On May 22nd, Friendswood Junior High School in Friendswood, TX, approximately 30 minutes outside of Houston, hosted a "presentation" on Islam, given by two female members of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR). District spokeswoman Karolyn Gephart explained the 7th and 8th grade students were given a lecture on the "food, religion, dress, beliefs and famous Muslims."

Rhiannon Meyers of the Galveston Daily News reported the presentation was held after an "incident" involving students at the school.

Superintendent Trish Hanks refused to give any details about the incident that happened a month ago, except to say in a prepared statement that the Houston chapter of Council of American Islamic Relations told school officials they considered it a hate crime and had reported it to the FBI.

Asmara Siddiqi, the council's communications director, said the organization did not contact the FBI.

"In normal circumstances, we do report hate crimes to the FBI, but in this particular case, the school decided to resolve the issue," she said.

Friendswood Superintendent Trish Hanks told the Daily News what happened next was due to a major miscommunication between herself, CAIR and Friendswood Junior High School Principal Robyn Lowe. According to a letter Hanks wrote to the Daily News, after CAIR's threat to go to the FBI:

Lowe and Sherry Green, Friendswood district's assistant superintendent, attended a meeting with representatives of CAIR. At the meeting, CAIR requested an opportunity to present factual and basic information about Muslims to students at Friendswood Junior High School because the school is predominantly Anglo Christian.

Anticipating this request, I had instructed Green that the district would welcome a presentation to administrators and staff only, but not to agree to a student presentation.

However, apparently Principal Lowe did not get the memo that the children were not to be involved, and she scheduled the presentation during class time, with the students present.

The presentation prompted a number of parents to begin a letter-writing campaign to the district. This is because holding such presentations - beyond the obvious "separation" issues involving religious study in a public classroom - without first notifying parents of the date, time and substance of the presentation is expressly against the school district's policy. Meyers reported:

By district policy, parents are supposed to be informed about the purpose and content of presentations so that they can keep their children out of the presentation if they think the material might be offensive or inappropriate.

Hanks apologized profusely for the district's failure to uphold the community's trust and promised:

This was an isolated incident and a mistake. I am implementing corrective actions to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again.

Apparently the letter-writing campaign worked. Friendswood owned up to a mistake, promised to make amends, and swore it won't happen again. So what's left to be said?

Plenty. 

The policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have helped to generate a spiritual, civic and economic crisis in Britain, according to an important Church of England report.

Labour is failing society and lacks the vision to restore a sense of British identity, the report says in the Church’s strongest attack on the Government for decades. It accuses the Government of “deep religious illiteracy” and of having “no convincing moral direction”.

The report, commissioned for the Church of England and to be published on Monday, accuses the Government of discriminating against the Christian Churches in favour of other faiths, including Islam. It calls for the appointment of a “Minister for Religion”, who would act as the Prime Minister’s personal “faith envoy” and who would recognise the contribution of faith communities to Britain across every government department.

The 180-page report, seen by The Times,describes the Government as moral, but lacking a “compass” and reflects an attempt by the Church to carve out an effective role for itself in the 21st century as a provider of welfare for young and old.

The report was commissioned by the Bishop of Hulme, the Right Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Health, with the support of the archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu.

The report comes only days after Dr Sentamu accused Mr Brown of sacrificing liberty for misguided notions of equality and of betraying new Labour’s mantra of “rights and responsibilities”. It shows the extent to which church leaders feel betrayed by the Government’s embrace of a secular agenda.

The authors find evidence of deep-seated hostility to the Church in particular, excluding it from important areas of policy and research – despite Mr Blair being one of the most devout prime ministers of the past century. They portray a Government committed to research into Muslim communities but barely interested in Christian involvement in Britain’s civic and charitable life.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Just over an hour after Sen. Hillary Clinton completed her speech endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee issued the following statement:

"Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come."

In the final minutes of the speech, a top Obama strategist was pleased with the message, saying there was “no ambiguity” about her support for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The strategist characterized the speech as “very generous” and said that he “appreciates it’s hard.”

It is unclear whether Sen. Obama watched the speech. He was seen shortly before the speech leaving his home in Chicago with golf clubs.

 

Standing before a throng of supporters with American flags as her backdrop, Hillary Clinton did something Saturday that 17 months ago seemed unthinkable — she conceded defeat.

The former first lady, who as recently as Tuesday declared herself the strongest candidate, gave former rival Barack Obama an unqualified endorsement and pivoted from her role as determined foe to absolute ally. She suspended her historic bid for the White House, settling the dust following a grueling 17-month campaign.

Clinton repeatedly called on her supporters to unite behind the Illinois senator, casting the general election as a critical opportunity to shift course after seven years with a Republican president. She acknowledged the hard-fought and sometimes-bitter Democratic primary battle, but assured her voters that Obama has proved himself to the country.

“I’ve had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit,” she said.

“We all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family … we may have started on separate journeys but today our paths have merged, and we’re all heading toward the same destination.”

Clinton kicked off her concession by directly thanking supporters who poured their “heart and hopes” into her campaign.

“Well this isn’t exactly the party I’d planned, but I sure like the company,” Clinton said at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., her husband Bill and daughter Chelsea by her side.

Within minutes she announced that she was bowing out of the race.

“The way to continue our fight now … is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all that we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States,” she said to cheering supporters. “Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.”

Obama later issued a statement saying he is “thrilled and honored” to have Clinton’s support.

“But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run,” he said. “She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams … Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I’m a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign.

“No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come. “

Clinton was under pressure to send a strong signal to the 18 million voters who supported her in the marathon 50-state primary that it’s time to unite behind the presumptive nominee.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher on Wednesday dismissed the idea that taunting terrorism suspects with women's panties is a form of torture. 

In a debate about detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the California Republican cited panties eight times, arguing that making suspected terrorists wear women's underwear on their heads isn't demeaning and degrading enough to be called torture.

"You're suggesting that the behavior of, what, panties on his head ... is unacceptable interrogation technique for a man who was involved in a conspiracy to kill tens of thousands of Americans?" Rohrabacher asked during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

Rohrabacher was taking issue with FBI complaints about inappropriate and potentially illegal tactics used to get al-Qaida detainees to talk in the years following the Sept. 11 attacks. He said interrogation-by-panties was more akin to a "hazing pranks from some fraternity," not torture.

Some interrogation tactics used _ even if not torture _ might not be pleasant, Rohrabacher said. "I mean, OK, describing his mother and sister as whores, that's certainly not a nice thing to do," he said.

An exasperated Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., reminded Rohrabacher that interrogators were also seen physically abusing detainees.

"This isn't about panties on the head," Delahunt said. "This is about physical pressure, waterboarding and other techniques that apparently were utilized at Guantanamo."

Rohrabacher made a final point.

"I, in no way, will ever apologize that someone put panties on the head of this 9/11 terrorist and treated him without respect," he said. "That man should have no respect."

Think that gas prices are high now? 

Just wait until you’re paying $15 a gallon at the pump, cautions Weeden & Co. energy expert Charles T. Maxwell.

"We’re heading in that direction," says Maxwell.

Don't rush out into the street screaming just yet, though. "I think it will be a number of years before we get there."

Trading conspiracies aside, it really is all about supply and demand, Maxwell warns. And that picture isn't changing long term.

Governments have been way too slow, he says, to recognize and act on the problem.

"That’s the fundamental problem going on in the world today, and so many people don’t recognize it," Maxwell says.

It isn't really a drilling problem, he warns. We're drilling, but we're finding less and using more at the same time. "This has never been so before," he says.

Maxwell sees gas prices peaking between $4 and $4.50 this year, then dropping back to $3.50 to $4 and remaining at that level through 2009.

He says that present gas supplies are sufficient — and that at $4.50, gas is priced about right for $130 a barrel crude.

"We’re not running short of gas, but we are running short of crude," he says. "It’s not a serious problem because we’re about in balance now and will be for the next year to 18 months.

"But around 2010 to 2012, things will begin to go out of balance again and the problem hits hard."

Acknowledging that current prices are very high by any historical standards, Maxwell expects that by then they will begin to rise again, pushing back through $4 to $4.50 and entering the $6 to $7 range by 2012 or 2013.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.

The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels. Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.

The 48-36 vote fell short of a majority, but Democrats produced letters from six senators — including both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain — saying they would have voted for the measure had they been there.

"It's just the beginning for us," proclaimed Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a chief sponsor of the bill, noting that 54 senators had expressed support of the legislation, although that's still short of what would be needed to overcome concerted GOP opposition.

"It's clear a majority of Congress wants to act," Boxer said at a news conference.

She and other Democrats said this now lays the groundwork for action on climate change next year with a new Congress and a new president that will be more hospitable to mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.

Both Obama and McCain have called for capping carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to climate change. President Bush has opposed such measures and said he would have vetoed the Senate bill if he had received it.

 

 

LA ORCHILA, Venezuela — Venezuela fired live missiles from fighter jets and ships Friday during exercises intended to demonstrate the firepower of President Hugo Chavez's military.

Smoke rose from ships off the La Orchila island military base as Otomat MK2 missiles arced into the sky and Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets flew in formation.

The televised war games allowed the military to showcase some of the hardware bought under Chavez, who says Venezuela's main threat is the United States. A U.S. Navy plane last month flew over the same Caribbean island base, drawing a diplomatic protest from Venezuela.

U.S. officials said the plane accidentally strayed into Venezuelan airspace during a counter-drug mission, but Chavez accused Washington of espionage.

Defense Minister Gustavo Rangel Briceno commanded the troops during Friday's exercises, ordering them to fire at mock "enemy units." It was the first time in 13 years that such drills were held with live missile fire at sea, he said.

The ships and planes hit their target — an old tugboat — with missiles and a 1,100-pound bomb, sinking the vessel 22 miles offshore, Rangel said.

The Otomat is a short-range, ship- and ground-launched cruise missile, manufactured by Italy and France, that was introduced in Europe 36 years ago.

Latin American countries including Colombia and Peru have voiced concern about billions of dollars of arms that Chavez has purchased, but Rangel said new weaponry is needed to keep Venezuela safe from the U.S.

He declared the exercises a success, saying "we've been able to show our power of dissuasion and defense."

The U.S. denies having designs on Venezuela, which is its fifth largest oil supplier. But Chavez insists his government is under a real threat, citing the U.S. Navy's decision earlier this year to re-establish the Fourth Fleet to direct naval forces in the Caribbean, Central and South America.

Opposition politician Enrique Ochoa Antich said Chavez's perpetual verbal conflicts with the U.S. aim to rally nationalist sentiment around the threat posed by the "empire," as the Venezuelan leader calls the United States.

But Ochoa said the approach has been used by Chavez for so long that it "isn't very effective anymore at this point."

The same network newscasts that hyped the 2005 "alleged massacre" by U.S. soldiers in Haditha are so far ignoring the acquittal on all charges of Lieutenant Andrew Grayson on Thursday. Grayson was accused of attempting to cover up details of the events surrounding a raid that lead to the death of 15 Iraqis. However, Grayson's acquittal was skipped by ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS's "Early Show" and NBC's "Today" show. (CNN's "American Morning" covered the story only as a news brief.)

In contrast, the morning shows seemed much more interested in the subject back when dark allegations were made about the actions of U.S. solders in Haditha. On Memorial Day 2006, then-GMA host Charles Gibson intoned, "America honors its fallen war heroes, but troubling new information about Marine misconduct in Iraq. A new eyewitness on what could be a mass murder of civilians. Was there a cover-up?" On the March 20, 2006, "Nightly News," host Brian Williams touted the "disturbing new allegations" made by Congressman John Murtha about Haditha. (It should be noted that, so far, five of the eight originally charged with murder or cover-up have been acquitted.) On May 25, 2006, referencing the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians in 1968, "Nightline" host Terry Moran speculated, "Will Haditha be the My Lai of the Middle East?" On June 7 of that year, reporter Andrea Mitchell opined on "Today" that Haditha was a "black eye for American policy."

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Whether Sen. Hillary Clinton can begin to unite Democrats behind their presumed nominee may be crucial to the party's success in the fall. 

Clinton is expected to throw her support behind Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign during an event at noon ET Saturday at the National Building Museum in Washington.

A CNN poll released Friday shows that the party is divided after a primary season that stretched over nearly 18 months and 57 contests.

Sixty percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama, but 17 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee and Obama's rival in the general election. Nearly one-quarter, 22 percent, said they would not vote at all if Clinton were not the Democrats' nominee.

The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 7.5 percentage points. The poll was conducted after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination Tuesday.

Democratic voters appear to like a Obama-Clinton ticket. A CNN poll released Friday suggested that nearly half of Democrats, 54 percent, would support a joint ticket, but 43 percent would oppose it. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The Clinton camp made it widely known that she would accept the No. 2 slot if it was offered, but the push was viewed as putting undue pressure on Obama to pick his former rival.

Obama said Thursday that "everybody needs to settle down" and let the vetting process run its course.

The two discussed how to begin unifying the party during a meeting Thursday night in the Washington home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California.

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels…Barack Obama?

As you know if you listen to the show, Edd and I have decided to use a term that is apparently not supposed to be used in America. That term is Marxist, and we’ve applied it to Barack Obama.

This has outraged some of his blind supporters. Tough. We had a caller named Joe on Thursday who intimiated we don’t even know what a Marxist is. It is precisely because we do know, that we use the term. Yes, we have fun and screw around on the air, and make an effort to package the show with entertainment value (both for you, AND me…I can’t handle a steady diet of facts without mixing in some nonsense)…but we have also extensively studied and researched history, theories, concepts, current events, the founding of this nation-along with it’s Founding Fathers…AND…we have life experience that shapes our opinions and content.

However, it is shocking in our politically correct, watered down society today, to actually speak the truth, I guess. It’s OK to call conservatives, “extreme right-wing kooks” or even “Nazis”, but you dare not make a legitimate observation about someone on the left.

Well, I’m not playing that game.

Karl Marx was a vehemently anti-Semetic, atheist, who had no faith in the individual. He didn’t believe, as we do, that given the freedom of opportunity, if you apply yourself, work hard, have faith and persevere, you can succeed in acheiving great things in this life. And, once successful, can then spread the benefit of your blessings to others, through providing them with opportunities…AND through charitable giving. YES! INDIVIDUAL, not GOVERNMENT giving. What a concept! Jesus told Peter to “feed His sheep”…NOT Caesar…NOT Rome.

These are the tenets of our Christian-Judeo society. Self-actualization is really what we’re built upon…not resenting others for what they’ve acheived. Unfortunately, this is the game that Barack Obama, like Karl Marx is playing.

In the “Communist Manifesto”, Marx and Friedrich Engels suggested a revolution of the “working class” or proletarian…to overthrow the bourgeois (upper class-who obviously don’t WORK, as it’s continually intimated now by Obama)…to eventually bring about a society that is classless…a society where there is no private property ownership, all property is owned by the state…the “collective”. When Marxism was finally put into practice by Vladamir Lenin in Russia in 1917, it was a disaster…it has been a disaster in every subsequent effort. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and others have reigned terror on their respective populaces in the name of the ”working class.” In every case, as an economic, as well as political vehicle, Marxism, and the resulting Communist governments that implement it, succeed only in creating misery, rather than prosperity for all. The ruling elite have everything, the citizens…nothing but oppression and bread lines.

This is why we feel compelled to refer to Barack Obama’s philosophy as Marxist. Listen to his words. He speaks of the “collective” and “common good”. He pits “working class people” against the wealthy…whom, he has said, don’t “need” what they have, and further, insinuates they haven’t earned it. Only 2% of this nation’s wealthiest citizens have inherited their fortunes like the Kennedy’s and Heinz-Kerry’s have. In fact, I would hazard a guess, that most of the 2% that have inherited their money are liberals. Thus, their guilt.

Nationalizing companies doesn’t work. The government taking over health care, and paying for college education, doesn’t work. Creating resentment of the rich, while claiming to be some sort of great “uniter” of people, doesn’t work. Telling people what they should drive, eat and where to put their thermostats doesn’t work. These are the principles of Marx and Engels…Vlad Lenin tried to make them work. So did Joe Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the above mentioned Communist dictators. I guess Barack Obama believes HE, is the man to finally turn the philosophy of Marx, into a Utopian society.

 

 

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba —  The accused mastermind of the worst terror attack in U.S. history told a Guantanamo Bay military judge on Thursday that he wants to be put to death so he can become a martyr.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also sang verses from the Koran, rejected his attorneys and told Judge Ralph Kohlmann, a Marine colonel, that he wants to represent himself at the war crimes trial. The judge warned that he faces execution if convicted of organizing the attacks on America. But the former No. 3 leader of Al Qaeda was insistent.

"Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," Mohammed declared. "I will, God willing, have this, by you."

One of Mohammed's co-defendants, Ramzi Binalshibh, told the court his fate is in the hands of God.

"I am guilty," Binalshibh said. "I have been seeking martyrdom for five years."

Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators each face death if convicted of war crimes including murder, conspiracy, attacking civilians and terrorism by hijacking planes to attack U.S. landmarks. The murder charges involve the deaths of 2,973 people at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania where passengers forced down their plane.

 

Mohammed wore thick glasses and a turban and stroked a bushy gray beard, in stark contrast to the disheveled hair, unshaven face and T-shirt he was in during his capture in Pakistan in 2003. Mohammed later was held in CIA custody at secret sites and transferred to the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2006.

Appearing calm as he propped his glasses on his turban to peer at legal papers, Mohammed also grinned and exchanged a few words with someone at the defense table occupied by Waleed bin Attash, who allegedly selected and trained some of the 19 hijackers who turned airplanes into missiles in the attacks.

Their arraignment is the highest-profile test of the controversial tribunal system, which is being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. military officials told Reuters the suspects, all dressed in cream-colored clothing and turbans, willingly walked into the courtroom.

Journalists were allowed to see the proceedings on closed-circuit TV in a nearby press room. Other observers including Fang Wong, a senior member of the American Legion, filed into the tightly guarded courthouse to watch the arraignment.

"I'm from the New York area, and I have been waiting for this for a long time," Wong said as he waited to be searched by soldiers before entering the court complex.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Perhaps it was the mental stress of preparing for a book tour in which she had to sell a marriage-destroying affair as a heartwarming memory. But before her book was released, Barbara Walters had this to say to Elisabeth Hasselbeck about Iraq on "The View" on April 8, 2008:

Hasselbeck: I think the surge has probably been one of the most effective strategies in this war.

Walters: No, it has not.

Hasselbeck: Oh, I disagree I think it absolutely has.

Walters: I think a few weeks ago it was considered that. Now there has been more violence than there has been in many months.

First of all, a "few weeks" of an upturn in violence shouldn't negate "many months" of progress. But was Barbara Walters even right?

Looking at the site icasualties.org provides the answers. There had been a short-term spike in violence, but only compared with already significantly decreased post-surge levels.

Even with this spike, in the three weeks prior to her comments, coalition troop death rates had fallen by 62 percent from the previous May and were lower than the average rate of every previous year of the war.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and ask: Was this really a sign of an upcoming turn for the worse in Iraq?

The following month after Walter's comments, May 2008, held the lowest rate of troop fatalities of any month since the beginning of the war -- as they decreased by 84 percent since the same month a year earlier. I'm not sure if Hasselbeck received an apology.

This is not to say that Iraq won't become more violent -- the situation is still delicate. And, I'm not trying to beat up on Barbara Walters, she herself pointed out that she's no expert on these matters, and she's surely a legendary journalist.

But she's not alone in trying to dismiss the successes of the surge with such certainty and such lack of evidence.

It seems that for so many in the media and elsewhere, there is an incredible desire to find the negative. It's an unquenchable thirst. How else could an essentially fired former press secretary's questionable claims about the war be more important to cover than improvement in the actual war?

Widely reported or not, we have made great progress.

Terrorism worldwide has decreased by 40 percent since 2001, according to a Canadian study. The Iraqis have gained control of Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi oil outputs have hit a post-war high.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said, "You are not going to hear me say that al Qaeda is defeated, but they've never been closer to defeat than they are now."

CIA Director Michael Hayden says we are witnessing, "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally." He says Osama bin Laden had "largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq War to recruit adherents," according to The Washington Post. Such claims warrant a close and sober inspection, but the momentum is unquestionably on our side.

Yet, after a solid year of significant gains, pessimism still rules. 

 

A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival's first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.

"I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant," Percival, 25, said. "Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby."

A short time after the abortion, Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach. She went to the doctor for a scan and discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

"I couldn't believe it,' Percival said. "This was the baby I thought I'd terminated. At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed. I wrote to the hospital, I couldn't believe that they had let me down like this.

"They wrote back and apologized and said it was very rare," she added.

Dr. Manny Alvarez, managing health editor for FOXNews.com, said Percival's situation is actually quite common.

"Women that have early terminations in weeks six, seven and eight, many times the pregnancy is so small that doctors miss removing the baby," Alvarez said. "The danger is that the failed attempt can damage the baby. That is why these patients who get early terminations need follow-ups."

Another scan a week later confirmed the baby also had kidney problems, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.

In November, Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.