Tag Archives: Pro life

All Life is Not Equal

Mary Elizabeth Williams

First, on a personal note: Thank you, thank you and thank you, Mary Elizabeth Williams! What a glorious service you’ve done the pro-life cause. I know, that’s not what you intended. But that’s precisely what you’ve accomplished.

Did I say thank you?

In her jaw-dropping article, “So what if abortion ends life?” Williams – a mainstream, though uncharacteristically honest pro-abort scribe for Salon.com – has inexplicably broken from the Orwellian left’s ministerial script. In so doing, she’s severally undermined the very cause for which she would gladly “sacrifice” (dismember alive that is) her very own daughter. A daughter, mind you, whom she coldly acknowledges to be “a human life.”

But enough with the pleasantries.

In his 1925 manifesto “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler wrote: “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal.” Though technically a human life, “the parasitic Jew is a human life without having the same rights as the Aryan.”

“Mother Germany is the boss,” he declared. “Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous Jew. Always.”

Ha! Just kidding. Actually, Ms. Williams wrote those things. She wrote them, not from Nazi Germany in 1925, but, rather, from America. Wednesday.

She wrote them, not about the Jewish people, but, instead, about the most vulnerable of all people: The child in her mother’s womb. (A holocaust by any other name …)

Yes, welcome to Feminist Funland, where the women are randy and the children are dead. In “So what if abortion ends life?” (I just love writing that), Williams, like some unintentionally creepy clown, guides us through the “pro-choice” house of mirrors, revealing, with crystal clarity, the true horror behind the left’s distorted reflections.

“While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as ‘pro-life,’” she writes, “the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like ‘choice’ and ‘reproductive freedom.’”

Here, Ms. Williams essentially admits what the life community has said for decades – that the euphemistic language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom,” long employed by the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry, is exactly that; euphemism – propaganda.

In so many words, she goes on to acknowledge that, rather than “pro-choice,” “pro-death” is indeed the appropriate moniker for her movement. “Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice,” she proclaims.

Nice. Wonder how many of the little Williams babies made the cut.

But the money line? “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live,” she declares. “All life is not equal.”

Get that, Thomas Jefferson? “All life is not equal.” Put that in your self-evident-truth-pipe and smoke it. We clear, MLK? Wrap that “I have a dream” up in a big wad of “All life is not equal” and get to the back of the Birmingham bus.

Indeed, Ms. Williams is a militant feminist and that’s adorable; but her line of reasoning here is anything but fresh and cute. It stems from the utilitarian rotgut Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger poured down the gullet of her power-drunk eugenicist fans – foremost of whom was the hypertensive fuhrer himself.

Still, to be fair, I’ll let Ms. Williams speak for herself: “Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides,” she finds. “She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

In other words: “Me no likey? You die.” Or, as Hitler really did say: “We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.” Old Adolf, of course, defined “health” to mean exactly what feminists mean by it. “Health: Any reason at all.”

Maybe I’ve been at this too long, but I love it when liberals mistake sociopathy for conviction – candor for courage. I revel in those rare moments when left-wing extremists, nestled warm inside the foul bowels of their “progressive” echo chamber – pull back the wizard’s curtain just far enough to expose, if only for an instant, the wicked sty in which they roll, splash and play.

Like this gem: “If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant,” Williams boasts, “you bet you’re a-s I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion. … I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”

“The World’s Greatest Abortion.”

“A life worth sacrificing.”

Roe at 40: A Discussion with Live Action’s Lila Rose

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PM

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PMOn January 22, the United States celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in all fifty states.  In doing so, the Court usurped a developing consensus amongst the state legislatures on the issue, and violated the principle of federalism that should guide how we enact policy in this country.  Nevertheless, Roe, in estimates from The National Right to Life Committee, has been responsible for 54,559,615 abortions since 1973.  As Daniel Halper wrote for The Weekly Standard on January 22,”that…means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.”

I was fortunate to have a discussion with Live Action’s President, Lila Rose, on the future of the pro-life movement, and what activities they intend to aggressively pursue in this vicious front of America’s culture war.  Live Action has been at the forefront of documenting abuses made by Planned Parenthood in various undercover stings across the country.  What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

In the wake of the 2012 elections, pro-life Americans found themselves back in the minority.  What does Live Action plan to do to turn that tide, especially reaching out to the youth, and urban areas where most abortions are performed?

Sure.  Well, first of all – I mean a lot of the latest polling indicates that more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. And there’s certainly in the last forty years, despite the Supreme Court case  [Roe v. Wade] that vandalized our constitution and made abortion somehow a right – Americans – more and more with the rise of the ultra sound imagery and with the rise of independent media have been seeing the truth about the child in the womb. And the number of pro-lifers is increasing.  Particularly, one of the strongest demographics is young people.

Live Action’s work reaches over a million people every week through social media. We have a news website that’s contributed by over 50 writers; most of them young people, investigating and doing original reporting on the abortion industry – and lobby.   And it’s really been amazing to see this growth from people all over the country – the grassroots – who want the truth about human dignity and who want to expose the violence of abortion  – the injustice of abortion.  And that is a movement that’s only growing.  And Live Action also has a magazine, a leading pro-life magazine, for students on hundreds of high school and colleges, and reaching them every day on campuses, as well as online – and that’s one of the programs we’re going to be aggressively building in the next year because we believe that when you put the truth in front of students – when you put the truth in front of young people. When you put the truth out there, then it changes hearts and minds, and we’ve seen that again and again.

A new NBC/WSJ poll showed that 70% of Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and 24% want it to be overturned.  Thirty-nine percent approve of the decision, 18% disapprove – but 41% don’t have enough information to make an opinion.  In that regard, how successful have you been in educating Americans, who may not know much about Roe v. Wade – or its implications on our society?

Right, it’s a great question. I think that – that study directly reveals the amazing opportunity we have as a movement because there are a lot of people who are unreached in our country with the truth about abortion and human dignity.  And Live Action may be reaching a million people online every week.  But there are over 300+ million more people to reach.  So, this is really just the beginning of – you know, this is – we’re at an amazing point where we have the tools at our disposal, and the truth at our disposal – and now it’s a matter of how many people can we reach.

Is Live Action, as an organization, planning to lobby Congress to resurrect PRENDA (Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), which punishes doctors for performing sex-selecive abortions?

Sure.  Well, the focus of Live Action Advocate, our 501 (c) (4) that I’m involved with, and the focus of Live Action Advocate, as it has been one of the rallying cry/calls of the pro-life movement is to make sure that the biggest abortion chain in the country, Planned Parenthood, is no longer receiving the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that it get every year from the government – and under President Obama that number has skyrocketed to half a billion of taxpayers dollars goes to the biggest abortion chain.  So, that really is the priority.  We need a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  We need to establish the personhood of the unborn child, and part of the path to make that happen we need to make sure that the abortion industry, in our country, is not being subsidized by the government.

Rose also debunked the claim that abortion represents only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, which was also exposed as false in a op-ed in Life News by the Americans United for Life Legal Team last October.  However, it’s still a tough fight.  As Allahpundit wrote for Hot Air last November, only 38% described themselves as pro-life, compared to 54% who identified themselves as pro-choice.  However, this was fresh off the 2012 elections, and Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s unfortunate comments about rape and pregnancy surely didn’t help the cause. However, Life News’ Steve Ertelt has disputed recent polls showing a pro-choice majority.

Furthermore, Allahpundit wrote today that the NBC/WSJ poll could be skewed (NBC! no way!):

because Gallup didn’t specify ‘three months’ in its phrasing of the Roe question, more respondents focused on the entire term of pregnancy and that dropped the numbers. Or there could be some quirk in the methodology, specifically having to do with the number who answer ‘don’t know’ about Roe.

In the NBC poll, just six percent answered “not sure” when asked if the decision should be overturned; in Gallup, by contrast, “no opinion” draws 18 percent, which is more than 10 points higher than that figure used to be circa 2002-03. How come? Gallup has a theory:

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision…

[…]

Good news and bad news there, obviously. Younger voters who express no opinion are potentially persuadable by pro-lifers, so in theory the anti-Roe numbers could expand in time. (Democratic overreach will help: Gallup notes that support for making abortion legal in all cases dropped after partial-birth abortion became a hot topic in the mid-90s.) Problem is, young adults are famously more liberal than other age groups on a variety of issues. That doesn’t mean they can’t make an exception for abortion.

Although, he did say that engaging Millenials on this issue is “going against the ideological tide.”

Nevertheless, Rose’s outreach initiatives through social media is where pro-lifers can turn the tide.  Case in point,  despite his poor economic record, Barack Obama vastly outspent Mitt Romney in social media last year, and won.  Go to where young people get their information.

This opportunity is accentuated with the resignation of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s President Nancy Keenan, who left since “most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue,  [while] NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.”

This whole fight is based on public opinion, which is shiftable sand.  However, with the dissemination of the facts, the malfeasance of Planned Parenthood, and the utilization of social media – pro-lifers, like Lila Rose, could easily gain the strategic edge over the long term.

The latest Live Action news, including their recent investigation into Planned Parenthood’s complicity in sex-selective abortion, can be found here.

 

Do Parents who Choose Life over Abortion Deserve Tax Break For Unborn Child

Children in Washington D.C. - protesting against abortion
Women who had abortions - protesting to protect unborn life

Women who had abortions – protesting to protect unborn life

As the year 2012 closes, there are millions of parents across the nation who should be realizing a tax break for their unborn child.  If their state follows Michigan’s lead which is considering granting parents that chose preserving a child’s life in the womb deserves a financial break.  For several weeks Michigan GOP legislators have been seriously contemplating granting a tax credit for parents of fetuses that are twelve weeks or older, according to the publication, the New Civil Rights Movement.

Liberals in the state legislature immediately jumped on the notion of granting an economic benefit for those cash-strapped parents who may be hit with higher taxes next year. They, like many parents across the nation are worried about the congress and the president being hopelessly deadlocked in ‘fiscal cliff ‘negotiations that will possibly add an additional $2,300 – $3,500 tax bill to their household. Why are Democrats worried about granting a tax break for middle-class families? Does it make sense to you?

Parents that have chosen protecting a child’s life over aborting the child should be a cause for celebration and why not reward the expectant parents with a tax break and legislators with re-election!  State legislatures across the nation are moving to strengthen the opportunity for an unborn child to hold onto their right to life, as abortion numbers continue to fall in America.

In 2009, which is the last year for reported abortion numbers, “A total of 784,507 abortions were reported to CDC for 2009. Of these abortions, 772,630 (98.5%) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2000–2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The value of life in the womb is gaining traction.  And these future parents deserve to be helped and not spurned by liberal and anti-life supporters.  Millions of families that are seeing their bills continue to increase, and it becomes more difficult to make their shrinking paychecks stretch.  A tax break for their unborn child, could be passed in early 2013 and have retroactive impact on 2012 income.

Is this legislation extreme as many liberals have claimed, who are concerned about the possibility that an unborn child just might be granted “personhood rights” rights? The director of Progress Michigan, Zack Pohl, called the pro-family legislation a back door way of, “passing extreme personhood legislation.”

How can it be extreme to grant a young struggling family the right to take advantage of the tax system that could grant them the benefit of putting a little more in their budget to pay for items necessary for the support of their expected child?

 

How can  liberals like Obama, force Catholic institutions like Georgetown pay for Law student Sandra Fluke’s abortion pills, but liberal leaders like him them not support tax-breaks for struggling parents of an unborn child?

With the fortieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe V. Wade decision coming in May of 2013, it seems more than ironic, that these same anti-life pro-choice forces are looking for yet another way to deprive a mother and father of a benefit of bringing a life into the world.

These liberal leaders know what you already know in your heart and in your gut. An unborn child is not just a mass of tissue, but is life, feels pain and suffers when harmed.  Examine for yourself, the state of law in America, concerning the status of an unborn child being carried in the womb of a mother. You determine if granting tax privileges for an unborn child is wrong.

An unborn child is considered a person under the law, when the mother is attacked and the attack results in the death of the unborn child. The laws which give legal human status to a murdered unborn child are called “feticide” laws. As a matter of law, the fetal homicide is considered a separate and distinct criminal act which exists aside from an attack and possible harm to the mother.

Therefore, the unborn child already has legal status, and that legal status is protected by law in 38 states in America. Twenty three states go even further in granting legal right-to-life protection for the unborn child from harm. These states provide, “fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy including ‘any state of gestation,’ or conception,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So where is the debate and where is the harm in granting a mother and father a tax benefit for their child, in any state, be it Texas, Ohio, Montana, Tennessee, Kentucky or any other? Abortion activists have claimed that granting “special rights” to the unborn child would take away a mother’s flexibility to strip an unborn child’s life from its body as the Roe v Wade decision permits. How ironic that the mother can harm and impede the life of her child.

The congress has already set the table for protecting the unborn child’s right to be defended against harm, with passage of the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act. When President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law, it recognized:

A “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

If a child is considered a legal victim and is, “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,” then why shouldn’t the 49 other states in the nation, and Michigan, take the next logical step and pass a law granting parents the right to a tax break for their unborn child?

Make 2013, a year of celebration for the truth about unborn life. Life is more than a heartbeat.  Life is a child, a future that deserves a choice.  Join the effort locally to protect the parent’s choice by supporting their right to a tax break for their unborn child.  After all, each precious unborn child is a “member of the species Homo sapiens.”  We all are…born and unborn!

( click – let me know what you think )

 

Dear Left: Conservatives Will Discuss Gun Control When the Left Agrees to Discuss Abortion Control

ban rifles1 pound baby

 

 

How many anti-gun leftists screaming for gun control would have supported the abortions of the 20 Newtown, Connecticut children had their parents chose abortion when those children were in the womb? Millions of leftists, including many screaming for gun bans.  Yet, when children are murdered by-way-of guns, leftists whore out every media camera, grabbing front and center attention to demonstrate tearful horror over the loss of innocent lives. Innocent lives leftists consider a hindrance to women when the innocents are in the womb.

So to leftists demanding more gun control discussions with legislators and citizens, let’s have that gun control discussion when you leftists are willing to talk about abortion control.

The left’s favorite protest next to capitalism and abortion on demand is gun control. Considering how fervently anti-death penalty and anti-Second Amendment the left is, it’s quite an oxymoron on their part to support killing children in the womb while mourning children who have been murdered by a monstrous gunman.

Let’s not forget the majority of these gun-ban pushers, horrified by a lunatic’s mass murder of children, would protest for that gunman’s life had he not killed himself and faced the death penalty.

death penalty makes us all killers

 

 

Of course this is a hopeless argument against useless idiots.  If given the choice to save pregnant women or puppies standing before firing squads, the left would throw themselves on top of the doomed puppies. To hell with our nation’s future and our Constitution’s preservation, unborn children and guns hinder our lives!

Conservatives across the spectrum can try to hold abortion control discussions, but we know the left will have none of it: Abortion is necessary to a woman’s sexual liberty, abortion is not murder, guns are, because guns kill! Abortion simply makes life-style problems go away.

Despite gun violence arguments and the Brady Campaign’s  claim that citizen gun mortality is higher than all U.S. wars combined, America has more abortion deaths per year than gun deaths.  But comparing civilian gun deaths to over 300 years of wars involving Americans is a political ploy to outlaw all guns.  Everyone knows wars incurs death; that’s why war is called war. Correlating armed civilians with war insinuates armed citizens are at war with other citizens. That is false. But don’t ever call abortion a war on children; you might offend women crusading for their freedom from that combat known as motherhood!

 

abortion not legal debate

 

If the left wants to discuss their hatred of guns, the right is justified in discussing its abhorrence toward taking the lives of unborn, as well as presenting those statistics.

According to National Right To Life, the CDC reports:

After dropping 25% from a high of over 1.6 million [abortions] in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million a year.

 

Still, the abortion rate is high.

 The CDC reports: 

In 2009 [alone], 784,507 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births.

 

The overall total of abortions in America to date:

Using GI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.

 

Abortion rates may have dropped, but the numbers are still astronomical compared to gun deaths.

But leftist will never admit abortion is a war on unborn children.

 

gun to unborn baby

 

Gun deaths in 2009—intentional and accidental combined—totaled:“31,347, Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2” CDC tracking has shown that firearm-related deaths—homicide, suicide or accidental—have declined each year.

The University of Pennsylvania Wharton College facilitates the anti-gun beliefs by claiming:

The US remains far behind most other affluent countries in terms of life expectancy…[and] the elimination of all firearm deaths in the US would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers.

 

Sorry academics, but had 54,559,615 Americans not been aborted, America would have a higher life expectancy today.

This is not making light of gun deaths. All death is tragic. But leftists view high abortion rates as a woman’s entitlement (unborn children lack rights until born and a gunman puts a gun to their heads) to control her own body and gun ownership the ultimate threat to society. That perspective is two-faced. How is killing unborn children, our nation’s future, just, but guns are deadly? Wouldn’t it be correct to say abortion is deadly because that is the procedure’s intention, and guns are only deadly when used to commit harm or fired accidentally?

Leftists disagree. Preventing abortion is a “War on Women.” Abortion is necessary for population control and freeing women from sexual impediments. Gun control and bans, however, are necessary for government to control citizen’s lives, conduct, religious, social, and political views.

If you cannot defend yourself from tyranny, then you are forced to become its servant.

Still, if Americans are to have gun control debates, leftists must allow conservative views on abortion. If leftists are hell-bent on abolishing the Second Amendment, conservatives have every right to discuss petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and placing abortion back in individual state hands.

If states have rights to impose stringent laws on guns, individual states should be given back their rights to decide whether or not citizens want abortion legal.

The mere suggestion of that discussion would go over like the Atomic Bomb on Japan.

Never mind the fact radically leftist California, New York and Massachusetts would never outlaw abortion and women seeking sexual freedom could turn their vacuumed sovereignty into a vacation package. Forget it, abortion is not allowed on the control discussion table.

No matter how hard commonsense argues with the left, guns will always be deemed violent weapons and abortion will always be considered a necessary means to end the domination of women’s bodies by unwanted children, those same women show compassion for, if children are murdered by an insane gunman.

There are two sides to life and death issues.  If one side is allowed to have a debate on gun deaths, the other side deserves the right to bring up abortion deaths. After all, it is only “fair” to “share” our individual ideas.

After The Election, Pro-life Americans Find Themselves in the Minority

Screen Shot 2012-11-20 at 12.31.31 PM

On May 23, 2012, Gallup released a poll that showed that people who identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ was at a record low of 41%.  Additionally, Americans who described themselves as pro-life, at the time, constituted 50% of the population.  That nine point margin in America’s ongoing culture war has flipped.  Pro-choice Americans are now 54% of the population, compared to 38% who are pro-life, according to Rasmussen.  As Allahpundit of Hot Air posted on November 15, “elections have consequences.”  However, it begs the question, where did all the pro-lifers go?

For one thing, we’re a liberal democracy – a republic to be exact.  As such, governments are based on public opinion, and opinion is shiftable sand.  Therefore, there are no permanent victories in democracy.  Conservative commentator George Will has spoken about this ad nauseum, and aptly made the observation that Sen. Barry Goldwater, who lost in the ’64 presidential election, knew about this aspect in American society.  Hence, why people say Goldwater didn’t lose in 1964, it just took sixteen years to count all the votes.  Reagan’s win in 1980 was the reaffirmation of Goldwater’s conservative conscience.

However, it cannot be denied that some Republican senate candidates made rather irresponsible remarks about rape and abortion on the campaign trail, which hurt the pro-life movement.  Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri are the two names that comes up frequently in this discussion.  Without a doubt, they paid a heavy price for their poorly constructed narratives that moved those leaning towards the pro-life argument, towards the pro-choice camp.   Allahpundit reaffirms this claim, citing a CNN poll from last August showing that, “[Abortion was] nice and steady there in the mid-20s for ‘legal under any circumstances’ over the past five years — until suddenly, in August of this year, the number jumps. Why? Well, what else happened in August this year? Right: Todd Akin opened his yapper about “legitimate rape” and women’s supposed biological defense mechanisms against it and that was the beginning of the end for Republican chances to take back the Senate. How big a deal was it? Weeks later, the NYT poll was seeing more support for the idea that abortion should be “generally available” than it had in over 15 years.”

So, if some people, who are pro-life, are wondering why they lost popular support, they need only to look at some of the politicians selected to support their cause in Washington D.C.  We need to be smarter.

 

USCCB Responds to Inaccurate Statement of Fact on HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued the following statement, October 12. Full text follows:

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

 

    “With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution-Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital-none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

 

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

For more details, please see USCCB’s regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed “accommodation”: www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf

Freedom of choice is a basic right, as long as you accept the consequences

I believe in Freedom of Choice as a basic Right in all personal matters, as long as you accept the consequences of your actions. Whether to engage in the act of sex is a perfect example: sex is a personal choice that can be enjoyed with whomever you please. If the choice is removed, a crime has been committed. As long as the adults are consenting, there are no restrictions. However sex has a potential consequence that must be considered. If pregnancy is not desired there are numerous, inexpensive contraception alternatives readily available.
The dilemma arises when the consequences of your initial choice produces a new human being, whose Rights must also be considered. This conception of a new human life introduces an entirely new, independent choice decision. Becoming pregnant is not just an inconvenience, but rather the beginning of a new life story. It is no longer a discussion about contraception, but instead the choice is whether to end this new human life.
The issues involve who makes the decision, when the baby is aborted, and who pays for this procedure. Pregnancy is the consequence of two people’s personal choice, but only the woman has the personal choice to terminate this emerging human life.
The decision when to abort this new life increases personal guilt as time goes on since infant viability improves as the fetus develops. Terminating in the first trimester is viewed as humane, while second or later trimester is viewed as inhumane due to medical advances demonstrating survivability at earlier and earlier gestation. There is now discussion of how late the abortion can take place, since partial birth abortions effectively take place at birth. If the baby survives this procedure the moral question arises can the baby be aborted after birth to ensure the initial abortion decision is honored? Many religious people do not condone abortions at any time.
Personal choices are the responsibility of the decision makers. A majority of Americans do view abortion as a personal choice today, but do not think society must subsidize and pay for another’s personal choice. We should not be forced to pay for other’s contraception nor should we be forced to pay for other’s abortions.
Our Constitution protects our Freedom of Choice in all personal matters, but recently there have been a number of attempts to isolate the person from the consequences of their actions. Our decision is whether society must pay to enable and subsidize us from the consequences of our actions.

Finally a Democrat on the Right Side of Taxes

The Widow's mite of Biblical fame.

The Widow’s mite of Biblical fame.

Tim Kaine — known here as Gov. Flowmax after closing Virginia’s interstate rest stops — occasionally comes down on the right side of an issue. During the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate between Senate candidates Kaine and former Sen. George Allen, Kaine observed that he would be “open” to the idea of everyone paying some level of federal income tax.

Subsequent media and online coverage was dominated by the charge that Kaine wants to tax everyone. Republican websites instantly pounced on the tax statement in an effort to put Kaine on the defensive. This is typical of today’s politics where candidates and consultants go for short–term political advantage at the cost of long term damage to the country.

Readers of last week’s column know I think it’s a good idea for every adult to pay federal tax. Otherwise some enjoy Taxation Without Participation where those who don’t pay federal taxes are happy to vote for politicians who will increase the taxes of those who do.

There is no government free lunch, although it may seem like it as long as the Chinese allow Uncle Sam to run a tab. If everyone pays, then everyone is aware of the cost of government when taxes increase. Normally Democrats oppose this.

The whole idea of some individuals being exempt from responsibility is another of the modern “progressive” ideas that have done so much to damage the nation. “Forward” into oblivion one might say.

Contrast “progressive” tax policy with Biblical tithe policy. God — who one would think knows something about the human heart and fairness — did not exempt anyone from paying their obligation. Luke 21:1 – 4 relates the incident of the widow’s mite: And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

The widow’s poverty did not exempt her, in fact it served to glorify her. Yet modern man, who evidently has a more finely attuned sense of justice than God, doesn’t think everyone should contribute to the nation’s upkeep. What’s more, the widow paid the same percentage tithe as those in “their abundance.” Proving God doesn’t believe in “progressive” tax rates either, but that’s a topic for another column.

Kaine was also asked if he supports eliminating charitable and mortgage interest deductions. Kaine answered that he supports broadening the base and rather than enduring a political battle over each deduction, he supports setting an aggregate total.

What this innocuous phrase means is Kaine wants the federal government to decide what’s a reasonable amount for you to give to charity. I’m sure if Kaine has his way the federally–approved donation deduction will be somewhere between the widow’s mite that Joe Biden delivers by motorcade each December 25th and the 30 percent Mitt Romney has donated to charity in 2011.

If instituted, the fed’s final decision on what’s allowed will be closer to the 3 to 5 percent charitable average for the US. For Christians who give a 10 percent tithe, this means they will be paying taxes on at least half of the money they donate. Proving Leviathan tolerates the worship of God as long as you save some Mammon for it.

This is a curious policy for a Catholic like Kaine to support, but it’s not the only issue where the former governor has a secular take on his faith. When the subject came up Kaine didn’t come right out and say he supported “abortion.” After all, this wasn’t the Democrat National Convention where abortion is part of the party platform.

Kaine’s genuflection came when he declared support for a woman’s right to exercise “constitutional choices.” But certainly not the “constitutional choice” that allows a woman to carry a concealed weapon. Kaine’s bloodless euphemism is just his feeble attempt to conceal the ugly truth of abortion.

Kaine will tell you that as a Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, but is not willing to impose his beliefs on others. This is a classic dodge that weaselly Southern Democrats have been using for over 200 years.

Before the Civil War Democrats claimed to be personally opposed to slavery, but unwilling to impose their beliefs on the planter aristocracy.

The outcome in the one case was involuntary servitude, in the other involuntary death. I fail to see any improvement in Democrat philosophy over the years.

It’s a real shame that Tim Kaine is not willing to extend his “open” to everyone paying taxes to being “open” to everyone being born.

Dang! I Missed Todd Akin’s Keynote Address

Senate candidate Todd Akin, star of the Republican National Convention.

Senate candidate Todd Akin, star of the Republican National Convention.

Life for a Comcast customer can be so frustrating. I’ve just gone 10 rounds with my DVR and the cable guide’s “search” malfunction. And I sit here in abject defeat.

My goal was to program it so I wouldn’t miss Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s keynote speech at the Republican Convention. After all, this man has skyrocketed to the top of GOP intellectual circles with his reasoned discourse on the intersection between female reproductive organs and the criminal justice system.

Akin single handedly destroyed the Obama campaign’s communication plan. Instead of continuing to trumpet Obama’s successful record as an engine of jobs creation and economic titan, campaign flaks are now forced to focus on abortion, just like it was the 90’s all over again.

So you can understand why I didn’t want to miss the crowd’s ovation as Akin discussed ovulation. But now Akin’s moment in the sun has come and gone, and I missed it.

Instead I’ve been trying to decide where I went wrong in my initial judgment on Akin. Before the Washington Post, the New York Times and various broadcasting networks made him chairman of the GOP and Romney & Ryan’s running mate, I had considered Akin an egregious violator of one of the cardinal rules for political candidates: male politicians should never discuss a woman’s private parts.

Those organs are mysterious. A combustible mix of plumbing, hormones and resentment, somehow based on perceived male deficiencies in telecommunication and “understanding.”

Which means the specifics of reproduction have no place in a male’s campaign issue grid. Instead one merely acknowledges that babies are conceived through a process that will remain somewhat ill–defined [closely resembling the specifics of my father’s discussion of “the birds and bees”] and then move on to a stirring defense of the unborn child’s right to life.

When Akin said, “From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that down,” the comment allowed Democrats to focus on the outrage done to the first victim, the woman, and ignore the outrage they want to perpetrate on the second victim, the unborn child.

This Akin shuffle works to the advantage of “choice” supporters because there is a fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of Democrat insistence on abortion in the case of “rape, incest and the health of the mother.” (Republican fellow–travelers substitute the word “life” for “health” because even they agree “anxiety” on the part of the mother is not sufficient cause for abortion.)

That hypocrisy is found in the contrast between fervent Democrat opposition to the imposition of capital punishment on the rapist and the unyielding advocacy for the application of capital punishment on the unborn. What this does is visit the punishment for the crime of the father on the innocent child — a system of jurisprudence favored by Nazis and Communists, as has been noted elsewhere.

Pro–life supporters have trouble persuading the uncommitted public on this difficult issue because the rape victim is tangible and visible, while the child is at least initially invisible and potential. Fortunately a brilliant television commercial by the Susan B. Anthony List will, I hope, make our job easier.

The spot is titled, “How Will You Answer?” and it is found at: http://www.sba-list.org/ (on the home page click on “How Will You Answer?” on the upper right). The commercial showcases Melissa Ohden who is the survivor of a botched abortion. Her tiny body — or clump of tissue, if you are a Planned UnParenthood contributor — was casually discarded after an abortion. But Melissa was still alive and her faint cries touched the heart of one of the nurses who saved her life by literally removing her from the garbage can.

Ms. Ohden, as far as I know, was not the product of a rape, but she makes the point just the same. Life is life whether conceived in love, violence or indifference. These unborn babies deserve the same Constitutional protections granted to rapists. John F. Kennedy said life isn’t fair and certainly carrying a child to term after a rape qualifies as manifestly unfair.  However it’s nine months of discomfort for the mother as opposed to the eternity of death for the child.

Watching Melissa Ohden tell her story puts everything in perspective, whether the topic is babies that survive a late–term abortion — her specific issue — or those executed after a rape. The ad is currently running in Missouri where one hopes Akin will graciously let Ms. Ohden assume future responsibility for the topic.

As for me, I’m learning all I can about how to program my DVR. I certainly wouldn’t want to miss Akin’s speech at the inauguration.

Will GOP National Convention pro-life support energize conservative voters

Sarah Palin has actively supported Susan B. Anthony List pro-life efforts

The country is now in the third quarter of a presidential election year that may very well determine the direction of the nation for the next quarter century in the battle to establish whether the right to life for the unborn will thrive or wither on the vine.  It is clear that historic battle lines are now being drawn, and liberal advertising blitzes are being planned and will be unleashed against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan next week. This will occur after the GOP National Convention delegates formerly adopt the pro-life plank along with the convention platform in Tampa, Florida.

This right to life platform stand is more than just a thrown-in addition to the party platform to be discarded after the convention nominates Mitt Romney as the Republican Party presidential nominee and Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential nominee. This is a clarion call to all supporters of life that the election is going to define leadership on life itself.

Liberals under President Obama will continue to fight to destroy life by defending a “mother’s” right to kill, to eliminate their child’s life.  Sure, it may be couched in neatly convenient neutral terms like ”woman’s right to choose”, but murder by way of abortion, is not a choice, it is a legalized death sentence for the unborn, and a continuing moral scandal supported by liberals who would rather support the “soul” of a tree, rather than the soul of a unborn creation of God.

The real question, is how committed are conservatives to fight for the future of an unborn child, when the Hollywood  firebombing machine is revving up as the GOP convention attendees begin to assemble in Tampa?  Is this simply a convention platform plank to bring in conservatives?  Or is the pro-life stance a rallying point, that has the full weight and credit of the U.S. Constitutional spirit that protects the personhood of each and every man, woman and child in this nation?

The Pro-life plank states in part, Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed, … We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

The words are not difficult to understand.  The sanctity of life is fundamental and it is complete!  The Fourteenth Amendment protections   must apply to an unborn child.  Their right to life such should and must be protected.  There is no reason for misinterpretation or equivocation.

This pro-life plank gives purpose and clarity of leadership to all convention delegates. Their vote and support, gives them an opportunity to distinguish themselves as warriors for protecting and preserving the right for a child. As they return to their hometowns they have to continue to fight to guarantee the unborn the same identical legal protections and privileges that anyone has in this great and wonderful nation.

The pro-life plank support is essentially a first step which can be likened to the Declaration of the Independence adoption by the Constitutional Convention in 1776.  Once it was adopted, there was cause for celebration, but the real battle of independence still had to be fought and more importantly still had to be won. Words of support will not win this war for life, but planning or taking part in pro-life activities in your community will help strengthen a victory for constitutional life federal legislation.

Pro-life activities are occurring this month. For example, the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) organization has begun a 30- stop national tour to raise grassroots attention concerning the Obama administration’s extremist pro-abortion record. Obama’s pro-abortion actions include continuing to use tax dollars to support Planned Parenthood’s abortion-related activities and refusing to protect, “baby girls from the lethal discrimination of sex-selective abortion,” according to SBA.

This week, SBA and Ohio Right to Life have joined SBA in taking the tour to Toledo, Dayton and Lima, Ohio on Wednesday. The state tour continues on Thursday to Cincinnati, Columbus and Zanesville, Ohio. The other battleground states on the tour include, Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Florida.

As conservative voters it is time to draw a distinct and unmovable line in the sand, where losing freedom and sacrificing justice for the unborn is a future that will no longer be tolerated in America.

The obligation of the nation’s patriot’s is not to yield sovereignty to the Hollywood elite, liberal punditry or to a president whose only obligation it seems is to singlehandedly  dismantle the U.S. Constitution’s personal and state’s rights.

Rather the citizen patriot should embrace their God given rights and insure that a nation built on moral biblical principles and constitutional rights, including the right to “life and liberty will not be abridged.

Founding Father and former President John Adams spoke on October 11, 1798, stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

So stand with strengthening the constitutional cords of our nation and defend its religious heritage in order to protect the right to life of the unborn, now, tomorrow and until their U.S. constitutional protection is won.  Now is that time!

 

Let me know what you think: http://shar.es/7qLVN

 

Twins Born at 23 Weeks Home as AZ Defends Prohibiting 20 Week Abortion

nicu

After an unexpected critical health issue Arizona twins were born by cesarean section at only 23 weeks. The twin boys, called miracle babies, by staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center survived difficult challenges, including surgeries, blood transfusions and months in the Nursery Intensive Care Unit.

The boys, now three months old, are home with their parents, and weigh about seven pounds each.

Read more at AZCentral.com

A heartwarming story right? Unusual, no doubt. But it’s even more. These tiny babies, while surviving due to improved technology, are a statement of fetus viability. It wasn’t that long ago when infants born at two pounds were considered miracles. Medical advances are daily improving the chances of a pre-term fetus to not only survive, but live and grow a healthy life.

Arizona recently passed a law prohibiting abortions at a point of fetal viability. By the standards set in the law this would be at 20 weeks gestation. Remember these tiny twins were born just three weeks beyond that point.

Abortion rights groups have challenged this new law saying the 20 week period does not give women enough time to decide whether to abort a problem pregnancy.

The 9th Circuit Court put a stay on Arizona’s new law until a hearing can take place. Nine other states have enacted similar bans after 20 weeks pregnancy.

Chinese ‘Angel’ Rescues 30 Abandoned Babies

Translationg: 'It is forbidden to discriminate against, mistreat or abandon baby girls'

Translationg: ‘It is forbidden to discriminate against, mistreat or abandon baby girls’

The story of a Chinese ‘angel’ has come to the international stage after details of her rescue of 30 abandoned Chinese babies came to light.

Hailed as a hero, Lou Xiaoying, now 88 and suffering from kidney failure, found and helped raise 30 abandoned Chinese babies in the Eastern China as she struggled to make a living recycling rubbish.

The first child was found in 1972. She and her husband kept four children and passed others on to family and friends. Her youngest son Zhan Qilin, now 7, was found when Lou was 82.

DailyMail: “Even though I was already getting old I could not simply ignore the baby and leave him to die in the trash. He looked so sweet and so needy. I had to take him home with me,” she said.

I took him back to our home, which is a very small modest house in the countryside and nursed him to health. He is now a thriving little boy, who is happy and healthy.

My older children all help look after Zhang Qilin, he is very special to all of us. I named him after the Chinese word for rare and precious.”

China introduced its ‘policy of birth planning’ in 1978 to slow the country’s population explosion. Married couples are restricted to having one child. Those who follow the rules can receive an additional month’s salary every year until the child turns 14. The Chinese government claims that the policy has probably prevented more than 400 million births and in 2010 it was reported that for every 120 boys born there are 100 girls.

Critics inside China and around the world have condemned the policy and accused the government of enforcing abortions. Despite the fact that it is illegal to kill newborn babies in the country, female infanticide and the failure to report female births is widely suspected, especially in rural areas. Faced with governmental punishment many newborns are thought to be abandoned in dumpsters.

DailyMail: One fan of Lou explained: “She is shaming to governments, schools and people who stand by and do nothing. She has no money or power but she saved children from death or worse.’

‘In the local community she is well known and well respected for her work with the abandoned babies. She does her best. She is a local hero. But unfortunately there are far too many abandoned babies in China who have no hope of survival.”

This woman, poor by most standards, found the ability and means to give these 30 abandoned babies a second chance.

For more pictures visit: Whatsonshenzhen.

Abortion Is the Ultimate Child Abuse

Outrage is expected from both liberals and conservatives on the issue of child abuse, but what about the ultimate child abuse of abortion? Liberals are usually strangely silent. As horrible as neglect, molestation, beatings, and desertion may be, murder of the helpless and innocent through abortion is worse. Though abandoned and abused children suffer, at least they still have life and, hopefully can be taken by someone who will really love them. No such chance for the murdered unborn innocents.

Selfishness is the main motivation for abortion. Under the guise of “concern” for the unborn, the mother may use excuses such as, “Inability to support a child” or “I can’t give it the quality time needed” or any number of other inexcusable excuses. The paramount excuse for abortion is the one disguised in the cloak of the so-called freedom of a woman’s “right” to do with her body as she chooses. But a living, breathing human baby is not a part of the mother’s body; it is distinct from the moment of conception. The mother’s body gives life, support and nourishment to the separate, living human baby inside. If the embryo (another word for a DEVELOPING, MATURING baby) was only a blob, or mass of protein, then it could possibly be considered a part of her body, but common sense says otherwise. The dictionary definition of embryo is “The first rudiments of an animal (or human) in the womb or of a plant in the seed; the first state (underlining mine) of anything.” Webster’s Expanded Dictionary, 1992.

Being a parent means more than just bringing life into the world. It means giving up time, sleep, money, and possibly a career, just to mention a few basics. And parents only bring life into this world. They do not give it. God is the giver of life, not the father or mother. God uses the father and mother to begin a new life in the womb. In a sense, every new life is an extension of God, for all life comes from God. Try as he may, through cloning or the test tube, man will never create life. If life is an extension of God, who made man in His image, then all murder is an attack on the creator of life. The state may sanction, even fund murder, but God will hold murderers accountable. Pro-choice (which is really pro-death as opposed to pro-life) is nothing more than allowing people the choice to legally kill. Murder is murder, regardless of the reason.

Children are a blessing from God. We should thank God for the little blessings He has given and treat them with love, respect and a reverent awe, for each one is a little unique image of God, testifying to the greatness of the Creator, reminding us that only God can give life.

Joseph Harris, [email protected] has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on stupidpoliticians.com, WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Canada Free Press, Land of the Free, The Post Chronicle and News America Daily.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »