This is a story that's both hard to believe and not hard to believe at the same time.

It seems that this past Saturday, a woman who had participated in the March for Life in Washington was told by security guards that she had to remove her pro-life pin that she had on from the march before she entered the building.  She was told that you can't wear religious or political items in a federal building.  (??) Via Lifenews:

...after searching her bag, two guards at the Gallery told her, "You're good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.”

"He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message 'impact73.org' and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat," Duke writes today.

"The pin, they informed me, was a 'religious symbol' and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building," Duke continues.

"Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building? Bringing to bear the full weight of the supreme law of the land, the guards informed that it was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: The combination of me, wearing a pro-life pin, in a federal building was a violation of the separation of church and state," she explained.

Columnist Cal Thomas raises a point to ponder in the light of last week's decision by the Supreme Court which (essentially) extended First Amendment rights to corporations and unions.

He points out that, for purposes of the Constitution, the court rightly decided that these entities are comprised of citizens, so they have the rights of citizens when it comes to free speech.

The ruling came the week of the annual March for Life, which draws
thousands to Washington to mark that same court's 1973 Roe v. Wade
ruling. The march has become not so much a protest as an affirmation of
the value of all human life.

What makes the ruling and the march ironic is that the 1973 court,
in essence, downgraded a human fetus to the level of nonperson, while
the modern court has invested "personhood" in corporations. Does anyone
else see a contradiction or at least a moral inconsistency in these two
rulings?

Of course, as Thomas mentions, the difference in conclusions has a lot to do with the court making the decision...and in this case "who" was on the court.

Despite what the New York Times tried to lead the US public to believe, the nation's Catholic hospitals do NOT support the Senate version of Obamacare.

On Christmas Day, the Times ran a story headlined "Catholic Group Supports Senate on Abortion Aid".  It claimed that there was a split between the leadership of the hospitals and the country's Catholic bishops "over the abortion-financing provisions of the proposed health care overhaul" and that "the nation’s Catholic hospitals have signaled that they back the Senate’s compromise."

Of course liberals were quick to point to the "split" as a rationale for pro-life Catholics to support Obamacare.

But wait!  Surprise, surprise, the Times got it wrong. The head of the Catholic Health Association went public yesterday and put the "conflict" to rest.  (Via LifeNews)

Over the years, Christians and conservatives have lost a number of (what were once considered) liberties via our over-active judiciary.  A trend that has become so strong that many times the mere threat of lawsuit by groups such as the ACLU would result in another loss.  But things are changing.  At least in terms a more successful conservative focus on using the judiciary as a weapon in the culture wars as well.

An example of a recent success comes from North Carolina, where a high school student was prohibited from wearing a shirt with a pro-life message and distributing literature.  One legal letter (and one the threat of a lawsuit one would guess) and the school district backed down.

From the story:

A North Carolina high school is backing down after a pro-life legal group helped a pro-life student who faced a revocation of her free speech rights. Brianna Cardwell wanted to participate in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity sponsored by Stand True Ministries.

The day is an opportunity for students to wear red tape or armbands to show their solidarity with unborn children who can't speak for themselves.

It features pro-life t-shirts and fliers explaining how abortion kills unborn children and has adversely impacted society.

A nurse in New York has filed a lawsuit against Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, after being forced to assist in a late second-trimester abortion.  The hospital knew of her objections and essentially told her she would be fired otherwise.  Specifically, she would be charged with "insubordination and patient abandonment", leading to a possible loss of her job and her license as a nurse.

The woman's attorney stated:

"We're seeing more and more cases where pro-life health workers are facing requirements to assist in abortions against their rights of conscience."

Of course, this comes against the backdrop of the Democrats' attempt to have the federal government take over much of the health care industry in America, which, by definition, includes the people who actually practice medicine.  What kind of protection will those individuals be afforded to avoid doing things that violate their conscious or religious beliefs?  Such as, in this case, abortion, or even doctor assisted suicide - or straight out Euthanasia?

The short answer seems to be little.  Obama himself promised a "robust conscious clause", but this is the same President who used his authority to rescind such protections for medical practitioners that was put in place buy the Bush administration.

And Congress has already had an opportunity to extends such protection as part of the ongoing heath care debate and chose not to.  Specifically, the House rejected an amendment which would have done just that.

Our neighbors to the north have given us another excellent foreshadowing of what the near future of political correctness run amuck holds for us.

It seems that a pro-life student, wishing to engage in a SILENT protest against abortion was put in isolation and segregated from the rest of the student body.  The student, Jennifer Rankin, was joining in the pro-life "Silent Day of Solidarity" campaign, which involved wearing red tape over her mouth and a red armband.  The point of the protest was to be able to respond with a pro-life answer when people would ask why she is protesting.

From Life News:

...a school principal alerted police and met Rankin and her mother at the entrance where she told them that the protest is not welcome at the school. Ultimately, school officials allowed Rankin into the building but kept her in isolation away from other students.

"I was taken directly into a small room that was opposite the vice-principal's office and I was in there all day," Rankin told the Petersborough Examiner newspaper. "I wasn't allowed to speak with or see any other students and students were not allowed to come and see me and I was isolated in that room for the entire day."

Keep in mind that one of the "nice" things about Canada and some European countries is that, for good or ill, they seem to be a harbinger of what's heading our way.

Again, political correctness run amuck.

Despite Obama's claims that health care "reform" opponents were spreading "fabrications" and "bearing false witness" about his plan, even the non-partisan FactCheck.org has weighed in and admitted that currently proposed plans would indeed result in the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.

The truth is that bills now before Congress don't require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it's equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

Now we'll just sit back and wait for the White House to say FactCheck is "fabricating".

***

It is Written :  

Before we are in the womb, we are known.     

A Wolverine will kill her young if there is no food.  Necessity is the Mother of invention.   

For necessity to be confused with desire is not in Harmony with God's Will.  His bowl of Limited Souls is not ours to reject, is it.  

 Look up, be diverse with God and embrace Truth in Unity

While there have been many, many polls on the abortion issue over the years, and many that have shown more people holding a pro-life vs. a "pro-choice" position, this is the first time in the history of the Gallup polling company, that their poll has shown that a majority of the American people are pro-life.  From the story:

Gallup said on Friday that a new poll, conducted May 7 to 10, found "51 percent of Americans calling themselves 'pro-life' on the issue of abortion and 42 percent 'pro-choice.' This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995."

"The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50 percent were pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46 percent, in both August 2001 and May 2002." ...