|
Walgreens Gives $100,000 in Support of Gay Games
Let Walgreens know that their $100,000 donation to the 2006 Gay Games is an indication of their commitment
to homosexuality and the activities it encompasses.
Walgreens has given $100,000 to help sponsor the Gay Games in Chicago next
year.
Oddly enough, Walgreens says they agreed to sponsor the Gay Games under the guise of helping prevent AIDS. But
the official Gay Games web site has the following promotional statement, which promotes the very type of activity Walgreens
says they are trying to prevent.
"The Gay Games Social Committee is currently in the process of gathering together Chicago's best bars and clubs,
and some of the biggest and best party promoters in the country to create a Social Schedule unlike anything you've ever seen.
Chicago's LGBT scene is fierce no matter what time of year it is, but during that one week in July 2006, we are committed
to making sure you have the time of your life." The gift, made to placate homosexual activists, puts Walgreens
in the very top Premium Category of sponsorship. To make their sponsorship appear to be a good thing publicly, they say they
are providing AIDS education. If any group should be aware of the dangers of AIDS and how to prevent it, it should be homosexual
activists. Billions of tax dollars have been spent to educate the public about AIDS. We have acquired photos taken
at the last Gay Games that clearly show what kind of activity occurs during these games. Send a letter to Walgreens,
asking them to withdraw their sponsorship.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
Click Here To Send Your Letter Now!
October 11, 2005
American Girl teams with pro-abortion, pro-lesbian group
Possibly some of you have daughters who play with the American Girl dolls or read their books.
You may even be thinking about buying a doll or books for Christmas. Well, it turns out American Girl (owned by Mattel) is
partnering with a group called Girls Inc. to sell a bracelet, the "I Can" band, which financially supports Girls Inc. Seventy
cents of every purchase goes to Girls Inc. The band is sold on the American Girl webpage with a large ad and a link to the
Girls Inc. webpage. In addition, the webpage says American Girl is giving $50,000 to Girls, Inc.
The problem here is that Girls Inc. has on their webpage a statement saying they particularly
support abortion and a girl's right to abort an unwanted baby. They were quite clear about their support for Roe, so there
is no mistake or room for confusion on that count. Additionally, Girls Inc. supports contraceptives for girls.
They also support and offer resources encouraging lesbian and bi-sexual lifestyles, actually
offering resources for girls. One of their publications states, "The emergence of a lesbian identity is an ongoing process,
rather than an event."
Of course, American Girl itself is a separate company, unrelated to Girls, Inc. except now
by webpage and the seventy cents on every bracelet. I checked out the Girls, Inc. website, and it is exactly as I have told
you. Below are some direct links, so that you can see them for yourself.
I hope you will take time to let American Girl know they are making a terrible mistake by
supporting the pro-abortion, pro-lesbian organization, Girls Inc.
Please send them an email expressing your disappointment and let American Girl president Ellen
Brothers know the company's decision casts a great shadow over their trustworthiness to put the welfare of girls and children
first.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Chairman
OneMillionMoms.com
Questions or comments about OneMillionMoms.com? Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.
American
Family Association
PO Drawer 2440 -- Tupelo, MS 38803
1-662-844-5036
------
Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati is a grassroots organization, which exists to ensure
that pro-life principles of protection and dignity for all innocent human life are upheld and kept before the public.
If you have received this bulletin in error or would like to unsubscribe, please send an
email message to mail@cincinnatirighttolife.org, with REMOVE typed in the Subject field.
To subscribe, email mail@cincinnatirighttolife.org with SUBSCRIBE in the Subject field. Email addresses remain private.
Copyright 2005, Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH, 45239;
513/728-7870, http://www.cincinnatirighttolife.org
Information may be shared and distributed.
|
|
Ohio Pro-Life Legislators to Introduce Bill in Response to Schiavo Tragedy
At a Thursday, April 14, 2005 press conference, pro-life Ohio State Senators Jeff Jacobson (R-Vandalia) and Jim Jordan (R-Urbana)
and State Representative Keith Faber (R-Celina) announced that they will be introducing "Preserve Life" legislation
in the Senate and House in response to the tragic death of Terri Schiavo.
The bill would revise Ohio law to provide that when a patient is in what current law calls "a permanently unconscious
state", but is not terminal, and has not made a living will or durable power of attorney for health care or given informed
consent to the withdrawal or withholding of nutrition and hydration, nutrition and hydration could not be withheld or withdrawn
if either the guardian, spouse, adult children, parents, or the majority of the adult siblings object and present some evidence
that the decision would not be consistent with the previously expressed intention of the patient.
Thus, in situations where there was a conflict among close relatives about what the wishes of the patient were, a court
would be required to find in favor of continuing the provision of nutrition and hydration.
In discussing the Schiavo case, Sen. Jacobson stated: "With no conclusive evidence of her wishes, the court had to
choose between her husband's belated recollection of his wife's supposed wishes and the anguished pleadings of her family.
This kind of dispute is a breeding ground for the inevitable interjection of the judge's personal bias - whether the judge
thinks this is a life worth living - rather than a reflection of the wishes of the patient. We want to make it clear: hearsay
- what the patient supposedly said - in the absence of a valid living will or durable power of attorney is not enough to remove
food and hydration unless no close family contest that the hearsay truly represents the patient's views."
In addition to that provision, the bill would also correct some other flaws in the current Ohio laws dealing with decisions
concerning the use, continuation, withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment when a person is no longer able to
make decisions and has not made a declaration (living will) or durable power of attorney for health care or previously made
an informed consent decision on whether the treatment should be provided.
Currently, in most circumstances, those relatives who can object to a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining
treatment must inform the attending physician within 48 hours after the decision is made and then file a court action within
2 business days. Oftentimes, a relative could miss these time limitations without even knowing of their existence. The legislation
would eliminate this arbitrary time-limit trap.
The legislation would add grandparents to the list of those who could participate in a case dealing with the withholding
or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (Tragically, several years ago, a Scioto County grandmother who had visited her
unconscious adult grandson every day in a nursing home was held to have no standing to object to a decision to withhold his
nutrition and hydration.)
The bill also would permit the Attorney General or prosecuting attorney to present evidence to the Probate Court that
a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment would not be in accordance with the requirements of the statute.
Currently, friends or relatives who are not on the "priority list" of those who are permitted to initiate or
intervene in any court action sometimes have information that indicates that the patient does not meet the criteria for treatment
withdrawal under the statute, but have no way to get this information before the court.
This provision would permit them to at least provide the information to a public official who would have authority to
present the evidence to the court, if he or she was convinced of its relevance. Since many older patients have few, if any,
relatives on the priority list, this provision will provide an important safeguard that the requirements of the statutes will
be met.
|
