bit wacky. If you have a suggestion for a template, email me at