Urgent: Sign this petition to end tax payer supported abortions

[estesbob]

Thanks. Did you happen to note their strategy? Doesn’t mention signing online petitions at all
onemillionmoms.com/works.asp

)

This is a thread about signing a petition. It is not a thread about the effectiveness of online petitions. Please help us to stick to the topic.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I plan on doing both. It should be noted that the Mexico City policy was the very first thing Bill Clinton voided the day he took office.

I’m going to write instead of call. All three of my reps (I live just west of downtown in LA) are pro-choice, so a call would be ignored…a letter is tangible).

And what does what complaining about Bill Clinton have to with the CURRENT event issue? I didn’t vote for him either time and he’s not the President anymore.

 

[buffalo]

I’m going to write instead of call. All three of my reps (I live just west of downtown in LA) are pro-choice, so a call would be ignored…a letter is tangible).

And what does what complaining about Bill Clinton have to with the CURRENT event issue? I didn’t vote for him either time and he’s not the President anymore.

We need to change the terms of the argument - they are pro-death not pro-choice for they do not even give the unborn a choice. The only choice they give is the choice to murder the innocent unborn.

My letters and emials call them what they are - pro-deathers.

 

[estesbob]

I’m going to write instead of call. All three of my reps (I live just west of downtown in LA) are pro-choice, so a call would be ignored…a letter is tangible).

And what does what complaining about Bill Clinton have to with the CURRENT event issue? I didn’t vote for him either time and he’s not the President anymore.

Sorry. It appears I am guilty of derailing the thread also.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

We need to change the terms of the argument - they are pro-death not pro-choice for they do not even give the unborn a choice. The only choice they give is the choice to murder the innocent unborn.

My letters and emials call them what they are - pro-deathers.

This inflammatory language is exactly what will NOT help us win arguments. I don’t think people who are “pro-choice” are rubbing their hands together laughing maniacally over the death of unborn children like some villain from a B-movie. They don’t see the issue in those terms. They honestly believe that it is an issue of choice for the mother. WE see the issue through the eyes of the unborn child. That’s where our arguments should be, not in insulting people who disagree with us.

 

[buffalo]

This inflammatory language is exactly what will NOT help us win arguments. I don’t think people who are “pro-choice” are rubbing their hands together laughing maniacally over the death of unborn children like some villain from a B-movie. They don’t see the issue in those terms. They honestly believe that it is an issue of choice for the mother. WE see the issue through the eyes of the unborn child. That’s where our arguments should be, not in insulting people who disagree with us.

Sounds politically correct to me. In th beginning the term abortionaist was used. They understood that they had to change the language. They did - pro-choice - a position that no intelligent person would be against. I say call a spade a spade.

Imagine a candidate being interviewed - your position on abortion is pro-death. What do you have to say about it?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Sounds politically correct to me. In th beginning the term abortionaist was used. They understood that they had to change the language. They did - pro-choice - a position that no intelligent person would be against. I say call a spade a spade.

Imagine a candidate being interviewed - your position on abortion is pro-death. What do you have to say about it?

The candidate would probably tell the person where to shove their microphone and rightly so.

Intentionally insulting people (which is what you are advocating) only makes pro-lifers look bad.

And on the subject, the term pro-life has been hijacked by people who are not about promoting the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, but only from conception to birth and diagnosis to natural death. Say what you are: anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia. Yeah, I know, I know…the Church ONLY speaks about abortion and euthanasia and we are free to do whatever we want relative to the death penalty and war.

 

[estesbob]

The candidate would probably tell the person where to shove their microphone and rightly so.

Intentionally insulting people (which is what you are advocating) only makes pro-lifers look bad.

And on the subject, the term pro-life has been hijacked by people who are not about promoting the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, but only from conception to birth and diagnosis to natural death. Say what you are: anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia. Yeah, I know, I know…the Church ONLY speaks about abortion and euthanasia and we are free to do whatever we want relative to the death penalty and war.

I am afraid with with this this thread is hopelessly lost. Whether that was the intention or not if we get into this it is a iretrievable.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

Buffalo…I agree with you. The liberals always get to write the rules on what anything is called, being so worried that it isn’t politically correct. Pro-Choice is a liberal term invented to sound that if you are against abortion, you don’t think anyone should have a “choice.” I was fooled by this argument for years when I was younger, believing that as a Catholic I was against abortion, but as an American, it was someone’s “choice” to have one. I am still praying that I can forgive myself for being silent so long, and standing by idly while a friend in college took his girlfriend to an abortion clinic because it was her “choice.” I had fallen victim to the politically correct terminology. Now I am older and wiser and I now know that it is not a “choice,” it is murder. Plain and simple. Let’s not weaken the fight by using mellow words like “pro-choice” to define those who are okay with abortion.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

And thank you Estes Bob, for reminding me to keep this post on track…call your congressman, sign the petition and let’s stop congress from reversing the Mexico City Policy.

 

[KarenNC]

How DARE you assume where my heart is or what I believe? Just who do you think you are?

Actually don’t be too concerned, I believe estesbob was primarily directing that at me . He and I have a fairly long history of disagreeing on the appropriateness and effectiveness of specific strategies in pro-life advocacy. Because I do not agree with every tactic he espouses, I must automatically be against pro-life issues across the board.

I fail to understand how suggesting that there might be more effective means of actually reaching your legislator with your message in a way that will actually be noticed so that you have a better chance of being heard qualifies as “attempting to undermine this thread” or being against pro-life causes.

 

[KarenNC]

This is a thread about signing a petition. It is not a thread about the effectiveness of online petitions. Please help us to stick to the topic.

Sorry, I thought it was a thread about attempting to effectively changing a legislator’s opinion. If it is about the sanctity of the use of a specific tactic whether it is likely to achieve what I perceived to be the desired goal, so be it.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Actually don’t be too concerned, I believe estesbob was primarily directing that at me . He and I have a fairly long history of disagreeing on the appropriateness and effectiveness of specific strategies in pro-life advocacy. Because I do not agree with every tactic he espouses, I must automatically be against pro-life issues across the board.

I fail to understand how suggesting that there might be more effective means of actually reaching your legislator with your message in a way that will actually be noticed so that you have a better chance of being heard qualifies as “attempting to undermine this thread” or being against pro-life causes.

I am with you on this.

 

[estesbob]

Let me bump to the top Catholic Kats original plea. It appears many are bound and determined to destroy this thread. Let’s keep trying keep on topic. Please forward thebelow link to everyone in your contact list,

The Mexico City Policy (which is not just related to Mexico City) is the 23-year old U.S. policy that forbids U.S. taxpayer support of any organization that performs or even promotes abortion. Before this policy, Planned Parenthood and U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) were illegally looting the U.S. treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars and using huge amounts of that money to bankroll abortion! But pro-life groups and Reagan put a stop to this with the Mexico City Policy. Because of Reagan’s Mexico City Policy, Planned Parenthood was completely stripped of $195 million in U.S. funding --thousands of innocent children were saved because of this legislation. Now, Congress is seeking to reverse this legislation so that organizations that fund abortion can once again receive tax payer money… and it may happen in a matter of weeks!!!

How can you help? Visit this webpage, read the information, and sign the petition:

pop.org/prospects/mcpp/MCPURL–homepage.html

 

[Catholic_Kat]

Let me bump to the top Catholic Kats original plea. It appears many are bound and determined to destroy this thread. Let’s keep trying keep on topic. Please forward thebelow link to everyone in your contact list,

Yes, yes, yes…and also, please do not forget to forward the following article
nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=257
which contains links to your congressmen so that you can email, write, or call him/her to stop the reversal of this important, life-saving policy.

God Bless.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, yes, yes…and also, please do not forget to forward the following article
nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=257
which contains links to your congressmen so that you can email, write, or call him/her to stop the reversal of this important, life-saving policy.

God Bless.

Let’s remember what’s at issue here. Whether or not the United States of America is going to use taxpayer funds to pay for overseas abortions. Again please go to the link above, sign the petition and e-mail the link to everyone on your contact list.

 

[DocQuark]

Hi Kat,

I sent you a PM. Steve Mosher’s a great guy. I met him once a couple years ago at a conference hosted by a priest friend we shared. If he believes an email petition is critical, that’s good enough for me.

I am working on some other pro-life things, but contact me and perhaps we can team up. Least I can do is spread that around among a few hundred pro-lifer email addresses I have. Of that, statistically, I see about a 25% response rate where I’m a stranger to the pro-lifers but probably more would respond to Mr. Mosher since he’s well known.

I can teach you how to spread the word much better on this and future things. You probably already do things like that, but I’m a wild ideas generator. If we have several people gathered into an online tiger team, some of my things already underway for other matters could be ready to assist with that.

There’d be a lot more tasking to do than just this petition, so I’ll need you and several other of your most trusted pro-lifers off this forum.

What’s the bottom line time on all this? Sorry, I can’t call my congressman or senators on this stuff. I’d be happy to but it’s useless when they’re bigtime, fanatical baby killers. Best we can do is get others to help.

Sounds like PRI needs $32k raised more so than the emails?

Forum folks are lazy. Internet people are lazy and lacking in attention span unless stuck on a cause. Forget the email spreading to friends. If you had the most powerful email propaganda (like I do) for pro-life, it’s only good out to about 10 iterations. Of 100 people mailed, lucky if 25% fwd it on to 10 more. Of that 250 send iteration, you lose half as pro-choicers. Of that 125 remaining, lucky if 25% keep forwarding. It dies out eventually as a function of percentages, email content, readability, desire in fwd, and going to another site – for a petition isn’t popular for someone just spammed.

However, if you more directly market that message to pro-lifers and Conservatives, you’ll get plenty of response. I would first get this out in a press release to the Freepers over at www.FreeRepublic.com. Fax that also to Glenn Beck’s show and follow up with a call. Get it to Priests for Life and EWTN. Follow-up call. Get it to Michael Savage’s radio show. Dr. Laura. Rush Limbaugh. Any of the Conservative and pro-life media outlets with several million in audience…that’s where you need to spread the world. Email it and fax it to Joseph Farah over at WorldnetDaily.com. Plenty of other folks. You want those outlets to flow that down to their people to get on it. You’ll get a few nibbles off the forums, but not as many as normal. Get PRI to have The Wanderer run an article on it. Things like that.

Once it has an audience of several million, PRI will have the funds they need quickly. They’ll also have the public pressure calling in, petitioning, etc. Dr. Savage alone has some 4 million listeners nationwide, I think. All angry Conservatives; Most pro-life.

How big is your own email list? Talk by PM. Too many Planned Parenthood spies and propaganda agents lurk these places. $195 million in tax dollar theft allows them to do stuff like that.

 

[Like]

I received the same request from the Knights of Columbus today…
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PUBLIC POLICY Mexico City Policy Hearing Wednesday
Use of taxpayer money to promote abortion at issue On Wednesday, October 31, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the Mexico City Policy entitled, “The Mexico City Policy/Global Gag Rule: Its Impact on Family Planning and Reproductive Health.” The hearing will be adversarial. Only one of the four listed witnesses supports the Mexico City Policy.
The Mexico City Policy provides that no U.S. population assistance funds can be given to a non-govenmental organization unless it certifies that it will not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. Pro-abortion groups oppose the Mexico City Policy because they are determined to spread the practice of abortion to Third World Countries.
The Mexico City Policy is an adminstration policy that was first set forth by the Reagan Administration in 1984 at the population conference in Mexico City. The policy was overturned by President Clinton in 1993 but reinstated by President Bush in 2001.
In a letter to Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activites, highlighted the origins and purpose of the Mexico City Policy and made four observations: first, abortion does not plan a family but kills a member of the family; second, studies show that promoting contraceptives does not necessarily reduce abortions; third, when made available alongside preventive methods, abortion replaces prevention; and fourth, it is contrary to logic and common sense to say that we can reduce abortions by supporting groups dedicated to promoting abortion.
Action: Please contact your U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators
Message: Please support the Mexico City Policy and vote against any bill to overturn it. We cannot reduce abortions by funding organizations that perform and promote abortion