Airport Body Scans: Harmful To Health, Privacy, and Soul?

In an update to the article "25 reasons to reject airport full body scans", the author "Former Flier" makes a case that airport scans endanger our health, privacy, and even our souls.

Excerpt from update...

"It's been almost a year since I wrote '25 reasons to reject airport full body scans'. The intervening months have clearly vindicated me in my concerns & validated my predictions. Did you see the image of the nun in her habit being 'groped' by an airport worker wearing a burqa as the nun stood there helpless? Did you also hear about these reports in the news?

...

I believe I was somewhat 'prophetic' in my original article listing 25 reasons to reject body scans, however, there is one area I seriously underestimated..."

Click Here To Read More

To view the original article and the 11/18/10 update: "Author was 'prophetic', click here

[11/18]

How do they sleep at night?

Would you stay with your doctor if he failed to tell you about serious risks associated with treatments he gave you? Would you change health plans if your insurance carrier required that doctors not advise you of these risks? Ten dollars says Obama wouldn't stay with such a doctor or health plan. So, how can he nominate a judge who has ruled against laws requiring women be informed about health risks of abortion? How can it be an "undue burden" to learn about these risks? Where is the so-called compassion for women? How do these life hating 'public servants' sleep at night? [3/28]

They Don't Really Want Choice

Those who claim to be "pro-choice" once again display their true colors - they don't want a woman to make a real choice - they want her to have an abortion. If they truly wanted a woman to make a choice, they wouldn't seek to prevent her from viewing an ultrasound of the child in her womb. They'd rather have her think it was a "blob of tissue" than see the fingers, toes, and face of her child. As reported by LifeNews, "When used in pregnancy centers, ultrasounds persuade most women to keep their baby." But so-called "pro-choice" advocates don't like this "choice" - so they oppose bills like the one Sebelius is under pressure to sign requiring that pregnant women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound. Some put forth the excuse that it "creates more obstacles to women already facing a tough decision." They also don't want pregnant women to receive information on the health risks posed by abortion. Since when does limiting information help a woman make a choice? Clearly, they don't want her making a real "choice". Rather, they simply want her to kill her baby. But then again it isn't too surprising that those who advocate murder also consent to lies and deception. [3/18]