An interesting bit of trivia is floating around in the press these days. It seems that between 2002 and 2009, nearly one billion dollars was given to organizations that support abortion in some way. In fact, those dollars were taxpayer dollars. Catholic News Service informs us that http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002528.htm the recent GAO report “looked at government funding given to Advocates for Youth (AFY), the Guttmacher Institute (AGI), International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Population Council of the United States (PCI) and Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).”

· Advocates for Youth: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=51 Encourages sexual rights and promiscuity

· AGI: http://www.guttmacher.org/ Planned Parenthood’s research arm

· IPPF: http://www.ippf.org/en/ Spreads Planned Parenthood’s bilge internationally

· PPFA: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Proponent of every sexual evil known to man

· PCI: http://www.popcouncil.org/countries/us.asp Less people is best

· SIECUS: http://www.siecus.org/ Proponents of sex instruction programs

In addition, American Life League’s Rita Diller combed PPFA’s annual reports and found out that it actually took in more than two billion in tax dollars between fiscal years 2002 and 2008. Yet it only spent $657.1 million. So where did the rest of the money go?

The results of these reports are staggering, particularly given the fact that America is in dire financial straits. Diller points out that for the majority of Americans who consider themselves pro-life, a few questions need to be cleared up! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/18/planned-parenthoods-missing-millions/

“Someone … needs to explain to all those people why $2.3 billion in tax dollars have been doled out to an organization that admits to systematically having killed more than 1.8 million preborn babies between 2002 and 2008 and then reports it only spent $657.1 million in federal dollars.”

As an aside, the title of Diller’s Washington Times exposé was “Planned Parenthood’s missing millions,” which led at least one reader to ask whether it was referring to the number of dead babies or dollars.

And then there’s the blame game. While it is true that Obama has carried the funding forward and increased it in many cases, he is not the first president to provide Planned Parenthood those tax dollars out of our pockets. No, that would be the president who signed Title X of the Public Health Service Act into law in 1970, Richard M. Nixon. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib16.html

Since that time, there has never been a president who has worked to end this debacle. This is why the culture-of-death stalwarts continue to receive the fuel that operates their machinery.

Some claim that we have had presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, for example, who are heroes to at least the political segments of the pro-life movement. But even these two alleged defenders of the pro-life position lifted not a single finger, or even a fingernail, to stop the funding. So why make this a partisan issue?

After all, if a man like President Ronald Reagan didn’t stand up to the apostles of death, why can’t pro-life Americans be honest enough to admit that funding for such groups transcends partisan politics?

Here’s a clue. In order to oppose taxpayer funding for organizations like PPFA, AGI and SIECUS, a leader has to be prepared to stand up to what would certainly be one of the most vociferous and long-lasting media tirades in our history.

This person would have to set forth the facts. He or she would have to gather up the courage to point out that the government has no business in population control advocacy, birth control advocacy or abortion advocacy. And should a politician do this, he would need the public, vocal support of the entire United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the evangelical community and other religious organizations with a grasp of this truth: that the only legitimate role of government is to defend and protect its citizens.

That’s all it would take. But upon reflecting back on the past 40 years of political posturing, I confess that such a person may not exist. Or if he or she does exist, then perhaps that person has already decided that the American system of justice toward the innocent is so debilitated at this point that there are better things to do in the service of God and country.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

A couple of recent studies that reflect negatively on abortion have come to our attention. We in turn want to make you are aware of them—not because they are shocking, but rather because the secular “news” media has once again found it not in their best pro-death interest to report them objectively. For the most part, there has been no mention of them.

The first deals with the Congressional briefing hosted by Congressman Chris Smith this past week, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042909.html a well-known advocate for human rights, truth and life. The purpose of the Smith briefing was to discuss the global decline in maternal death rates and the reasons why improved prenatal care, rather than abortion, holds the key to continued success in this area.

During the briefing, Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) http://www.aaplog.org/ , focused attention on a recent study published in the British medical journal, Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60518-1/fulltext , entitled “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5.” It credits these four reasons for the improvement in maternal health: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women and the increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041505.html

As Dr. Harrison explained, the Lancet report http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042909.html “never mentioned legal abortion as a factor in bringing down maternal mortality ratios. In fact, pro-life nations such as Poland, Malta and Ireland had just as low or even lower ratios of maternal mortality than the United States, Norway, and Canada, which all have very liberal abortion laws.”

Harrison pointed out that induced abortion actually puts women in danger of bleeding/hemorrhage, infection, and damage to reproductive organs, especially if not all the pieces of the destroyed unborn child are completely evacuated. The risks are even greater for medical abortion, Harrison said, highlighting a study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that women having a medical abortion had an eightfold risk of bleeding, fivefold risk of incomplete abortion, and twofold risk of (re)evacuation than surgical abortion. The study concluded that medical abortion was likely “to result in an elevated incidence of overall morbidity related to termination of pregnancy.

While this comes as no surprise to anyone involved in the pro-life apostolate, it is not us who need to hear these facts, but rather the general public who is still being spoon-fed the lie that abortion is “safe and legal” and childbirth can be deadly for the mother. So where is the media, you might ask?

Well, as the New York Times reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/health/14births.html

[S]ome advocates for women’s health tried to pressure The Lancet into delaying publication of the new findings, fearing that good news would detract from the urgency of their cause, Dr. Horton said in a telephone interview.

“I think this is one of those instances when science and advocacy can conflict,” he said.

Dr. Horton said the advocates, whom he declined to name, wanted the new information held and released only after certain meetings about maternal and child health had already taken place.

He said the meetings included one at the United Nations this week, and another to be held in Washington in June, where advocates hope to win support for more foreign aid for maternal health from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other meetings of concern to the advocates are the Pacific Health Summit in June, and the United Nations General Assembly meeting in December.

“People who have spent many years committed to the issue of maternal health were understandably worried that these figures could divert attention from an issue that they care passionately about,” Dr. Horton said. “But my feeling is that they are misguided in their view that this would be damaging. My view is that actually these numbers help their cause, not hinder it.”

All I can say to that is, Dr. Horton, GIVE ME A BREAK! Who do you think you are kidding? Or are you so naïve you do not understand that those who equate maternal health with killing preborn children before birth don’t want any kind of good news being touted in the media that will undermine their heinous agenda.

If it were truly the case, that advocates for maternal health were committed to protecting expectant mothers and their babies from dreadful disease, difficulties, birth anomalies and death, they would be staunch advocates for both patients and never recommend killing as a healthy response! However, as we know, such is not the case here or in any of the developing nations where the United States has been funding the culture of death for so many years.

Further, these very same advocates, if they were honestly committed to women and children, would have been first in line with the news that researchers at the University of Manitoba have shown a distinct link between abortion and mental illness including thoughts of suicide: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10043012.html

The researchers, from the departments of psychology and psychiatry, as well as obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, found that abortion was associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and suicide attempts.

They report that depression and drug dependence followed abortion in about half of the women studied.  Additionally, women with a household income of $75,000 or more were more likely to report an abortion than those with household incomes under $25,000.

They used data from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Drug Abuse to look for correlations between a number of factors, including abortion, anxiety, substance abuse, eating disorders, disruptive behavior and suicide attempts. They then checked for evidence of mental disorders following abortions.

“This was the first study to examine associations between abortion and several mental disorders,” says Dr. Jitender Sareen, psychiatry. “We found a higher likelihood of lifetime mood disorder in women who had experienced an abortion compared with those who had never had an abortion.”

But even those involved with this study were rather hasty to tell the secular media no conclusions can be drawn linking abortion to mental illness! http://www.canada.com/news/Woman+abortions+report+more+depression+drug+abuse+Study/2975381/story.html The Canadian news agency reports that “[a]bortion providers worry the study’s findings could be misinterpreted and become fodder for anti-abortion groups.”

In other words, regardless of the actual clinical information that exposes the deleterious effects of abortion on the mother, let alone the child, the political advocacy of abortion is what is most important. Rather than being objective, the news media must rush to see what those negatively affected by such studies have to say because, as far as I can tell, the act of abortion is not in the same category as other surgical procedures when it comes to telling the truth to the public. The protection of the sacred act of abortion is clearly what is most important to far too many who should be dedicated to honest and fair reporting.

For many years, I have known that the relatively naïve pro-life activities of the late seventies and early eighties that ultimately put abortion into the framework of “political issues” were bound to backfire. Today, as these two studies and the public reaction affirms, this is in fact the case. We are not dealing with honesty in the media or the medical profession when we discuss abortion today. No, it is all about politics.

And frankly, the only solution for all this is an ongoing discussion about the humanity of the preborn child with a specific focus on his human personhood.

As advocates for these people, we are not and should not be involved in a partisan political discussion. Nor will we patiently wait for the medical world to own up to the truth and admit that those who commit abortion are committing murder. We are the ones who are going to repeat the truth about what abortion really is, regardless of our popularity, our social status or our opportunities to be welcomed into the wider community of secular thoughts and ideas.

We know that abortion is evil. We know that those who advocate it are literally working for the father of lies, and we will continue to say it. Abortion is an act that takes the life of a person and the antidote is human personhood. A focus on that child’s humanity is the only educational tool that has lasting power to turn the tide.

God does not expect us to engage in political bickering, nor does His Word give us permission to relegate His babies and their fate to nothing more than a mere political issue! God expects us to tell the truth. If not us, who? Personhood now!

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

by Kortney Blythe

“Rise up, O God, and defend Your cause; remember how fools mock You all day long.” —Psalm 74:22

Abortion advocates hate peaceful, prayerful Christ-centered pro-life activities. They especially hate the Christians who frequent abortion mill sidewalks all across the nation. How infuriating it must be for them when they can’t use their usual rhetoric (calling pro-lifers angry, violent, woman-haters) because the pro-lifers outside abortion mills display the complete opposite.

All their talk of tolerance and acceptance goes out the window when dealing with kind families who love the women entering abortion mills by offering them alternatives. Those in favor of abortion respond to these effective, lifesaving campaigns in all sorts of devious ways. One is Planned Parenthood’s Pledge a Protester campaign. https://secure.ga0.org/02/pap08 PP supporters pledge that for every pro-lifer present outside the abortion mill, they will give a donation. Of course, they think this will dissuade pro-lifers from coming to the mill, but no such luck. One pro-abortion blogger, who chronicles her experience http://antichoiceantiawesome.blogspot.com/ as an abortion worker at Morgentaler Clinic in New Brunswick, Canada, said, “So this week, even though it was crappy, rainy cold weather, the protesters were out bright and early with their signs. WHAT IS THEIR GAME??”

Well, our game is protecting life. No amount of bad weather, scare tactics or persecution will stop us. You wouldn’t understand this because you’ve stereotyped pro-lifers as being uncaring, hateful misogynists. Another tactic recently employed http://www.jillstanek.com/defacing-pro-life-poster-a-ok.html by pro-abortion activists is defacing the very tame, diplomatic posters http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031108.html in New York City subways sponsored by Abortion Changes You. http://www.abortionchangesyou.com/ The posters have loving messages of hope, healing and understanding, yet are labeled “heinous” by abortion supporters.

It gets worse.

This past Good Friday in St. Paul, Minnesota, pro-lifers and abortion peddlers showed up outside the local Planned Parenthood. This pro-abortion video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2trMTkrHWiY documents some of the protest. Those supporting PP showed their hardened hearts, calling what PP does a “fabulous service” and singing in favor of child killing to the tune of “Amazing Grace.”

One person noted, “We have a much friendlier, peppy side than they [the pro-lifers] do over there.” Well, of course you do. You’re celebrating death; the pro-lifers are mourning the millions of aborted children and scarred mothers and fathers.

Psalm 73:4-8, 12 http://www.biblica.com/bible/verse/index.php?q=Psalm%2073&niv=yes&v_mode=&t_mode= says of the arrogant,

They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from the burdens common to man; they are not plagued by human ills. Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. From their callous hearts comes iniquity; the evil conceits of their minds know no limits. They scoff, and speak with malice; in their arrogance they threaten oppression … This is what the wicked are like— always carefree, they increase in wealth.

“Reverend” Rebecca Turner of Faith Aloud, http://www.faithaloud.org/aboutus.php a proudly pro-abortion “religious” organization that claims to “promote reproductive justice through the moral power of religious and ethical communities,” recently responded to 40 Days for Life’s spring campaign with her own “40 Days of Prayer to Keep Abortion Safe and Legal.” http://abortionclinicdays.blogs.com/abortionclinicdays/2010/03/40-days-of-prayer-to-keep-abortion-safe-and-legal.html Not sure to whom they are praying, but it’s definitely not the God of the Bible.

I won’t list all 40 of her “prayers.” Here are just a few, with my comments in parentheses and italics:

Day 6:  Today we ask for blessings upon the women who pass through hostile protesters on their way into an abortion clinic. May they be shielded from physical and emotional harm from those who do not know them. (The real harm comes once they’re inside. Those “hostile” protesters are the ones attempting to shield the women and their babies from physical and emotional harm.)

Day 10:  Today we pray for women who were joyfully expecting a child, but have learned that the pregnancy is not sustainable. (Pregnancy is not sustainable? You mean, the child is not “normal” by your standards? How did the “child” they’re “joyfully expecting” suddenly lose humanity and become an unsustainable “pregnancy”?)

Day 13:  Today we pray for the men in our lives, that they may offer their loving kindness and support for women’s difficult decisions. (In other words, either ignore their protective instinct and passively accept their child being murdered, or keep their mouths shut.)

Day 18:  Today we pray for all the staff at abortion clinics around the nation. May they be daily confirmed in the sacred care that they offer women. (When dismembering children is called “sacred,” there is something very wrong with our world.)

Day 28:  Today we pray for the women who travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion. May their determination be rewarded with spiritual strength. (May their determination to kill their children be rewarded? Why do they need spiritual strength if there is nothing spiritually warped about abortion?)

Day 36:  Today we pray for the families we’ve chosen. May they know the blessing of choice. (Families we’ve chosen!? What if a family chooses to eliminate one of their teenagers? Ah, the blessing of choice.)

Day 38:  Today we pray for a cloud of gentleness to surround every abortion facility. May everyone feel calm and loving. (Yes, may everyone feel the calm and loving “cloud of gentleness” that accompanies babies being suctioned out of their mother’s wombs.)

They don’t stop at mocking God through pro-abortion prayers.

Another “religious institute” http://www.religiousinstitute.org/ in favor of murdering the preborn released a special Mother’s Day handout for churches. They encourage churches to use it as a bulletin insert and do the responsive reading. Read the entire insert here. http://www.religiousinstitute.org/sites/default/files/initiatives/Rachel_Sabbath_Bulletin_Insert_Mothers_Day_0.pdf After decrying how women “needlessly” died from pregnancy-related complications, the handout promotes doubling the $12 billion our country already invests in “family planning.” Translation: more money for killing children.

The responsive reading is even more nauseating. First it goes through the obligatory thanking of mothers. Then the true agenda emerges: “We pray for a society in which pregnancy is freely chosen … We affirm the sanctity of life and the moral agency of women … We envision a world where … all children are wanted and loved … We celebrate the many ways that people create families and become mothers in our communities.”

There is so much wrong with these statements. First of all, we do live in a society where pregnancy is freely chosen. The choice is made when one decides to engage in sexual intercourse. Secondly, affirming the “sanctity of life” and “moral agency of women” should mean they are opposed to abortion. However, this is a deceptive attempt to mask an acceptance of abortion in church-friendly terms.

The worn argument about “a world where … all children are wanted and loved” has more recently decreased in usage, probably because abortion advocates realize that there are millions of loving families waiting to adopt. Thus, there are no unwanted, unloved children.

But also, isn’t the answer to unwanted, unloved children to want them and love them? Don’t we go to Africa and care for the unwanted, unloved AIDS orphans? The solution is not to kill them.

What should our response be to all this sacrilege?

Press on in the fight. Urge your pastor to speak out in opposition to these wolves in sheep’s clothing. Pray without ceasing. And remember what David wrote in Psalm 73:16-19 http://www.biblica.com/bible/verse/index.php?q=psalm73:16-19&niv=yes about those who mock God and His righteousness:

When I tried to understand all this, it was oppressive to me till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final destiny. Surely You place them on slippery ground; You cast them down to ruin. How suddenly are they destroyed, completely swept away by terrors!

Galatians 6:7 http://www.biblica.com/bible/verse/index.php?q=galatians6:7&niv=yes says, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

Pray that all those who mock the upright will repent, turn from their ways, and seek God and His offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Kortney Blythe is the chapters and street team coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life http://www.rockforlife.org/ project, which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism.

 

WesternFront America

By Erik Whittington

Lilith Fair http://www.lilithfair.com/ is a traveling music festival of female solo artists and female-led bands cofounded by Grammy-winning singer-songwriter Sarah McLachlan. During the summers of 1997 through 1999, Lilith Fair was considered one of the top-grossing tours in the world, entertaining more than 1.5 million fans. It also raised $10 million for women’s charities in North America during this time.

McLachlan http://www.sarahmclachlan.com/us/home is a famous Canadian folk rock artist who is known as much for her causes as her mesmerizing ballads. One such cause she supports is Rock for Choice, an organization that spreads its anti-life message through music and raises funds for pro-abortion groups.

Rock for Life http://www.rockforlife.org/ developed fliers that groups across the country downloaded, printed, copied and distributed in massive numbers at Lilith Fairs to inform attendees of the pro-abortion bias. This was an excellent opportunity to bring the pro-life message to an audience that desperately needed to hear it. During these efforts, individuals reported to us what they witnessed inside a Lilith Fair. Abortion advocates had plenty of informational booths while pro-life groups and pregnancy help centers, especially, were denied space. So-called sex education booths were rampant, spreading their sexually immoral messages to the young audiences. Some even reported women parading around topless as a sign of their feminism.

Many high profile and pro-abortion artists headlined Lilith Fair in the past, including but not limited to Bonnie Raitt, Joan Osbourne, Sheryl Crow, Indigo Girls, Dixie Chicks, Christina Aguilera, Aimee Mann and many others. Some pro-life artists (Kendall Payne, Sixpence None The Richer) and Christian artists (Jennifer Knapp, Ginny Owens) were granted side stages. At least there is a small silver lining to the story so far, huh?

This summer, Lilith is coming back with another big lineup of musical talent, but not without controversy. On March 30, Lilith announced a “Choose Your Charity” contest. Since Lilith organizers want to support local, regional and national women’s advocacy groups at each show, they performed a database search, came up with a number of groups and posted them online for the public to choose which one they should support. Lilith executives will then take the top three vote getters from each city and decide which advocacy group would receive one dollar from each ticket sold on that event date.

This is where the controversy begins. To the pro-life movement’s surprise, listed among the group of charities were eight organizations that were either pregnancy help centers or maternity homes. Did Sarah McLachlan or one of the other organizers have a conversion?

Although a conversion would obviously have been fantastic, it seemed unlikely. Was this some kind of oversight then? Immediately, the pro-abortion groups and their followers went on a campaign to remove the pregnancy care centers from the list. You know, these are the very people who like to call themselves “pro-choice.” But I guess when it comes to offering something other than abortion, such as a free ultrasound, diapers, cribs, maternity clothes and other items for young mothers in need, the choice doesn’t really exist. As the Chicago Reader’s Melissa Hopper reported http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2010/03/30/anti-choice-organizations-among-potential-beneficiaries-of-lilith-fairs-choose-your-charity-campaign :

Minneapolis and Indianapolis fans are given the option of supporting Metro Women’s Center http://www.metrowomenscenter.org/ and Life Centers http://www.lifecenters.com/ respectively—institutions whose approach to women’s reproductive health services (especially birth control and abortion) is guided by an explicitly anti-choice agenda. Several other cities, including Atlanta and Seattle, have potential beneficiaries that offer so-called abortion alternatives and faith-driven pregnancy counseling.

When asked to comment about this apparent change in tack for the historically pro-choice Lilith Fair http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=3713 , the festival organizers had this to say via their publicist at Nettwerk, Danielle Romeo: “The primary focus of the selection process will be on those organizations that provide shelter to women in need. We want the fans to have a voice in the selection, and we will strongly consider all feedback on these selected charities when making the final decisions.”

… [Nettwork CEO and Lilith cofounder Terry] McBride insists that the Lilith organization hasn’t changed its principles and that it didn’t “purposefully” select the anti-choice groups featured on the Facebook voting site. He says the organizers haven’t even read the mission statements that appear there. “What is posted are the results of the most cursory search, and it’s really up to each community to help us decide,” he says. “We aren’t the experts, and so it needs to be up to people working in those communities.”

Three days later, Lilith officials removed the pregnancy care centers from the list. We don’t know for sure if they buckled under the pressure, but the timing does speak volumes. And according to Rachel Larris, a blogger for RH Reality Check http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/02/lilith-tour-drops-cpcs-naral-choose-your-charity-contest-keeps-maternity-homes, NARAL Pro Choice North Carolina was also dropped from the list. Lilith also left four maternity homes on the list. So there is another small silver lining. I don’t think any pro-lifers really believed that the pregnancy help centers would make the final cut. It definitely would have been interesting to see how many votes they would have received. Now, with the pro-abortion crowd already riled up, will these maternity homes make the final cut?

So who or what is Lilith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith ? According to Jewish folklore, Lilith is a night demon. The Kabbalah describes Lilith as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Some other accounts http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-lilith.htm place her as Adam’s first wife—somewhat of a hero to feminists because she left him. Lilith is called a disruptor of marital relations, someone who harms pregnant mothers (abortion?) and women in general, and one who harms newborns, especially male children. She also appears as a screech owl in Isaiah 34:14 in the King James translation of the Holy Bible.

So why name your musical adventure after such a creature? Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but could it be a subliminal nod to the abortion advocates?

As a parent whose children are slowly creeping up on the “tween” years, I am becoming more and more sensitive to things like this. I am protective and I should be. And so should you! Arm yourself with knowledge. One day, my unknowing children may wish to attend Lilith Fair. I will have to tell them no.

Erik Whittington is the director of Rock for Life http://www.rockforlife.org/ .

 

WesternFront America

The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years now. Having said that, the problem with what is currently being said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism.

For starters, on Saturday, November 7, NRLC sent a letter to each member of Congress in which the following statement was made:

“As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment can only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare bill, one finds the following:

This should make it obvious to anyone with a heart for the principles upon which the pro-life movement was founded to see right through the smoke and mirrors that NRLC is now using to deflect criticism from its political misjudgment.

To make matters worse, as if they could get worse, Lifenews.com published an article entitled “Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amendment.” Its simply unbelievable observations, http://www.lifenews.com/nat5638.html pitting Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona’s strategy against that of the Stupak supporters, defy logic. Steven Ertelt describes what Shadegg attempted to do to ensure the abominable Pelosicare bill’s failure and then defends the Stupak strategy, claiming that with or without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have passed. Interesting how he defends the NRLC strategy as the only real game in town.

But the most troubling comments come toward the end of the article, where we find these Ertelt insights: http://www.lifenews.com/nat5638.html

The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty. I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other.

But attacking pro-life groups, lawmakers or people for supporting one strategy or the other is not productive. We have so many battles ahead that a divided pro-life movement only leads to losing the battles on abortion funding and stopping this pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia health care bill.

Even with Stupak added, every pro-life group admits that rationing and conscience issues remain and that the bill still has concerns or the pro-life movement. No pro-life group — and even the bishops despite some mis-reporting in the mainstream media — are supporting the House bill as approved.

Let’s cease the attacks on one another. This is only a strategic debate between people who wholeheartedly want to see abortion end immediately if not sooner and not a matter of one side or the other abandoning pro-life principles. We all want to get the ball in the end zone and some of us want to pass and some to run the ball.

There are too many unborn children and elderly and disabled at risk in the health care bill to let this one inning (excuse the mixed sports metaphors) define where we go as a pro-life community. There is an entire game to be played and adopting Stupak has riled and motivated the pro-abortion forces. Divided, they win, but united we can stop abortion funding and defeat this pro-abortion, pro-rationing bill.

Ertelt’s description of the pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is an  “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.”

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so upset it even forgot to mention that if this bill passes, with or without the Stupak language, Planned Parenthood’s already-huge government subsidies will increase dramatically. Gee whiz! How could it have been so absentminded?

I hope my point has been made. Regardless of who is riled, who is playing politics with babies’ lives or who is running for cover as they try to make lemonade out of the lemons they’ve tossed at principle, nobody should be pleased with the prospect of government-run health care. In case we have forgotten, dear friends at NRLC, this is the very government that thirsts for the blood of the innocent in unimaginable quantities!

Obama supporters’ “health care reform” bills, regardless of their title or bill number, are so fatally flawed that wise pro-life strategists would have withheld any 11th-hour efforts, including the back-room meeting orchestrated by the USCCB and NRLC that led to the Stupak fiasco in the first place. The concerns that Ertelt now mentions about rationing and conscience protections were a concern before Stupak and still are. And, of course (though curiously absent from his analysis), increased funding for PP, abortive birth control and the like, which have been included in every version of this “health care reform” effort and are equally disquieting. All of these provisions combined should have been sufficient for pro-life activists of every stripe to simply walk away, continue to preach the full pro-life message and let the bill go down in flames.

Instead, we have this silly argument about how we all have to go along, now that the Stupak language is in the bill, and do our best, tra la, tra la, tra la la la.

Well, sorry, but I don’t buy it! When people fail to be honest in their interpretations of pro-life philosophy before a major political effort, what will they do afterward? Now we know. They will spin a tale, whether valid or not, about uniting forces and pressing on.

In this case, I agree. Now that the water is over the dam and the damage is done, we all must do one simple thing! We must demand that the following be included in any health care reform proposal:

Respect for human personhood, respect for human personhood and respect for human personhood.

If this single principle were the cornerstone of reasonable health care reform—a reform based on justice for all—there would be no anti-life provisions in at all. As of this writing and regardless of which bill we read, none measure up to this standard, and thus all should be opposed.

But this is probably why American Life League does not get invited to those closed-door, 11th-hour meetings wherein some individuals negotiate away principle in order to rush out celebrating a fictitious success. Frankly, we at American Life League get on our knees and thank God that we are not invited to such events, as we would prefer to serve the best interest of the human person—who deserves equal protection under the law at all stages of life—rather than serve the special interests of Democrats and/or Republicans who are convinced that playing games with human lives is acceptable practice.

NRLC has exposed its agenda. While it’s surely no surprise, it is also deplorable. The good news is that this is not the final act in the “health care reform” drama.

So … now that the wayward have weighed in, the rest of us better get busy focusing on human personhood.

 

WesternFront America

American Life League recently helped organize an event in Florida with the leadership of the Personhood Florida organization.

As is usually the case when personhood comes to the forefront, pro-abortion extremists immediately begin making wild claims about what the real goal of personhood is. For example, a headline in the Sun Sentinel reads, “Personhood Florida seeks to outlaw abortion, birth control.”

And another headline from the Tampa Tribune reads, “Would proposed amendment make birth control illegal in Florida?”

WJXT-TV’s News 4 reported, “Abortion foes seek signatures for amendment: Constitutional amendment would also ban many forms of contraception.”

The common thread running through these headlines is the use of fear tactics. These are employed so that the average voter will be predisposed, prior to even reading the amendment language on the ballot, or the background behind it, to vote against it. So what’s a pro-life Floridian, or, for that matter, any pro-lifer in a state with personhood on the ballot, to say about this?

Well, let’s start with the facts. That’s always a good place to find information and the last place pro-abortion, culture-of-death radicals want anyone to go.

It’s about rights. During a Reuters interview, American Life League communications director Katie Walker said exactly what each pro-personhood worker should say: “It [personhood] is a very simple concept that is fulfilling the civil rights movement.”

In other words, for close to 40 years, an entire segment of our population—those waiting to be born—have been discriminated against by the law and society. These human beings, who are, in fact, persons in every sense of the word, deserve the very same civil rights, human rights and equal rights as you and me. They are no less people, no less part of the human family and no less important than any single one of us. The only difference is that they are not yet born. That, and the law currently protects the act of murdering them.

Personhood will change that. Personhood will acknowledge that, just like you and me, each of them is a person. As the proposed Florida personhood amendment states:

SECTION 28. Person Defined. –
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

This language does not mention abortion, nor does it mention contraception or birth control. What the language does affirm is what many Americans had taken for granted prior to the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of January 22, 1973. It clarifies in law that a person is a person from his or her biological beginning.

It is a positive declaration of the individual. The language is a guarantee that human rights, civil rights and equal rights will apply to every person in any state where personhood becomes the law.

Now let’s get to the particulars. It is true that when a state affirms personhood, the state is admitting to the fact that the act of abortion robs a person of his rights and is, therefore, unacceptable. Regardless of how that individual’s life is taken—whether by chemical, medical or surgical means—the act of killing would be addressed by lawmakers subsequent to passage of the personhood amendment. Clearly, procured abortion would be, by definition, a crime.

Those who have been committed to protecting the act of abortion under the law will raise all the hard cases. They will cry that if personhood becomes the law, “even abortion in the case of rape, incest of the life of the mother” would be a crime. They are correct.

There is no legitimate reason, regardless of the circumstance, that can be given to condone an act of murder, an act that results in the death of an innocent person. Doctors know this is true, and that is why, from a medical ethics perspective, a doctor will always do everything he can to save the lives of both the mother and the preborn child, since both people are his patients. And even when that child’s biological father is the perpetrator of a violent act against the child’s mother, it is illogical to suggest that murdering the innocent third party is justified because of the crimes of that child’s father.

Many who condone abortion want the public to believe that my statement is heartless, cruel and disrespectful to women. But how could that possibly be the case? At least half of those who die by the act of abortion are girl babies who will, if allowed to live, grow into womanhood themselves. They are females who should have the same rights and the same respect as those already born.

Catherine Dolinski, who wrote the article for the Tampa Tribune, reported,

That [personhood as law], opponents say, would make it a crime not just to kill a fetus by abortion, but also to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus as birth control pills can.… As described by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), birth control pills and intrauterine devices work partly by causing the lining of the uterus to thin, “making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it.”

Dolinski tries hard to depersonalize the baby by never using the word “baby.” However, it is a biological fact that the “fertilized egg,” accurately described as the single-cell zygote or single-cell human being, is a human being, an individual whose human rights are just as worthy of protection as any other human being. The point is that he or she exists. What else can we say?

Further, whether that person came into being through sexual or asexual means is irrelevant. In either case, we are addressing the rights of a person who deserves to be protected by law. For those who may not have encountered the term “asexual means” before, I want to make it very clear that these human beings are no different than any other class of persons.

A human being can come into existence these days by asexual means. As Dr. Dianne Irving has written,

[E]xtensive human cloning, and other forms of human genetic engineering — all of which can asexually reproduce new living single-cell human organisms (human beings) — are already being done in IVF clinics, for both “research” and for “reproductive” purposes. One of the most common IVF techniques is called “twinning” – and twinning is one of many different kinds of cloning techniques. The procedure mimics the kind of identical twinning that takes place naturally inside the fallopian tube of a women, resulting in the asexual reproduction of an identical twin, triplet, etc.

By the way, it is quite obvious that ACOG has worked hard to legitimize the chemical killing of week-old human beings, because so many of its members are part of the culture of death.

We have to be honest and set forth the facts, while at the same time exposing the jaundiced views of those who have altered truth for the benefit of their income, their ideology and/or their perverse attitudes toward human beings and their value.

Sooner or later, each and every American will have to answer a simple question: Are there human beings who are less important and therefore disposable?

If the answer to that question is “yes,” then the follow-up to it is this: Why would you condone the direct killing of someone based on his size or condition of dependency?

Is it because it is more convenient for you to use a method of birth control that can kill somebody than it is for you to admit the truth and change your lifestyle?

Is it because you have so little regard for the gift of life that your personal opinions are all that matter?

As we know, millions of Americans have already given the wrong answer, which is why we have murdered millions in this nation and described those acts as nothing more or less than personal choices. The “freedom of choice” has obliterated the ability of many to understand the ramifications of always placing one’s self first, even if it means that someone else must die.

As Florida pro-life leader Pat McEwen of Life Coalition International pointed out, “People who care about the life of babies are going to go out and gather signatures.… We will not give up. We are persistent.”

Indeed, we must begin—in every state, not just Florida—to spread the word, open minds, touch hearts and reach out on behalf of those who currently go silently to their death every day because the world waxes cold to truth.

That doesn’t change the facts; it never will and so we must persist.

—————————————–
Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Respond to Judie

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2771

 

WesternFront America

Peggy Loonan, a columnist in Colorado, recently wrote an opinion piece about “anti-abortion hardliners” such as yours truly. She claims that many of us are eager to talk out loud and clearly about criminalizing hormonal birth control. She is, of course, accurate about that. But she has either intentionally avoided discussing the process that would be followed once legal recognition of human personhood is restored to all human beings from their beginning, or she is too wild-eyed about birth control to see past the fluff.

The fact is that, first and foremost, Colorado’s human personhood proposal acknowledges that a human being is deserving of recognition as a person from the beginning of their biological development. This means that a single-cell human being would receive the same legal protection and respect for his or her human rights as anyone else.

Once human personhood is clearly recognized in the state constitution, the state legislature would have to address the criminal penalties to be imposed for violating it. Legal experts have informed us that, firstly, abortion would need to be defined as a crime. After that, the specific forms of abortion, such as chemical abortion, would have to be clearly defined and addressed. So far, this discussion has not taken place, since a human personhood amendment has not yet been added to a state constitution. Thus the fundamental question, personhood for one and all, is the only thing we can discuss intelligently at this point, unless there are other agendas at work—which is precisely what I believe is occurring with Loonan and her ilk.

Rather than admit that the birth control pill has three modes of action, one of which is interference with the human embryo’s ability to implant himself in his mother’s womb, thus rendering him unable to survive, Loonan focuses on so-called reproductive rights while ignoring scientific facts. That is the way culture-of death advocates operate. Loonan could have researched this from clinical and legal perspectives. But never let a fact get in the way of an ideologue hammering away at a theory!

To my mind, what underlies Loonan’s overzealousness is not a desire to present scientific facts, but rather to paint a portrait of miserable pro-lifers who want to rob women of their “right” to use the drug of choice for recreational sex: the birth control pill.

So let’s respond to her negativity with a bit of honesty. While I’m not sure she can stand it, readers of this commentary should be willing to at least consider the possibility that human beings—at any stage of their development—deserve and should be able to expect integrity from commentators promoting certain so-called rights. In this case, the so-called rights in question are often described as “reproductive rights.”

Many years ago, Margaret Sanger, according to some of her more supportive biographers, was a champion of “reproductive rights.” Sanger paved the way for the current discussions about the value of the human person and the nature of human procreation by decrying all that is sacred about the human body. Very early in her career, she had an experience that was pivotal in the formation of her philosophy:

When one of her patients died of a self-induced abortion in 1913, Sanger left her nursing career. “It was like an illumination….There was only one thing to be done: call out, start the alarm, set the heather on fire! Awaken the womanhood of America to free the motherhood of the world!” Sanger wrote. “I resolved that women should have knowledge of contraception. They have every right to know about their own bodies.”

Of course, at that time, Sanger did not actually study how the female body works nor the tragic physical consequences of ingesting birth control pills, because they had not yet been developed. But her advocacy paved the way for what Loonan now claims as a fundamental “right” for women.

Loonan opines, “The birth-control pill is a proven method to prevent an unintended pregnancy and is an American icon of women’s reproductive health and pregnancy prevention and more importantly, it is where the majority of the American public beliefs [sic] the common ground in the abortion war begins.”

Erroneous information, to be sure, but like Margaret Sanger before her, Loonan’s overriding concern is that women of all ages be free to avoid having an ill-timed baby. And that’s the rub! You see, people who celebrate birth control, abortion and the like typically have never reflected on why God did not create human beings in such a way that,at birth, a package of birth control pills would emerge along with the umbilical cord.

God is a Father Who trusts each person He has created to exercise their free will, and either follow Him or follow Beelzebub and accept the consequences. Fundamentally, most who prattle on about the “need” for birth control are people whose trust in God would fit on the head of a pin, if indeed they even acknowledge Him as their Creator.

Or perhaps they do embrace a tortuous form of religious conviction. After all, Loonan did tell her readers that the birth control pill is an American icon. The word icon comes from the Greek word eikon, which means religious image. Icon can also be defined as “an object of uncritical devotion.” So it really isn’t a stretch to imagine that, like many of her genre, Loonan has a religious fervor for all things leading to promiscuity and permissive sexual adventures. After all, Episcopal minister Katherine Hancock Ragsdale has told the world that “abortion is a blessing.”

Whatever her belief system, I would invite Loonan to loosen up and take the time to actually learn the facts before going on a bashing binge against pro-life Americans. We are not, as she suggests, extremists who are desperate to do whatever it takes to make political headway. We are pro-life human beings who love life, love people, and want to ensure that each and every person’s human rights are protected.

We still love you, Ms. Loonan, and we promise to pray for you. That’s what pro-life living is all about.

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Respond to Judie
http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2681

 

WesternFront America