Proof site #1
Proof site #2
Proof site #3
Proof site #4
Proof site #5
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
want to help me?
Submit your articles, or testimonies to me at lambsev@gmail.com. I they are worthy of the topic and need I will post them here wirh or without credit to your name.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits
Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 15, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Despite a drop in donations and the first fall in income from clinics in its history, the nation's biggest abortion provider made a high profit last year, thanks to the American taxpayer. Pro-lifers want this to stop.
During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.
According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).
For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.
Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article, were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."
"During a year of great change and growth, and in a political climate of increasing assaults on sexual and reproductive rights and health, Planned Parenthood continued to make enormous strides toward protecting and strengthening the reproductive health and rights of women and men worldwide," the statement adds.
Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion provider "has to be stopped. Since our elected officials won't do their job, it's up to us."
"Clearly, it was a good overall year for Planned Parenthood," he said. "Total income went up 2.4 percent, passing $900 million for the first time."
At the same time, however, he said further analysis revealed "potential trouble spots" for the PPFA.
The report showed that income from clinics was down about $1.5 million from the previous year -- the first such decline in the organization's 50-year history -- while donations also fell by $3.6 million.
So why was Planned Parenthood able to report such a high profit?
"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.
"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down, and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land," Sedlak said.
"Everyone is getting the message: Stay away from Planned Parenthood. Everyone, that is, except our elected officials," Sedlak stated. "Without the increase in taxpayer funds, Planned Parenthood would have had an overall decline in income this year."
The jump in taxpayer funding to the PPFA also drew criticism from Douglas Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI).
"This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,' which is known to regular people as 'profit,'" he said in a statement.
Referring to the closing date of the latest annual report, Scott noted that "on June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted."
"This is essentially a savings account," he said. "The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda."
Ratio of abortions to adoptions
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, noted that while the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it "did not record a single adoption referral."
In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.
The fact that the organization chose not to release a number for adoptions in the latest fiscal year, he said, meant that "we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn't want to embarrass itself by revealing it."
"You will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in the PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott observed.
Cybercast News Service previously reported that Planned Parenthood has faced financial struggles for the past several years. The organization's 2003-2004 fiscal year report showed it was performing more abortions at fewer clinics than in the past.
Cecile Richards became the group's new president in February of 2006, just as the clinics in her home state faced cutbacks and even shutdowns because of budget amendments passed by the Texas legislature.
And last December, STOPP International said that 2006 had been "another year of struggle for Planned Parenthood" since the number of clinics the organization operated had dropped to its lowest level since 1987.
Several abortion rights groups Thursday declined to comment on the finances of another organization.
In a recent statement, PPFA President Cecile Richards argued that more funding was needed for its work.
"Currently, more than 17 million women in the U.S. need publicly-funded family planning services, and there is not enough funding to meet the need," she said. "Nearly 750,000 teenagers in the U.S. will become pregnant this year.
"As the leading advocate and provider of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood knows that affordable health care services and access to medically accurate health information and education are the keys to reducing teen pregnancy and to building strong, healthy families," Richards said.
But on Thursday, Sedlak saw the PPFA's declining number of clinics as a silver lining in the organization's new report.
"This data should encourage all who fight Planned Parenthood in your community every day," he said. "Planned Parenthood is hurting. It is closing down clinics faster than it can open new ones, and its clinic income is down. Now is the time to rededicate ourselves to a tireless fight against Planned Parenthood."
FRC's Perkins agreed. "With assets totaling more than $839 million, Planned Parenthood hardly needs a government handout," he said.
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 15, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Despite a drop in donations and the first fall in income from clinics in its history, the nation's biggest abortion provider made a high profit last year, thanks to the American taxpayer. Pro-lifers want this to stop.
During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.
According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).
For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.
Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article, were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."
"During a year of great change and growth, and in a political climate of increasing assaults on sexual and reproductive rights and health, Planned Parenthood continued to make enormous strides toward protecting and strengthening the reproductive health and rights of women and men worldwide," the statement adds.
Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion provider "has to be stopped. Since our elected officials won't do their job, it's up to us."
"Clearly, it was a good overall year for Planned Parenthood," he said. "Total income went up 2.4 percent, passing $900 million for the first time."
At the same time, however, he said further analysis revealed "potential trouble spots" for the PPFA.
The report showed that income from clinics was down about $1.5 million from the previous year -- the first such decline in the organization's 50-year history -- while donations also fell by $3.6 million.
So why was Planned Parenthood able to report such a high profit?
"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.
"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down, and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land," Sedlak said.
"Everyone is getting the message: Stay away from Planned Parenthood. Everyone, that is, except our elected officials," Sedlak stated. "Without the increase in taxpayer funds, Planned Parenthood would have had an overall decline in income this year."
The jump in taxpayer funding to the PPFA also drew criticism from Douglas Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI).
"This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,' which is known to regular people as 'profit,'" he said in a statement.
Referring to the closing date of the latest annual report, Scott noted that "on June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted."
"This is essentially a savings account," he said. "The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda."
Ratio of abortions to adoptions
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, noted that while the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it "did not record a single adoption referral."
In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.
The fact that the organization chose not to release a number for adoptions in the latest fiscal year, he said, meant that "we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn't want to embarrass itself by revealing it."
"You will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in the PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott observed.
Cybercast News Service previously reported that Planned Parenthood has faced financial struggles for the past several years. The organization's 2003-2004 fiscal year report showed it was performing more abortions at fewer clinics than in the past.
Cecile Richards became the group's new president in February of 2006, just as the clinics in her home state faced cutbacks and even shutdowns because of budget amendments passed by the Texas legislature.
And last December, STOPP International said that 2006 had been "another year of struggle for Planned Parenthood" since the number of clinics the organization operated had dropped to its lowest level since 1987.
Several abortion rights groups Thursday declined to comment on the finances of another organization.
In a recent statement, PPFA President Cecile Richards argued that more funding was needed for its work.
"Currently, more than 17 million women in the U.S. need publicly-funded family planning services, and there is not enough funding to meet the need," she said. "Nearly 750,000 teenagers in the U.S. will become pregnant this year.
"As the leading advocate and provider of reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood knows that affordable health care services and access to medically accurate health information and education are the keys to reducing teen pregnancy and to building strong, healthy families," Richards said.
But on Thursday, Sedlak saw the PPFA's declining number of clinics as a silver lining in the organization's new report.
"This data should encourage all who fight Planned Parenthood in your community every day," he said. "Planned Parenthood is hurting. It is closing down clinics faster than it can open new ones, and its clinic income is down. Now is the time to rededicate ourselves to a tireless fight against Planned Parenthood."
FRC's Perkins agreed. "With assets totaling more than $839 million, Planned Parenthood hardly needs a government handout," he said.
All the abortion lies fit to print
All the abortion lies fit to print
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
It's official: The editors of The New York Times have no shame. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Times' own ombudsman, Byron Calame.
On Sunday, Calame wrote a stunning column debunking an April 9 New York Times Magazine cover story on abortion in El Salvador. The sensational piece by freelance writer Jack Hitt alleged that women there had been thrown in prison for 30-year terms for having had abortions. Hitt described his visit to one of them, inmate Carmen Climaco. "She is now 26 years old, four years into her 30-year sentence" for aborting an 18-week-old fetus, Hitt reported.
The magazine featured heart-rending photos of Climaco's 11-year-old daughter, eyes filled with tears as she clutched a photo of her jailed mom. Cruel. Horrible. Outrageous. And utterly, demonstrably, false.
Climaco had actually been convicted of murder for strangling her newborn baby. This information was uncovered by pro-life groups. Lifesite.net obtained the court documents in Climaco's case and published them on their website in late November. Calame followed up and also independently obtained the documents easily -- records which Hitt didn't bother to try and get for himself to verify the propaganda being fed to him. Reported Calame:
"The care taken in the reporting and editing of this example didn't meet the magazine's normal standards. Although Sarah H. Smith, the magazine's editorial manager, told me that relevant court documents are 'normally' reviewed, Mr. Hitt never checked the 7,600-word ruling in the Climaco case while preparing his story. And Mr. Hitt told me that no editor or fact checker ever asked him if he had checked the court document containing the panel's decision."
Obtaining the public document was as easy as requesting that a stringer for the Times in El Salvador walk into the court building without making any prior arrangements. Which is exactly what Calame did. It took the stringer mere minutes to get the court ruling.
The facts did not fit with Hitt's pro-abortion narrative. Authorities found Climaco's dead baby hidden in a box wrapped in bags under the bed of Mrs. Climaco. Moreover, Lifesite reported, forensic examination showed that it was a full-term normal delivery. The child was breathing at the time of birth. The official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation.
Hitt's main sources of info came from a pro-abortion group called Ipas. The group would profit from legalized abortion in El Salvador since it peddles abortion vacuum aspirators. Hitt's translator consulted for Ipas, which launched a fund-raising campaign to free Carmen Climaco and bring her to America. Pro-abortion groups recycled Climaco's story, citing the Times' bogus propaganda to scare up opposition to any abortion restrictions here.
The Times' pro-abortion poster child is a woman convicted of infanticide. But the Times, questioned by its own public editor, refuses to acknowledge Jack Hitt's false reporting.
There is "no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts as reported," the editors imperiously told Calame. They refuse to issue a correction, publish an Editors' Note or inform their readers of the ready availability of the court decision that exposes Jack Hitt's deception about the Climaco case.
Calame concluded that "Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect." That's too polite. The Times slung bull and they refuse to clean it up. The Times' Climaco-gate, like the Associated Press' Jamil Hussein-gate and Reuters' fauxtography scandal and CBS's Rathergate, will go down in mainstream history as yet another case of textbook media malpractice.
The next time you hear a New York Times columnist defend the paper's commitment to accuracy, fairness and ethical standards, give them two words: Carmen Climaco. The next time journalism elites wonder why newspaper circulation is plunging, remember: Carmen Climaco. The next time MSM apologists deny liberal bias, ask them rhetorically -- "Atlas Shrugged"-style -- "Who is Carmen Climaco?"
Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .
©Creators Syndicate
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
NO ROOM
In recent years, television, movies, and video games have grown more and more bloody and violent. Many (most?) Americans watch them and play them without any real thought as to their appeal, acceptance, or effect. Why do we now tolerate daily what was once abhorrent to us? How have we so easily adjusted to the gore?
I remember when I first saw CSI. The show was so bloody and grotesque I turned it off. Now I can watch it and barely squirm. Are we being adjusted to accept this without squirming? The world at large lives with wars, and with terrorism, yet is never adjusted to the shock of their blood and that of their loved ones spilt senselessly on the ground.
What truly saddens me, and sickens me is that our children suffer the bloodiest violence of any age group. The number one cause of death in the U.S.A. is not heart disease, or any other disease, it is simply abortion. The CDC reported the number of deaths in 2004 to be 2,398,343. They also report the leading causes of death for 2004, the latest year, found in the list below.
Age Groups
Rank
1-85
1 Heart Disease 652,029
2 Malignant Neoplasms 553,806
3 Cerebro-vascular 149,942
4 Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 121,951
5 Unintentional Injury 110,872
6 Diabetes Mellitus 73,134
7 Alzheimer's Disease 65,965
8 Influenza & Pneumonia 59,391
9 Nephritis 42,304
10 Septicemia 33,099
Yet in none of the CDC reports on “death” have I seen the word abortion appear. They do "track" abortion, calling it “legal induced abortion”.
One cannot escape that the fetus, the baby is alive until it is aborted. One cannot deny its DNA is different than the mother’s DNA. One cannot deny that unless the life is taken from the fetus, it will grow to become viable. Viable is the term used to mean the fetus can likely survive being born. Presently that means it must be very near 24 weeks old. But should one ever extinguish the hope of viability? This word viable itself is derived from roots meaning “live” or “alive”. From Merriam Webster’s Online dictionary, the definition of viable, comes this: Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL .
In a CDC web page I found this and quote: “In 1998 and 1999 (the most recent years for which data are available), 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. Ten of these deaths occurred in 1998 and four occurred in 1999; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion.” (From Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000 by CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm ). Notice that deaths of 14 women, (the mothers) are acknowledged as death, but for the 857,475 abortions reported to the CDC, none were acknowledged as death! “Wanted dead and alive” seems to apply, as the CDC also reports on infant mortality. I quote from the CDC again: “The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000.
(From: http://www.cdc.gov/omh/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm ).
The conclusion is that the CDC does not consider the fetus worthy of the appellation baby, or reckon abortion as the death of a baby. It is noteworthy that fetus is from Latin, a language still much alive in medicine and science, and fetus translated means “little one”. Yet the CDC does not associate the aborted fetus with death in any manner at all. If they did, abortion statistics, as deaths would be acknowledged as the number one cause of death in the US and many other countries. Even though now in slight decline, abortions still exceed 1,200,000 per year in the USA. Compare that figure to the chart above.
So why make all this trouble about abortion? Should we to be able to look at pictures of abortion as casually as we do CSI Miami, or 300 (the movie), or Grand Theft Auto. With this in mind open the following links:
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GFRD,GFRD:2007-12,GFRD:en&q=abortion&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Even with all the fake blood and guts I have seen on TV, these pictures are still very difficult to look at. If you are not offended at me for suggesting that abortion end, be at offended that most who see the need for abortion do so for their own freedom from responsible sexuality and freedom from child rearing- Moms and dads alike. There is no room for neutrality regarding abortion. It is murder. It's acceptance in this country, called the land of the free, the home of the brave, betrays the hypocrisy and/or the ignorance of many, from the least to the greatest of us. Yet again I dare say: THERE IS NO ROOM FOR NEUTRALITY REGARDING ABORTION.
Written by David B, Severy © 2007
I remember when I first saw CSI. The show was so bloody and grotesque I turned it off. Now I can watch it and barely squirm. Are we being adjusted to accept this without squirming? The world at large lives with wars, and with terrorism, yet is never adjusted to the shock of their blood and that of their loved ones spilt senselessly on the ground.
What truly saddens me, and sickens me is that our children suffer the bloodiest violence of any age group. The number one cause of death in the U.S.A. is not heart disease, or any other disease, it is simply abortion. The CDC reported the number of deaths in 2004 to be 2,398,343. They also report the leading causes of death for 2004, the latest year, found in the list below.
Age Groups
Rank
1-85
1 Heart Disease 652,029
2 Malignant Neoplasms 553,806
3 Cerebro-vascular 149,942
4 Chronic Low.Respiratory Disease 121,951
5 Unintentional Injury 110,872
6 Diabetes Mellitus 73,134
7 Alzheimer's Disease 65,965
8 Influenza & Pneumonia 59,391
9 Nephritis 42,304
10 Septicemia 33,099
Yet in none of the CDC reports on “death” have I seen the word abortion appear. They do "track" abortion, calling it “legal induced abortion”.
One cannot escape that the fetus, the baby is alive until it is aborted. One cannot deny its DNA is different than the mother’s DNA. One cannot deny that unless the life is taken from the fetus, it will grow to become viable. Viable is the term used to mean the fetus can likely survive being born. Presently that means it must be very near 24 weeks old. But should one ever extinguish the hope of viability? This word viable itself is derived from roots meaning “live” or “alive”. From Merriam Webster’s Online dictionary, the definition of viable, comes this: Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL .
In a CDC web page I found this and quote: “In 1998 and 1999 (the most recent years for which data are available), 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. Ten of these deaths occurred in 1998 and four occurred in 1999; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion.” (From Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000 by CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm ). Notice that deaths of 14 women, (the mothers) are acknowledged as death, but for the 857,475 abortions reported to the CDC, none were acknowledged as death! “Wanted dead and alive” seems to apply, as the CDC also reports on infant mortality. I quote from the CDC again: “The infant mortality rate, the rate at which babies less than one year of age die, has continued to steadily decline over the past several decades, from 26.0 per 1,000 live births in 1960 to 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2000.
(From: http://www.cdc.gov/omh/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm ).
The conclusion is that the CDC does not consider the fetus worthy of the appellation baby, or reckon abortion as the death of a baby. It is noteworthy that fetus is from Latin, a language still much alive in medicine and science, and fetus translated means “little one”. Yet the CDC does not associate the aborted fetus with death in any manner at all. If they did, abortion statistics, as deaths would be acknowledged as the number one cause of death in the US and many other countries. Even though now in slight decline, abortions still exceed 1,200,000 per year in the USA. Compare that figure to the chart above.
So why make all this trouble about abortion? Should we to be able to look at pictures of abortion as casually as we do CSI Miami, or 300 (the movie), or Grand Theft Auto. With this in mind open the following links:
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GFRD,GFRD:2007-12,GFRD:en&q=abortion&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Even with all the fake blood and guts I have seen on TV, these pictures are still very difficult to look at. If you are not offended at me for suggesting that abortion end, be at offended that most who see the need for abortion do so for their own freedom from responsible sexuality and freedom from child rearing- Moms and dads alike. There is no room for neutrality regarding abortion. It is murder. It's acceptance in this country, called the land of the free, the home of the brave, betrays the hypocrisy and/or the ignorance of many, from the least to the greatest of us. Yet again I dare say: THERE IS NO ROOM FOR NEUTRALITY REGARDING ABORTION.
Written by David B, Severy © 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
