Welcome to the Rock for Life blog! To subscribe enter this URL (http://www.rockforlife.org/rss) into your RSS feed reader.
Make sure to post comments. Enjoy!
AN INVITATION TO PRAY WITH US THIS SUMMER Posted: Friday May 23, 2008 at 11:48 am EST by Rosh Koch
Every summer Rock for Life sends out a team of young people across the country to music festivals with a mission to engage their culture and their generation with a message of hope, love, and life. During their travels, the team will encounter thousands of people - making friends, sharing discussions, exposing the truth, and gathering stories, photographs, and videos of many people who are actively participating in the life conversation.
Between festivals the team will also gather at Planned Parenthood facilities and abortion mills to pray for the children who are being murdered and to pray for the families of those children. We invite you to join us!
This year we have an enthusiastic new team heading out to 10 festivals (so far) over the course of the summer. The full schedule of events can be found on our Action Calendar. Keep your eyes on the calendar, as we will be continually updating it to included all of our prayer stops.
The team will be headed up by former pro-wrestler and pro-life enthusiast ROSH KOCH and will feature both new and familiar faces. Expect to see profiles, videos, photos, and blogs from those team members throughout the summer!
We hope you would make sure to stop by our booth at the festivals and join us in prayer.
So far we have stops planned for Madison WI, Fond du Lac WI, Cincinnati OH, Charleston WV, Lancaster PA, Worcester MA and several more are in development. Official schedules should be available soon.
We are still looking for someone to host the RFL team and organize prayer vigils, youth group presentations, or pro life concerts in the following cities: Lexington KY, Columbus OH, Pittsburgh PA, State College PA, Eau Claire WI, Minneapolis MN, St Paul MN, Chicago IL, Indianapolis IN, Hartford CT, and a few other stops between Purple Door in PA and Lifelight in SD.
For details or to jump on board, email rosh@rockforlife.org or phil@rockforlife.org!
BILL MAHER PROTEST; MAY 29TH; WASHINGTON, DC Posted: Thursday May 22, 2008 at 2:14 pm EST by Erik Whittington
Many of you are well aware of the fact that Bill Maher has insulted all people of faith with his various remarks. If not, check out the website, www.FireBillMaher.com where his bigoted statements are well documented.
Now, those of you in the Washington, D.C. area will have an opportunity to show your displeasure in person. American Life League is organizing a protest outside of DAR Constitution Hall in D.C., where Bill Maher will be appearing on the evening of Thursday, May 29.
It is important that Maher understand the depth of the resentment felt by ordinary citizens to his outlandish remarks.
Please join us on that evening from 6:30 to 7:30 and let Bill Maher know how you feel.
Here are the details:
WHO: YOU, along with ALL staff and supporters
WHAT: Protest Bill Maher’s public appearance
WHERE: DAR Constitution Hall, 1776 D St., N.W., Washington, D.C. (in front of the main entrance)
WHEN: 6:30 p.m.– 7:30 p.m.
WHY: Because of Bill Maher’s highly offensive remarks against people of all faiths, especially his recent virulently anti-Catholic remarks, and his upcoming anti-faith documentary Religulous (ridiculous + religion).
So join us for this protest and make sure to forward this invitation to all of your family members and friends of faith in the Washington, D.C. area.
An RSVP isn’t necessary, but if you want to let us know you are coming, that would help us out with preparations.
i like bill i personally think he is funny and what he said about the catholics are true.. you are just afraid to admit that Erica | June 16, 2008 4:16 pm
No Erica, it's called hate speech. Don Imus was fired for much less. We shouldn't tolerate that. Erik Whittington | June 16, 2008 4:44 pm
Erik,
On behalf of all of Bill's fans, I would like to thank for for protesting his new movie premier. After all, if the religious right hates something, most Americans become MORE interested in it. I know you hate that Bill Maher's show is one of the top rated shows on HBO. I know you hate that liberals and progressives LOVE Bill Maher because he's damn funny.
So, I guess I am sorry you can't take a joke. He rips on ALL religions, not just your precious Catholicsm, which I have a hard time believing you even follow. Have you even READ Vatican II? Lumen Gentium? I really doubt it.
Either way, I can't wait to see Bill when he comes through my city on tour. He's hilarious. Vlad | June 19, 2008 5:36 am
Vlad,
Having one of the top shows on HBO isn't saying much.
Making a living off of making fun of others says a lot bout a person's character.
I am not Roman Catholic.
I have never heard of him make fun of atheists, "doubters," humanists, socialists or so-called "progressives." If he has, please post the embedded html code of the snippet from youtube in the comment section below. Erik Whittington | June 19, 2008 8:59 am
"Making a living off of making fun of others says a lot bout a person's character." Yeah, it says they are a comedian. I'm sorry you can't take a joke, most people can.
"I am not Roman Catholic." Then why are you in ALL and not your own organization? ALL is run by Catholics. Hard to believe dude.
"I have never heard of him make fun of atheists" Because he is one. Duh. Vlad | June 23, 2008 3:25 pm
Vlad,
"Yeah, it says they are a comedian. I'm sorry you can't take a joke, most people can." I can take a joke but sometimes a line is crossed. Did you say the same about what Don Imus said? Using your logic, why couldn't Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton just take a joke?
So first you say, "ALL religions, not just your precious Catholicsm, which I have a hard time believing you even follow." Then you say, "Hard to believe dude." So which is it?
Atheism - You said he makes fun of everyone, then why not his precious atheism? Erik Whittington | July 1, 2008 9:15 am
"Using your logic, why couldn't Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton just take a joke?" I agree that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should have just taken the comment for what it was, a really bad insensitive joke. To ask for his head and cost him his job for saying something so innocuous is overly sensitive and only serves to exacerbate the issue.
Bill Maher DOES make fun of every religion. Atheism is the absence of belief in a God or group of Gods. Technically, Buddhists, Taoists, and those who follow Traditional Shinto are also Atheists. Maher makes fun of BELIEVERS because you believe in an invisible man who has a magic list of things you can't do and if you DO do them then you are condemned to an eternity of hellfire and pain...but he LOVES YOU! The existence of God is about as rational as an invisible Pink Unicorn to non-Believers, and Bill Maher makes fun of those believers without prejudice or favoritism. Don't act like you're special because you're Christian and he's making fun of you. He rags on Jews, Muslims, Buddhists (who ARE technically Atheists, lets remember), Hindus, EVERYONE who believes in invisible or supernatural forces that guide or influence or command artificially imposed obediances in our lives. Vlad | July 7, 2008 8:20 pm
He doesn't make fun of atheism whose followers follow that belief with religious type fervor. that is my point.
Is the wind invisible? How did all of this come into existence?
Yes, there is a list of things not to do. There is also many things TO DO. You should check those out as well. Did your parents tell you not to do things? Or just let you run wild? Erik Whittington | July 8, 2008 10:45 am
"Is the wind invisible?" Technically, Yes. The invisibility of God doesn't make the presence of God unbelievable, using a turn of phrase or metaphor to illustrate a point should be familiar to you Erik. After all, you HAVE read the Bible, I assume. Its FULL of metaphor. "Did your parents tell you not to do things?" I'm sure my father would get a good chuckle out of his rules being compared to divine edicts which determine the fate of one's immortal soul. I sure did. Vlad | July 11, 2008 3:41 am
wow, talking about dodging the questions! Erik Whittington | July 14, 2008 4:37 pm
CONDOMS TO THE RESCUE? Posted: Wednesday May 21, 2008 at 12:38 pm EST by Phil Eddy
Chances are by now you have heard about the devastation effects of Cyclone Nargis on the Irrawaddy River Delta region of Burma (aka Myanmar), and the tragic loss of life - almost 80,000 dead and more than 55,000 missing. With so many homeless, disease and starvation are threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands more. As relief agencies worldwide have come to the rescue (or rather, tried - the Burmese military dictatorship has severely hampered relief work), how is the United Nations Population Fund responding?
CONDOMS TO THE RESCUE!
Officials with the UNPF have confirmed that they are planning to send 218,400 condoms to the hard-hit region.
This reminds me of FOOD NOT CONDOMS, an organization started by students at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia.
and..how are the condoms supposed to help? Emmie K | May 21, 2008 5:15 pm
When there is such a large amount of people hit by disaster, as homelessness, STARVATION, and disease....Well, HELLO.....of course the answer is condoms. When will people wake up?? Effie | May 25, 2008 7:18 am
wow, are those eatable.I am so sure starving people want condoms Mary Beth | May 25, 2008 10:00 am
Although I agree that resources like food or fresh water may be more useful to the situation as it stands, condoms do stand to help keep the situation from getting worse in some aspects. Condoms can help with disease control, as well as birth control. The last thing that I can imagine would help these people would be to have to deal with a pregnancy right now. If they want to have sex, and are married, then go for it, but I highly doubt that any of those people would be benefited by having to take care of a pregnant woman, and then an infant right now. Also, condoms help with disease control. THe conditions over there are unhealthy enough as it is (think of LA after Katrina). Condoms can help stop the spread of blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis,as well as HIV and other diseases. Hannah | May 25, 2008 10:32 am
I'm not exactly sure how condoms are helping the situation in Burma, nor am I exactly sure why Rock for Life would go out of their way to point this out. If you (ALL and RFL) are against condoms, that is a respectable position, but I have to question how appropriate it is for these positions to appear on your website and in your email reports. If issues such as condom use concern you more than other life and death issues, fine, but perhaps RFL should consider amending the "about us" section of its site in order to more honestly represent its priorities. Jennie K | May 25, 2008 2:35 pm
This is terrible. If anything, they need food and water. I guess they suppose they are "helping control the population". But to me, that's a slap in the face and is not helping. It's promoting the demoralization of this culture and reducing the population thus making them even more a minority. We need more kids, not less. Life is sacred, when are people going to realize this? Life isn't a threat, it's a gift! Matthew Shipp | May 25, 2008 4:11 pm
I believe this just demonstrates how sex-saturated our nation/world is. These poor people need food and shelter and TRUE PROTECTION... not the protection that the UNFPA is offering!! I just think this is absurd! Of course after the death of 80,000 of their people and with 55,000 still missing? I am sure that sex is the dominate topic on all of their minds! Unless the UNFPA sees this "gift" as providing a way to take their minds off the devastation around them? but still I believe they would rather find their missing children then worry about ?doing things? not to have more!They REALLY need our prayers! Mak B. | May 25, 2008 10:13 pm
Hannah, Condoms are not effective against pregnancy or disease control. For statistics on both read this
Also, do you think a victim of Cyclone Nargis, while searching for drinking water, food, a house and maybe even taking care of their sick children, are really contemplating sexual intercourse with their spouse? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Erik Whittington | May 27, 2008 9:39 am
Jennie, What is behind abortion, or the Culture of Death? A total disregard for human life. Surgical and chemical abortions are a main concern because the cause of death is at least 1.2 million a year in the U.S.
So why talk about condoms? For various reasons. They give young people a false sense of security when it comes to protecting one against pregnancy and disease. They don't work. To read more about this click this link. Our society is overly sexually saturated which leads to a high birth rate to those not married, which is the best situation to raised up as a child. Abstinence / sexual purity / modesty / chastity are proven to work and makes sense.
Yes, you are correct that other life issues are important as well. Unfortunately we cannot cover all the topics all the time. Erik Whittington | May 27, 2008 9:51 am
Erik, I did read the link on condom effectiveness, and found it informative, thank you. However, I did not see any data supporting your claim that condoms are "not effective." Relating to pregnancy: "For male condoms the FDA says the rate [of pregnancy] is 14 percent" (ALL). This means that condoms are 86% effective in preventing pregnancy. I know that 86% is not 100%, but it is unfair to say that condoms are "not effective" in preventing pregnancy, when they are clearly effective in the majority of cases. Relating to disease control: "The NIH report did say that consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by about 85 percent" (ALL). Again, 85% is not 100%, but it is not "not effective" in some general, all-encompassing sense of the phrase.
My main point here, is to say that 85%, 86%, or really any percentage greater than 0% is better than nothing. Some degree of prevention of pregnancy or STD transmission is a lot better than no prevention at all.
I agree with you on several points. If I were a victim of Cyclone Nargis, the last thing on my mind would probably be having sex with my husband, assuming I was married. And yes: I do believe that the money spent to produce and ship condoms to the cyclone-struck region could be put to far better use if it were spent on food, clean water, and shelter for these people. However, I am simply trying to point out the fact that condoms can serve some useful purpose there; that they're not necessarily just being shipped around the world to promote sexual immorality and sex outside of marriage. Condoms are effective in preventing pregnancy and the transmission of some STDs--such as HIV/AIDS--in the majority of cases, and to make a blanket statement claiming that condoms are "not effective" in these areas is just wrong. Hannah | May 27, 2008 4:57 pm
Hannah, Maybe 86% is good in baseball but that is clearly not a good percentage in those areas especially when 100% can easily be reached by abstaining. Imagine getting on an airplane for a flight and the pilot proclaims, "I am happy to announce that I safely land my airplanes 86% of the time!" I'd bet you would get off the plane. Why is it we will not tolerate that rate of "effectiveness" in safely landing an airplane but when it comes to so-called "safe sex" 84% or 86% is so-called "effective?" C'mon, we can do better than that!
We can say no and saying no is highly effective. Let's shoot for 100% and if we fall short at least we gave it our best. Why shoot for anything less? Erik Whittington | May 28, 2008 8:43 am
Now, to continue: Let me just start out by saying that I think it's ridiculous to compare a game to the rates of pregnancy or STD transmission. About the airplane analogy..."we will not tolerate that rate of effectiveness" because with an airplane, that means that 14% of the time you will die on the spot, immediately as a result of the pilot's failure to effectively land the plane. However, the 14% of the time that a condom doesn't work, people don't die on the spot. When a condom breaks or otherwise fails, it's not instant death. Neither pregnancy nor most STDs kill you, with the exception of HIV/AIDS. If you have sex with someone who has HIV, isn't it better to have a 14% chance of getting it than a 100% chance? Also, I'm not in any way denying or trying to refute the fact that abstinence is, and always will be, the most moral, most effective, and most intelligent choice for preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Similarly, I'm not saying remotely that everyone should all run around and have sex with each other just because, if they use condoms, they won't get pregnant or get some STDs MOST of the time. I agree completely that the best means of pregnancy and STD prevention is not having sex. Yes, it's better that people don't have sex outside of marriage. But if, on the offchance that they do have sex outside marriage, is it not better that they do so with some protection than with none? Hannah | May 28, 2008 4:11 pm
Erik, it's great that you're firm in your convictions and won't have premarital sex 100% of the time. Good for you. You do realize that there are people who don't share your beliefs and viewpoint on premarital sex though, right? Some people are going to have sex before marriage. It's those people we need to think about in regards to condom usage and distribution. Hannah is right in saying that, although not 100% effective, condoms are better than nothing. Helmets won't save your life 100% of the time in a motorcycle crash, but they can't hurt. Look at a scenario where two people are having sex. Isn't it better that they use a condom rather than not? Isn't it safer? Wouldn't you want that for them? I doubt that you believe they deserve whatever is coming to them for having premarital sex--that doesn't seem very Christian.
Also, this is from the link that you posted:
"The condom's biggest flaw is that those using it to prevent the conception of another human being are offending God. God intends that sexual intercourse should take place only between a man married to a woman. If people follow God's plan for human sexuality there would be no problem with sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, each and every act of marital intercourse must be both unitive and open to procreation. Any action, including condom use, which has as its purpose to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. Those married couples who, for just reasons and not by selfish motivation, wish to space the births of their children, can avail themselves of the morally acceptable natural methods of birth regulation which are based upon selfobservation and the use of infertile periods."
If people followed God's plan for sexual morality, there would be no problem with sexually transmitted diseases? Really? So if tomorrow, every single person on this planet only had sex with their spouses or, if they were unmarried, didn't have sex at all, we wouldn't have an STD problem? Would STDs just...disappear? What about the people who have them now? What about the people who are married who have STDs and have since given it to their spouse? Or the people who have HIV/AIDS and run the risk of passing it on to their unborn child? It's foolish to think that STDs would just go away if everyone stopped having premarital or extramarital sex.
Waiting to have sex based on when your wife is ovulating is a conscious decision. It's an action; wouldn't that then make it "intrinsically evil," as the passage states? Is there something in Scripture that I'm forgetting about that says that men and women can have sex for reasons other than procreation if they want to space their kids out? Kara Anders | May 28, 2008 10:57 pm
Kara, Yes I am well aware of the fact that there are many people that don't subscribe to chastity. It doesn't matter what you believe in a way because the bottom line is truth is truth. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. Everything else fails. If you don't want an STD, STI, HIV/AIDS then don't have sex. It's pretty simple and it works. Why defend so vehemently what doesn't work? The truth is in the natural law. Erik Whittington | May 29, 2008 9:36 am
Hannah, you may think its ridiculous but the comparison isn't that far off. Sure, when condoms fail there isn't instant death - but there are serious consequences, many of them leading to death. Sure, maybe not a 100% perfect analogy, maybe more like 84-86%!
Image this argument: Yes, it's better that people don't kill their grandparents. But if, on the off chance that they do kill their grandparents, is it not better that they do so by giving them painkillers rather than none?
I just took your last two sentences, removed one sin and replaced it with another. Now do you see my point? Not everyone opposes killing their grandparents... Erik Whittington | May 29, 2008 9:42 am
Sorry, I kept trying to include a link to a website in my last two posts and it kept...not showing up, so that was why my last one begin, "Now, to continue." It sounded rude; just wanted to clarify.
Sex is comparable to murder? I honestly don't think I would agree with that.
But honestly? Let me say this. Yes, it's better that people don't murder their grandparents. But if, on the off chance that they do kill their grandparents, is it not better that they do so with a clean shot to the head than by, say...drawing and quartering them? Burning them alive?
See, I think that not everything is necessarily JUST black or JUST white. I think that there are definite, unchangeable Truths, and definite, unchangeable Evils. However, I also believe that things like health risks and safety issues do have many many gray areas. Assuming that someone is not going to make the smartest choice, the most healthy choice, whatever, it's better that they make the next best, the next healthiest choice than to just say, "ah, screw it, I'm not abstaining, so there's nothing else I can do to prevent pregnancies or STDs." Hannah | May 29, 2008 3:36 pm
Hannah, If you know someone is going to make a wrong choice you shouldn't participate in that wrong choice by helping them to lessen the detriment of the wrong act. You should have nothing to do with it. Give the right choice and best choice.
I hope you are not serious about contemplating a less evil way to kill an elderly person... less evil is still evil... Erik Whittington | May 30, 2008 5:11 pm
Sigh. Ok. I just disagree about several things, and don't think you're really going to see my point...but I need to stop arguing about this because I got wayyyyy off-topic and probably could go on forever. So...that's that. Hannah | May 30, 2008 8:35 pm
Less evil may still be evil, but there is evil inside all of us; original sin and all that jazz. Are we all viewed the same then? Erik, you seem to approach the situation as though the degree doesn't matter--that we are simply viewed the same. I disagree.
The extent does matter. Even though it's an obvious straw man argument, I'll humor your example. If someone euthanizes his grandparents by mixing sleeping pills in with their food, that's arguably an evil act. Is it just as evil, though, than someone who flays his grandfather alive while his grandmother watches then proceeds to chop random body parts off of her until she dies of trauma or blood loss? I would say that it isn't--obviously one is worse than the other. One is more evil. Of course, that makes me wonder how this is at all comparable to condom use and premarital sex--it isn't. Once again, straw man argument.
Are you honestly saying that you don't care whether or not someone gets HIV because they're acquiring it during the commission of a sin? Kara Anders | May 30, 2008 11:38 pm
Hannah, the next best? I don't even get away with that in school, so, why should we get away with it in an issue as serious as this? It's getting really hard now, "You can control yourself, stay away fromw drugs", "You can control yourself, stay away from drinking", "You shouldn't have sex, but you CAN'T control yourself, so here's a condom." AND, (back to what Emily said in the begining) How is this supposed to help? Ada Ornelas | June 1, 2008 10:26 pm
Hannah, I see your point. I disagree with your point. Erik Whittington | June 2, 2008 8:44 am
Kara, Thanks for making my point. Killing your grandparents is wrong no matter how it is done.
Of course I care about people getting HIV/AIDS that is why I preach abstinence which is how you DON'T get HIV/AIDS. Erik Whittington | June 2, 2008 8:46 am
SOMETHING'S ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF KANSAS Posted: Monday May 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm EST by Phil Eddy
Check out this eye-opening video from Jack Cashill. Kansas prosecutor Phil Kline is going full steam ahead with over one hundred charges (including several felonies) against the state's biggest killer: Planned Parenthood . As more and more evidence is gathered, there appears to be massive and widespread corruption that is threatening to halt Kline's progress.
Great video and good summary. The political corruption in our state is revolting. I wish we could run this on television here. RFL Kansas | May 20, 2008 10:04 am
VIDEO OF THE WEEK Posted: Friday May 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm EST by Phil Eddy
Kristi Burton was only 19 years old when she began the process of putting a personhood amendment on the ballot in Colorado. One year later, she has succeeded in getting almost double the number of signatures needed to do so. Now, at 20, Kristi has already entered law school, and this brilliant young woman has a burning desire to work in defense of protecting innocent human beings. This week’s video is an episode of the ALL Report focusing on the Colorado personhood amendment. It features an interview with Kristi, so check it out!
You go, girl! God be with you. Ann | May 18, 2008 1:17 am
So when this gets smacked down by the progressives and Democrats who now hold sway in Colorado, what will this little attention seeker do for fun? Vlad | June 16, 2008 3:00 am
HORROR IN MICHIGAN: SAME STORY, DIFFERENT DUMPSTER Posted: Friday May 16, 2008 at 3:45 pm EST by Phil Eddy
Several weeks ago, we reported on the discovery, in March, of aborted babies in the dumpster behind an abortion clinic in Michigan. Sadly, that has happened again. In April, Lynn Mills and Jenny Nelson, two women associated with Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, checked the dumpster behind the Women’s Advisory Center abortion business in Livonia, Michigan. A police report was filed, but so far, abortionist Reginald Sharpe has been given only a warning - no fines and no penalties!
You can read the text of the police report here, and the video of what they found is below (WARNING: The police report contains graphic descriptions, and the video contains graphic footage).
Graphic and gross, yes. I get the 'shock and awe' part. But, what exactly was the point of the reveal? What did they expect to find in the garbage of a medical clinic??
And, if you know its a clinic that provides abortions, why would they be so offended that they didn't 'dispose' of the remains the way the protesters want them to? Did they really expect funeral services to be held out back?
It doesn't seem like anything illegal here, so not clear on the 'scandal' angle on this. I mean...yeah...you're going to find fetal parts if you open bags at an abortion clinic. Danielle | May 19, 2008 4:41 pm
how anyone could watch this and not be moved to action is beyond me. i guess my first thought, since i am in the medical field, is why is this place not being fined like crazy for not putting biohazard materials in biohazard containers. this video is amazing. my heart breaks. how anyone look at abortion and not see that it is killing LIFE is beyond me. it is a hidden holocaust. denise | May 20, 2008 9:09 pm
I agree with Danielle that that's what you could expect to find at an abourtion clinic. However, dead bodies are considered "Hazardous waste" and I think that there's a law against disposing of the bodies unresponisbly. Not that killing the babies in the first place should be legal. Emmie K. | May 20, 2008 11:00 pm
Of course "they" are persons from day 1 and even before! Read this: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5 Doesn't sound like "they" are merely trash for the dumpster. Ann | June 14, 2008 10:34 am
Hey, folks. I'm one of the guys who worked with Dr. Miller and the Citizens to bring this to light. Just a few things:
This is not necessarily "what you could expect to find." Most medical waste is treated like medical waste, bagged separately from regular trash and taken for incineration. Disposal of blood, tissue, used sharps (needles), and things of that nature in a common dumpster constitutes, under law, a public health hazard. On top of that, hospitals and clinics are required to shred any patient information prior to disposal. That means patient names, phone numbers, social security and insurance information -- all of which we found, unshredded, in the bags we pulled from behind Women's Advisory. We couldn't put any identifiable patient information in the video, for obvious reasons, but the biohazard waste and improper disposal of patient records puts Women's Advisory squarely on the wrong side of the law.
No, of course we didn't expect funeral services to be held out back. But we are holding a funeral. The requiem mass for the infants taken from the dumpster behind Women's Advisory will be held on June 27 at Assumption Grotto parish, located at 13770 Gratiot in Detroit, MI. The chief celebrant will be Bishop Daniel Flores, and Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life will offer the graveside eulogy. If you are in the area -- or even if you're not -- you are welcome to come to the funeral and offer these children a measure of respect they saw neither in their short lives nor in their treatment after death.
You're also welcome to drop by www.prolifesociety.com anytime.
Peace-
J. Citizens for a Pro-Life Society | June 15, 2008 11:50 pm
Danielle, Can you really be that cold and callous? Writing what you did after viewing these tiny human infant remains? People like you would be up in arms if animals were treated so badly in this country and it would be on national news. Connie | June 23, 2008 8:16 am
131,243 FOR LIFE! Posted: Friday May 16, 2008 at 3:25 pm EST by Phil Eddy
In February, Phil joined a team from American Life League that went to Colorado to help the Colorado for Equal Rights campaign in its quest to place a personhood amendment on the November ballot. Although facing an uphill battle from the beginning, young Kristi Burton and her team of devoted pro-lifers worked around the clock to gather the 76,000 signatures needed, and their persistence has finally paid off. They blew way past the required minimum by getting a total of 131,243 signatures!
The personhood amendment reads as follows: “The term ‘Person’ or ‘Persons’ shall include any human from the time of fertilization.” If passed by voters in Colorado, it would establish equal protection under the law for all human beings from the very beginning of their lives. This marks a truly monumental step toward establishing personhood for ALL people and ending abortion. We congratulate Kristi and the thousands of volunteers who made it happen!
