More on SF Politicians Harassing Pegnancy Centers

Zombie, San Francisco's invaluable photojournalist, is about the only "pro-choicer" we like. (We put pro-choicer in quotes because when you trace the position to first principles, it is in contradiction with itself). He understands, as we said yesterday, that the city's attack on crisis pregnancy centers is nothing more than a "nuisance lawsuit."

Here's Zombies take:

"Not aborting fetuses will soon be a crime in San Francisco.

At least that’s what the city government is pushing for in its bizarre new attack on pregnancy counseling centers.

Actually, 'bizarre' is too mild a word to describe San Francisco’s latest outburst; even from my pro-choice perspective, the city’s attempt to essentially banish any counseling center which doesn’t encourage or perform abortions is simply beyond belief."

Well, we can't agree with that. Nothing that happens in San Franciso politics is beyond belief. Anyway, Zombie then brings us to the point:

"Hold on just a moment. Everybody freeze. What exactly is 'First Resort' accused of doing wrong? Buying a Google ad? Let’s look at the specifics.

If you scour First Resort’s Web site, nowhere do they claim that they provide abortions, or even advocate for abortions. In fact, quite the opposite: they use various code words like 'values' and 'adoption' which make it pretty clear they’re coming from a 'keep the baby' perspective in their counseling.

So what’s the problem? San Francisco’s municipal government apparently had a conniption fit over the placement of First Resort’s Google ad. In particular, if you Google the words 'abortion' and 'San Francisco,' the very top result is a listing for the First Resort clinic.

Does the ad itself say that First Resort provides abortions? No. Does it even mention abortions? No. It just says 'First Resort – Unplanned Pregnancy.' Nothing more. But gosh darn it, the ad pops up if someone does a Google search!...

This could be a legal first. Has any other business or organization ever been sued over their Google search ranking? Because that’s what this is all about. Remember that neither First Resort’s Web site nor the ads linking to their Web site make any claims about providing abortions. No, the only basis for a 'false advertising claim' against them is not the content of their advertising, but the placement of it."

Zombie concludes (and remember, he is "pro-choice"):

"Here is the nightmare scenario that San Francisco is trying to prevent: A woman gets pregnant, isn’t sure whether or not she wants to keep the baby, does a Google search and blindly clicks on the top link simply because it’s at the top, ignores all the clues on the company’s Web site ('values,' etc.), goes in for an appointment — and (horrors!) the counselor she meets with convinces her to keep the baby, or even give it up for adoption, rather than 'terminating' it.

It’s quite obvious that the city simply wishes these kinds of 'values-based' counseling centers didn’t exist at all; but lacking any other way to legally boot them out of town, they latched onto the flimsy “false advertising” charge, simply as a method to drive them away (or underground) with nuisance lawsuits.

Remember, no one is accusing First Resort or the other centers of forcing anyone to not have an abortion. No, their only crime is to have 'values'-based conversations with pregnant women.

Like New York and Baltimore, I believe the city will lose this case. But that is not their point. As we said yesterday their point is using public money to harass crisis pregnancy centers. If they lose, who cares? You, the citizens of San Francisco, are paying for it. And they force First Resort, et al, to use resources that otherwise might go to helping pregnant women.

First Resort Sues City of San Francisco

No surprise at all. Our posts on First Resort and the City and County of San Francisco are here.

From First Resort's release:

"Today, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, First Resort filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The City adopted an ordinance set to go into effect in early December which, if left unchallenged, would significantly infringe upon our constitutionally protected right of free expression.

This law was enacted to hinder First Resort's ability to communicate effectively and truthfully with women who are or may be considering abortion. We cannot allow the government to control how and when we tell Bay Area women about our services.

This is a first for First Resort. We participated fully in the legislative process trying to defeat the ordinance. Both publicly and privately, we described its unconstitutionality; but we did not prevail in a politically charged election season against NARAL and other pro-abortion groups who continue their assault on us and similar organizations across the country."

Similar "laws" have been struck down in Baltimore, and suspended by injunction in New York, and just this week, in Austin, Texas. But the Culture of Death and their minions in the Democratic Party don't care. Why should they? Legal costs and settlements will be paid by you, the taxpayer.

You can support First Resort by going here.

SF Crisis Pregnancy Centers: "False & Misleading Advertising" Not Demonstrated

Today the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors heard testimony about the proposed law that would "prohibit pregnancy centers from engaging in false or misleading advertising practices."

The legislation was introduced by Supervsor Malia Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera. We had posted on this story back on August 2 & 3, where we wrote:

"The real purpose of the proposed ordinance is twofold: first, to harass the crisis pregnancy centers at public expense. That's because they threaten the Democrats' sacred cow, Planned Parenthood. It's just a fact that every baby born represents a financial loss for Planned Parenthood, and centers such as First Resort and Alpha Pregnancy help babies to be born and raised. Secondly, Dennis Herrera is running for mayor, and he thinks this will help his campaign."

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Two San Francisco supervisors, concerned over First Amendment issues, were hesitant about moving forward with a proposed law that would prohibit pregnancy centers from engaging in false or misleading advertising practices.

Centers that break the the law could face civil action by the city and fines up to $500 per violation.

The legislation takes aim at pregnancy centers that oppose abortion. The concern is that women with unplanned pregnancies are tricked into thinking that certain pregnancy centers will give them information on all of their options, including abortion, when that’s not the case.
“This legislation has been carefully crafted to ensure a balance between protecting the most vulnerable members of our communities and protecting the constitutional rights of everyone,” said Supervisor Malia Cohen, chief sponsor of the legislation, which has the backing of pro-choice advocates.

But opponents said if the legislation is approved, it would put the city at legal risk of trampling on the First Amendment.

“This law attacks one group of pregnancy resource providers, but not another group with a competing message,” said Shari Plunkett, CEO of First Resort, a pregnancy counseling center and women’s health clinic that will not perform abortions, nor tell clients where they can get the procedure done....

Supervisors, after being briefed by the city attorney, said that in order to mount a strong defense against a likely legal challenge, the city would have to produce a record of false and misleading advertising.

Imagine that--the city should have to prove what it says. But as we said, this is a "nuisance lawsuit" designed to harass crisis pregnancy centers at public expense. But as both Supervisor Avalos and Elsbernd, noted you gotta have at least some kind of a case.

But both Supervisors John Avalos and Sean Elsbernd, who serve on the committee, said such a record wasn’t demonstrated. The best legislative backers could come up with were reviews on Yelp and a search on Google when people plugged in the phrase “abortions in San Francisco” and Plunkett’s First Resort organization popped up as the second link.

“This legislative record here, to me, is empty,” Elsbernd said.

Avalos expressed a similar concern. The committee sent the legislation on to the full board without recommendation for consideration next week, with Avalos suggesting that evidence of false advertising be collected before that vote.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF's Catholic Supervisor Mark Farrell on His Crisis Pregnancy Center Vote

The greatest issue facing “a Catholic in elected public office” in the United States is legalized abortion. On October 18, the Catholic Supervisor Mark Farrell was one of 11 San Francisco Supervisors to vote on legislation restricting the message of crisis pregnancy centers. His vote, and his statement about his vote, are interesting because on Tuesday, November 15, he will address the Young Adults Group of St. Vincent de Paul Church in San Francisco. The Young Adult’s calendar of events states: “Supervisor Mark Farrell will be joining the group to share some of his personal stories and reflections as a Catholic in elected public office.”

Here is his statement, taken verbatim from the caption notes to the video of the meeting and vote. Typography in the original; interpolations in brackets added:

"Supervisor farrell: “this has been a tough one for me and I will be supporting the legislation. First, this is not about first resort."

(Who, then, is it about? The only other crisis pregnancy center in San Francisco is the Alpha Pregnancy Center, a much smaller organization).

"I know lot of people have insinuated that. I have a lot of friends involved with the organization and I have great things to say about it. Second, this is a cautionary warning."

(Who is being cautioned? Read on.)

"At the end of the day, I don' t have a problem or regulating advertising and saying false or misleading advertising is wrong. I have no problem doing that and why I will be supporting this today. I have seen a lot of evidence in e-mail change going around looking at google search results and algorithms. All lot of that stuff is not controlled by people to advertise. A clear warning -- I think you could go down a very slippery slope."

(Who is the “you” that Supervisor Farrell is addressing? It can only be his fellow board members--and himself. What is the slippery slope? As Farrell’s colleague, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the only Supervisor to vote against the ordinance, pointed out: “Four cities have passed ordinances like this. Three of those cities have seen those tossed out. The fourth is in the middle of litigation right now. I do not believe the record is sufficient to beat that threshold.”)

"Google has a provision against false or misleading advertising. To say that by buying certain key words you are doing false or misleading advertising, you' re going after google itself, and we need to take a hard look at the ways we' re going to enforce this law going forward, but I will be supporting it today.”

So, according to Supervisor Farrell:

1) First Resort is a great organization.

2) Google already “has a provision against false or misleading advertising.” Supervisor Farrell’s clear implication is that if First Resort or Alpha Pregnancy were engaged in “false or misleading advertising”, Google, a far more capable organization than the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would have nailed them already.

3) Supervisor Farrell offers his colleagues (and himself): “A clear warning -- I think you could go down a very slippery slope.”

4) Supervisor Farrell then proceeds to vote for the legislation.

Supervisor Farrell’s statement is hardly a model of clear thinking or a profile in courage. After listing all the problems with the legislation, he then proceeds to vote for it. Hardly a good message for the Catholic Young Adults.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

The Woman Who Terrifies the Culture of Death

She is Gianna Jensen, who survived an abortion.

Tell HER she is not a person. Tell HER she is a different person from the unborn Gianna. Tell HER the scars she bears were inflicted on a non-person.

Ms. Jensen will be speaking at First Resort's 28th Annual Spring Fundraising Dinner at the Hyatt Regency in Burlingame. The dinner will be on May 11.

 

You can support First Resort's great work here.

Why SF Politicians are Harassing Pregnancy Centers

Today, two San Francisco politicians joined those from Baltimore and New York in presenting an ordinance to hamper the work of San Francisco's crisis pregnancy centers. The two are Supervisor Malia Cohen, who is one of those black politicians (like Barack Obama) who service the abortion industry while that industry exterminates black America, and city attorney Dennis Herrera.

The laws in Baltimore and New York have already been overturned/put on hold by judges, on First Amendment grounds. We'll see if this one gets overturned too, or if they have crafted it more craftily.

Now, helping crisis pregnancy centers would seem to be a sensible thing to do, but not in a one-party ideological state such as San Francisco. The real purpose of the proposed ordinance is twofold: first, to harass the crisis pregnancy centers at public expense. That's because they threaten the Democrats' sacred cow, Planned Parenthood. It's just a fact that every baby born represents a financial loss for Planned Parenthood, and centers such as First Resort and Alpha Pregnancy help babies to be born and raised. Secondly, Dennis Herrera is running for mayor, and he thinks this will help his campaign.

Here's today's story, from LifeNews:

"Officials in San Francisco are launching a new campaign to target pregnancy centers in the city that help women find abortion alternatives with a new law similar to ones passed in Baltimore and New York.

Supervisor Malia Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have spent months on an ordinance that would, if passed, require the pro-woman centers to disclose whether they are abortion alternatives agencies that, supposedly, don’t provide comprehensive health care. The pair have made erroneous claims that the centers are engaging in misleading counseling and advertising.

The two announced the new initiative at a press conference — where pro-life advocates participated and asked them questions challenging their assumptions."

More IRS Attacks on Pro-Life Groups

Yesterday's LifeSiteNews has a recording of a conversation that took place on March 8, 2012, between Ania Joseph, the president of Pro-Life Revolution, a group that ministers to women in crisis pregnancies, and IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan. Pro-Life Revolution was in the process of applying for 501 (c) (3) tax exempt status. This is an IRS Agent talking:

"You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic," she said. "That’s not, that’s not really educational."

“You reach out to woman, [sic] you can’t do that,” Wan says at another point, adding, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else.”

"You have the right to do, your religion told you what’s right. You have a right to, you know, outreach to other people," Wan explains. "But meanwhile, you have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs. You have somebody else come to your door and know you don’t like them. When they come to you, how do you feel?"

This is not surprising to us in the least. It is part of the totalitarian pattern with which we have all become familiar: Democratic politicians and bureaucrats abusing their power for partisan aims. We described one such attack in our June 7 post about California's Senate Bill 131. (That post was picked up yesterday by California Catholic Daily.) That's what happened with Walter Hoye being sent to jail for peacefully protesting outside an abortion business (the conviction was overturned, but Walter spent 20-some days in prison); that's what's happening with the denial of First Amendment rights to crisis pregnancy centers like First Resort and the Alpha Pregnancy Center in San Francisco. That's what's happening with the IRS all over the country. 

SF Supes Approves Ordinance against Pregnancy Centers: "A Solution in Search of A Problem"

"A solution in search of a problem" is how San Francisco supervisor Sean Elsbernd referred to today's “false advertising” ordinance against San Francisco pregnancy centers. The ordinance was passed by the Board of Supervisors by a 10-1 vote. Elsbernd was the only dissenter.

Albert Lee, of First Resort, one of the centers affected by the ruling, said "It is a sad and regrettable thing to see the board pass this legislation despite no evidence whatsoever of false and misleading advertising by San Francisco’s two pregnancy centers. It is, as Sean Elsbernd said as the sole dissenting supervisor, 'a solution in search of a problem.'”

Sad and regrettable, yes; surprising, no. That the Board of Supervisors of the City and Couty of San Francisco would waste time and money on a non-existent issue is not news. But the Board has left the taxpayers of San Francisco on the hook for a costly legal battle that is very likely to be won by the pregnancy centers. Similar laws in Baltimore and New York have already been overturned/put on hold by judges, on First Amendment grounds. As we wrote back on August 2, the real purpose of this is law is to harass crisis pregnancy centers at taxpayer expense, and thus to service the Democrat's sacred cow, Planned Parenthood.

But this will certainly end up in court. And the already stretched taxpayers of San Francisco will get screwed again. As Mr. Lee said, stay tuned.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF NARAL ally Malia Cohen complains SF does not have enough children

On Saturday, April 21, Heather Knight, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have declared 2013 to be the "Year of the Child."

Knight commented "It seemed a bit ironic considering San Francisco is plagued by family flight and counts just 13.5 percent of its residents as younger than 18, the smallest percentage of children of any city in the country, according to the 2010 census. Wouldn’t that be like Miami proclaiming it Year of the Snowman?"

Irony is not the right word. What we are seeing is the pathological refusal to face reality (latest example here) which is a hallmark of "progressives." Even more bizarre is that one of the resolution's co-sponsors was supervisor Malia Cohen. It was Cohen who sponsored the legislation hampering the work of crisis pregnancy centers like First Resort and the Alpha Preganancy Center--organizations that will help mothers give birth to children.. A June 7, 2011 press release from the Women's Health Policy Report stated:

"Supervisor Malia Cohen is working with NARAL Pro-Choice California on legislation that would mirror laws in Austin, Texas and New York City, where centers are required to post signs that disclose whether they have medical professionals on staff and provide abortion care, contraception, or offer referrals for such services."

So: Malia Cohen, a card-carrying member of the abortion establishment, is complaining about the lack of children!

In our August 2, 2011 post on Cohen's legislation we called her "...one of those black politicians (like Barack Obama) who service the abortion industry while that industry exterminates black America." San Francisco has already been ethnically cleansed of black people (when I was a child, SF was  13.4% black, now it is down to about 6%). Surprise, surprise: SF's Planned Parenthood used to be on Eddy Street in the Western Addition (about three blocks from the projects), a largely black area. With so few black people left, that location closed, and Planned Parenthood opened a new abortion business in the Mission, which is heavily Hispanic. 

Judge Rules for SF Archdiocese in Transfer Tax Case

From today's Catholic San Francisco:

"A Superior Court judge on Nov. 18 issued an opinion that would throw out an attempted multi-million-dollar “delinquent” tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor/recorder, Phil Ting, after a more than three-year legal fight.

Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a 43-page “Tentative Statement of Decision” in favor of the archdiocese, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the archdiocese, reported Nov. 22. A case management conference is scheduled Jan. 9, 2012....Kramer agreed with the archdiocese’s central arguments: The transfers were not “realty sold,” and the transfers were a change in the form of ownership that did not make them subject to transfer tax.

“The Archdiocese of San Francisco is delighted that the Superior Court has vindicated the position the archdiocese has taken all along,” said George Wesolek, director of communications for the archdiocese.... “It would have chilled the missions of this and all churches, religions and non-profit organizations in the city, and would have sent ripples through the for-profit community as well... Fortunately, the court saw through this attempt.”

Mr. Wesolek then notes that this is another case of San Francisco Democratic Party politicians using the legal system to harass good people at public expense, just like they are doing right now with First Resort:

“The Assessor/Recorder apparently expected the archdiocese to roll over in the face of this attack but underestimated the resolve of the church. It is unfortunate that the miscalculation forced the archdiocese to spend more than three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defeat this illegal action, but the archdiocese is hopeful that the Assessor/Recorder’s office will now be dissuaded from taking similar measures in the future.”

Don't hold your breath, George.

You can read our previous posts on the issue here.

Pro-Life Group Worth Supporting at Christmas!

We published this list a couple of weeks ago, but want to offer it again. We also want to include the National Organization for Marriage. A generous donor has offered to match every gift NOM receives through the end of the year dollar-for-dollar, up to $1 million!

To donate, go here. 




Here are some great Catholic and Pro-Life organizations that surely deserve consideration when you make your Christmas donations:

California Catholic Daily. California's only independent Catholic news provider. Not a "company newspaper."

LifeSiteNews. Fearless in defense of life and the family.

First Resort and Alpha Pregnancy Center, both in San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is going after these two crisis pregnancy centers; they must be doing something right.

Catholics for the Common Good. Bill May quietly and relentlessly goes about the business of promoting the Culture of Life.

The Issues4Life Foundation. That's the Reverend Walter Hoye....need we say more?

Immaculate Heart Radio. Broadcasting the faith, everyday.

The Cardinal Newman Society. Tirelessly exposing how major Catholic Universities have been turned from bastions of the faith into enemies of the faith.

Finally, the Salvation Army. Under fire from "gay" groups, they deserve your support.

There are MANY other groups equally deserving of your support, of course, but we wanted to mention these.

Pro-Life Groups Worth Supporting at Christmas

Here are some great Catholic and Pro-Life organizations that surely deserve consideration when you make your Christmas donations:

California Catholic Daily. California's only independent Catholic news provider. Not a "company newspaper."

LifeSiteNews. Fearless in defense of life and the family.

First Resort and Alpha Pregnancy Center, both in San Francisco. The city of San Francisco is going after these two crisis pregnancy centers; they must be doing something right.

Catholics for the Common Good. Bill May quietly and relentlessly goes about the business of promoting the Culture of Life.

The Issues4Life Foundation. That's the Reverend Walter Hoye....need we say more?

Immaculate Heart Radio. Broadcasting the faith, everyday.

The Cardinal Newman Society. Tirelessly exposing how major Catholic Universities have been turned from bastions of the faith into enemies of the faith.

Finally, the Salvation Army. Under fire from "gay" groups, they deserve your support.

There are MANY other groups equally deserving of your support, of course, but we wanted to mention these.

St. Mary's College of Moraga Hosts Abortion Activist

Keynote Speaker Worked With Planned Parenthood/co-founded group that Paid For Abortions


On Saturday, March 3, St. Mary’s College of Moraga hosted the “Wo/men’s Conference 2012.” The event was held at the college’s Soda Activity Center. The event description says, in part: “Our Catholic heritage charges us to ‘defend the goodness, dignity, and freedom of each person, and to foster sensitivity to social and ethical concerns,’ which are principles evident in the mission of Saint Mary's College of California.”

But the keynote speaker for the event gives the lie to any connection with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The keynoter is a writer, lecturer, and “abortion rights advocate” named Amy Richards. She is co-founder of the “Third Wave Foundation.” Her bio on the “Soapbox” website says, in part: “Amy’s leadership and visionary work launched her as a primary spokesperson and leading voice for young feminist issues and for the past fifteen years Amy has assumed that role by lecturing at hundreds of venues, writing books and articles about feminism today, and making numerous media appearances all in an attempt to confirm that younger people are making bold and transformative contributions to their communities.”

Bold indeed. On July 18, 2004, in the New York Times column “When One is Enough” Ms. Richards related to Amy Barrett her justifications for killing two of her three children. When Richards found out she was pregnant with triplets, her response was in equal parts chilling and oblivious:

“My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to…Having felt physically fine up to this point, I got on the subway afterward, and all of a sudden, I felt ill. I didn't want to eat anything. What I was going through seemed like a very unnatural experience. On the subway, Peter asked, ‘Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.’ Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”

The organizers co-opting of Catholic teaching to justify the presence of such a speaker is obscene.

On July 28, 2004 the Times decided to run an addendum to their original column, which noted: “The column identified Ms. Richards as a freelancer at the time of her pregnancy but should have also disclosed that she is an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions.”

The Times’ statement that Ms. Richards “worked with Planned Parenthood” can be elaborated. On the “Prostitution” page of procon.org (where Ms. Richards argued that prostitution should be legalized) her “affiliations and institutions” are listed. They include her being a board member of “Choice USA” and serving on the “Council of Advocates” for Planned Parenthood New York City.

The phrase “financed abortions” in the Times addendum refers to the Third Wave Foundation’s “Emergency Abortion Fund.” The Third Wave’s “Emergency Abortion Fund” began in 1998 and was in existence until 2011. Its mission statement reads “Through the Emergency Abortion Fund, we have granted more than $200,000 to over 2,000 people. In order to make best use of our resources and expertise, Third Wave will no longer operate our own abortion fund, but will continue to fund organizations working to ensure reproductive freedom, including access to safe and affordable abortion.”

Other speakers and workshops at the event were benign compared to Ms. Richards—but only in the sense that a tumor can sometimes be considered “benign.” Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, who represents California’s 15th District, led one workshop. She has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, a 100% rating from NARAL, and a 100% rating from Equality California. Another workshop was called “Her, Their, Hir: What Wo/men’s Spaces Mean for Gender Variant Individuals” presented by Mckenzie Mullen, vice-president of the Queer Alliance at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.

The conference did include some pro-life and genuine Catholic groups. Representatives from the Gabriel Project, First Resort/Rachel's Vineyard, Bethany Christian Services, and Alpha Pregnancy Center manned tables at the event’s “Opportunities Fair.”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney 

HOW DID JEFFERSON KNOW?

Especially read the last quote from 1802.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.'-Mark Twain

Dutch euthanasia supporter now says he "was ‘wrong – terribly wrong, in fact’"

Gee, who could have foreseen this?

From the Daily Mail:

"Don't make our mistake"

"A former euthanasia supporter warned of a surge in deaths if Parliament allowed doctors to give deadly drugs to their patients.

‘Don’t do it Britain,’ said Theo Boer, a veteran European watchdog in assisted suicide cases. ‘Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely ever to go back in again.’

His native Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, has seen deaths double in just six years and this year’s total may reach a record 6,000.

Professor Boer’s intervention comes as peers prepare to debate the Assisted Dying Bill, promoted by Lord Falconer, a Labour former Lord Chancellor. The bill, which has its second reading next week, would allow doctors to prescribe poison to terminally ill and mentally alert people who wish to kill themselves.

Professor Boer, who is an academic in the field of ethics, had argued seven years ago that a ‘good euthanasia law’ would produce relatively low numbers of deaths....But, speaking in a personal capacity yesterday, he said he now believed that the very existence of a euthanasia law turns assisted suicide from a last resort into a normal procedure....

Euthanasia is now becoming so prevalent in the Netherlands, Professor Boer said, that it is ‘on the way to becoming a default mode of dying for cancer patients’. He said assisted deaths have increased by about 15 per cent every year since 2008 and the number could hit a record 6,000 this year.

Professor Boer admitted he was ‘wrong – terribly wrong, in fact’ to have believed regulated euthanasia would work. ‘I used to be a supporter of the Dutch law. But now, with 12 years of experience, I take a very different view.

(In about 12 years I expect to see supporters of counterfeit "marriage" saying the same thing.)

Whereas in the first years after 2002 hardly any patients with psychiatric illnesses or dementia appear in reports, these numbers are now sharply on the rise.

‘Cases have been reported in which a large part of the suffering of those given euthanasia or assisted suicide consisted in being aged, lonely or bereaved.

‘Some of these patients could have lived for years or decades. Pressure on doctors to conform to patients’ – or in some cases relatives’ – wishes can be intense.

‘Pressure from relatives, in combination with a patient’s concern for their wellbeing, is in some cases an important factor behind a euthanasia request. Not even the review committees, despite hard and conscientious work, have been able to halt these developments.’

The latest euthanasia figures for the Netherlands show that nearly one in seven deaths are at the hands of doctors.