Planned Parenthood De-funding

I was unfriended by a family member on Facebook over a disagreement about De-funding Planned Parenthood. I think it’s important to address this rather emotional issue.
To the claim that De-funding PP would hurt women’s access to health care such as check ups, food, medecine and even relaxing by booking at for a good parenting you need to relax and avoid too much stress. I point out that, in Tulsa, OK, there are 13 free clinics for women, only one of which is PP. Of these 12, all provide all the services PP claims to provide, including PAP, STD testing, and mammograms. The only service not included is abortions.
To the claim that there would be children being born into unwanted situations, I point out that, after 40 years and over 55 million abortions later, we still have children in foster care and abused. Abortion has not proven to solve these sad situations.

Then, in Margaret Sangar’s own words, the reason for the existence of Planned Parenthood.

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Speech quoted in “Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do.” The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City.

Finally, the challenge must be addressed of: “you pro-lifers want to make a woman have an unwanted child then don’t want to help them support it”. The response is two-fold. First, we have to challenge our citizens to be responsible. We can’t treat people like animals, with no responsibility to control their urges or the consequences of their actions. This completely diminishes the dignity of a human being. Second, treating these people as dignified human beings, we must provide with a leg up, with programs aimed at making them self-sufficient, not more dependent. Provide support that encourages the parents to make their own way, not rely on the government to support them.

Instead of continuing to support programs that are proven to fail over and over, were must provide support which enables our citizens to be productive.

We have to provide support and compassion without claiming innocent lives in the process. Murder cannot be compassion.

Posted from WordPress for Android

Share on Facebook

Mother or Child’s Life? Seriously?

I read an article yesterday regarding some of the questions asked at the Republican Debate. If you saw the debate, of course you are aware of the questions asked of Donald Trump but that is not why I am addressing it. The question asked of several candidates pertains to Abortion. Would you support abortion in a case that the mother’s life is in danger?

The subject of rape, incest and life of the mother as exceptions to bans on abortion came up at last night’s GOP presidential debate, and moderator Megyn Kelly proved to be dangerously wrong on this issue.

Kelly was aghast that anyone would have any hesitation about approving an abortion to save the life of the mother. She spoke of this choice as if were one that commonly and frequently must be made.

The reality, however, is that an abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. This is, quite simply, a choice that a mother and her doctor never have to make, and Ms. Kelly has contributed to the already widespread ignorance on this subject. (, By: Bryan Fischer Posted: Friday, August 7, 2015 11:20 AM)

This is one of those questions that is often asked and, if one replies that it is never alright to murder a children, then one is automatically labeled as someone that is somehow against women. What this article very clearly points out is the obvious that has been before us all this time. If a woman is clearly in a situation where the death of either her or her child is imminent, an Abortion Clinic is not where she would go. Abortion Clinics are not in a position to treat in an emergency situation. Recent legal challenges have proven this as well. Several states have passed or are debating laws such as one hotly contested legislation in Texas. In Texas, which has lost nine clinics, lawmakers have slashed family planning funding in the state budget, required abortion clinics to become ambulatory surgical centers and required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

What strikes me as interesting is the fact that there is such an outcry over legislation such as this. By having admitting privileges, a doctor at an abortion clinic would be empowered to treat a woman that actually might be in danger of losing her life because of her pregnancy. Though this is a stated argument, it isn’t the aim of abortion supporters, abortion clinics, or Planned Parenthood. They are not in the business of actually caring for the lives of women, only in supporting their agenda.

If, indeed, a woman were in a situation where there might be a choice made to save one or the other, an abortion is not the prescription for her care. The doctor treating her and the child would do everything in his power as a physician to save both of his or her patients, mother and child. If the unfortunate situation took place under a doctor’s care, that one survives in spite of all the best efforts, that is a tragedy. If the child died during treatment, even if it was a choice made to save the mother and the child died, it would still not be abortion.

Abortion is a term and distinction like that between murder and accidental death. Abortion is always clearly with the intent of ending a human life, it is no accident and is not a treatment any more than euthanasia is a ‘treatment’ for illness. The loss of life while at a qualified treatment hospital in the attempt to save a life is not the same as going to an Abortion Clinic with the expressed purpose of ending a life. There is no chance of saving a life in an abortion clinic.

The question asked of a Pro-Life candidate to “take a stand for women’s rights but allowing an exception regarding the life of the mother” is a trick question. The situation does not exist, one cannot allow for it legislatively because it isn’t reality. Abortion supporters know this or they would not be fighting legislation in states that make their facilities legal health care facilities. If, as in the State of Texas, an Abortion Clinic follows the law, roid’s position would be to care for the health of the mother AND the health of the unborn child as well. In that case, they could be placed in a position where they would have to abandon their mission of taking a human life and be forced to save it instead.
Marijuana or weeds can cure diseases, there is a legit and legal way to purchase marijuana and serve as a medicine to sick people who needs it. You can get advice and tips from houseofcannabis if you want to order and purchase online.

Dr. Benjamin G. Swartout is a fellowship trained in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery and has a separate facial cosmetic surgery practice located at his facility. He is board certified in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery and performs reconstructive surgery on the face related to skin cancer, trauma, congenital and other deformities.

In the meantime, our politicians need to answer the question factually and throw it back on the person asking the question. Can you give me one instance where a woman has ‘checked into’ an abortion clinic in an emergency situation where the life of the mother was at stake? Though you might say that woman are in those situations all the time, accidents, cancer, etc., they are not treated at an Abortion Clinic and, if the baby is lost during treatment, they were not lost because of a treatment plan that had an abortion as the treatment.

Dr. Matthew Galumbeck is a plastic surgeon that offers medical service for those who needs to undergo physical treatment such as reconstruction of physical appearance.

Share on Facebook

1984? DoubleThink and 2015

In his essay “Politics and the English Language“, George Orwell observes that political language serves to distort and obfuscate reality. Orwell’s description of political speech is extremely similar to the contemporary definition of doublespeak;

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, …[9]

Today, we are faced with such opposites and asked to believe them on face value, the language of the day. “Tolerance” is used to brow beat those that disagree so that those that do not hold those same views are “intolerant” and “haters”.

“Choice” is used to justify completely taking away choice from children and those that believe that abortion is murder are advocating taking away a woman’s right to choose.  Now we learn that a group that has made a campaign on describing the unborn child as no more than tissue are making money by selling the children’s organs as human tissue.

“Love” has been twisted into meaning whatever our carnal desires dictate rather than a life long commitment to raise children teaching the commitment to God, our spouse, and our children in a loving home. To disagree or to point out that an interpretation is wrong is not the same as hating another person.

I can tell you that a friend or family member is doing something that I believe is wrong without hating him or her. I have a family member that is an alcoholic, I do not condone the behavior, I do not condone the lifestyle. I may even chose not to be around that person. I do love that person and still try to be there as much as reasonable. I will not be around when they are drinking, which may be most of the time. But, despite that behavior, that person is stilled loved and will remain in my heart though I will not tell them that they have my approval.

Though the behavior is displayed more than I would like to admit, alcoholism is not WHO that person is. I do not define the person by their sins, I define them by who they are. I believe that is what God is calling me to do. I will accept a sinner into my home, just as Jesus did. However, I do not believe that Jesus defined his Apostles and disciples by their sins. He told the Magdalene, “Is there no one left to condemn you?… Nor do I. Go and sin no more.”

I condemn no one, that is not my place. I condemn behavior which I know is wrong. I taught my children what was wrong. Sometimes they chose do what I had taught them was wrong. I do not, nor can I, accept words on face value that have meanings that go well beyond what they say. I cannot believe that “Compassion” is taking someone’s life through Euthanasia, or that a “choice” is taking another life who cannot defend himself. I do not believe that “Love” can be gained by using acts rooted in hate or that disagreement is the same as “hate”.

I will proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord! Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Share on Facebook

Baron and Thoughts

Well, Baron is on his last day of medication and he’s healing rather quickly. He’s still moving slowly but his limp is much less pronounced.

With the rain, we’re sure the colder weather must be causing some discomfort. All in all, he’s doing better and we’re past that scare.

Share on Facebook

Hit and Run

I don’t know what kind of person runs down a dog and drives off. Witnesses saw it happen and came to Baron’s aid.
The poor baby slept in the living room last night. He is pretty badly bruised but, by the Grace of God, will probably pull through.




Share on Facebook

Summer is Approaching

Well, the deck is looking ready for summer, the pinion wood has begun to smell up the yard and the pool is working. Last weekend, Alec has his 10th birthday celebration at the house. They had a wonderful time in the pool, which finally was warm enough to avoid the Popsicle effect!
Happy Summer!

Enjoying the pool.
Share on Facebook

Before the Resurrection, Darkness FALLS

Today is Good Friday, Jesus gave us His Body and Blood last night, God was made present to us in a manner which, 2000 years later, we still struggle to understand.

This week we go through the highest of highs as we welcome Jesus into Jerusalem with Palms, we eat his last meal and he makes his own Flesh and Blood, then, at 3 PM today, his brutal execution comes to an, almost, anticlimactic end. There is no Body of Christ after we venerate the Cross this evening. What makes our Church a Church is the Real Presence, it is consumed and the Altars are stripped bare. For the Church, our Sacred Spaces are stripped bare of all that makes then sacred. Until the Resurrection, there is no Church. Like the Disciples dispersing, like the Temple tapestry torn asunder, the Church is just a collection of empty buildings with nothing to make it Holy.

But, despair not! We already know the end of this story! He Lives! When we return to the barren tomb of our Church, the Altar will be redressed in splendor, bread and wine will be offered up, we will be fed with his Risen Flesh and Blood.

Happy Easter, He Is Lord!

Share on Facebook

Family Tree of Shirley Beio

Shirley Beio’s family tree in a wikid shareable, social format.


Share on Facebook

February, Family Birthdays

February continues to be a month of birthdays. Some family are now gone, such as Shirley (Mother) on Feb 2nd, Bob (Feb 14), and now Rainee, (Feb 19th).  It has always been a kind of fun month, Mother was Groundhog’s Day and Grandpa was Valentine’s Day.

I must admit that I miss having them around for the holidays. Happy Birthday, Mother and Grandpa!

Share on Facebook

Same Sex Marriage–Apologetics 101

Apologetics 101

by John Martignoni  

(Marriage and the Eucharist, cont’d.) Finally, one other area where we can use these parallels between the sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist to help us form an appropriate response, is this idea of same-sex “marriage”, so-called.  A very hot topic these days.  There is not now, never has been, and never will be, such a thing as a same-sex “marriage.”  It doesn’t matter how many judges issue how many licenses and how many wedding ceremonies take place – there will never be such a thing as a marriage between two men or two women.  God is the author of marriage.  He made it.  He defined it.  He joins the two together.  God has defined a marriage as something to unite one man and one woman.  Period.  

One man cannot marry another man and one woman cannot marry another.  Why?  The two cannot become one.  For the two to become one, there has to be a life-giving bridegroom and there has to be a life-receiving bride.  Between two men, there is no one to receive the life of the bridegroom.  Between two women, there is no bridegroom to give his life to the bride.   Consummation is not possible in either situation.  

A union, as such, between two men, would be as if Jesus wanted to give us His life in the Eucharist, but we had no way of receiving it.  It would be as if Jesus died on the Cross, but never
instituted the Eucharist.  A union, as such, between two women, would be as if we all wanted to receive the life-giving force of Christ in the Eucharist, but there was no life-giving force to receive.  It would be as if Jesus instituted the Eucharist, but then never died on the cross for us.  

There can be no such thing as a same-sex marriage, because there is no such thing as “life-giving” love, love that produces life, in a same-sex union.  Two men cannot produce a life between them.  Two women cannot produce a life between them.  It is a physical impossibility.  Therefore, same-sex “marriage” is an impossibility in the eyes of God.

St. Paul tells us in Romans, chapter 1, that the desire of a man for another man, or of a woman for another woman, is unnatural.  But you don’t have to believe in the Bible, or even in God, in order to understand that St. Paul was correct.  All you have to do is look at the body of a man and the body of a woman and you can easily discern that nature has designed a certain complementarity between the bodies of men and women.     

So, just from a simple observation, we can discern that nature designed a complementarity between the bodies of men and women.  We can discern that sex was designed by nature, to 1) be the physical union between a man and a woman, and 2) to perpetuate the survival of the species.  Same sex unions go against nature in both regards.  A man’s body was designed to join to a woman’s.  A woman’s body was designed to receive a man’s.  So, same-sex unions are contra nature.  They are inherently unnatural.  

And, if nature does indeed have a creator, then if same-sex unions are contrary to nature, it is safe to say that they are contrary to nature’s creator.  This is not about being “mean” to two people who are “in love” and it has nothing to do with “homophobia” or anything of the sort.  It actually is an act of charity to oppose what society is trying to impose.  If the Catholic Church is correct and homosexual acts are indeed acts of “grave depravity” and they are indeed “intrinsically disordered” (Catechism, #2357), then the most important thing to consider is the salvation of the souls of those committing these acts that are contrary to nature and contrary to nature’s God.

It is not mean, or somehow homophobic, or anything else of that nature to desire the good for a person and, particularly, to desire the ultimate good for a person – the salvation of someone’s soul.  The best thing a person can do if you know of someone who is struggling with same-sex attraction is to talk to them about God’s love for them…and to give them whatever support you can to help them live a chaste lifestyle.

And, it just so happens that the Diocese of Birmingham has recently seen the establishment of a chapter of Courage, which is an apostolate of the Catholic Church that ministers to persons with same-sex attraction (  If you would like to find out more about the Courage chapter here in the Diocese of Birmingham, you can call the Courage chaplain at: 256-221-8844.  All calls are completely confidential.

Marriage and the Eucharist…the two shall become one.  I hope this series of articles has helped you to see and understand how intimately and intricately these two sacraments are linked together, and that they have helped you to look at marriage from a Eucharistic point of view, and to look at the Eucharist from a marital point of view.    

(Send any questions/comments to:  If you would like to sign up for John’s free apologetics email newsletter, simply go to:  You can also order his free CD’s on various apologetics topics at the website, including his CD that covers this topic which is entitled: “Marriage and the Eucharist: The Two Shall Become One.”)

Share on Facebook