Condensed from an article by Jon E. Dougherty, WorldNet Daily, 8/31/00

Stop the presses. "Medical science now believes that an abortion may cause pain to an unborn child." That little nugget came from some of the so-called "best minds" in British medicine. To hear them tell it, cutting you up or sticking a suction tube in your brain only "hurts" you when you reach a certain developmental stage as a baby not yet born.

Oh brother. This "new" theory and a buck-fifty will get you a cup of overpriced cappuccino at Starbucks; that's about how "useful" it is overall in this so-called abortion debate.

But hey-in lieu of this "new information," British medical practitioners and scientists are advocating an end to abortion, right? I mean, they must be-if there is even a hint that some liberal-socialist academic might condone something that would hurt or injure "the Children," then it must be stopped at all costs…right?

Oh, I see…not in this case. We're talking about abortion, and they're not really human beings or "children." They're fetuses. Masses of bothersome tissue-the same ones that grow in a woman's womb after sperm has fertilized one of her eggs after having sex…right? And we all know that these "fetuses" won't really grow into "children"-or at least, not until we say so or some pointy-headed academic, who would scream "Murder!" if we tried to stick a suction catheter in his head, tells us it's a human being.

In other words, this whole abortion "issue" has now come down to this: Babies are babies only when we are willing to recognize the obvious-that fertilized female eggs will grow into one thing and one thing only: a human baby.

But wait. The British (and U.S.) academics say that murdering little human babies is still acceptable, except that they "might" begin to feel pain "between 17 and 26 weeks." In response, then, we really ought to be using anesthesia to perform abortions during those developmental stages.

The London Telegraph article also said that "most medical opinion agrees that a fetus cannot "feel pain" before 17 weeks, but I'd like to know how that "absolute" is known? Who says so? It's obvious we can't ask the "fetus" because we are killing him/her. Also, why can't these people even call "it" a baby instead of a fetus? Conscience bothering them?

What does this "finding" mean anyway-that the threshold of pain now makes a difference? Is that the new standard, "we can't kill 'em if it hurts?" Well, no, we can-just not without anesthesia.

When a friend of mine sent me the picture contained in this editorial (see Editor's Note), I don't mind saying that even though I am a staunch abortion opponent I was moved to tears at the thought of how many similar children our legal system has "allowed" us to murder over the years. And that's all it is, …murder, plain and simple. And brutal.

Having said that, I have never believed it was possible for medical practitioners to become an "abortion doctor," because all physicians are sworn to the same oath-"Do no harm." You doctors out there know I'm right; and yet, killing babies is somehow not considered "harmful" by you hypocrites. Get real; or get a different career, because you're disgracing the honorable art of healing.

I also don't think it's possible to even estimate the damage we've done to our society by killing millions of our own kind in kind of a genocidal rage against taking responsibility for our own sexual misconduct.

Please don't talk to me about "the health of the mother"-pregnancy has always incurred certain risks. Or rape cases because that only happens about one in a million and, while tragic, it is never that baby's fault-and there is always adoption.

There is also no way we can know how many JFKs, Martin Luther Kings, Ronald Reagans, Albert Einsteins, Henry Fords or George Washington Carvers we have killed already. There is no way we can know how many more we will kill until this abomination called abortion is forever banned from this land.

When I saw that picture and realized that children older than that baby have been butchered then discarded like yesterday's leftovers, it sickens me, angers me and makes me ashamed. It also makes me fear God's punishment, which will no doubt be meted out to me as well for doing too little to stop the madness. But I will deserve and accept it, as will all of us eventually.

If you can still look at this picture and believe in the fantasy that "women have a right to choose" to kill their unborn children, then I pity you. You've lost your soul.

Editor's Note: The picture shown with Mr. Dougherty's article depicted an unborn child being slaughtered in the womb. Believing it too graphic for our publication, we substituted the now famous photo of 21-week old Baby Samuel, whose tiny hand reached out of the womb and grabbed the finger of the surgeon who was operating on him for spina bifida. This photo tugged at our heart, and we pray it does yours.

That great national authority on health care and on children, Hillary Rodham Clinton, owes it to her public to give her opinion on two controversies in New York State. Does she support government-mandated medical treatments over the objections of their parents?

In Utica, NT, parents of 77 middle schoolers were warned last October that their children would be taken and turned over to Child Protective Services (CPS) for neglect unless they were vaccinated against hepatitis B within two weeks. Yet, there is no emergency, no epidemic of hepatitis B which children need to be protected, and no evidence that hepatitis B is being transmitted at school.

The "emergency" is that the school district will lose a substantial amount of state funding if students do not comply with the vaccine mandate. So school district physician Dr. Mark Zongrone, giving his financial, not medical diagnosis, says, "We refuse to let that happen."

How did we get to a circumstance in America where a school, for its own financial self-interest, imposes medical treatment on children in opposition to their parents' wishes? Is this America or Nazi Germany?

Hepatitis B is primarily an adult disease spread by multiple sex partners, drug abusers, and those in occupations where they are exposed to blood. Unless the child is born to an infected mother, children under the age of 14 are three times more likely to die or suffer adverse reactions from the hepatitis B vaccine than to catch the disease itself.

Down the highway in Albany in September, a family court judge ordered the controversial drug Ritalin to be given to a seven-year-old diagnosed as having ADHD (Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder). The parents, who had tried Ritalin but wanted to stop it because of adverse effects, were visited by the Albany County Child Protective Services, served a petition to appear in court, and intimidated into compliance by what was described as "at least the theoretical threat of having their child removed from their custody."

Public schools are increasingly accusing parents of neglect when they refuse to drug their children with Ritalin, and some are fighting back. Two major class-action lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer of Ritalin, and Britian's National Institute of Clinical Excellence is expected soon to announce strict guidelines for its use and even ban it for children younger than five.

We would be very interested in Hillary Clinton's comment about these New York cases. We would also like to know where she stands on the letter Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, wrote to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala on October 25.

His letter was the result of a July 18 hearing that produced evidence about the health dangers from vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury). Babies are injected with the vaccines specified on the Universal Immunization Schedule, which are typically delivered in four to six shots during one doctor's visit, and may receive 40 times the amount of mercury that is considered safe under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines.

An independent evaluation conducted by the National Research Council confirmed that the EPA guidelines as accurate, and the FDA's own website states that "lead, cadmium, and mercury are examples of elements that are toxic when present at relatively low levels." Credible testimony was given regarding the possible relationship between symptoms of mercury poisoning and the skyrocketing rate of autism, now occurring in one in 500 children nationwide.

Requests to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall all thimerosal-containing vaccines by Chairman Burton and by parents of vaccine-injured children have so far been ignored. This is despite the fact that the FDA admits the vaccines on the Childhood Immunization Schedule are all available in a thimerosal-free version.

Apparently, the FDA is not planning to recall any of the 50 thimerosal-containing vaccines, but only suggests a "phase out" over time, thus allowing the pharmaceuticals to unload their defective merchandise on unsuspecting children. For years to come, these toxic vaccines will continue to be injected in babies in Public Health clinics, doctors' offices, and managed care facilities.

It is unconscionable to continue to put thousands of babies at risk every day from mercury poisoning, especially when the government is recommending use of these vaccines and the schools are making them mandatory, and when safe alternatives are easily available.

Leaving these dangerous vaccines on the market so that the pharmaceuticals can continue to receive revenue from current inventories seems to be the pattern. Even after it was known that oral polio and whole cell pertussis vaccines caused a higher rate of adverse reactions, clinics, and doctors continued to use their supplies for years rather than pitch them in favor of safer vaccines.

If there is any reason for HHS and FDA to continue to put thousands of babies at risk from dangerous vaccines other than to protect the profits of the powerful pharmaceuticals, we'd like to know what that might be. What does our great national health care authority, the one who wants the "village" to raise children, have to say about the government's responsibility for vaccine injuries to children?

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Last November, the Texas State Board of Education overwhelmingly passes a resolution opposing psychiatric drugs (such as Ritalin and Prozac) in schools. They urged local school boards and superintendents to "use proven academic and/or management solutions to resolve behavior, attention and learning difficulties," including "tutoring, vision testing, phonics, and nutritional guidance." TEF Education Liaison MerryLynn Gerstenschlager testified at the hearing.

Children now receive 33 doses of 10 different vaccines by the age of 5. As government officials push for more vaccinations, including some for "lifestyle" diseases, parents should have the right to weigh the risks and benefits and be able to practice informed consent as they do with their children's other medical care.
 

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for "radical changes in the world economy, and in the way we all live" in his opening statement via video to delegates from 160 countries meeting in The Hague, Netherlands last November for a two-week conference concerning the Kyoto Protocol that deals with the issue of climate change. He also reminded delegates that "world leaders resolved to adopt a new ethic of conservation and stewardship, and, as a first step, to make every effort to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force by 2001" at last September's Millennium Summit in New York. The conference goals were to create a rulebook for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and legally binding penalties for non-compliance.

The Clinton-Gore appointees in The Hague strongly supported implementation of the Protocol and the legally binding penalties. In 1997, Vice-President Al Gore flew to Kyoto, Japan to insure that the United States, one of only 38 nations bound by the treaty, would agree to the UN agenda even though it would devastate our economy by forcing jobs and industries to leave our shores and move to one of the 150 nations not bound by the treaty, such as Mexico and China.

A recent study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce entitled, "Refusing to Repeat Past Mistakes," estimated that implementing Kyoto could cost up to 3.2 million jobs, about half of them the jobs of blacks and Hispanics. Gore's well-known call for the elimination of the internal combustion engine is also in keeping with the Kyoto Protocol because radical environmentalists believe that more than 92% of environmental nuisances (cost of accidents, pollution, climate change, congestion-related noise) are ascribable to the road, with only 2% caused by rail.

This call for "radical changes in the world economy, and the way we all live" should interest every American, especially since science has yet to conclude the premise of the Kyoto Protocol: that the earth is warming due to an increase in greenhouse gases emitted when fossil fuels are burned and when people breathe out. On one hand, radical environmentalists claim that rising sea levels will cause island nations to sink as glaciers and ice sheets melt, while on the other hand, they claim that the earth will become a desert. Both cannot be true, yet scientific evidence was not even discussed in The Hague. In reality, the UN is using the climate change issue that affects people in every nation to consolidate its power over them.

Fortunately, the UN's efforts to write a rulebook and legally binding penalties for the Kyoto Protocol failed this time around. The head of the U.S. delegation, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Frank Loy, tried desperately to break an impasse with the European Union (EU) on the issue forests and agricultural lands, also called "sinks," which are known to sequester greenhouse gases. He offered to scrap 75% of our nation's "sink" value of forests and farmlands in order to appease the EU; even so, the negotiations ended in defeat.

It is hopeful that the new Bush administration will expect science to dictate ANY changes, if indeed any are necessary, in our lifestyles. Show the American people scientific proof, and we will respond sensibly and responsibly.

In the meantime, may the UN's Kyoto Protocol and its quest for "radical changes in the word economy, and the way we all live" be recognized for what it is: "political" science rather than conclusive scientific evidence.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Merry Lynn Gerstenschlager, Pat Carlson and I were privileged to stand in the gap for American families in The Hague, because we believe it would have a devastatingly negative economic impact on American families. We are grateful to Texas Congressman Joe Barton, who has attended the major meetings since 1997, as he also understands the threat of this treaty. Our efforts and YOUR interest and commitment to sound science have kept the Clinton-Gore team from accomplishing one of their top priorities: the Kyoto Protocol. We plan to keep you informed so that together we can prevent this treaty's ratification by the U.S. Senate.
 

The Cleveland Avenue School in Atlanta has all the amenities you would expect a new school to have: computer equipment, an up-to-date library, and modern classrooms. It has everything except a playground. No, it wasn't an oversight. It was designed that way, in order to make little boys behave more like little girls. And it is part of a trend.

In 1998, Atlanta eliminated recess in its elementary schools. Other cities, like Philadelphia, retained something called recess, but it bears little resemblance to the unstructured playtime most of us enjoyed as kids.

Why? As Christina Hoff Sommers says in her book, "The War Against Boys," educators today are intolerant of boys acting like boys-moving, making noise and engaging in raucous play. This intolerance goes beyond the need for order and discipline. The rule is "no running and no jumping," and boys who engage in normal active play are frequently punished or sent home. When boys aren't being punished for being boys, they are being medicated to accomplish the same result. It is revealing that 95% of the kids on Ritalin today (a drug to treat hyperactivity) are boys.

Beyond this campaign against what Sommers calls "youthful male exuberance" is, in her words, "misguided feminism." Many feminists insist that it is maleness itself-defined by characteristics like aggressiveness, competitiveness, and assertiveness-that causes violence. This view has found its most receptive audience in education, which is dominated by women. The result is the commitment to what Dr. Sommers calls feminizing boys: monitoring and policing characteristically male behavior, and getting boys to participate in "characteristically feminine activities." As a result, our sons think there is something wrong with being a boy.

The war being waged on our sons isn't only cruel; it's culturally disastrous. When Christians say God made us male and female, it isn't only about sex. It's an acknowledgment that the attributes of both sexes were intended to complement each other, and achieve results that neither sex, acting on their own, could achieve.

While she isn't a Christian, Camille Pagalia, a feminist author, understands this. She has written that masculinity is "the most creative cultural force in history." "Men," she adds, "created the world we live in and the luxuries we enjoy."

To be more precise, it is the masculine role as provider and protector, as restrained by clear standards of right and wrong, which has produced the civilization we know. But our schools are failing our sons today by not encouraging them in this role.

We need to help our neighbors understand that a generation of boys who are being taught that there's something intrinsically wrong with being male will not be able to act as the kind of responsible and creative force that Pagilia describes. And our sons will not be the only ones paying the price.

If we really understand what is at stake in society's "war against boys," we'd realize that a little male exuberance" on the playground is a small price to pay.

Many Americans shook their heads, wondering why apparent chicanery and presumptive graft carried the day in Florida during the recent presidential election. The old premise that, in the end, the good guys always win-at least in America-was turned on its head as attorneys and political hacks from the Gore campaign tried to ferret out votes in Florida counties. Why did it appear that the more dishonest, unscrupulous side was winning?

The answer to that question can be found in the writings of the great economist Fredrich Hayek, who attempts to explain why "the worst get on top." In his little book, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek points out that no-holds-barred competition for power naturally favors the "worst" in society. They are uninhibited by process and driven only by ends. In other words, the rules of the game don't matter, just the score at the end.

Hayek notes that formal law is "general and absolute." It will "prescribe or prohibit a general type of action irrespective of whether or not in the particular instance any harm follows from it." The man who imagines himself to be above the law, however, holds to a different view of what the law is. Such a man sees the supreme law as being anything that "serves the 'good of the whole,' because the 'good of the whole' is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done." Naturally the good of the whole can be defined in any number of ways, but will always necessitate the success of the unscrupulous man because only he truly understands the needs of the whole.

Although Hayek's book was meant to address the motives and methods of communists and fascists, one finds stunning similarities in the methods recently employed in Florida. Just as in the Clinton impeachment trial, attorneys spun, parsed words, and dissembled in an effort to force meaning into law that wasn't there. The Democratic Party expended tremendous resources to produce a particular result (an Al Gore victory) by selectively pleading different sides of like issues. For instance, Gore attorneys were quick to protect the status of Miami-Dade election board officials as being the final authority on determining hand recounts as long as the recounts were taking place AND favoring Gore. In addition, Mr. Gore and his cronies were all quick to call for fair and accurate counts of all ballots. But when Miami-Dade officials decided to abort their recount because they could not produce a fair count by the court imposed deadline, Gore's attorneys wasted no time dragging them to court in order to browbeat them into submission for the "common good." Granted, Bush's operatives were spinning as well, but at least they had the law on their side the majority of the time.

Such is the difference between the two camps. While the Republicans cried "defend the rule of law," the Democrats reply was "defend the will of the people!" The Democrat argument may have sounded more pleasing to the sentimental listener, but it is full of ambiguity and misleading notions. What is law, enacted by elected legislators, if not the will of the people? In the end, the "will of the people" as described by Al Gore is no different than what the communists described as "the good of the whole." It is rhetoric masking the power-driven agenda of a small elite who would like nothing better than to make all decisions for all people-for the good of the people, of course.

We have been reminded often that the protection of our liberties demands eternal vigilance. Rarely has this warning held more truth and significance. We must demand that our leaders abide by the rule of law as clearly enunciated in the Constitution and our resulting legal traditions. In addition, we must address abuses of the rule of law, and call the violators to account for their actions. As citizens we must do nothing less, or else face the prospect of allowing the worst to get on top.

RU-486
Late last year, Danco Laboratories began distributing the first round of RU-486 abortion pills to abortion facilities across the U.S., most of which are affiliated with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. Many pro-abortion groups have acclaimed the drug as a real crossroads in the heated abortion debate, though it may not prove to be as true as they once had thought, since many doctors are hesitant about prescribing the drug due to its dangerous complications to women and their unborn children. Many pro-life groups are working to dissuade doctors from dispensing the RU-486 pill.
Source: Free Market Foundation, 11/22/00

EUTHANASIA OK IN THE NETHERLANDS
Euthanasia will be legal in the Netherlands starting in 2001. The country became the first to formally allow euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Under the new law passed by the Dutch parliament, patients can leave a written request for doctors to use their own discretion when they become too physically or mentally ill to decide for themselves. No other country has attempted to legalize euthanasia, though Switzerland, Columbia, and Belgium tolerate the practice.
Source: WORLD, 12/9/00

SUE THE SUERS
Twenty-six Texas legislators have filed a lawsuit against cities that have filed spurious lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Young Conservatives of Texas decided to join the lawsuit, because the cities' suits "would effectively abolish the 2^nd amendment by bankrupting gun manufacturers." Marc Levin, Young Conservatives' vice-chairman of communications and a law student at UT said, "The Young Conservatives of Texas applaud this suit which seeks to assure that our cherished right to own a gun is not nullified by baseless litigation. The suits filed by many American cities against gun makers are both radical and reprehensible because they attempt to hold gun makers, rather than criminals, accountable for violent crime." Texas passed a bill that forbids its cities to file any such lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Source: Human Events, 11/24/00

BIBLE CLASS
At Duncanville High School (TX), a Bible studies teacher asks his class to take out their textbooks-the Bible. Although the Texas Education Agency doesn't keep track, one expert estimates as many as 200 Texas schools offer such a class. Bible courses were common in many school districts until 1962 when the Supreme Court banned the reading of the Bible in public schools. Courts have held repeatedly that the First Amendment limits a school's ability to offer religious instruction. But under current court doctrine, Bible study classes are permitted if they treat the Bible as a historical or literal document and don't examine it from the perspective of a single religion. Duncanville Bible teacher Wendell McHargue, a retired pastor and Bible college professor, says, "The major goal is giving the children the knowledge. Theological perspectives belong in the seminary."
Source: The Dallas Morning News, 12/1/000