Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood

Aldermania VI: Live blogging from City Hall

Posted by Eric Scheidler on Tuesday, November 13th, 2007

City Council 10/23

4:30 I'm coming to you live from the meeting room of the City of Aurora, Illinois Aldermen's Office, where the Government Operations Committee will be discussing the parental notification ordinance and resolution, both of which were punted to the legal department three weeks ago.

Corporation Counsel Alayne Weingartz entered the room a few minutes ago; she sits just in front of me and one seat to the left. Chief of Staff Bill Wiet—who has admitted having had contact with Planned Parenthood as far back as February—is here too. The Aldermen Hart-Burns, Kifowit and Garza have just arrived; Hart-Burns has begun the meeting.

4:40 p.m. I see that Alderman Schuler is here too. Today's Beacon reports today that she's concerned about how a parental notification ordinance would be enforced. My guess is she's here for some traffic issue in her Ward; that's most of what G.O. deals with.

5:10 p.m. Alderman Chris Beykirch just glanced through the window from outside. For some time the committee was discussing a traffic issue in Ward 1. Hart-Burns just noted that the next item on the agenda, #6 Discussion of the Parental Notification Ordinance, would be postponed until the BGI committee (with parental notice supporters Beykirch and Irvin) is available. They have moved on to other agenda items.

G.O. Committee discusses Parental Notice Resolution5:35 p.m. The committee took a recess and have just returned to finally deal with the parental notification issue. Aldermen Christ Beykirch and Richard Irvin have just sat down at the committee table.

5:40 p.m. Apparently there are some changes to the wording of something—the ordinance? the resolution?—proposed by Alderman Irvin. The committee are seeing these changes for the first time and have paused to review them.

5:45 p.m. After offering a sort of "olive branch" about the tensions surrounding the parental notice issue, Beykirch is making the case that his resolution is all about getting the State of Illinois to do their job and enforce the 1995 parental notice act. With such an act actually being enforced, there would be no need for Aurora to have their own ordinance.

Beykirch and Hart-Burns are in a little conflict over which states have parental notice acts like Illinois'. Beykirch doesn't have a list, and Hart-Burns is upset about it. Beykirch asked her if she's mad at him for something; she seems pretty upset.

5:50 p.m. Now Kifowit reports on what she learned from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan about why the 1995 law is stalled (having do to with judicial bypass in the circuit courts). At the start of her remarks, Kifowit noted that she was "upbraided" for wanting to do this research. There are clearly some hard feelings here.

Beykirch v. WeingartzWeingartz piped up and asked why the resolution doesn't limit itself to abortion when the 1995 law does. Irvin suggested a slight wording change that would address that problem. Weingartz is then questioned about her legal opinion. She says she has none.

Kifowit motions to forward the resolution to the Committee of the Whole without recommendation (as to how the Committee of the Whole should decide).

5:55 p.m. The committee passes a motioned to hold the parental notification ordinance over for 30 days to allow the aldermen to further craft that legislation. It will come up again on December 11. Then a motion to adjourn, passed.

6:00 p.m. Alderman Hart-Burns, before leaving the room, asks me if I'm satisfied with their action and the change in the language of the resolution. I reply that not having seen it yet, I can't really say, but it sounds okay to me.

Bonnie Grabenhofer, asked the same question, objects to the lack of discussion on the merits of parental notification. Hart-Burns points out that they moved to send the resolution on without recommendation, and gives Grabenhofer instructions on how to submit any issues or questions that she thinks the Committee of the Whole should address.

City Council Meeting

6:20 p.m. The City Council meeting begins. Aldermen Keith and Lawrence are absent, as is the mayor. Can you guess which one of those three I miss?

The meeting begins with some Christmas activities—a special recognition of the Salvation Army's holiday donations campaign and the presentation of "Miss Merry Christmas" and "Jack Frost" finalists to some Aurora children by the only grandparents on the Council, Whitey Peters and Scheketa Hart-Burns. Very cute.

6:30 p.m. Funny moment: Mayor Pro-Temp Bob O'Connor kneels down to get to the level of one of the little "Jack Frost" boys, and the lad kneels down too!

Red light in Chicago6:50 p.m. I just spoke on an agenda item for the first time, opposing the red light cameras that the city is considering putting in. I described my own negative experience with these cameras in Chicago (another speaker ahead of me did the same). I urged the council not to approve this sort of "big brother" measure.

The Council had already voted to hold over the measure for two weeks, but the two of us who had signed up were given the opportunity to speak anyway.

6:55 p.m. There are not nearly so many people here as at past meetings. That's to be expected. It's tiring business to sit through all this discussion of bids and timelines and what-not. But the public are still here in numbers way beyond the typical City Council meeting.

I wonder if there will be any motion to limit public comment on non-agenda items to two hours, considering both the smaller number signed up and the absence of free-speech foe, Alderman Leroy Keith, who typically makes that motion.

7:05 p.m. A group of four Planned Parenthood supporters has just come in and sat down in the second row, including Bonnie Grabenhofer, the Elmhurst resident who we anticipate will again pretend to be from Aurora in order to move up the list of public speakers.

7:20 p.m. We're hearing a whole lot about the new police station to be built on Indian Trail Road. I must say City Council is less interesting without Alderman Lawrence around. I haven't heard the word "No" once.

7:30 p.m. I've just heard the first "No". Alderman Kifowit voted against a resolution to purchase to property in the City.

A brief recess, without any motion limiting the time for public comments. O'Connor notes that only 36 people have signed up to speak. Still roughly 36 more than usual!

7:45 p.m. The Council reconvenes. Aldermen Schuler and Peters have not returned. The first speaker is addressing a separate issue having to do with an unsafe intersection in his neighborhood.

7:50 p.m. John Thorne speaks first—again. Good John must have the City Clerk on speed dial! John upbraids the City Council for losing people's trust by pushing them away.

Now Bruce Sutcliffe—the champion prayer warrior of this effort—cautions the Council that they have been given authority by God, and that they must turn to Him for guidance on dealing with problems, which ultimately come down to sin: "If you've done it to the least of these, you've done it to me."

7:55 p.m.
Nancy Kletemeyer reminds the Council of the dangers of abortion on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. She points out that parents need to be involved in these decisions as children cannot possibly understand all these risks by themselves.

8:00 p.m. I have just addressed [PDF] the First Amendment violations against pro-lifers of which the City of Aurora is guilty, focusing on three recent incidents. It seemed to me, as I spoke, that Alayne Weingartz—who I mentioned twice—was quite rankled by remarks. She should be. She has a lot to answer for.

8:05 p.m. Dale Hammond echoes some of my remarks about the police on October 27, then offers some words in support of parental notice. Then Mary Ann Vincent defends parental notice on the basis of her experience as a counselor of abortion-bound women.

8:10 p.m. Janice Kalita speaks on her experience out at Planned Parenthood and urges the Council to go out there and see how difficult it is for the pro-lifers to have a voice out there. She ends with words in support of parental notice.

Now (no pun intended) Bonnie Grabenhofer is deriding our claim that parental notice is "common sense," comparing it—I'm not making this up—to believing that the earth is flat. She insists the data says parental notice laws don't work and endanger teens.

8:15 p.m. Diane Picciouolo speaks on the ways that she has faced difficulties as a disabled person dealing with contradictory directives, dangerous fences and such. Then Scheketa Hart-Burns asks the Chief to address the issues Diane and I raised. He gets up and says, among other things, that we were rallying without a permit.

The truth is that we had gotten permission from the City, through their outside counsel, to have amplification for our speakers, without any permit requirement.

The Chief: "The Aurora police department will enforce every ordinance that is on the books in Aurora." He guarantees that there will be arrests if people don't obey their directives.

8:20 p.m. The Chief has finished, and now Greg Guest points out the serious code violations and safety issues regarding the temporary fence erected around the vacant lot across from Planned Parenthood. He references a previous Council meeting when a business was required to erect a decorative fence at great expense.

JT Eschbach8:25 p.m. Sharon Fane cites Luke in support of parental notice, the story of the finding of the boy Jesus in the temple. And now JT Eschbach, who has come dutifully to City Council meetings and is at last able to speak as an out-of-towner, compares those who oppose parental notice to those adults who help children get away with things behind their parents' backs, like helping them get alcohol. He also turns around Grabenhofer's comments about common sense, noting that the "common sense" that condoms would bring down teen pregnancy has been shown manifestly false.

8:30 p.m. Colleen Bergert says that parental notice isn't even just "common sense," it's a "no brainer."

8:35 p.m. Crystal Hamilton from Dekalb, who had an abortion teen, tells the Council that she would never have spoken to her parents about getting an abortion, and that she opposes parental notification as a parent of three teens. She says this is a "whole lot of silliness." She is followed by Daniel Grob, also from Dekalb, who echoes the same view and ends by criticizing us for violating

8:40 p.m. Harvey McArthur defends Planned Parenthood's parking spaces (one of the zoning questions to be addressed on the 28th), and then oddly suggests that Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League apparently have a problem with the Catholic Church because (he says) we oppose Catholic hospitals giving emergency contraception to rape victims.

Sally Poloseue points out that there is a judicial bypass measure in the state's parental notice law. She tells the story of a mother whose daughter had an abortion without her knowledge, who suffered serious complications requiring urgent medical attention.

8:45 p.m. Linda Colev tells her experience at the October 27 rally, when the Police Chief ordered us off the sidewalk on the east side of Oakhurst. She quotes the First Amendment, including the right to "peaceably assemble," and objects to the continuous videotaping during the rally and the intimidating appearance of the paddy wagon.

My new assistant, Matt Yonke, offers an eloquent defense of the parental notification ordinance. He tells the story of when his son Ambrose, almost one year old, was born with amniotic fluid in his lungs, how nothing else on earth mattered during those moments when the nurses were clearing his lungs so Ambrose could breathe. He calls on the Council as parents to think about what it would be like to have a child die from an abortion, haunted by the thought that had they known, they could have prevented it.

8:50 p.m. Lynn Kalita speaks in favor of parental notice as necessary to protect children's safety. Then Patricia Thompson speaks against parental notice, accusing supporters of the ordinance of wishing to turn back the clock and make women subservient; this despite the many articulate women speaking up on the pro-life side tonight.

8:55 p.m. Jerry Kalita tells the Council the parental notice resolution is an opportunity for the city to take leadership on this issue, calling on the state to move forward and enforce this widely supported measure: "Be a model for the rest of our state to look up to." As Jerry concludes, the pro-abortion crowd files out.

9:00 p.m. Heidi Brooker—always articular, clever and wise—says [PDF] those who oppose parental notice believe that a massive corporation profiting from abortion cares about children but their parents are thugs ready to harm them. She contrasts a 14 year-old girl who can get an abortion at the behest of her 30-year-old boyfriend with a 14-year-old boy who cannot get a vasectomy at the behest of his 30-year-old girlfriend. "Somebody at Planned Parenthood must be Catholic because they don't do vasectomies."

9:05 p.m. Roger Earl says what I've been thinking "loudly" as the pro-aborts were speaking: parental notice isn't about "communication", it's about protecting children. Thank you, Roger! The point isn't to "get parents and kids talking," but to make sure parents know about something as important and deeply connected to their parental responsibilities as a child's abortion.

Then Elizabeth Earl, who has a great deal of experience dealing with teens, talks about how that knowledge that a parent will learn what they do can influence kids to make better decisions. She then enumerates some of the side-effects of birth control pills that parents would need to know about.

9:10 p.m. The meeting is adjourned.

UPDATE 11/16: Here's a video of Chief Powell's response to Hart-Burns' question about unfair treatment of pro-lifers. Note that he talks about being "in uniform" on Saturday, October 27. He wasn't.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pm and is filed under Legal and Political, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

100 Responses to “Aldermania VI: Live blogging from City Hall”

  1. Matt Yonke says:

    Color me amazed at the rigor with which the committee demands consent of the surrounding neighbors for a stop sign, yet the nation's largest abortion clinic can come in without neighbors knowing thing one.

    Ridiculous.

    In Pax Christi,

    Matt

    November 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
  2. Tara says:

    So, are the going to talk about parental notification, or are they stalling?

    November 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
  3. Ryan Avery says:

    Please inform me of your primary purpose for attending the City Council meeting, please? You are speaking and others will too, right? What will you bring up? Will you blog about a wide variety of topics?
    In Christ Jesus through Mother Mary,
    Ryan
    The Lord God Is With us And Loves us His Children! :)

    November 13th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
  4. David Bereit says:

    To Eric and all the faithful prayer warriors in Aurora, Illinois and surrounding areas…

    Thank you for your courage and tenacity in this epic struggle to protect the most vulnerable members of your community! Your heroic, ongoing efforts are inspiring people all across the nation — and I am one of them!

    You are in my prayers,

    David Bereit
    National Campaign Director
    40 Days for Life

    November 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
  5. Carrie says:

    My 12 year old son pulled a muscle in his back last night. Today at school he was sore, and went to the nurse for some tylenol. The nurse reached me on my cell phone to tell me of his discomfort and I told her she could give him some Tylenol or Motrin. She said my permission was not enough…I would have to bring the over the counter medication, with a doctors note and written consent for him to have it. I just decided as long as I was there I would bring him home, but the point is…..My child can't recieve an over the counter medication with parental consent when he is IN PAIN….but if my daughter wants an invasive, life ending procedure that carries life long physical and emotional risks….well, that's no problem. What is this town coming to? :(

    November 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
  6. Laura K. says:

    Thank you, David!!! Very kind words & thanks for the prayers!!! We're always praying for you guys, too!

    God bless & have a great evening!

    November 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
  7. Laura K. says:

    Weingartz doesn't have a legal opinion? Admission is the first step…

    November 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
  8. Tara says:

    Eric –

    Parental Notificaltion/Consent States

    AL – Parental Consent
    AK – Parental Notification/ stopped bt court
    AR – Parental Consent
    AZ – Parental Consent
    CA – Parental Notification / stiopped by court
    CO – Parental Notification
    CT – NONE
    DE – Parental Notification
    DC – NONE
    FL – Parental Notification
    GA – Parental Notification
    HI – NONE
    IA – Parental Notification
    ID – Parental Consent
    IL – Parental Notification – stopped by court
    IN – Parental Consent
    KS – Parental Consent
    KY – Parental Notification
    LA – Parental Notfication
    MA – Parental Consent
    MD – Parental Notification
    ME – NONE
    MI – Parental Consent
    MN – Parental Notification
    MO – Parental Consent
    MS – Parental Consent
    MT – Parental Notification – stopped by court
    NC – Parental Consent
    ND – Parental Consent
    NE – Parental Notification
    NH – Parental Notification – stopped by court
    NJ – Parental Notification – stopped by court
    NM – Parental Notification – stopped by court
    NV – Parental Notification – stopped by court
    NY – NONE
    OH – Parental Consent
    OK – Both Parental Notification and Consent
    OR – NONE
    PA – Parental Consent
    RI – Parental Consent
    SC – Parental Consent
    SD – Parental Notification
    TN – Parental Consent
    TX – Parental Consent
    UT – Both Parental Notification and Consent
    VA – Parental Consent
    VT – NONE
    WA – NONE
    WI – Parental Notification
    WV – Parental Consent
    WY – Parental Consent

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
  9. Denise says:

    Amen Carrie!!!!

    the irony in it all is madening isn't it?!

    I have one for you….ever hear of fetal homicide laws (which this state has). A woman driving on her way to have an abortion is hit by a drunk driver, she and or the child are killed. The drunk driver, if alive can then be charged with the death of the mother (if she was killed) and the death of the child she was carrying. Yet abortion is legal in this state?! Makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it?!

    God help us all!

    Denise

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
  10. Laura K. says:

    Denise,
    wow! I never thought of that…this is pathetic!!! It's is a no-brainer..what on earth could be the problem?

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
  11. Denise says:

    I know, I know…really makes you mad doesn't it!

    I just don't understand…but the good thing is that we have that law…it's a first step.

    Now if the people we've put in office would only finish connecting the dots.

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
  12. Laura K. says:

    I find it ironic that they are lollygagging over parental notification, and have, what reads to be, very cute kids at the meeting…sounds like all are having a good time…it almost appears that they CARE about the children of Aurora….and then I woke up..

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
  13. Tara says:

    Is the good mayor sick again? I think he doesn't want to have to face his constituants that had their 1st Amendment rights trampled on. Also – since when can the police tell us that we can't try to talk to girls who go into PP? And if we do try that we will be arrested? Who's making these decisions? We must be having an impact because they really are trying to mute us any way they can:)

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
  14. Mary says:

    Tara says:
    "since when can the police tell us that we can't try to talk to girls who go into PP? And if we do try that we will be arrested? Who's making these decisions? We must be having an impact because they really are trying to mute us any way they can:)"

    Tara, when did this happen? I do that when I'm couseling. And I'm not gonna stop. I don't yell at them or yell to them. I'm not loud. Where did you hear this? They'll have to rip out my tongue first and then, I tell you, you will hear some yelling out of me!

    November 13th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
  15. Eric Scheidler says:

    Tara—Thanks for the info! But one clarification: the NH parental notice law was largely upheld by the Supreme Court back in 2006 (they heard arguments the same day as NOW v. Scheidler 3).

    But in the meantime, a pro-abortion legislature and governer were elected in NH. Before their parental notice law could actually be enforced, they voted to overturn it, the only state to do so.

    November 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
  16. Net says:

    Eric … here's a link from the "Huckabee Camp" asking for endorsements from pro-life groups. (They took a huge "hit" today.) Have you read about Mike Huckabee?

    November 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
  17. Mary says:

    Tara, Eric,
    I found the info on the crosses blog from Paul that the police said we could not talk to the woman going in. PLEASE tell me. Where does the 1st amendment start and where does it end? I need to know before I go out again to the site. The police said if we say "Dont kill your baby" we will be arrested. Well I have never said that and would not. I am tactful, compassionate and kind. And I will not be muzzled.

    November 13th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
  18. MK says:

    Tara,

    Is that you?

    MK

    November 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
  19. MK says:

    Mary,

    "The" police, or "A" police officer?

    November 13th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
  20. Mary says:

    MK,

    Well, I'm not sure. Comment#30 on the decration of the crosses says this:

    "Paul says: News from the front… on Saturday, Nov. 10:
    Aurora Police came by our sidewalk counselors and prayer supporters in mid-morning…"

    and it goes on describing the incident in detail what we cannot say. So I am in a confusion state here. This is the first I heard of this. I feel like we are living under the iron curtain. What a farce this democracy of a nation we have. The constitution and Bill of rights are meaningless papers if the enforcement and government will follow at whim to their interpretation.

    November 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
  21. David R says:

    That said, this is what I think needs to be said to the city council members and/or zoning board, so they can't say they "didn't know," (i.e. our obligation as Christians and Catholics.)

    1
    Thus the word of the LORD came to me:
    2
    Son of man, speak thus to your countrymen: When I bring the sword against a country, and the people of this country select one of their number to be their watchman,
    3
    and the watchman, seeing the sword coming against the country, blows the trumpet to warn the people,
    4
    anyone hearing but not heeding the warning of the trumpet and therefore slain by the sword that comes against him, shall be responsible for his own death.
    5
    He heard the trumpet blast yet refused to take warning; he is responsible for his own death, for had he taken warning he would have escaped with his life.
    6
    But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person's death, even though that person is taken because of his own sin.
    7
    You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
    8
    If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.
    9
    But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself. That said, this is what I think needs to be said to the city council members and/or zoning board, so they can't say they "didn't know," (i.e. our obligation as Christians and Catholics.)

    Ezekiel
    Chapter 33
    1
    Thus the word of the LORD came to me:
    2
    Son of man, speak thus to your countrymen: When I bring the sword against a country, and the people of this country select one of their number to be their watchman,
    3
    and the watchman, seeing the sword coming against the country, blows the trumpet to warn the people,
    4
    anyone hearing but not heeding the warning of the trumpet and therefore slain by the sword that comes against him, shall be responsible for his own death.
    5
    He heard the trumpet blast yet refused to take warning; he is responsible for his own death, for had he taken warning he would have escaped with his life.
    6
    But if the watchman sees the sword coming and fails to blow the warning trumpet, so that the sword comes and takes anyone, I will hold the watchman responsible for that person's death, even though that person is taken because of his own sin.
    7
    You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
    8
    If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.
    9
    But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself. – Ezekiel 33

    The fact is, they know what they are doing is wrong, and need to understand in a very *clear and personal manner*, that they (or more specifically the Mayor and/or Zoning Manager,) will be held accountable for the murder of these children – (in this life of the next) – if they let this continue any further, when they have the power to stop it *today.*

    The fact is, they know what they are doing is wrong, and need to understand in a very *clear and personal manner*, that they (or more specifically the Mayor and/or Zoning Manager,) will be held accountable for the murder of these children (in this life of the next) if they let this continue any further, when they have the power to stop it today.

    November 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
  22. anon says:

    Since when can questions be answered or addressed during public comments? I remember one meeting when someone asked the Mayor a question, and all he** broke loose regarding the "no questions can be answered during public comments". Is the Chief usually there? I don't recall ever seeing him there, but I could be wrong.

    November 13th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
  23. Dennis says:

    Is anyone there video taping – this will make for some great TV in a few weeks.

    November 13th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
  24. Mary says:

    The Chief of Police is not usually there although he was there once before and told us all to shut up or else (my words) But if he is there and someone asks a question, you'ld better answer…or else!!! I want know…WHAT EXACTLY ARE HIS DIRECTIVES??? Or will they be according to a playbook that only HE has on hand for the rallies. Will we be informed of the directives? They need to be laid out ahead of time so we don't inadvertantly get ourselves arrested when we were truthfully not informed of the rules?

    November 13th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
  25. ML says:

    I don't doubt that the Catholic Hospital is giving out ER contraceotion. Euthansia is there so why wouldn't that too? The most secular hospital is more Catholic. So its not that we have an issue with the Catholic Church. It is the Cath hospital's issue with the Catholic Church.

    November 13th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
  26. Wanda Geist says:

    There are a few people that I will be adding to my daily prayer list. The mayor and aldermen were already there, as well as Bonnie, the leaders of NOW and employees and management of Planned Parenthood. Alayne Weingartz, Counsel and the Aurora Police Chief need to be in our prayers. Obviously, they have some preconceived world views that are influencing their actions and it appears only God can soften their hearts. Whenever I start getting angry at what I am hearing or reading, I know that is God signaling me to pray for that person and it is a reminder that God loves them as much as He loves me..even if they don't know it yet. Please help me cover our leaders in prayer – even those appointed not just those elected.

    November 13th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
  27. Jim M says:

    To Eric and the Church – I appreciate all of you standing in the gap for the family. I am reading this from Washington DC – know you have my prayers!

    November 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
  28. David R says:

    This blog is/was a fantastic idea. It is great reading about the events as they unfold, AS WELL AS having a written account (and hopefully video footage) of these meetings for future reference, (i.e. documentation of all these people involved with abortion, when the day comes (hopefully soon) they overturn this, and we hold these people accontable for this mass murder, (no different in my view than Nazi Germany, where they were forced to stand trial for their crimes against humanity.)

    November 13th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
  29. Tara says:

    MK -

    Yes it is me:) How are you doing?

    November 13th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
  30. Eileen Peterson says:

    Planned Parenthood is the number one predator of our children. P.P.stands for Profitable Predators.
    If Planned Parenthood = Partial Birth Abortion, why are they allowed to present themselves as an organization that delivers health care to women? They exploit and destroy for the almighty dollar. If you can kill in the barbaric way of Partial Birth Abortion, lying, cheating, stealing, and covering up statutory rape are no problem. We in Rockland County New York are with you 100 percent! Remember Aurora!!!

    November 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
  31. carl says:

    What laws are the police enforcing? Certainly not traffic laws. The sight of 6 police cars does not inspire drivers to signal turns or yield. One driver almost hit a policeman while text messaging. I watched one cop make four turns and never signalled. Can anyone honestly say the police are doing their job?

    November 13th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
  32. Elizabeth says:

    MK,

    How is your son doing? Heheeee!!

    Elizabeth

    November 14th, 2007 at 12:23 am
  33. Net says:

    "Whenever I start getting angry at what I am hearing or reading, I know that is God signaling me to pray for that person …" -Wanda

    I'm with you Wanda. The killing of children thru abortion is mind boggling. As others have stated, we couldn't kill them any other way and get away with it, so why can we murder them in the womb? I get upset about this too. But prayer IS the answer. Lots of prayer. As Pope John Paul II once said to my husband's [rather insincere] boss when he stated to the Pope that he prayed for him, "But YOU must pray moooooorrrrre."

    November 14th, 2007 at 12:29 am
  34. Evelyn says:

    My husband and I were at the meeting Tues. evening and what truly bothered me was the response the Chief of Police gave to the Alderman who questioned him. Chuck & I feft he really didn't answer the question that was asked on him. In fact, I felt like we were being threatened. After great thought and prayer I can only conclude that the police are actually stuck between a rock and hard place. Maybe, just maybe PP constantly annoys the police department because of our presence there. So prayer warriors, put on the armour of God and trust, follow and obey Him as we know He stands there with us. God bless those officers who patrol the area and protect us too.

    November 14th, 2007 at 1:28 am
  35. Becca says:

    I attended the city council meeting last night. I fought a spirit of discouragement all night. When I talked it over with my husband I realized what it was. Guys, those who don't know the Lord wont get it! I was expecting some big light bulb to go off. Words like common sense, really mean nothing to those who look through spiritually darkened eyes.

    November 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
  36. Eric Scheidler says:

    About Chief Powell's remarks

    It was difficult listening to the Chief try to defend his actions on October 27. As I mentioned on the blog, his claim that we were rallying illegally without a permit was bogus; the City's outside counsel had okayed the entire event, as clearly presented on this website for weeks in advance, including amplification for the speakers.

    He went on about enforcing the law, yet throughout the period of our Vigil, there was a strike going on at the Fox Valley Forge which employed signs, coolers and lawn chairs exactly like the ones we were getting hassled about without any police intervention. They even had a canopy tent up!

    I found signs affixed in the public parkways all over town during the time when we were being told we couldn't even lean our signs against the trees—or sometimes we could, depending on the interpretation of the particular sergeant on duty at the time.

    These photos will all be presented to the federal judge.

    The most outrageous issue was the sidewalk on the east side of Oakhurst. Even if, according to Weingartz and Powell's tortured reading of the city's residential picketing ordinance, we were technically in violation of it, there was no need for the police to pounce on us.

    Nobody pedestrians were inconvenienced. Nobody in the townhouses was any more put out by the presence of pro-lifers on that sidewalk than they already were by the rally going on across the street (the rally okayed by the City's outside counsel, you recall).

    The only reason to block off that stretch of Oakhurst, call up a paddy wagon and order people off the sidewalk was to intimidate and harass us. There was absolutely no safety concern—how could there be, people just standing on a sidewalk?

    Then to hear the Chief claim that they have "bent over backwards" to accommodate our protests. Outrageous.

    Now, let me be clear and state once again that the officers and sergeants out there on the street have been for the most part respectful. I haven't personally had problems with any of them, even when I considered their directives unfair or even unconstitutional.

    But from day one we have faced resistance, unfairness, false accusations, capricious and contradictory instructions and a general tone of condescension and intimidation from the top law enforcement officials of the city, Chief Powell and Corporation Counsel Weingartz.

    November 14th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
  37. Pastor Steve Schroeder says:

    I was not at last night's meetings but have been to many. It seems that the speakers who have done their legal homework have the greatest impact on the counsel. Those who give impassioned speeches about opinions, about spiritual and biblical conclusions, and personal experience get weighed against the pro-abortion speakers and are perhaps cancelled out by those whom we are trying to convince. As Becca said, those who do not know the Lord are not going to be swayed by spiritual words and arguments. Those who do know Him, fully understand.

    We are still to warn the wicked of their wicked way. Perhaps they will repent, turn from that way, and accept the Lord on a personal basis. Then, and only then, will the Word of God and the wisdom of that Word make sense and bring about change. We must continue to speak but let's speak with greater facts and research. Speak with passion and concern for others. Most of all, we must cover all that is done by us and others with greater prayer than ever.

    Psalm 126:1 Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen wakes in vain.

    November 14th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
  38. anon says:

    Pastor Steve,
    Exceptional post! However, it seems to me that certain members are not too familiar with the law, either. Sometimes I feel that no matter what we say is falling on deaf ears to those who already have an agenda. I'm just saying…

    November 14th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
  39. B. Matilda says:

    I found this on the friendsofappo.blogspot.com This is the blog from the Aurora Police officers. Eric, you might find this amusing.

    Sgt. Stedenko said…

    In yet another sad attempt to display some semblance of leadership, Powell made an ass out of himself while invading what had been a peaceful protest at the new Planned Parenthood clinic.

    As always, he was a vision of sartorial splendor in his nylon track suit and baseball cap. Way to represent APD, Chief!

    He soon tired of performing his duties as acting bull horn and purse-holder for Alayne Weingartz. A man of Powell's dynamic nature cannot be held back for long, you know.

    Soon, Powell was yelling at the assembled peaceful protesters — threatening to have them arrested if they did not cease their legal and constitutionally protected activities of public assembly and free speech.

    The protesters then became confused, as apparently they could not understand what Ronnie "Woo-Woo" Wickers was doing there, or why he was threatening to have all of them arrested.

    I'm grateful that the public was able to see a display of the Bill Powell we already know — an over-promoted, under-educated, empty suit, trying to impersonate a Police Chief.

    What a piece of work.

    October 30, 2007 6:06:00 PM PDT

    November 14th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
  40. Tara says:

    Hi all –

    Just wanted to let all of you know what happened at PP today. I was talking to Bruce and he told me a girl who was 3 months pregnant came over and talked with someone, and she decided to keep her baby. Whoever you are that talked to this young girl, Thank you for your gentleness, Thank you for being willing to talk with her, and mostly Thank you for showing her Jesus.

    Bruce wanted me to tell everyone to PLEASE COME OUT. God is hearing our prayers, and He is working there. The power of prayer cannot be underestimated. When God's people pray together there is great power. Nothing is insurmountable through prayer.

    November 14th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
  41. Paul2 says:

    Another one saved from the House of Horrors :))

    November 14th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
  42. Tara says:

    Paul2,

    AMEN!!

    November 14th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
  43. Tara says:

    Eric,

    I tried to link this but couldn't. Here are two articles concerning PP Kansas and PP Aurora.

    From CitizenLink
    11-14-2007
    Planned Parenthood’s Lawyers Could Take the Stand

    by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

    Judge will decide what role they will play at trial.

    Two Planned Parenthood attorneys could be called as witnesses in an investigation of its Overland Park, Kan., abortion clinic. But they have refused to step down as counsel for the defense.

    Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline wants a judge to bar Pedro Irigonegaray and Robert Eye from representing the clinic because he plans to call them to the witness stand, The Kansas City Star reported.

    In a 107-count indictment against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, Kline alleges that the clinic performed illegal late-term abortions in 2003 and falsified, forged and failed to maintain abortion records.

    "Attorneys may have nonprivileged knowledge of events or other evidence important to a case, or they may themselves be complicit in the alleged illegal activities," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "In such cases, it is perfectly legitimate to call them as witnesses. The trial judge will have to balance the needs of the prosecutor against the right of a defendant to choose its own lawyer.

    "If the lawyers have relevant, substantive, nonprivileged knowledge of important events or other evidence, then the judge will not let them act as attorneys for the defeAurora Council to Vote on Parental-Notification Resolution
    ——————————————————-
    The Aurora, Ill., City Council will vote next week on a resolution urging the state to require doctors to inform parents or guardians before performing an abortion on a minor.

    The state parental-notification law was passed in 1995, but has been held up in the courts. A judge is reviewing the case.

    Meanwhile, life advocates continue to gather around the $7.5 million abortion clinic that recently opened in the Chicago suburb.

    "As long as Planned Parenthood remains open, we will be out there and in here, praying and protesting," Eric Scheidler, communications director for the Pro-Life Action League, told aldermen. "We're here to stay."
    ndant."

    The parties are set to make their first appearance in court Friday. No date has been set to hear Kline’s motion.

    November 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
  44. Laura K. says:

    Hello! I Hope all is better for you guys…
    Thanks for the post above, & especially for the post about what happened at the mill today! This is great!!! I wish I would have been there to cry "happy tears" in person! God bless you all!!!

    November 14th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
  45. Laura K. says:

    (sorry, the above was to Tara)

    November 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
  46. Becca says:

    Praise the Lord!!! One baby will come into this world because of an obedient servant. Whoever you are God bless you!

    November 14th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
  47. Marie S. says:

    I just was doing what God was asking of me. I was the women who spoke to that 19 year old girl.
    I was worried because the previous week an employee came out of the clinic and told me to stop yelling at her patients. I knew that I had to go back to the clinic to try and save those girls and their babies. I didn't yell, I just stood there waiving my brochures to her and trying to get her to come across the street and away from the clinic. Well praise the Lord, with all the people around praying she finally came over and talked to me. I can't remember exactly what I said, the words just kind of came to me. I guess you could say that the words were placed upon me by the Holy Spirit.
    I try to come out every day. There are just too many girls going into that place. I know that praying will soften their hearts and open them up to what the Lord wants for them, happiness, health and the peace of Christ in them.
    I am going to the training on Saturday to make sure that I am appoaching these girls properly. I hope that many people will be attending as well.

    November 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
  48. Dan the Methodist says:

    Eric,

    Did you get my pictures of the October Rally???
    There were many pictures from different angles with times on the files that will corroberate the time line and the enviornment and groupings of people. In addition they were giving on of our protesters a very hard time in one of the pictures. If you need me to resend, let me know.

    Tara,

    I usually finish your posts admiring the time and thought you put into this issue. Thanks.

    Sadly, I have been called for Overtime and will not be at this Saturday's Rally. I will be praying and trying to send as many others as possible.

    God Bless us, every one. Including the unborn.

    November 15th, 2007 at 1:28 am
  49. Elizabeth says:

    Marie S.

    THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! This story has given me so much hope in all that we do! I'm sure I knew how that girl felt..cause I was 19, not married, and pregnant. (I never considered abortion though because I knew the real options) But thank you for giving hope to all of us and most importantly to that girl who was lost and drowning…you definitely saved 2 lives today!

    November 15th, 2007 at 2:06 am
  50. Net says:

    The Head of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president of the United States. Huckabee is a 100% pro-life candidate. Here's a link about it: http://ktracy.com/?p=616

    November 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
  51. Tara says:

    Marie S,

    You have given every one of us hope, and not to be discouraged. God does work, but in His own time and way. Thank you for hearing the Holy Spirit and acting on it. May God bless you abundently.

    November 15th, 2007 at 9:51 am
  52. anon says:

    Eric,
    Maybe it would be a good idea to put out a "do's & dont's" list in regards to the protest this weekend. Although you may be familiar with the local, state & federal law…many protestors do not, & I would hate to see any get arrested for not being knowlegable of the law. It just seems to me, after what the Chief stated, and several comments on openlineblog.com, that he & Alayne are just itching to make arrests. I would hate to see a soccer mom or elderly man arrested over this city's silliness. Thanks!

    November 15th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
  53. Evelyn says:

    Luke 12:4-5 says…."I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into HELL. Yes, I tell you, fear him." The footnote in my Application for Life, NIV version Bible states…..Fear of opposition or ridicule can weaken our witness for Christ. Often we cling to peace and comfort, even at the cost of our walk with God. Jesus reminds us here that we should fear God, who controls eternal, not merely temporal, consequences. Don't allow fear of a person or group to keep you from standing up for Christ.

    I will be at the peaceful rally tomorrow, without fear, knowing our Lord will lead this march. I pray that ALL our wonderful alderman/alderwoman and city officials will attend, walking beside us, encouraging us, and calming our hearts and minds. I pray that our wonderful men in blue will be directed by God and only God and do what is right. I also pray that this day will be peaceful, showing glory and honor to our Lord and Savior and bringing us one step closer to shutting down this wicked building.

    God's power is greater than any man's power. Have a blessed day and pray…. for Eric, Bill Powell, the police, our city and its leaders, good weather, safety, God will be done.

    November 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
  54. anon says:

    Evelyn,
    If your post was directed to my my 11:27 pm post, let me clarify a bit:
    I don't think that we should fear being there, howevever, I feel that we should know the law. I totally agree with everything you said in your post, but I also feel that God has commanded us to obey laws of our government. I just think that it would be in everyone's best interest if we could understand some important city ordinances that we may not be aware of, but that Eric is.
    If your post wasn't directed at mine, I apologize for the clarification, and still appreciate your post.

    November 16th, 2007 at 10:20 am
  55. Evelyn says:

    To Anon….

    Thanks for your post. I assure you that my post was not directed toward you, and yes, all information is of value to us. God bless you.

    November 16th, 2007 at 11:46 am
  56. Michelle M. says:

    I agree with #52, I would like to be there tomorrow, but would also like to know exactly where we are aloud to stand.

    November 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
  57. Families Against Planned Parenthood » Blog Archive » Pro-Lifers’ First Amendment Rights – New City Council Videos says:

    [...] Eric captured in his Tuesday blog, the last City Council meeting addressed concerns over the growing restrictions on Pro-Lifers’ [...]

    November 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
  58. anon says:

    7:26 pm,

    Yes, I saw it…but I cannot afford (either financially or to be a pawn) to be arrested…especially with a felony. I would like to know how to go out and protest this horrific mill, and do it legally without getting arrested. I receive the "don't be scared" e-mail from Eric, but I would really like to see a list of do's and especially, do nots!

    November 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
  59. Evelyn says:

    To Anon and others who are in doubt….. If you viewed the video of the Chief, he clearly assures us that it is okay to picket/protest the sidewalk along New York Street and Eola and Oakhurst to the sidewalk in front of PP. Everything else seems confusing, but that's okay. It doesn't take much to confuse me, but I could be great at following instructions. With that in mind, stay in these areas only and do NOT step into the street or on the medium on Oakhurst drive or the east sidewalk on Oakhurst Drive and you will be SAFE. God is there with us, whom shall we fear. Everything will be okay. I do believe and trust that if we happen to do something wrong, the police will let us know first before taking any action.

    God bless, have a good night's sleep and we will see you tomorrow, Lord willing.

    November 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
  60. JT says:

    The Chief made it clear that he will give warnings to anyone he feels is not following the law, so we'll be fine if we follow police instructions. I'm also sure that Eric will give clear instructions on where we can and can not be. We have a right to be there, which has been affirmed by Aurora officials including the Chief. This is America and not Communist China, and we should never fear to exercise peacefully our basic Constitutional rights.

    November 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
  61. Will says:

    I would just like to make a couple of comments regarding Tuesdays city counels meeting. First, Chief Powell made the comment he can't take sides. Well, either you believe in God or you don't. If you believe in God, you can't be pro choice because murder is against one of God's commandment. Silence is consent. Every choice we make we are calpable and answerable to God. If your job puts you in a positon where you can't express your belief of Our Lord's teachings maybe you are in the wrong line of work. Better to chose a job that is more conducive to your salvation.

    In addition, everyone on the city council that takes the position of pro- choice also has the same responsibility even if it is the law in Illinois. You can't serve two masters. If you believe in Our Lord you can not be pro-chioce for the same above listed reasons and you are calpable for your actions to Our Lord.

    As I have said before God has appointed two powers, the spiritual and the secular for the direction if human society. Spiritual to the guidance of souls and secular to the maintenace of peace and order.

    Those in high places ought to set good examples. If those in position of leadership stray from the truth of Our Lord "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts V 29.). Abortion has clearly strayed away for the teachings of God, Our Lord, Jesus Christ as well as lies deceipt and deception. All these leaders are calpable to God and should be voted out of office during re-election.

    Under Our Constitutional rights Amendment I, we are entitled to a lot more rights than the City of Aurora seems to want to extended all of us.

    Great job Eric and all that spoke at the City Counsel meeting.

    November 18th, 2007 at 4:35 am
  62. Tommy says:

    The following was taken from a letter I wrote to the "Chicago Flame." I wrote this in response to a pro-life letter writer. The article concerned the PP clinic which you are trying to close.

    I fail to see anything wrong with what Planned Parenthood does. As a parent of a minor daughter, I would rather see her have an abortion then have the baby. If she feels that she cannot consult with me prior to her abortion, then I would rather be kept in the dark. Alas, she already knows she has a get out of jail free card. I have informed her of the parental involvement laws of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois. I have also told her that she need not go to a judge for my consent is automatic. The decision to have a child is a life defining event. As a life defining event, this decision must be made by the mother to be as it is her body and destiny which is affected. This is so even when the mother is a minor or a child herself.

    With respect to the tactics that Planned Parenthood used to build there clinic in Aurora, they were completely justified. Right to lifers have used some incredibly dirty tricks to burden women's access to health care, including killing abortion doctors, and bombing clinics.

    I would also like to add that it is highly presumptuous and paternalistic of Schindler, and his right to life cronies, to think that they represent the whole community of Aurora. At best they have established they represent a fraction of the community.

    The more I research this issue, the more I begin to believe that the issues of birth control and abortion are less about the sanctity of life and more about power. There are many factions that want our fertility to be uncontrolled. These include the church, very wealthy capitalists, and power hungry men. For better or worse, women are persons with the right to control their own bodies. To deny women the right to control their wombs makes them indentured servants of the state, slaves to the fetus, and incubators. Women deserve better then this.

    Finally I ask the following question: Why is it evil for a woman to control her fertility? Why is it evil to decide for ourselves when we have children and how many children we have?

    Blast my response if you wish, please answer my questions. I think the questions I ask are profound.

    November 18th, 2007 at 9:48 am
  63. G.J. Guest says:

    Tommy, the evil comes in the fact that pregnancy is a defining moment in a woman's life because their is a child within her at that time – a living human being. To kill that human being would be the same as killing someone of the street, it would be the same as any of the other murders that take place everyday around the world.

    You phrase your question in favor of vague reproductive rights, without actually acknowledging the fact that they include 'the right to kill an unborn child.'

    It is not evil to decide how many children we have and when to have them, but believe it or not, conception is the first moment of parenthood. The only way real way to plan parenthood is for one not to have sex before one is ready to have children.

    If you really think that this whole hell that some pregnant women may be going through is just agitated by "the church, very wealthy capitalists, and power hungry men" than I suggest you get out there and start running your own crisis pregnancy center drives to help these women out, unless of course you don't think they're actually worth helping…

    November 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
  64. Paul2 says:

    Hi Tommy,
    Your questions
    Why is it evil for a woman to control her fertility?
    Why is it evil to decide for ourselves when we have children and how many children we have?
    Answer:
    It is not evil for a woman to control her own fertility. Everybody has right to control their own bodies but we are to be held responsible for our actions.
    Get drunk, but if you kill someone cause you got drunk then you pay the penaly for your actions. When sex is consentual your bodily domain is not violated. You go into it understanding that it could result in the creation of a new life. Some people in our society just want all the sex they can get without the reponsibility for the result of their actions. In a nutshell they think they have the right to submit their bodies to the actions that create a new life and then destroy that life. Then they would twist the concept of bodily domain to try and justify murderously self-centered and irresponsible behaviour of killing the life they willingly created. The basis for all order in civilized society is adults having the capacity to make decisions and understand the possible repercussions of their actions and NOT giving any individual the right to act out in ways that harm/destroy the life of another. To willing submit our bodies to the actions that creat a new life only to destroy that life when it is created is intrinsically evil.

    Also, we do not adhere to your hands-off parenting model. If a minor gets pregnant we think it is important that we are made aware of it. How can you possibly lend support to policies that condone hiding the rape of young girls? We believe every effort shoule be made to expose these rapists and to get these rapists off the streets. Non-parental consent laws help the rapist avoid prosecution. And by refusing to release the information abot these rapiss to the public corporations like PP perpetuate the rapists abhorrent behaviours. For these reasons we believe it is better to notify the parents of victimized minors. If you are really for protection of the bodily domain, then you would be angry as hell at PP for covering up the actions of the very men who violate the woman's bodily domain and helping them get away with rape.

    I look forward to your response to these profound issues.

    Paul2

    November 18th, 2007 at 10:54 am
  65. Tommy says:

    Paul2 and G.J., I am going to go ahead and post all of the letters I wrote to the Chicago Flame on this subject. I will do so because they address the arguments you make. These letters were the product of six hours of my time. I have no desire to burn six more hours. I was in a lively debate with "Joseph." His letters are not included. I would hate to violate a copyright. My first post was letter number one. This is letter number two: (By the way, I wonder if Joseph was Joe Schindler).

    I am replying to Joseph's post. I quote from his post "If Tommy is not intelligent enough to know that women control their reproductively by controlling the amount of sex they have, then he should probably not encourage his underage daughter to have sexual intercourse."

    Abstinence is not the only way fertility is controlled. Contraception is the preferred choice for many couples in America. Joseph's simplistic response to my post demonstrates a stunted world view.

    Sex is more then just making babies. Within a committed relationship sex serves several purposes. Sex serves as a means of intimacy. Sex is a means of communication and a means of mutual pleasure. Sex is vital to the health and vitality of a marriage. Joseph's message is if you do not want children, do not have sex. Perhaps saying this to our teenagers and young single adults is acceptable.

    I cannot condone preaching a message of abstinence to married couples. The Missouri State Supreme Court did this in 1942. Sixty-five years ago this message was outrageous, and it is outrageous today.

    I find Joseph's conclusion that I am encouraging my daughter to have sex amusing. What a leap! So any parent who discusses sex with their children, provides them with information on contraception and abortion, and tells them about the parental involvement laws is encouraging them to have sex? The reason my consent to an abortion is automatic is based on my belief that I do not have the right to force my daughter to become a parent. I also reject the argument that a pregnant woman is a parent.

    Joseph, my motivation for doing what I do is far more complex. My children will not be children for ever. In less then one year my daughter will be an adult. Children grow up, get married, and have children of their own. This is the reason why I have done what I have done with my children. I take the long view Joseph. A parent's job is not just to protect their children. A parent also tries to prepare their children for the trials and tribulations of adulthood.

    I also believe that my daughter has higher chance of delaying sex because of what I did. Obviously you disagree. Please explain to me how I am encouraging my daughter to have sex. I really want to know.

    November 18th, 2007 at 11:08 am
  66. Tommy says:

    Here is letter number three:

    Joseph, I can see the logic of your beliefs. However my daughter and my sons have a right to the knowledge which I have imparted to them regardless of weather or not said knowledge may encourage them to have sex. We will have to agree to disagree.

    Unlike you, I believe abortion should remain legal. In fact, I believe that Roe v. Wade was one of the best things that happened in this country. Women (at least some women) gained the right to control their destinies. I do concede that dead babies are bad. However turning women into incubators and slaves for the sake of the unborn is worse.

    My mother who had a stroke before I was born decided to have me. I would not have begrudged her decision if she had chosen the other way. I would not be here. So what. Our society fears death too much. Today the United States has 300 million persons. Would we be a better country if we had 340 million (most of whom would have been born by forced pregnancy)? Forcing women to have children they do not want is a form of rape. I believe that going down this path is more destructive then having abortion legal.

    I am sure you have an answer to what I have written. For reasons I have stated and other reasons, I support keeping abortion legal for any reason during the first four months of pregnancy and for major fetal defects found later in the pregnancy.

    By the way, I concede that the unborn child (note I say child) is a human being. I also concede that a late term embryo and fetus is a person. Unborn embryos and fetus' have a preponderance of traits which we would associate with a person. A fertilized egg cell / pre embryo does not. The latter are potential persons.

    Have fun with this response.

    November 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
  67. Tommy Kuzdas says:

    Here is letter number four:

    Joseph, I swore to myself that I was going to move on and do other things. Unfortunately I feel compelled to respond to you one more time. I now discuss the issue of consent.

    To any pregnant minor who must contend with a parental involvement law which requires consent, I would counsel that minor to get a judicial bypass even if she has the consent of a parent. The reason I say this is due to the fact that a parent can change her mind. The minor could be in the Planned Parenthood clinic with her feet in the stirrups, and the doctor ready to proceed when she is forced to cancel the abortion because the parent changes her mind and withdraws consent.

    If a woman is having sex and midway through the act she changes her mind and her partner continues, he is now guilty of rape because she withdrew consent even though at the beginning she gave consent.

    Suppose my son was born with a rare blood defect which can be cured with biweekly transfusions of my blood. Suppose that twenty such treatments are required. In addition, suppose that only my blood can be used. I agree to provide the transfusions. After treatment number four, I change my mind. I refuse to provide any more blood. Two weeks later my son dies. Should the state be able to prosecute me for murder? Should I be compelled under threats of massive fines, imprisonment, or even death to give my blood and continue that which I have promised to do. Giving blood is such a minimal burden. The answer based on the history of our law must be no. The state must respect my selfish desire to withdraw consent, even when doing so will result in the death of my child. Not even to preserve human life, prevent suicide, preserve the integrity of the medical profession, and protect innocent third parties may the state interfere with the right of a competent adult or mature minor to consent or refuse medical care. See Bouvia v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. App. 3d. 1127 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1986). In short, we have a right to be selfish with how our bodies are used, even when doing so will result in the death of an innocent third party (such as an unborn child or children in the case of a multiple pregnancy).

    Based on my arguments supra, a woman has the right to withdraw consent with respect to the use of her womb. Especially early on in pregnancy when the child is an embryo or pre embryo and lacks the traits we would associate with personhood. I will say (though I cannot logically defend my position) that a child should be given squatters rights after say four months. The mother to be will have been given a reasonable opportunity to terminate the pregnancy (okay, I will say it, kill the child). However, where the state has used its power to burden the right (TRAP laws, parental involvement laws, informed consent laws, excessive license fees and unreasonable zoning ordinances), then I believe abortion should be legal to six months to punish the state.

    Only when we commit criminal acts against persons or property and have our liberty restricted by due process of law does the state gain the right to restrict what we can do with our bodies. In no case is the right to refuse or consent to medical care open to state restriction.

    (I am sure at this point you will counter with the contention that based on my argument, the state does not have the right to ban recreational drug use. I would point out that abusing drugs is not consenting to medical care).

    Up to this point I have dealt with the issue of express consent. Your position weakens further because the foundation of your argument relies on implied consent. A woman consents to sex knowing that she risks pregnancy therefore she consents to pregnancy. This has as much validity as the following statements: "When I get into my car, I consent to getting my rear end smashed by a driver doing forty miles an hour. When I go hunting, I consent to getting shot." I think most persons would agree that in general, consenting to an action does not always mean they consent to a possible consequence. The hunter and the driver retain the right to bring the guilty parties to court and demand that they be made whole. If they consented to the possible consequences, then they would have no recourse to have their injuries addressed by the courts since they consented to the injuries. Once again, your argument of consent to sex means consent to pregnancy must fail.

    In summary Joseph, your contention that consent to sex means consent to parenthood is flawed for three reasons. One, consent can be withdrawn. Two, the state cannot interfere with a persons right to refuse or consent to medical care even in the face of the most compelling reasons. Three, consent to an act does not always mean consent to possible consequences.

    Men and babies. I note in passing that us men folk are held to the standard of consent to sex means consent to parenthood. I must admit that it is grossly unfair that us men should be held to such a standard while women get to dodge the bullet by abortion. This problem lies not with my logic or with the law. The problem is one of nature. Men play such a small part of a pregnancy. We make our deposit, then our part is done. Our role is quite passive in the whole thing. Babies grow in wombs, and wombs are owned by women. Since women own the wombs, they get to decide.

    Answer this if you will.

    P.S.
    I have decided to include my full name from here on out. This is a free country after all and I am not ashamed of my opionions or beliefs. Hopefully, I will not regret this.

    Resspectfully,

    Tommy D. Kuzdas

    November 18th, 2007 at 11:16 am
  68. Tommy Kuzdas says:

    Here is letter number five:

    It is interesting that you restrict your discussion to unprotected sex. What about protected sex? Based on what you have written, it seems that you would support abortion if the couple involved were using protection. I am sure this is not the case though. I think you would force a woman to carry to term even if the pregnancy were the result of rape. If this is so, then consent is a meaningless argument, for you support slavery.

    Certainly where the couple is using protection you cannot imply consent. In my own circumstance, I am in my forties and have had a vasectomy. My wife is in her fifties and has had a tubal ligation. No reasonable person could conclude based on these facts that we give consent to become parents when we engage in sex.

    In any event, you utterly fail to address one of the arguments I made in my last post and the most poignant of my hypotheticals. You addressed the hunter analogy and the driving example. Your conclusions with respect to these two hypothetical are flawed. The issue was knowledge of possible consequences. The hunter risks getting shot and the driver risks getting into an accident. These are possible consequences of the activities in question. How they relate to the activities does not matter. The knowledge that the risk exists matters. I have a feeling we would probably have to hash this out on a telephone for two hours and probably still would not agree.

    You utterly failed to address the hypothetical of the child who needs periodic blood transfusions from his father to live. The fathers act of refusing to give his blood has similarities to abortion. Both scenarios involve the refusal of a parent to allow the child to use his parent's body for survival. You will also note that I chose forty weeks in my hypothetical as the length of time his condition lasts, roughly the length of a pregnancy.

    You also failed to address my argument that the state cannot dictate what medical treatments we can receive and refuse. Maybe due to the fact I provided a citation. You know, consent really does not matter because historically we have an almost absolute right to decide how our bodies will be used. The only circumstance I can think of where the state can order us to place our bodies in harms way is when the state conscripts us into the army. Obviously the state's survival trumps everything.

    I now turn to the issue of birth control. Your argument here is flawed as well. There was a reason Planned Parenthood (PP) came to Aurora. PP came to Aurora because many women do not have access to effective methods of contraception. To address this need PP built their clinic.

    Did you know that contraception was banned in the United States from 1875 until the 1940's. The Supreme Court swept away the last of the contraceptive bans and restrictions in the 1970's. During the 1970's and eighties the federal government reversed its course and engaged in a practice of subsidizing contraceptive services to the poor and the young. The republican party (at least conservative republicans) have been working feverishly over the last twenty years to destroy the programs which provide free contraceptives for the poor. In the alternative republicans have tried to divert subsidies for contraceptives to organizations which oppose their availability. How many women and minors are willing to endure being lectured and humiliated by the nurse when they get their birth control pills from the local "prolife, anti-contraception crisis pregnancy center?" In case you think I am crazy, the Michigan legislature passes a budget which diverted funds for birth control to other agencies. I believe that PP had to close about a third of their clinics in MI(none of which performed abortions).

    Recently the federal government changed the procedures by which pharmaceutical companies marketed their products. As a result college coeds are facing price increases of 200 to 300 percent in the price of their contraceptives. To place this into perspective, a student taking birth control pills may have to pay 50 to 70 dollars per month to stay protected. Far different from the 15 to 20 dollars she had to pay one year ago. For a person on a tight budget, this is huge. Supposedly this was an unintended consequence. I wonder.

    I believe that 40 or so republicans in the Wisconsin legislature would ban contraception again if they could get away with it. The Wisconsin legislature actually passed a bill to ban pharmacies in the UW health system from providing emergency contraceptives (plan B). The state senate decided not to waste their time when the governor stated the ban would be vetoed the instant it reached his desk. In addition, these same republicans are working very hard on restricting the ability of minors to access birth control. Lubbock Texas, where teens have a difficult time getting contraceptives, has been suitably rewarded with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. THANK GOD FOR DEMOCRATS.

    You say that couples engaged in sexual relations should use protection. I wholeheartedly agree with you Joseph. Unfortunately there are millions of women who do not have reliable access to the most effective means of contraception. For these women, the only protection available are condoms, spermicides, and as you pointed out, premature withdrawal.

    I would also point out that men should be coming to the plate here. As far as I am concerned, any woman who is being propositioned for sex or pressured by their boyfriend should demand 1500 dollars up front from their would be lover. That money would pay for contraception and in the event a pregnancy occurs, an abortion. Should the boyfriend faced with such a demand balk because he is pro-life, then the woman can proceed to rip his face off for his hypocrisy due to the fact that he is pressuring her to have sex outside of marriage. This guidance I have also given to my daughter.

    With respect to my daughter Joseph, you can gain comfort from the fact that she is on the pro-life side of the fence. Surprising considering who she has for a parent. This does not mean she supports banning abortion. Only that she herself probably would not resort to abortion.

    I also offer one more surprise for you. Many of Planned Parenthood's most ardent supports and activists, were themselves, former right to life activists. Basically, these activists broke their vows of celibacy and ended up in the family way. When they found themselves facing the same dilemma of those whom they condemned, they understood the message of Planned Parenthood. Then, these right to life activists did the unthinkable, they resorted to abortion to solve their problem. Some cursed themselves for being weak. Some of them aligned themselves to the NOW gang and Planned Parenthood, and become pro choice activists. This scenario has happened time and time again and continues to happen today.

    The message of Planned Parenthood is not that we have a right to kill our children. Planned Parenthood's message is that each of us has the right to decide for ourselves when we decide to have children and how many children we will have. You yourself have acknowledged that this is not evil. Communities should be welcoming Planned Parenthood. Not fighting them. The key to cutting abortion lies in ensuring easy access to contraception and encouraging abstinence among our teens, WHO seem to be incredibly fertile.

    November 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
  69. Tommy Kuzdas says:

    Here is letter number six. Oh sorry, my mistake, there was no sixth letter. Have fun digesting my arguments.

    Also read the case I cited. Bouvia was a quadrapelgic who decided she did not wish to live anymore. A trial court acutually ordered her force fed. When the California State Supreme Court saw this case, the judges were furious. There was nothing they could do to the judge because the issue of refusing medical treatment had never been litigated in the state prior to 1984. Keep in mind that in 1986 this court was evenly split between conservative and liberal judges. The decision supporting Bouvia's right to selectly consent to medical care was seven to zero. Bouvia refused food and water, but wanted pain relief.

    Sincerely,

    Tommy D. Kuzdas

    November 18th, 2007 at 11:28 am
  70. Tommy Kuzdas says:

    In post number 10, Tara's list of parental involvement laws has some mistakes. California has never had a parental notification law. There parental consent law was invalidated by Planned Parenthood v. Lungren.

    Alaska has never had a Parental Notification law. Their parental consent was was struck down about a week ago. The court indicated that they would be receptive to a law requiring notification. The republicans who have their heart set on a consent law now want to amend the state consitution.

    Wisconsin's parental involvement law requires consent, not notification. I guess you could classify it as a notification law because grandparents, aunts and uncles, as well as siblings over 25 can give consent.

    I guess Tara's research was hastily done.

    November 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
  71. Paul2 says:

    Tommy,

    I don't want to read your response to somebody elses posts on a different blog. If you don't have the time to respond personally and interact in mutual discourse of the issues then you disrespect the persons who you "communicate" with.

    I took the time to respond to your initial POST and even answered each of your two questions. Your response is "Here is waht I said to Joseph on a different blog". You could use a course in basic communications and in public discourse before you try and engage in effect discourse with others. Perhaps if you do find the time to read MY post and reply to MY points then I will read your replies to ME.

    Paul2

    November 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
  72. Paul2 says:

    Tommy,
    You try to fit your response to me into some blanket cobversation you had with somebody else. How about responding to the question that "I" posed to you instead.

    How can you possibly lend support to policies that condone hiding the rape of young girls?

    November 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
  73. Paul2 says:

    Tommy,
    Look up the definition of "minor" in a dictionary. That means they lack sufficient judgement and need adult guidance. Are you still there or did you POST all you had to say and don't have the time to respond to anybody else?

    November 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
  74. Laura says:

    Tommy,
    Regardless of abortion or "choice" being a "right" or not, the bottom line is that the one making the "choice" is dabbling in whether or not the human life inside of her has "value" or "worth". Hence, choice is actually someone deciding "value" or "worth" on human life. If the human life were aborted, it was because it was deemed "worthless" or "valueless" to the (and I use this term loosely) mother. On the other hand, if the human life were to be born, it was done so only because it had some type of "value" or "worth" to the (and I don't use this term loosely) Mother. It is a pure shame that our country made this decision legal. To me, it contradicts everything about the Constitution, human rights issues, etc.

    November 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
  75. Paul2 says:

    Tommy,
    It is somewhat comforting to know that at least you have the opinion children in the womb deserve some rights. But where is the logic to you arbitrarily deciding to give a baby squatters rights" after four months even though you admit they are children even before that point in their lives? I mean logically, if you admit they are children then you so not have the right to judge them to death.

    November 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
  76. Tara says:

    Tommy,

    My research came off a PP sponsered website. If you noticed I stated that CA was stopped by court action. Please read the list again. Like CA, AK had the courts step in to stop enforcement of the law. Did you not read my post carefully? Maybe you read it in haste. As far as WI, the law acts like both consent and notification.

    November 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
  77. Paul2 says:

    I think Tommy sad all he had to say. Even in his first POST he had stated we could blast his posts. He just wanted to post his opinions knowing from the start he could never stand behind them logically in any kind of debate.

    November 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
  78. Laura says:

    Paul 2,
    Hello! I agree with your statement above, and also when you said "It is not evil for a woman to control her own fertility. Everybody has right to control their own bodies but we are to be held responsible for our actions."
    That's the free will that God gave man. That's why I'm pro-life, pro-choice, but ANTI-ABORTION!
    I, for one, answer to and am held accountable for my "choices" by God. There is a BIG difference when someone believes that they are accountable to only themselves or to "man" or "man's laws".

    November 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
  79. Tara says:

    Laura and Paul2,

    I totally agree with you guys. I'm not sure what Tommy is searching for.

    November 18th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
  80. Tommy Kuzdas says:

    Paul2, I answer your argument with respect to my supposed support for concealing statutory rape. I do not oppose the concept of reporting statutory rape. What I object to are your efforts to use the reporting requirements as a means of blocking a minors access to an abortion or to contraception. That is really what you are trying to do. The reporting of statutory rape is merely a pretense.

    A much less invasive requirement would be requiring the abortion provider to preserve tissue samples from an aborted embryo or fetus for DNA analysis and require the abortion provider to report said abuse after the abortion is done. The notion that a minor must be forced to give birth in order to prosecute a rapist is a lie.

    With respect to contraceptives, I do not believe a minors interests are furthered by requiring the health care entity to breach confidentiality and report to the police that the 13 year patient is having sex. What will end up happening is the minor will forego care and continue to be raped without protection and end up pregnant. Of course, I aknowledge she may end up pregnant anyway since contraception is not 100 percent.

    So in a nutshell, the reporting requirements actually injure the teenagers that you supposedly wish to help. It is a tragic irony. A better policy would be to require the nurse who counsels the minor to inform the minor as to what her rights are and offer to call the police and report the abuse. Highly encourage the minor to report the abuse.

    Of course not all minors are abused. I will wager that most sixteen and seventeen year olds who are having sex are doing so by choice. I would also like to point out a little piece of hipocracy here. When a 21 year old man knocks up a fifteen year old girl, then tries to stop the girl from aborting the baby, you guys are right in his corner comforting him as his child gets destroyed. Only when he assists the girl in terminating the pregnancy is he a true bastard. Heaven forbid that mommy and daddy should jointly come to the same conclusion that having the child is not in their best interest.

    I also respond to your assertion of my supposed rudeness by posting previously posted letters. I spent six hours writing those posts. Customizing those posts to satisfy your sensibilities would probably have taken me three more hours. I think it is you who are being rude to me. The fact is, I think I raise points you have not considered. Calling me rude gives you a justification to refuse to read and answer my previous posts. How convenient. The points I raise I consider to be quite logical. They are based on many hours of research. In addition, if you debate with me, you will be debating with one who for the sake of argument will concede that a fertilized ovum is a human being.

    Tommy

    November 18th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
  81. Will says:

    Laura, Free will gives you the right to make whatever choices you want to make right of wrong. Our Lord gave us his teaching for us to follow and if we do, God is pleased, if we don't than He is not. Even though a women does have the right to make the choice if she choices to murder ( abortion ) that goes against the teachings of Our Lord. Free Will doesn't make it right.

    Being Pro-life and Pro-choice but against abortion means what? Does that mean you chose a position against Our Lord's teachings if it suits you or not? Just trying to understand your position.

    November 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
  82. Laura says:

    Will,

    I am Pro-Life &
    I am also, Pro-Choice

    Let me explain…

    I am pro-life because I truly, without a doubt, believe in God, my Creator…the Giver of Life. I cannot be a believer in God without being pro-life.

    I am pro-choice because I truly, without a doubt, believe that God, my Creator, the Giver of Life, gave man a free-will…to allow man to make choices throughout his/her life…

    However, I am Anti-abortion, because I truly, without a doubt, believe in God, my Creator….the Giver of Life…that He…and only He can JUSTLY begin and end one…..

    Life is a series of choices that we make, sometimes second by second. Each one is a choice, and each one a test. Each choice will lead us down an unexpected turn in our paths, and what choices we made, how and what we learned from them is what keeps us “trekking down the path of life”.

    And I believe that God, my Creator, the Giver of Life, who gave man a free will, is the only One who can JUSTLY judge us for our choices.

    I may not understand other’s choices, and I may not accept them…however, I do not judge them for them either…I do, however, pray that they will find God, the Creator, the Giver of Life, who gives them a free-will, to walk with them or carry them, down their path of life.

    When one chooses to accept Christ as his/her Savior, the Holy Spirit resides in him/her writing God's laws on his/her heart. We then, only at that point, are able to walk with God in His ways.

    If one does not choose to accept Christ as his/her Savior, they cannot see right's and wrong's according to God's will because they are not walking with Him.

    I guess I just define Pro-choice a bit differently than others. I don't believe that being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. Pro-aborts just "sugar-coated" the old name "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice". I, however, don't fall for it!

    November 18th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
  83. Tara says:

    Tommy,

    If a 21 year gets a minor pregnant, that's rape! He should be prosecuted, whether it was consentual or not. However, one violent act does not mean that another violent act is going to make her situation any better. That baby doesn't deserve the death penalty bc of how he or she was conceived. But you bet that anyone having sex with a minor should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    I've read your posts and you are condensending in tone. It may not be you intent, but that is how it sounds. But your arguements are ones I've heard before, and it wouldn't make a difference what we write. You are not open to our point of view. You view us as hypocritical, irrational, illogical, and having our heads in the sand.

    I am saying that having worked with and talked with post abortive women, abortion is not the answer. You may be surprised how many post abortive women are now working for CPC's and other groups to help women make healthier choices.

    I too have spent hours on other blogs, but I would still take the time to write it again. I can't count the hours of research I have done on the negative effects of abortion.

    November 18th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
  84. Evelyn says:

    I would like to see Planned Parenthood operate abortion free, if they care so much about our teens and women. In my personal opinion, PP encourages sex for the purpose of money, money, money. They don't care about women or our teens.

    As for legalized abortion, just because it is legal, doesn't make it right. It is murder! Look at the football player Michael Vick being charged for the brutality of dogs………and what's the human life worth.

    November 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
  85. Paul2 says:

    Tommy,
    My response to you just cost me about an hour of my time. And thanks for your time too. I hope you find wisdom and worth in the postings on this blog.

    Your first paragraph:
    Paul2, I answer your argument with respect to my supposed support for concealing statutory rape. I do not oppose the concept of reporting statutory rape. What I object to are your efforts to use the reporting requirements as a means of blocking a minors access to an abortion or to contraception. That is really what you are trying to do. The reporting of statutory rape is merely a pretense.
    My response to your first paragraph:
    You say you are not opposed to the concept of reporting statutory rape. But bthen you turn around and tell me you think it is pretense to preventing an abortion as if we should somehow just look past the statutory rape itself. It it just that you agree with the concept but in action you care so lirttle about it that you don't think the issue can stand on it's own?
    Your second paragraph:
    A much less invasive requirement would be requiring the abortion provider to preserve tissue samples from an aborted embryo or fetus for DNA analysis and require the abortion provider to report said abuse after the abortion is done. The notion that a minor must be forced to give birth in order to prosecute a rapist is a lie.
    My response:
    Great idea for a resolution to the City Council. Collect DNA and prosecute the offenders. See, even we can agree on something.
    Your third paragraph:
    With respect to contraceptives, I do not believe a minors interests are furthered by requiring the health care entity to breach confidentiality and report to the police that the 13 year patient is having sex. What will end up happening is the minor will forego care and continue to be raped without protection and end up pregnant. Of course, I aknowledge she may end up pregnant anyway since contraception is not 100 percent.
    My response to your third paragraph:
    What? ???? I thought you just said they should collect tissue samples for prosecution. And now you are predetermining that she would "forego care and continue to be raped"????????

    Your fourth paragraph:
    So in a nutshell, the reporting requirements actually injure the teenagers that you supposedly wish to help. It is a tragic irony. A better policy would be to require the nurse who counsels the minor to inform the minor as to what her rights are and offer to call the police and report the abuse. Highly encourage the minor to report the abuse.
    My response to your fourth paragraph:
    This is a 13 year old you are talking about man. For God's sake you must not really believe it is in her best intersets to keep this awy from the authorities and especially the parents.
    Your fifth paragraph:
    Of course not all minors are abused. I will wager that most sixteen and seventeen year olds who are having sex are doing so by choice. I would also like to point out a little piece of hipocracy here. When a 21 year old man knocks up a fifteen year old girl, then tries to stop the girl from aborting the baby, you guys are right in his corner comforting him as his child gets destroyed. Only when he assists the girl in terminating the pregnancy is he a true bastard. Heaven forbid that mommy and daddy should jointly come to the same conclusion that having the child is not in their best interest.
    My response to your fifth paragraph:
    I don't see any problem with counseling a person not to kill their child regerdless of if you or anybody else thinks the child is, as you put it, "a true bastard".
    Your sixth paragraph:
    I also respond to your assertion of my supposed rudeness by posting previously posted letters. I spent six hours writing those posts. Customizing those posts to satisfy your sensibilities would probably have taken me three more hours. I think it is you who are being rude to me. The fact is, I think I raise points you have not considered. Calling me rude gives you a justification to refuse to read and answer my previous posts. How convenient. The points I raise I consider to be quite logical. They are based on many hours of research. In addition, if you debate with me, you will be debating with one who for the sake of argument will concede that a fertilized ovum is a human being.

    My response to your paragraph six:
    You may want to look at the logic/wisdom of your views on covering up for sexual predators and rapists at least. And to come right out and say you are willing to admit they are human beings but still think you have a right to kill them???? Don't know what to say about that one except it is reprehensible to most people to kill another human being so you may want to look at the logic/wisdom on that one too.

    Paul2

    November 18th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
  86. John says:

    Dear Tommy

    "Heaven forbid that mommy and daddy should jointly come to the same conclusion that having the child is not in their best interest."

    "In addition, if you debate with me, you will be debating with one who for the sake of argument will concede that a fertilized ovum is a human being."

    I quoted both of these statements from your entry of
    November 18th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    I must admit that you are clearly an articulate person who has spent no small amount of time thinking about these things. In fact, I was rather impressed by your arguments about minors versus majors. It is true that many will try to use the law as it stands to further their fundamental beliefs.

    Yet, the one fundamental thing I see about your position can be summarized as what follows.

    If you can make both the statements that I quoted, then you think that it is not a right for the human being to decide its own fate.

    Again I agree with you (but not for the reason that is implied by by your argument).

    BUT, a further implication of the two quotes is that it is for people other than that human being (in this example his or her parents) to decide whether or not this human being should be allowed to live out its natural life.

    You grant that the fertilized ovum is a human being, and yet you believe that it is up to the parents to decide if that human being should live any longer.

    Wow…..

    I am not happy living in a world that will grant that I am a human being and yet immediately grant the power over my continued existence in that world to others, purely by their own, obviously tainted by self-interest, decision.

    The reason I can agree that we are not free to make our own decisions about our fate is that nature itself argues that we did not make ourselves, and without proof to the contrary we should and must assume that another entity designed and made us. It is up to that entity or nature itslef to decide when we should die.

    Clearly the fifteen year old girl and the twenty-three year old guy did not designed how nature works when they had sex, so they clearly are NOT the designers and makers of the new life. They might (nay, are) the immediate participants and causes of that new life…but they did not design it, nor did they design the process by which the new human being came to be.

    So likewise can they NOT be the determiners of its terminus. If they are granted that power, by whatever argument, then none of us is truly free. In fact, it is really just a matter of change of degree (rather than a differnce in kind) that keeps our current parents (even if we are 30 years old) from deciding that it is time for our lives to be terminated simply on the grounds of the burden it will cause.

    Maybe you agree that a thirty year old "burden" should be eliminated simply because its parents can no longer support it.

    Hoping your parents don't agree with you, and if they do, REALLY hoping that you never become a "burden" to them,

    John

    November 19th, 2007 at 12:29 am
  87. Paul2 says:

    Laura,
    I like your explanation of why you are both a pro-life and a pro-choice woman. May your God continue to guide your thoughts with such clarity and keep straight your paths.
    Paul2

    November 19th, 2007 at 1:02 am
  88. Will says:

    Laura, Thanks for your response.

    God's commandments do not deprive men in any way of true freedom.

    They rather serve to make him independent of creatures. It is the sinner who falls under the yoke of an ignominious servitude.

    "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty" (2 Cor III. 17). Besides, liberty does not consist of the right to do whatever we will, but whatever is permitted. The word is much abused in this present day; many consider it to mean license, and they call the restraint which the laws impose on their evil work tyranny and despotism. Others think it signifies liberty for themselves and servitude for others. Hence we often find so-called liberals the most intolerant of mankind.

    Romans 16: 17-18 "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not Christ Our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good works seduce the hearts of the innocent."

    Actually your Pro-Choice is defined as only making choices exceptable to Our Lord, which really isn't the definition of Pro-Choice or a Pro-Choice position by liberials of today. Yes you are right, you have come up with a new definition of your own.

    November 19th, 2007 at 2:00 am
  89. Paul2 says:

    Since when did pro-choice ever get defined as the right to kill burdens and actions driven wholly towards your own pleasure. You are right Laura. They really like to mislead when they choose pro-choice as their moniker. Pro-choice is not a term that is properly used when it is being used in a context of trying to legitamize/justify a persons desire to kill another.

    And how twisted/misleading is the name Planned Parenthood? Shouldn't it be Planned Barrenhood instead? Their whole concept/purpose is to prevent conception and/or delivery of children once they are conceived?

    November 19th, 2007 at 2:26 am
  90. Laura says:

    Paul2,
    Thanks! Yes, I think that the abortion industry and its supporters as a whole are 100% deceptive. It's sad that young girls who are still struggling to "find themselves" have to be destroyed by this deception.

    November 19th, 2007 at 9:43 am
  91. Laura says:

    Will said, "Actually your Pro-Choice is defined as only making choices exceptable to Our Lord, which really isn't the definition of Pro-Choice or a Pro-Choice position by liberials of today. Yes you are right, you have come up with a new definition of your own."

    No, that's not what I said. I said that God gave ALL man the ability to make his/her choices (decisions). I tend to look at the big picture…If God didn't give us choice, ALL MAN would be perfect…without sin…look back to Adam & Eve. If man were perfect, without sin, Jesus would not have had to come.

    I also stated that Pro-Choice (in reference to abortion) was the WRONG title to be used in reference to abortion. I think that they should use Pro-Abortion as their title because, with all deception removed, that's what they are & that is what I am against. I really don't care what the liberal's definition of pro-choice is for that matter…I know what the difference is between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Deception is the name of their game..one of which I don't play!

    November 19th, 2007 at 9:56 am
  92. Tara says:

    Good Morning John,

    How is are you today? Have you read any more Calvin lately? :) Hope all is well.

    Good to see your post. Your comment about being a 30 year burden is really a powerful one. Being pro-life is not just about protecting unborn children, but protecting all life from fertilization to natural death. is the author and creator of life and He cherishes that life until we return home to Him. If He didn't he wouldn't have sent His son Jesus Christ, as Savior and Redeemer of all Creation. Life is such a precious gift and should never be taken for granted or lightly.

    Tommy's line of thought would allow for euthansia at any time that parents felt burdened. I don't know a single parent who at some point of raising children didn't feel overwhelmed. He sounds like Prof. Peter Singer a professor of ethics at Princeton, who believe that parents should be able to kill their handicapped children up to a month after birth. If you have not read his stuff before, it is quite scary. This reasoning leads to dangerous slopes, which once gone down is very difficult to go back up.

    Also I read this article on Fox News yesterday. I've copied and paste bc I am having trouble with the links.

    FOXNEWS.COM HOME > SCITECH

    Scientist Who Created Dolly the Cloned Sheep to Abandon Technique

    Saturday, November 17, 2007

    LONDON — The Scottish scientist who created Dolly the sheep more than a decade ago said he is abandoning the cloning technique that he pioneered, according to an interview published Saturday.
    Ian Wilmut, who led the team that created Dolly in 1996, told The Daily Telegraph that he is abandoning cloning to pursue a new technique that can create stem cells without an embryo.

    Wilmut's announcement could mark the end of therapeutic cloning, in which DNA is inserted into an unfertilized egg, an embryo is produced and stem cells are harvested, the newspaper said. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent worldwide on therapeutic cloning research in the past decade, but nobody has made it work in humans.

    Wilmut believes a rival method pioneered in Japan that creates stem cells from fragments of skin is better for growing tissue that can be used to treat people who are paralyzed or have illnesses ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease.

    He said the Japanese method does not require human eggs, making it "easier to accept socially" than his Dolly method, known as "nuclear transfer." The Japanese method removes the need to destroy embryos — an action many people oppose and that has become a major stumbling block for funding and regulating research.

    "I decided a few weeks ago not to pursue nuclear transfer," Wilmut was quoted as saying.

    Wilmut said he was inspired by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan, who published a landmark paper last year, explaining how by slipping four genes into mouse skin cells called fibroblasts, he could make the altered cells behave much like embryonic stem cells in lab tests, the newspaper said.

    November 19th, 2007 at 10:02 am
  93. Will says:

    Thanks Laura

    I agree with what you are saying. My point was about free-will, pro-choice and the way, I see, people looking at pro choice. People seem to believe whatever the choices they make are ok because of free-will and this is just not true. Life is a test, either you pass of you fail. You either believe in Our Lord and His teachings or you don't.You are either right or you are wrong. It is just that simple. People try and do make is complicated.

    November 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
  94. Tommy Kuzdas says:

    To the manager of this blog. Feel free to remove my previous posts. They are rather long winded. I will be submitting a post in the very near future which will make the same arguments, but will be much shorter and easier to read. The price for this however is that my next post will be weak on facts and strong on assertions. No doubt, some of you consider my posts already weak on facts.

    Tara, you have labeled my posts as condenscending. You are right, they are. I do not apologize for that. Conceit easily identifies its own. Conceited as I am, at least I do not represent myself to a city counsel as speaking for the entire community. Now there is conceit. That said, in my first post, I labled you all as "cronies." For that, I apologize. You are passionate and intelligent, and march to your own banner or what you see as god's banner.

    I do make one final observation with respect to Planned Parenthood and yourselves.

    I am pleasantly surprised to note that you are open to debate with the other side. My posts are definitely the most hostile on this blog, and yet, they are still there. That speaks to true debate. The true spirit of the first amendment is expressed in this blog. I have even sent emails to "National Right to Life" and to Janet Folger of "Faith to Action." Janet has actually responded twice to my letters.

    Planned Parenthood on the other hand offers no link where a person can send them an email. I have tried. They make it very easy to contribute money. If you wish to speak with them on anything else however, they will not even give you the time of day (unless you are a patient). This attitude on their part also smacks of conceit and elitism. They think they know it all. If you do not have a MD or ESQ after your name or an "Honorable" in front of your name, then in their eyes, your opinion is less then s#$t. Their web page says it all.

    I hope you enjoy this post Tara. I hope that you found it a suprise coming from me. For all of Planned Parenthood's conceipt however, I will continue to defend their actions. Looking forward to lively debate in the future.

    Respectfully, Tommy Kuzdas

    November 19th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
  95. Paul2 says:

    Tommy,
    You deserve to leave your other posts up cause you did put a lot of time into your positions when debating Joseph on the other blog. Just be more considerate when responding to people by listeing to what they say, and not brushing them off as if you had heard it all before and they are not worth listening to.

    I look forward to your next post…I think…
    You will be well served to abandon positions like people have the right to kill other human beings. To continue to espouse such views would make you a nothing more than a self-serving cold blooded killer.

    FYI: the reason PP doesn't have open blogging is because they know they would have to argue, like you tried to, that they somehow have the right to kill other human beings. They are no more then killers for the money.

    I prefer to think that you do not actually believe you have the right to kill others, but rather you just like to try and debate from extreme and untenable positions.

    Paul2

    November 20th, 2007 at 12:10 am
  96. Tara says:

    Tommy,

    I appreciate your comments. I'm glad that you see we are willing to discuss. You might find that most won't debate, but you will find many would like to have a conversation.

    We know that God condems the taking of innocent life. We also know that Jesus came to heal the broken hearted, the sick, the lost. He died so that we might have life. I stand up for all life from fertilization to natural death. All life is percious to God. He knew me before my parents ever thought about me. He created me, and has a purpose for me. I stand up because Jesus could have come as a 30 year old man, but he didn't. He came into this world the way we all do, as a zygote, embryo, fetus, and through being born. It is this process that makes us human. Jesus was my Savior before he was conceived, while he was in-utero, at birth, as he was crucified, died, buried, resurrected and accended. Life is so percious, and once you've destroyed and killed a preborn you can't go back a fix it. It's final. No girl/woman should ever feel that is her only option.

    As for speaking for the community, the majority of Aurora is very upset about PP, as are many in surrounding communities. We would be the first to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with us, but we have had plenty of PCers who agree that PP lied and should not have been allowed to open under false pre-tenses. PP should never have built this in a residential area. It is hurting business in the area. I can't tell you how many people I talked with that have stopped shopping at Dominicks.

    So as for debating, we will see. I would certainly be open to talking with you.

    November 20th, 2007 at 12:36 am
  97. Evelyn says:

    Tommy….

    Thanks for your last blog. I found it humbling and know there is HOPE for you and PP. Thanks to Eric, Tara, Paul2, Bruce, Randy and everyone else who gives SO much of their time, prayers, effort, etc. for Our Lord's honor and glory.

    So, so many people are out there witnessing in the name of Jesus, to those who are lost. God is in control and ultimately, He WILL get his way.

    God bless you all and have a wonderful Thanksgiving with family and friends, remembering and praising our Lord for everything. And remember to pray for the ZBA and your designated person.

    November 20th, 2007 at 6:18 am
  98. Paul2 says:

    Evelyn
    May God also bless you and yours this Thanksgiving!

    November 21st, 2007 at 1:04 am
  99. Mike says:

    If sex as a side-effect of reproduction as car crashing is of driving, child support laws will cease. Suppose you drive carefully, but a child runs right in front of your car. He is not old enough to know better. You would not be financially liable for his/her injuries, since you exercised the duty of due care. Most of us agree with that.
    But, no such defense exists for child support (father must pay even if several types of birth control were used).
    Sex may be pleasurable and relationship bonding, but mainly to induce us to engage in the act to reproduce. Look at other animals. Most do not even have sex for pleasure. Now, we are a type of animal that looks at offspring differently and raise them in bonded relationships, so that is why sex bonds relationships. Most acts result in conception (though this only applies to fertile days because of medical technology. The probability of conception has been estimated above 25% on the most fertile day assuming no contraceptive use), since if every sex act resulted in reproduction, it could not be used for bonding relationships to support effective reproduction.
    Therefore, pregnancy is a major purpose of sex, not just a side-effect. So, consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy if nature asserts itself.
    The purpose of sex is not organ or blood ejection, so that is why consenting to parenthood is not implied consent to organ donation, but is implied consent to pregnancy.
    Now we must discuss breastfeeding. Up until recently, only breast milk existed. It has always been recognized that women were obligated to perform this activity for their children.
    Breastfeeding IS bodily life support. The milk is made by the woman’s body. It may be drawn from the outside, but so is bone marrow.
    Breastfeeding women must eat even more calories than pregnant ones, which shows that breastfeeding is pretty hard on the body, and can be painful. Nine months of breastfeeding is at least as burdensome as bone marrow donation (which cannot be mandated).
    David Boonin inconsistently condeded the rightness of breastfeeding obligations, even admitting it was bodily life support. He claimed it was less invasive, but it is no less invasive than blood donation and not much less than bone marrow donation.
    Only acknowledging the moral relevance of the intrinsic orderedness of the woman's body (and the sex act she engaged in) towards procreation, pregnancy, and breastfeeding can allow the two to be distinguished.

    August 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
  100. The League at Ground Zero « Pro-Life Hotline says:

    [...] "Aldermania VI: Live blogging from City Hall" —FVFAPP website 11-13-07 [...]

    December 6th, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Pregnant? Need help? Hurt by abortion? Call 1-800-848-LOVE, 24 hours.