June 27, 2012
Gary Kelly, CEO,
Southwest Airlines,
2702 Love Field Drive,
Dallas, TX 75235
Mr Kelly:
My husband and I used to be frequent flyers up until about two years ago when TSA introduced the new scanners or pat-downs for those refusing to be x-rayed. We have children and grandchildren living in Chicago, Dayton, Indianapolis and Nashville (we live in Maryland, and fly out of BWI). All cities served by SWA and/or Air Tran. We used to love to fly to visit them until, as I said, TSA got out of control. We always said if we did not have to go through security manned by TSA we would love to fly again and your airline would be our choice. That was until we received the latest edition of Life Decision International’s Boycott List and your company was on there. Your company is there because donations made to Planned Parenthood. I was shocked to learn that such a family oriented and customer friendly company such as yours would choose to donate to such a vile organization. They are the largest abortion provider in the US, and they would like to be international.
My husband and I are pro-life and try to boycott any company on the list. Just recently Bob Evans was on the list and there was such an outcry from the pro-life crowd that they quickly changed their policy and now are off the list. I implore you to do the same.
Our children are planning to come to our home this year for Christmas and I will encourage them to give their money to another airline to travel here. They will have lots of other options as your company is the only airline on the list. Please stop funding Planned Parenthood!
Thank you for your time,
Jane Hargadon
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Catholic Action Alert: You Get What You Pay For!
Being a pre-Vatican II Catholic who still treasures the teachings of the Church, I can commiserate with a sense of loss of our culture.
The Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are about to experience a new low. Senate Bill 116, which redefines marriage, has elicited an Action Alert from Maryland Catholic Conference. The Conference’s alert pleads with everyone to contact your senator, to express your concern for the principles that are the foundation of our families. They also direct people to a letter written on traditional marriage by Archbishop O’Brien, “Irresistible Promise of Happiness”. In his letter written in mid-January, the archbishop clearly articulates the benefits of traditional marriage, and goes on to state, “we can ill afford further efforts to undermine marriage”.
This failure to protect traditional marriage in SB 116 will add insult to injury to traditional Catholic culture when one considers our state’s funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a political party or candidates who are against state funding of abortion, and ESCR, and for protection of traditional marriage. Well, we did. The political party is the Constitution Party of Maryland, and their candidate for governor was Eric Knowles.
Maybe the Catholic Conference should have issued an action alert back in November. It could have called the attention of church members that the Constitution Party’s Eric Knowles, was the only ballot access candidate who answered the Catholic Conference’s survey in agreement with our church on all three issues. Maybe the Archbishop should have demanded that his Catholic Review (C.R.) print at least one declarative sentence in their eight page Election Supplement, to acknowledge that Knowles was the only ballot access candidate who agreed on all three: against state funding for abortion and ESCR, and for protecting traditional marriage.
I can only guess that a sentence stating this agreement in these non-negotiable issues may have been deemed to be too political. I am not sure, because the Archbishop has not responded to my written attempts to answer this. With the C.R.’s election supplement giving a full page, plus, on each of the two major candidates for governor, it calls to question the importance the hierarchy actually places on these non-negotiable principles.
Recognizing that the CR’s circulation in 2009 was noted at 120,000, some would think that a sentence stating Knowles’ agreement might go a long way to helping this third party to achieve 1% of the vote for governor, needed to maintain ballot access.
As the Constitution party scrapes to gather 10,000 signatures for ballot access, the old adage; “you get what you pay for” proves true. If you give free print and exposure to candidates who are pro-choice, pro-state funded ESCR, and, or weak on defending traditional marriage, while at the same time ignoring candidates who represent our interest, we loose.
The Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimore are about to experience a new low. Senate Bill 116, which redefines marriage, has elicited an Action Alert from Maryland Catholic Conference. The Conference’s alert pleads with everyone to contact your senator, to express your concern for the principles that are the foundation of our families. They also direct people to a letter written on traditional marriage by Archbishop O’Brien, “Irresistible Promise of Happiness”. In his letter written in mid-January, the archbishop clearly articulates the benefits of traditional marriage, and goes on to state, “we can ill afford further efforts to undermine marriage”.
This failure to protect traditional marriage in SB 116 will add insult to injury to traditional Catholic culture when one considers our state’s funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).
It is unfortunate that we don’t have a political party or candidates who are against state funding of abortion, and ESCR, and for protection of traditional marriage. Well, we did. The political party is the Constitution Party of Maryland, and their candidate for governor was Eric Knowles.
Maybe the Catholic Conference should have issued an action alert back in November. It could have called the attention of church members that the Constitution Party’s Eric Knowles, was the only ballot access candidate who answered the Catholic Conference’s survey in agreement with our church on all three issues. Maybe the Archbishop should have demanded that his Catholic Review (C.R.) print at least one declarative sentence in their eight page Election Supplement, to acknowledge that Knowles was the only ballot access candidate who agreed on all three: against state funding for abortion and ESCR, and for protecting traditional marriage.
I can only guess that a sentence stating this agreement in these non-negotiable issues may have been deemed to be too political. I am not sure, because the Archbishop has not responded to my written attempts to answer this. With the C.R.’s election supplement giving a full page, plus, on each of the two major candidates for governor, it calls to question the importance the hierarchy actually places on these non-negotiable principles.
Recognizing that the CR’s circulation in 2009 was noted at 120,000, some would think that a sentence stating Knowles’ agreement might go a long way to helping this third party to achieve 1% of the vote for governor, needed to maintain ballot access.
As the Constitution party scrapes to gather 10,000 signatures for ballot access, the old adage; “you get what you pay for” proves true. If you give free print and exposure to candidates who are pro-choice, pro-state funded ESCR, and, or weak on defending traditional marriage, while at the same time ignoring candidates who represent our interest, we loose.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Feeling Our Abortion
One month ago, two of my liberty-loving friends and I attempted to produce a weekly two-hour pro-life radio program. We call it, “Pro-Life Unity Radio”, and it airs in Ocala FL, on 104.3 FM, and on the Liberty Works Radio Network lwrn.net. We had a guest last weekend, Pastor Johnny Hunter from LEARN Inc., a group working to educate the African American community to the racial dimension of abortion. During our conversation, we concluded, “What good is affirmative action to an aborted black baby”? We then expanded the question to, “What good are liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, to a dead baby?
These are philosophical concepts that lose their relevance without life. Affirmative action was a brainstorm to correct a perceived imbalance of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. History has shown that a person’s freedom and their ability to move within the economy are interrelated. When these two rights are taken away, the person begins to loose his or her identity. Taken to its extreme, the person could loose life. We use liberty, and our pursuit of happiness, to protect life. This is probably easiest seen with abortion.
In an early term abortion, the killing team can attack the person within the womb. If this occurs at an early enough stage, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are ended, within the veil of an adult female person. No fight! Nary a word. No problem?
The fight, the cruelty, the problem, become more evident when the child is brought out of the womb in the procedure commonly known as partial birth abortion. Its official name is intact dilation and extraction. What is inferred in this official procedural name is the third step in this “procedure”, the “killing” of the partially born child.
Here is the gruesome description:
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[8] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[9]
A healthy child in the womb may: float in amniotic fluid, suck its thumb, listen to its mom’s heart, be fed, and stretch. This is the economy of the womb. The womb allows a child to exercise its rights of free movement, within a boundry, that allow for growth. To change the cervix, and contract the uterus, at a premature stage in development is an attack on the economy of the womb. The child’s pursuit of happiness has been taken. To grab the child’s foot, and pull he or she through the birth canal is the attack on its freedom, its liberty. Having lost both protective rights, the child becomes a defenseless victim.
The cervix of our economy has been dilated. Our money is worthless. We have allowed private powerful bankers to expand our money supply, print fiat paper money, and throw economic realities to the wind. The government now controls most aspects of our economy, so they have started the pitocin drip of fear. They are contracting the uterus of our civilized society with war as a way of life, with the unnatural as natural, and with the demolition of skyscrapers and our economic security.
Lets prepare ourselves for the next dose of pitocin: explosions, contrived riots, marshal law. We will need a little more induction before we can be guided into our birth canal camps: something to justify disarming us. Who would grab the foot of a little one if he or she was packing a 357 revolver? Once they take our guns, and the rest of our Bill of Rights, we will be defenseless.
Feel them grabbing for your foot? They will drag us through our canal of freedom, to be prepped for the completion of this procedure, “post birth abortion”, our abortion.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Neo-Conservative Steele
We here in Maryland are supposed to be all excited that one of our own, Michael Steele, is in the running for the Chairman of the R.N.C. I am still awaiting a reply from Mr. Steele to my inquiry concerning his apparent cave-in on ESCR.
His chummy relationship with FOX news, also concerns me. FOX would not allow Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary debate, and in a later debate, they showed their true Neoconservative color, when they tried to embarass Dr. Paul, by insinuating that he didn't belong on the stage.
As a Ron Paul Republican, looking for a humble foreign policy, I find Mr. Steele's Iraq position unconstitutional. We go to war to "establish a beachhead of democracy"? I hope the nearly one million civillians who have been murdered in the anarchy we created feel the same. Oh, they're dead.
Q: Do you believe the war has been worth the price we've paid in lives and costs?
Steele: I think the war has been worth it to the extent that what we're trying to establish there is a beachhead of democracy. When we walk out of Iraq, what do we want? Do we want an Iraq that's an ally of the US, or do we want an Iraq that is an enemy of the US? We want an ally, so it's been worth it to us to establish this beachhead of democracy and an ally in an area where we've had some trouble in the past.
Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006
And, I thought the former seminarian, Steele, would use the constitution to attempt to save some babies. Dr. Paul suggested that we, through the Congress, through the constitution (Article 3 section 2), tell the federal courts to stay out of questions related to the life of the unborn, and let the states decide. Steele is fine with Roe v. Wade. I hope the thousands of babies that are aborted are also fine. Oh, they're dead.
Q: Would you hope the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade?
Steele: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point.
Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006
His chummy relationship with FOX news, also concerns me. FOX would not allow Ron Paul in the New Hampshire primary debate, and in a later debate, they showed their true Neoconservative color, when they tried to embarass Dr. Paul, by insinuating that he didn't belong on the stage.
As a Ron Paul Republican, looking for a humble foreign policy, I find Mr. Steele's Iraq position unconstitutional. We go to war to "establish a beachhead of democracy"? I hope the nearly one million civillians who have been murdered in the anarchy we created feel the same. Oh, they're dead.
Q: Do you believe the war has been worth the price we've paid in lives and costs?
Steele: I think the war has been worth it to the extent that what we're trying to establish there is a beachhead of democracy. When we walk out of Iraq, what do we want? Do we want an Iraq that's an ally of the US, or do we want an Iraq that is an enemy of the US? We want an ally, so it's been worth it to us to establish this beachhead of democracy and an ally in an area where we've had some trouble in the past.
Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006
And, I thought the former seminarian, Steele, would use the constitution to attempt to save some babies. Dr. Paul suggested that we, through the Congress, through the constitution (Article 3 section 2), tell the federal courts to stay out of questions related to the life of the unborn, and let the states decide. Steele is fine with Roe v. Wade. I hope the thousands of babies that are aborted are also fine. Oh, they're dead.
Q: Would you hope the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade?
Steele: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point.
Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)