Author Archives: Don Duckston

Test 29

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit v[pullquote]Here is the quote.[/pullquote]oluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur.

LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET, CONSECTETUR ADIPISICING

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo eni

Test 28

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing

Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur.

Test 27

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]owever, the text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy but, instead, prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

“‘Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental

providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex,” the bill says.

Test post 26

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] wanted to see how all this would look.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”

The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

[pullquote align=”right”]You momma is not that cool.[/pullquote]“Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

[hr]Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that

“pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

 

Planned Parenthood defends infanticide [VIDEO]

Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly to ensure the long term viability of abortion-on-demand in America. With a mantra of “between a woman and her doctor” they have earned the title of America’s largest abortion mill. Perhaps now they will also become America’s largest infanticide provider as well. Some are calling this “post-birth abortion,” but that is erroneous. It is infanticide just as surely as practiced by the worshipers of Moloch in ancient history.

Recently, perhaps inadvertently, Planned Parenthood spokesperson Lisa LePolt Snow gave a chilling application to Planned Parenthood’s slogan “every child a wanted child.” Speaking before a Florida legislature committee Snow made it clear that abortion survivors, in the view of Parenthood Parenthood, have no right to life (see video below).


A botched abortion survivor can be a perfectly healthy newborn. Botched abortions do not feature dismembered torsos; those are successful abortions. The result of a botched abortion is a patient rather than a victim.

What is Planned Parenthood’s response? The life or death of a survivor should be determined by the birth mother, her doctor and her family. “We believe that any decision that’s made should be up to the family…the woman, her family and the physician,” said Snow. She was not speaking for herself, but for Planned Parenthood. (It is up to interpretation for her, as a spokesperson for PP, to say “I am not an abortion provider.” She may not personally do abortions, but she is a de facto provider via her company.)

What is Planned Parenthood’s reasoning? A trauma center might be too far away to help the child.

So, to wrap this up, Planned Parenthood’s official stance is if a child survives the first attempt to kill it, the mother, her family and her doctor should decide whether to kill if for good. If they decide to let it live but the logistics of getting the baby to a trauma center are too inconvenient, well, it’s into the bucket for the baby.

Snow also references a “neutrality clause” which means any “law would not change the legal status or legal rights of anyone prior to being ‘born alive’.” Supporting the “neutrality clause” does not mean PP takes no position, the normal meaning of being neutral. It means PP supports the law being neutral toward a child’s rights as a viable fetus if it is scheduled for abortion. In other words the law cannot be interpreted as providing rights to a fetus so “every child a wanted child” can remain intact.

According to Planned Parenthood a child’s desirability determines if he or she should live or die, but, essentially, its desirability determines its very humanity.

So, kudos to Planned Parenthood for their logical consistency in defending infanticide. Those who support the right of children to be born have long argued that if life is not from conception (or at the very, very least implantation) assignment of “living” is arbitrary. Planned Parenthood understands this and is merely being consistent in their view. If a child can be killed in the womb, there are no convincing arguments, either logical or a moral, as to why a child cannot be killed on the table, abandoned in the trash, burned alive in an incinerator or poisoned in the nursery.

Well done, PP. Well done.