3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

"Responding to Secular Views on Abortion: Josh Brahm"

It's long but it's well worth the time, especially his categories of thinking of the unborn by pro-choice folks, and the personhood discussion. In this video he focuses on what he believes is the most powerful (as in position-changing) pro-life argument ever, the Equal Rights argument.

(He also focuses on the other categories in this article on the Bodily Rights Argument.)

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Monday, September 22, 2014

Formerly Pro-Choice, And How It Can Change

Josh Brahm writes about his friend, Deanna, one of the interviewees in yesterday's post about the LGBT Pro-life community's thoughts. Gonna have to explore more of HIS blog now too! He is "the President of Equal Rights Institute, an organization dedicated to training pro-life advocates to think clearly, reason honestly and argue persuasively..[My personal blog] is focused on helping pro-life people to be 'more persuasive and less weird' when they communicate with pro-choice people."

We sure do need more of that. Tomorrow we'll do a little more on Josh Brahm and his efforts. Or by all means, you can google him yourself!

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Sunday, September 21, 2014

How Pro-Life Folks Look To The LGBT Pro-Life Community

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Wendy Davis' Abortion Revelations Don't "Resonate With Texas Voters", Says Texas Trib Op Piece

"Davis’ stated experiences confirm what many post-abortive women feel: the emotional aftermath of abortion. Too often, the accounts of mental health problems and the extreme emotional lows after abortion are dismissed by those who profit from abortion and whose campaigns are funded by Big Abortion (Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, NARAL, etc.). Perhaps Davis’ story will cause some in her own party and her political backers alike to acknowledge the toll an abortion takes on a woman’s overall health and well-being. In Texas, roughly 73,000 abortions are still committed annually. The women making these tragic choices are our mothers, sisters, nieces, friends, co-workers and fellow church members, and are all around us. Knowingly or not, we interact every day with women who have chosen abortion, and probably far more public officials than just Davis have walked the path to abortion.

"To stop the attempt to normalize abortion as a standard procedure, Molly White, a Republican nominee to the state House, has openly shared her story of past abortion. Unlike Davis, White has worked for decades in many countries on many continents to help women choose life. White has worked to expand resources for women so they won’t choose abortion and suffer the decades-long heartache and anguish that countless other post-abortive women endure, often alone and in silence. White has never used her abortion as a political tool; she shares her story in the context of women’s health care. Juxtapose White and her heart’s desire to encourage and support women with the Davis admission that “abortion was the answer.” Twice.

"...Politically, if Davis wants to win, she must redirect her campaign and focus on issues other than abortion when her extreme views on this subject are not embraced by the average American citizen and are repugnant to the average Texas voter. More importantly, if Davis wants to truly improve the lives of the average Texan, she should champion the value of every human being, no matter his/her ability or disability or whether he/she is born or unborn. But then she would sound a lot like White or, more important, Greg Abbott."

By Melissa Conway, in The Texas Tribune OpEd pages.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Friday, September 19, 2014

Will Republicans Win in 2016? That Depends

The fact is that when conservatives engage on issues that are deemed unpopular by the elites, they win... [This also] is true on abortion. For forty years, since Roe v. Wade, coastal Republicans have shied away from the abortion issue, wary of being targeted as religious fanatics. Frightened of a Todd Akin-type meltdown, Republican advisors have told candidates and conservatives to studiously avoid any talk of the killing of the unborn. The result: Democrats on offense. Yet the polls show that cultural conservatives are winning, in spite of what the Republican establishment tells them: according to Gallup, a full 71 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in some or all circumstances. Just 28 percent believe in the Democratic party platform that it should always be illegal. Yet Republicans are afraid of being seen as extreme?
I just cringe seeing that phrase, "Coastal Republicans." Sadly, I'm in one of those "coastal" states. I think the writer specifically meant "Coastal ELECTED Republicans." I'm glad I'm no longer afraid of standing up for all scientific definitions of human life. Wish I'd been stronger when I was 20.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2014, a Great Find

We've added an excellent blog to our blogroll, Sarah writes of many stories from/about abortion providers, both current and former. There are some graphic, but honestly true, descriptions and photos, but this is a great resource.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

ICE-BUCKET Challenge Money to ALSA? Not If You're Pro-Life

Send Your ICE-BUCKET Challenge $ to Ethical Research, not ALSA: "
...ALSA has admitted that it gives some of its money to embryonic stem cell research and has no qualms about doing so in the future. (Note the ALSA page linked in the above has just recently been changed, and now notes that embryonic stem cell research “has raised ethical concerns.”)

"As Rebecca Taylor has pointed out, ALSA also has given money to an affiliate, NEALS, that has given money to a trial that uses stem cells derived from the spinal cord of an aborted fetus.

"That trial is being run by the University of Michigan and Emory University, and sponsored by a company called Neuralstem which uses aborted fetus cells for research (“from the donated spinal cord tissue of an 8-week-old aborted fetus.”) All of the Neuralstem trials use cells derived from abortion.

Instead, you can do your Ice Bucket and benefit sufferers of ALS disease without being involved in supporting aborted fetuses, by sending your funds raised to John Paul II Medical Research Center:
The Institute differentiates itself from other research organizations in the following manner:

1. We do NOT support embryonic stem cell research. We support research that is pro-life driven.

2. We devote more than half of our budget towards medical research, which is far greater than most established foundations.

Just tell them that you want your donations to go directly and solely to support ALS research, to finding a cure for ALS.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Left-Leaning and Pro-Life- A Running List of Links

Nat Hentoff's timeless article outing Jesse Jackson and discussing pro-life progressivism, "Pro-Choice Bigots"

The Compleat Heretic, an atheist, has a longer list of links to browse from. He is an avowed Republican but also a secular humanist. Matt Wallace, thank you, your updates are more thorough and recent than mine of late (August 2014).

"Why Progressives Should Oppose Abortion," by Christopher Hale, January 22, 2014, CNN Opinion

"A Man's Place in the Abortion Debate?- Secular Pro-Life Perspectives Blog, a guest post by Peter Hardy, December 2013. (and a great blog we'll add to the blogroll at right, especially for other posts as well)

"Pro-life Progressives: Still Not a Myth," August 26, 2013,by Robert Christian, in Millennial Journal

"Being pro-life doesn't make me any less of a lefty," Mehdi Hasan, October 2012, New Statesman

Pro-Life, Pro-Left, a review of the book ‘Moral Minority’ by David R. Swartz, by Molly Worthen, September 2012, New York Times.

"Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life...Consistency demands concern for the unborn", by Mary Meehan, The Progressive, September 1980, with a most amazing graphic:

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

ObamaCare Plans in 5 States Cover Abortion in Direct Violation of the Law As Promised

It is what it "is."

Pro-life folks warned the country about this, and we were handed a do-nothing, mean-zippo "clause" (read, "executive order") to protect from this happening: "government money is going to pay for the procedure despite President Obama’s insistence that wouldn’t happen."

Maybe this is another example why so many regular people have such a difficult time believing a word the progressives utter.

"Abortion coverage was a thorny issue when Democrats were writing the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, and it almost blocked passage of the bill in the House when pro-life Democrats [emphasis, mine, yes, they do exist] balked at the prospect of taxpayer subsidies for abortions in the national health law.

"Mr. Obama finally promised an executive order vowing to follow the so-called Hyde language, which prohibits federal funding for abortion.

"[New Jersey Rep. Christopher H.] Smith said that while the Treasury isn’t cutting a check to directly pay for abortions, the second part of the Hyde Amendment says no funds 'shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.'"

And you wonder why progressives still refuse to understand the meaning and the truth of the phrase "slippery slope"? Guess when reality is staring you in the face, it's easy, ever since their idol Bill Clinton, to say with a straight face, even under oath, even to a grand jury, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Here's the rest of his immediate words back then. It defies belief:

"If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
As Slate wrote, "This is way beyond slick."

Or to put it another way, "Promises, Schmomises."

Postscript: Aaaaaannnnd...the networks refuse to cover this news. "Just move along, folks, nothing to see here, nothing new here."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Sunday, September 14, 2014

The Best-Ever Definition of Being Pro-Life

Not Just The Pretty Babies", by Anna Mussman, in The Federalist. Probably the best definition of what truly being pro-life means.
Being pro-life is about far more than can be captured in a well-lit Facebook image. It is about avoiding the many tempting promises of barbarity. Both sides in the abortion debate are aware the world is full of things that ought not to be. Babies should not be ill, dependent on tubes for survival, exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero, born into poverty in crime-infested neighborhoods, or rejected by their biological families.

In one sense, we can both agree such children “should not exist.” Yet the solution is not to eliminate ... these babies while they are most vulnerable. Doing so is to fall into the understandably human, but absolutely wrong, logic that was used by a group of third-grade boys in my classroom when they asked why, since the Middle East is always fighting and wants to hurt America, we don’t just nuke the whole region to end the problem.

Barbarians respond to the world’s brokenness by doing what seems necessary to protect either themselves personally or their group as a whole. In ancient Carthage, for example, parents sacrificed newborns to the gods. These parents were human beings who surely felt as much of an impulse to protect their children as any other human being does, and presumably would not have given their babies to the gods unless they thought it was a necessary sacrifice, just as today there are loving parents who think they also must sacrifice a baby.

Barbarism is perilously natural. It comes so easily. We look at the world, see a thing that should not be, and attempt to force the world into a better shape. For instance, we see a woman whose life is a tragedy: she is willing to commit a crime for a few dollars, her brain is permanently damaged by drugs, her various boyfriends are physically and emotionally abusive, and any children she bears will probably be sucked into the same vortex of dysfunction. It seems so logical to say that such a woman “should not” have babies, and that society has the right to sterilize her as it sterilized thousands of “feeble-minded” citizens in the heyday of the eugenics movement. It makes so much sense to push her into an abortion through the threat of punishment should she deliver another child into the world. After all, she is hurting not only her children, but the larger society that surrounds them.

...Barbarism sounds logical, but it fails to make the world a better place, either in the national sphere or the domestic one. When we act as if other people’s fundamental human rights fall on a sliding scale based on their relationship with or value to the group (or to ourselves), no one’s human value is secure. Such an approach leads to philosophies like that of atheist thinker P. Z. Myers, who declares there is no inherent moral reason to restrict abortion to pre-born babies. He says a society would be morally justified (although brutal) if it also allowed the abortion of young children who cannot yet meaningfully contribute to the group. The thing is, barbaric logic leads to—well, to barbarism, in which each individual lives only for himself.

...Abortion is a terrible thing. Yet as we fight to protect our weakest citizens from death in their mother’s womb, we must remember we cannot guarantee them happy endings. The babies whom we wish to save will not all be happy, healthy children who will be adopted by picture-perfect, loving families. Some of them will grow up in tragic circumstances. Some will suffer tragic illnesses. All of them, one way or another, will face the brokenness of life in this world. Knowing this, all we can do is give. Barbarism takes. Civilization gives. It is the essence of civilization to say that the weakest, least beautiful among us are precious beings who must be protected, even when this requires sacrifice from the strong.

That is what pro-life means.

It makes me wish that folks like Robin Williams had known even a few truly pro-life people, as described in Mussman's article. It's clear he didn't, at least as of this interview years ago.

I don't agree at all, however, with the postulating that went on about Robin and his long-ago abortion involvement. I am saddened to see pro-life people presuming and posting as though they know anything with certainty. As Emily first wrote in our blog's guidelines,

We believe that compassion is the appropriate response, and that compassion shouldn't be conditional on whether or not someone perceives their abortion through the same cognitive and religious eyes as mine...please don't imply that men or women who say that their abortion experience was positive are in denial. If people are in denial, that would be because of an event that is too traumatic for them to process in the light of reality. If you really believe someone is in denial, why would you want to add insult to injury?
Meaning: that "pro-life" article about Robin Williams did just that.

If I could say anything to him, now, it might be this: No, Robin, those of us who believe in the right to life, we do "support the second part of the process." We do support the education, we do support their health care. No one's ever "mandated" having children but a child being conceived has always been a biologically-possible result of having sex. That's just a "fact of life." You said you didn't want to deny life to anybody, yet you did condone it by saying that the "other dilemma" was worse, and you and I both did it to our unborn children, and now you've done it to yourself.

"Right to a decent life"? That leads to the "barbaric logic" spoken of above, doesn't it? That it's ok to do away with someone who would suffer needlessly or even just be "numb," if allowed to live?

Robin, all we can do is give. And that's all we can keep on doing. I wish your soul rest. I will pray for that, and for your loved ones.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Bader Ginsburg's "Chipping-Away" Theory Rather Familiar

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Laments That Roe Abortion Case Activated a Pro-Life Movement

Could she be any more strident-sounding?

It is somewhat ironic, however: her incremental approach ("You give it to them softly...And you build them up to what you want") is what the NAACP did, in reverse, to rightfully overturn the bigotry of the Supreme Court's defense of racism in this country, long, long ago.

You remember that racisim. The one that held that black slaves were only considered 3/5ths of a person?

It's interesting then, that the unborn have had it even worse than all the slaves did, as they were not even considered by Justice Harry Blackmun to be any fraction of a person. We referred to this legal genius in righting a grievous wrong, in a March 2013 post, and we originally posted it in February 2005 as a possible approach to chipping away at the bad law that is Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (apparently this has been underway and seeing results as late as 2013 already). I'll repost the relevant proof here:

That was exactly the strategy of the NAACP when it went after racism as legalized by the Supreme Court.

The NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston, peppered the nine Supreme Court justices from 1935 through 1954, almost 20 years, with case after case after case to overturn the racial segregation "right" that was created (yes, created, just like "right to choose" was created) by the high court's Plessy v. Ferguson case. They just kept filing more and more cases, until the critical mass of change had been reached incrementally and Brown v. Board of Education came along and finally achieved justice.

From the website of The Just Beginning Foundation (about the contribution of African Americans to the federal judiciary):

"The N.A.A.C.P.'s strategy for reaching its goals in education began by trying to undo the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (163 U.S. 537), in which the Supreme Court said that segregation was valid if it was 'separate but equal.' The N.A.A.C.P.'s. legal committee decided that the only way to accomplish meaningful change was to attack Plessy. Initially the goal was to demonstrate that the state which created separate school systems never, in fact, created "equal" systems. Eventually, this changed to a frontal assault on Plessy: separate was inherently unequal.

"In 1935, Charles Houston suggested that the N.A.A.C.P. adopt a strategy of litigating planned test cases to secure favorable legal precedents, thereby laying the foundation for later, fuller attacks on racial discrimination and segregation. The cases were to have a "sharply defined legal issue" that could be "supported by demonstrable evidence."

Sadly, the JBF took down that page, though it exists in the Wayback Machine web archive.
It doesn't make it any less true, though.

In fact, the NAACP website still describes this process here, and provides a link to The Smithsonian's American History pages which also refer to it here, here and here.

People, even people like Bader Ginsburg, can pretend they don't see a lot of truths, but that doesn't make them go away.

Law and what it's supposed to stand for, doesn't go away either. Published in Issues in Law & Medicine, 2010 Spring;25(3):185-273, this is the abstract for the legal article, "Unborn children as constitutional persons," by GJ Roden:

In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. As there is no constitutional text explicitly holding unborn children to be, or not to be, "persons," this argument will be based on the "historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and thejurisprudence of [the Supreme] Court." Specifically, it is argued that the Constitution does not confer upon the federal government a specifically enumerated power to grant or deny "personhood" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the power to recognize or deny unborn children as the holders of rights and duties has been historically exercised by the states. The Roe opinion and other Supreme Court cases implicitly recognize this function of state sovereignty. The states did exercise this power and held unborn children to be persons under the property, tort, and criminal law of the several states at the time Roe was decided. As an effect of the unanimity of the states in holding unborn children to be persons under criminal, tort, and property law, the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn persons. Furthermore, to the extent Justice Blackmun examined the substantive law in these disciplines, his findings are clearly erroneous and as a whole amount to judicial error. Moreover, as a matter of procedure, according to the due process standards recognized in Fifth Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade should be held null and void as to the rights and interests of unborn persons.
It echoes the dissenting opinions of two Supreme Court Justices (White and Rehnquist), who did not vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, then (my emphases added):
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

Indeed. And thus it happened that the Supreme Court did worse to unborn persons in this nation, in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, than what it did to black persons in this nation, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and several other racist High-Court decisions.

And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fine with that.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Friday, September 12, 2014

Woman seeking to crowd-fund abortion has page removed

Reading what she had actually posted (quoted here), I'm kind of speechless. There is so much help for women like her, for free, to allow the child and the mother to be cared for during pregnancy and birth, and for the child to be adopted. So many people wanting to adopt. It is heartbreaking the situation she has allowed herself to be in, and her response to it, along with the boyfriend's (who isn't the father).

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Remember This Ad, Come Presidential Election Time 2016

During the highly-charged 2008 Democratic primary season, Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for being unprepared for a phone call in the middle of the night that demanded a decisive response. Her 2008 campaign claimed that she, in contrast, was prepared for those urgent calls. Yet when her phone rang at approximately 4pm EDT on September 11th, 2012, and she was briefed about the Benghazi attack, she demonstrated the very lack of decisiveness she had attributed to then-Senator Obama. In fact, her leadership failures and unique culpability for the catastrophe in Benghazi began much earlier and extended well beyond the attack itself.

That video is by the group Special Ops OPSEC: "a non-partisan grassroots advocacy organization focused on protecting US Special Operations Forces and national intelligence assets and operatives from political exploitation and policies, and the misuse of classified information, that unnecessarily exposes them and their families to greater risk and reduces their effectiveness in keeping Americans safe."

And speaking of "unnecessarily exposing them and their families to greater risk," don't ever forget that it was VP Joe Biden (at the 4:24 mark) who was directly responsible for the deaths of Seal Team Six, the brave men who got Osama bin Laden.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the parents of one of those soon-doomed Navy Seals:

And this fellow's short sum-up beat me to it, though the GOP should start now running something similar to it:

All I've got to say now to former Secretary of State Clinton is this:

You can't say you're "for women," or "for the poor," or "for minorities", when you aren't "for the military and ambassadors" who safeguard the God-given freedoms of women, poor and minority Americans.

What difference does it make, indeed. If you hadn't been in part responsible for the whole Benghazi debacle, you'd have been skewering and roasting the other American politicians responsible for this, just as you know you deserve to be.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NRO's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus
~ listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

"After Abortion, by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.

                       Who We Are
--------------------------------------------- PREGNANT? UPSET? SCARED?
4,800 confidential groups helping now.

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 ,

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or

...more help below...

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Option Line
Books that help
In Our Midst
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2012 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2012 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2012 **

Books That Help (includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion

Welcome! Sidebar contains many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Feel free to text-search or just browse.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by


A 3-D Single Mom in the Making

ISBN # 1-58736-024-1

a novel by Deirdre Weaver

"A story for a special audience
who doesn't mind hearing and
healing from the truth."

author of But I Didn't Want a Divorce

Midwest Book Review:

"In her very highly recommended book, Loosely-Braided Fog: A 3-D Single Mom In The Making, Deirdre Weaver blends fact with fiction in a totally engaging read that takes us on an insightful, entertaining, informative, and compelling story of relationship decision making and mistakes; single-parenting moments; and "re-entry dating" which confront all women who find themselves being single parents in the world today. Although a novel, Loosely-Braided Fog is one of those much appreciated works that is more informative, accessible, and revealing than any non-fiction study or essay could ever hope to be about the perils, pitfalls, and rewards of single parenthood."



Obama On Abortion: A Summary

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  3. criminal Hsu
  4. $5K per Kid
  5. criminal Berger
  6. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."
Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)

Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 through 2014 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2014. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."

From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The opinions expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Since 6/13/2005