*Edit: I guess the title was inaccurate. Any abortion involves a death. But this one involved two.*
Natedawg has other things to do and has stayed out of politics and blogging these past couple of months. But he wrote this brief comment to go along with the linked article, and I think it's well worth sharing. We need to be sure as many people as possible know about these types of tragedies.
"
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
"The Obama Democrats"
NOTE: As Some Dude pointed out in the comments section, this is a doctored photo. But I think it effectively mocks the Democrats for their celebration of abortion at their convention, and therefore I would describe it as "fake but accurate."
Monday, September 24, 2012
Kickoff of 40 Days for Life
On Saturday, my wife and I attended the opening rally for the 40 Days for Life event in our area. For those who may have missed my previous posts about it, 40 Days for Life is an event that occurs simultaneously in more than 300 cities internationally every spring and fall. The goal is to maintain an around-the-clock, peaceful, prayerful vigil outside of abortion clinics for 40 days. Over a dozen Catholic and Protestant churches in our area are involved in the Germantown, MD 40 Days for Life. Individuals who want to be involved can sign up to hold a sign and pray outside an abortion clinic for one or more hour-long time slots over that 40 day period.
For those who question the effectiveness of 40 Days for Life and peaceful protests and prayer vigils outside of abortion clinics, here are some numbers to think about. As a direct result of 40 Days for Life campaigns:
The second emotionally powerful moment was when the founder of 40 Days for Life, David Bereit, spoke and explained how the event was started. Bereit got the idea from a friend, who told him that if Christians really believed what they claimed to believe about abortion killing an innocent human life, they would be outside of abortion clinics protesting and seeking to rescue lives 24/7. When Bereit started the first 40 Days for Life in 2004, his friend signed up to stand outside the clinic in College Station, Texas all night every night for the entire 40 day period and brought other friends with him to his all-night vigils.
Much later, Bereit found out why his friend was so passionate about this issue. Shortly before he had talked to Bereit, the friend had witnessed the death of his father. He was the only family member who came to be with his father as he was dying. For several days, he sat by his father's bedside to pray with him, and every time his father would insist that they pray for an end to abortion. Finally, he asked his dad why this was the only thing he wanted to pray about. Then his dad told him a story he had never heard before. When the dad was in his late teens he got a girl pregnant, and he urged the girl to have an abortion to make sure their parents didn't find out. He prepaid the bill and made an appointment to meet her outside of the clinic on the day the abortion was to happen, but she had second thoughts and never showed up. He continued to pressure her to have the abortion but she continued to refuse. Eventually she had the baby and they ended up getting married. As you might have guessed, that son sitting by his dad's deathbed was the child that he had wanted to abort! And now, many years later, that son was the only family member who came to be with him as he was dying.
I think it is so critical for people to hear about these stories, because they need to understand that real human lives are at stake. It is easy to shrug off abortion when the victims are nameless and faceless, but it is much harder to ignore when people are confronted with true stories of real people. This is why I think this video from Kelly Stauffer, who had an abortion when she was 14, is more powerful than a thousand logical arguments.
Please pray that God will use 40 Days for Life this year in a powerful way to change people's hearts and minds on this issue. And please check out their website here to see if there is a campaign in your area that you can get involved in!
For those who question the effectiveness of 40 Days for Life and peaceful protests and prayer vigils outside of abortion clinics, here are some numbers to think about. As a direct result of 40 Days for Life campaigns:
- 5,928 babies have been saved from being aborted
- 69 abortion clinic workers have left their jobs and the abortion industry
- 24 abortion clinics have been permanently shut down
The second emotionally powerful moment was when the founder of 40 Days for Life, David Bereit, spoke and explained how the event was started. Bereit got the idea from a friend, who told him that if Christians really believed what they claimed to believe about abortion killing an innocent human life, they would be outside of abortion clinics protesting and seeking to rescue lives 24/7. When Bereit started the first 40 Days for Life in 2004, his friend signed up to stand outside the clinic in College Station, Texas all night every night for the entire 40 day period and brought other friends with him to his all-night vigils.
Much later, Bereit found out why his friend was so passionate about this issue. Shortly before he had talked to Bereit, the friend had witnessed the death of his father. He was the only family member who came to be with his father as he was dying. For several days, he sat by his father's bedside to pray with him, and every time his father would insist that they pray for an end to abortion. Finally, he asked his dad why this was the only thing he wanted to pray about. Then his dad told him a story he had never heard before. When the dad was in his late teens he got a girl pregnant, and he urged the girl to have an abortion to make sure their parents didn't find out. He prepaid the bill and made an appointment to meet her outside of the clinic on the day the abortion was to happen, but she had second thoughts and never showed up. He continued to pressure her to have the abortion but she continued to refuse. Eventually she had the baby and they ended up getting married. As you might have guessed, that son sitting by his dad's deathbed was the child that he had wanted to abort! And now, many years later, that son was the only family member who came to be with him as he was dying.
I think it is so critical for people to hear about these stories, because they need to understand that real human lives are at stake. It is easy to shrug off abortion when the victims are nameless and faceless, but it is much harder to ignore when people are confronted with true stories of real people. This is why I think this video from Kelly Stauffer, who had an abortion when she was 14, is more powerful than a thousand logical arguments.
Please pray that God will use 40 Days for Life this year in a powerful way to change people's hearts and minds on this issue. And please check out their website here to see if there is a campaign in your area that you can get involved in!
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
My Take on the Todd Akin Fiasco
I have been following the Todd Akin controversy closely over the past week or so, even though I haven't posted anything about it until now. I'm sure most of you have read or heard about the comments of Akin, the newly minted Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Missouri. For those who haven't, here is what he said last week in response to an interview question regarding his position on the legality of abortion in the case of rape:
While some Christian conservatives such as Mike Huckabee and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins have been vocal in their defense of Akin, I think he made a very stupid and damaging error. First of all, he used the truly awful phrase "legitimate rape." Second, he made a statement about female biology that appears to be simply false, or at least has no scientific evidence to support it. Third, he addressed one of the most controversial and emotionally charged political issues of our day in an incredibly dismissive and insensitive way that seemed to imply that he questions the validity of any rape claim that involves pregnancy. Fourth, his comments have played right into the hands of Democrats who are peddling the idea of a GOP war on women and have helped to make the issue of abortion in the case of rape a key issue of the national campaign (which puts Republicans at a disadvantage and is extremely unhelpful for those of us who care about defeating Obama). And even his apology seemed driven more by political necessity than genuine awareness of his error.
Now I don't deny that there is an outrageous double standard in how the media covers gaffes and inappropriate comments by conservatives compared to liberals. Joe Biden (race baiting), Harry Reid (too numerous to mention), Barbara Boxer (a baby gets legal protection from being killed once it is brought home from the hospital), Patty Murray (Osama bin Laden is respected in the Muslim community because he has helped to build day care centers), numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- all of these people have made comments far worse than Akin's and continue to be highly-respected members of the Democratic Party. (And if we want to talk about people who disrespect women -- well, look no further than the man giving the keynote address at the Democratic Convention this year, Bill Clinton.) Akin has been unfairly attacked as being pro-rape or anti-woman, and to claim that his statement disqualifies him from ever holding federal office seems pretty over the top to me. Nevertheless, I think his statement was ignorant and insensitive, and he has no one to blame for this controversy but himself.
This situation is about something much bigger than Todd Akin and his career. It is about defeating a very liberal (and staunchly pro-abortion) Democratic senator in a conservative-leaning state, which is a key stepping stone to a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate that will enable our country to repeal ObamaCare and confirm judges that respect the Constitution. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the future of our country depends at least partly on the outcome of this election, and we cannot afford to throw away a winnable Senate seat because of a stupid comment like this. Akin is suffering from a severe self-inflicted wound and should have stepped aside in favor of a stronger candidate who could win this seat. His dogged refusal to do so demonstrates his own selfishness and arrogance. He is putting his own career before the good of the country.
I think the aspect of this story that makes me most angry is the damage that Akin has done to the pro-life cause and to the conservative brand. The Left has tried for decades to paint social conservatives as ignorant, extreme, and insensitive toward women, and they are taking full advantage of this opportunity to make Akin the face of the pro-life movement. The Left wants to talk a lot about the 1% of U.S. abortions resulting from rape and incest and to ignore the other 99% of U.S. abortions. Todd Akin is happy to oblige. Also, he is now whining that he is a martyr for the pro-life cause and that he will stay in the race in order to make abortion the central issue of the campaign. Akin is no martyr for the pro-life cause -- this uproar has nothing to do with the fact that he is pro-life and everything to do with his ham-handed approach to discussing rape and pregnancies resulting from rape. And I don't want Akin basing his campaign on abortion because I don't think he is a good spokesman for the pro-life movement. If we are going to change hearts and minds on abortion -- especially abortion due to rape -- we have to be able to talk about it with sensitivity and compassion.
Having said all that, the Democratic response to this has been ridiculous. They have been falsely trying to tie Akin closely to the Republican presidential ticket, even going so far as to call it the "Romney/Ryan/Akin" ticket. Their spokesmen keep saying that Akin speaks for the party and his views are representative of the party as a whole, even though he and his comments have been condemned by the entire party leadership and most GOP officeholders and candidates. If you were listen to media coverage and Democratic talking points over the past week, you might conclude that Todd Akin was a bigger issue than the economy, the budget, and the national debt!
Democrats have claimed repeatedly that Paul Ryan is anti-woman and shares identical views to Akin's. They are referring primarily, of course, to the fact that both Akin and Ryan are pro-life without exceptions for rape and incest. These Democratic claims are misleading in a couple of ways. First, they are trying to unfairly associate Ryan with Akin's statements about pregnancy resulting from rape (statements which Ryan has condemned). Akin's problem was not that he is against abortion in the case of rape -- that has been and continues to be the position of many Republican politicians including Ronald Reagan -- but rather in the way that he spoke about pregnancies resulting from rape. It would be like someone claiming that a random senator was the equivalent of David Duke because he happened to hold the same position on illegal immigration that Duke does. The second reason these claims are misleading is that they attribute false positions to Ryan. For example, Ryan has not supported a bill that would ban abortions due to rape or incest. His positions on abortion-related issues are completely mainstream pro-life Republican positions. Ramesh Ponnuru provides more details about these distortions of Ryan's record here and here.
As I mentioned in a previous post with that video of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Romney has made it clear he is pro-life but supports exceptions for rape and incest, which puts him well within the mainstream of American opinion on abortion. According to Gallup, nearly 60% of Americans think abortion should illegal under most circumstances. Yet, in the wake of Akin, the Democrats are trying to portray the Romney/Ryan ticket as extreme when it comes to abortion. Democrats have attacked the Republican platform on abortion as extreme because it does not specify an exception with regard to rape or incest and have blamed Romney for this, even though the language in the platform about abortion is the identical language that has been in the platform for many years.
And apparently, the Democrats have decided to make Todd Akin and abortion a major focus of their convention. (Or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz would say, "women's right to make their own reproductive choices." Democrats are so clever with their abortion code!) They have given Sandra Fluke and the presidents of the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive League and Planned Parenthood key speaking slots. (And they say Republican are the ones obsessed with abortion!) All these women believe, like Obama, that abortion should be legal at any time, for any reason, up until the date of birth. And this viewpoint is shared by a grand total of 12% of the American public, according to Gallup. Also according to Gallup, less than 1% of American voters list abortion as their most important issue . But don't worry -- the Democrats are going to make it a centerpiece of their convention. It's pretty easy to see how this could backfire on the Democrats, big time.
By the way, I do believe abortion is the killing of a human life, even if the baby was conceived as a result of rape. Since abortions due to rape are such a tiny percentage of the overall number of abortions, I am comfortable with an exception for rape in pro-life bills. But I enjoyed reading National Review's symposium on the topic of abortion and rape. There is an argument to make against abortion in the case of rape, and it is a compassionate one.
It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.Needless to say, this "legitimate rape" comment was quickly seized on by the Democrats and the media and became front page news in newspapers around the country. Akin issued an apology for "misspeaking" but the damage was done and Republicans all across the country have had to distance themselves from him and his comments, including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Despite calls from Romney, numerous Republican elected officials, Tea Party groups, and conservative pundits and publications for Akin to drop out of the race, he steadfastly refused to do so. Despite cratering poll numbers and lack of financial support from the National Republican Senate Committee and SuperPAC's like American Crossroads, Akin (I am convinced) will stay in the race all the way to the end.
While some Christian conservatives such as Mike Huckabee and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins have been vocal in their defense of Akin, I think he made a very stupid and damaging error. First of all, he used the truly awful phrase "legitimate rape." Second, he made a statement about female biology that appears to be simply false, or at least has no scientific evidence to support it. Third, he addressed one of the most controversial and emotionally charged political issues of our day in an incredibly dismissive and insensitive way that seemed to imply that he questions the validity of any rape claim that involves pregnancy. Fourth, his comments have played right into the hands of Democrats who are peddling the idea of a GOP war on women and have helped to make the issue of abortion in the case of rape a key issue of the national campaign (which puts Republicans at a disadvantage and is extremely unhelpful for those of us who care about defeating Obama). And even his apology seemed driven more by political necessity than genuine awareness of his error.
Now I don't deny that there is an outrageous double standard in how the media covers gaffes and inappropriate comments by conservatives compared to liberals. Joe Biden (race baiting), Harry Reid (too numerous to mention), Barbara Boxer (a baby gets legal protection from being killed once it is brought home from the hospital), Patty Murray (Osama bin Laden is respected in the Muslim community because he has helped to build day care centers), numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- all of these people have made comments far worse than Akin's and continue to be highly-respected members of the Democratic Party. (And if we want to talk about people who disrespect women -- well, look no further than the man giving the keynote address at the Democratic Convention this year, Bill Clinton.) Akin has been unfairly attacked as being pro-rape or anti-woman, and to claim that his statement disqualifies him from ever holding federal office seems pretty over the top to me. Nevertheless, I think his statement was ignorant and insensitive, and he has no one to blame for this controversy but himself.
This situation is about something much bigger than Todd Akin and his career. It is about defeating a very liberal (and staunchly pro-abortion) Democratic senator in a conservative-leaning state, which is a key stepping stone to a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate that will enable our country to repeal ObamaCare and confirm judges that respect the Constitution. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the future of our country depends at least partly on the outcome of this election, and we cannot afford to throw away a winnable Senate seat because of a stupid comment like this. Akin is suffering from a severe self-inflicted wound and should have stepped aside in favor of a stronger candidate who could win this seat. His dogged refusal to do so demonstrates his own selfishness and arrogance. He is putting his own career before the good of the country.
I think the aspect of this story that makes me most angry is the damage that Akin has done to the pro-life cause and to the conservative brand. The Left has tried for decades to paint social conservatives as ignorant, extreme, and insensitive toward women, and they are taking full advantage of this opportunity to make Akin the face of the pro-life movement. The Left wants to talk a lot about the 1% of U.S. abortions resulting from rape and incest and to ignore the other 99% of U.S. abortions. Todd Akin is happy to oblige. Also, he is now whining that he is a martyr for the pro-life cause and that he will stay in the race in order to make abortion the central issue of the campaign. Akin is no martyr for the pro-life cause -- this uproar has nothing to do with the fact that he is pro-life and everything to do with his ham-handed approach to discussing rape and pregnancies resulting from rape. And I don't want Akin basing his campaign on abortion because I don't think he is a good spokesman for the pro-life movement. If we are going to change hearts and minds on abortion -- especially abortion due to rape -- we have to be able to talk about it with sensitivity and compassion.
Having said all that, the Democratic response to this has been ridiculous. They have been falsely trying to tie Akin closely to the Republican presidential ticket, even going so far as to call it the "Romney/Ryan/Akin" ticket. Their spokesmen keep saying that Akin speaks for the party and his views are representative of the party as a whole, even though he and his comments have been condemned by the entire party leadership and most GOP officeholders and candidates. If you were listen to media coverage and Democratic talking points over the past week, you might conclude that Todd Akin was a bigger issue than the economy, the budget, and the national debt!
Democrats have claimed repeatedly that Paul Ryan is anti-woman and shares identical views to Akin's. They are referring primarily, of course, to the fact that both Akin and Ryan are pro-life without exceptions for rape and incest. These Democratic claims are misleading in a couple of ways. First, they are trying to unfairly associate Ryan with Akin's statements about pregnancy resulting from rape (statements which Ryan has condemned). Akin's problem was not that he is against abortion in the case of rape -- that has been and continues to be the position of many Republican politicians including Ronald Reagan -- but rather in the way that he spoke about pregnancies resulting from rape. It would be like someone claiming that a random senator was the equivalent of David Duke because he happened to hold the same position on illegal immigration that Duke does. The second reason these claims are misleading is that they attribute false positions to Ryan. For example, Ryan has not supported a bill that would ban abortions due to rape or incest. His positions on abortion-related issues are completely mainstream pro-life Republican positions. Ramesh Ponnuru provides more details about these distortions of Ryan's record here and here.
As I mentioned in a previous post with that video of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Romney has made it clear he is pro-life but supports exceptions for rape and incest, which puts him well within the mainstream of American opinion on abortion. According to Gallup, nearly 60% of Americans think abortion should illegal under most circumstances. Yet, in the wake of Akin, the Democrats are trying to portray the Romney/Ryan ticket as extreme when it comes to abortion. Democrats have attacked the Republican platform on abortion as extreme because it does not specify an exception with regard to rape or incest and have blamed Romney for this, even though the language in the platform about abortion is the identical language that has been in the platform for many years.
And apparently, the Democrats have decided to make Todd Akin and abortion a major focus of their convention. (Or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz would say, "women's right to make their own reproductive choices." Democrats are so clever with their abortion code!) They have given Sandra Fluke and the presidents of the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive League and Planned Parenthood key speaking slots. (And they say Republican are the ones obsessed with abortion!) All these women believe, like Obama, that abortion should be legal at any time, for any reason, up until the date of birth. And this viewpoint is shared by a grand total of 12% of the American public, according to Gallup. Also according to Gallup, less than 1% of American voters list abortion as their most important issue . But don't worry -- the Democrats are going to make it a centerpiece of their convention. It's pretty easy to see how this could backfire on the Democrats, big time.
By the way, I do believe abortion is the killing of a human life, even if the baby was conceived as a result of rape. Since abortions due to rape are such a tiny percentage of the overall number of abortions, I am comfortable with an exception for rape in pro-life bills. But I enjoyed reading National Review's symposium on the topic of abortion and rape. There is an argument to make against abortion in the case of rape, and it is a compassionate one.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
So Who Are the Real Extremists On Abortion?
National Review has a great editorial today addressing this question. The facts in this editorial clearly demonstrate the extreme bias of the media in covering this issue. And Rich Lowry has an even more hard-hitting piece on Obama's abortion extremism on the Politico website. I'm glad to see some conservatives pushing back against the Left on this issue.
UPDATE: Wow...take a look at this video. Anderson Cooper of CNN takes Debbie Wasserman Schultz to task for her misquote of an LA Times article to make a false claim that Romney "directed" the Republican National Committee to propose a ban on all abortion as part of the party platform. The truth is that the GOP platform on abortion is the same as it has been for many years. And Romney has made it clear that he supports legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest. The Democrats are insane if they think they can convince the public that Romney is some kind of anti-abortion extremist. Good grief, the guy was pro-choice up until a few years ago and never mentions abortion on the campaign trail. If anything, I have some concerns about how pro-life he really is.
UPDATE: Wow...take a look at this video. Anderson Cooper of CNN takes Debbie Wasserman Schultz to task for her misquote of an LA Times article to make a false claim that Romney "directed" the Republican National Committee to propose a ban on all abortion as part of the party platform. The truth is that the GOP platform on abortion is the same as it has been for many years. And Romney has made it clear that he supports legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest. The Democrats are insane if they think they can convince the public that Romney is some kind of anti-abortion extremist. Good grief, the guy was pro-choice up until a few years ago and never mentions abortion on the campaign trail. If anything, I have some concerns about how pro-life he really is.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
October Baby DVD and a special bonus
I heard about this and thought it was too good an opportunity not to share. The movie October Baby is coming out in September and is now available for prebuy (is that a word?). For every prebuy copy purchased through Family Christian Stores (at only $13.99) they will donate an additional copy to a local pregnancy resource center. Now that's a great deal!
I think this movie is well worth seeing, and who knows how God could use it in the life of a woman or couple experiencing a crisis pregnancy. I encourage you to look into it this opportunity if you can!
I think this movie is well worth seeing, and who knows how God could use it in the life of a woman or couple experiencing a crisis pregnancy. I encourage you to look into it this opportunity if you can!
Friday, March 23, 2012
October Baby and the NY Times
I thought I'd share this brilliant movie "review" from the New York Times for October Baby.
Priceless, isn't it?
The movie opens today. Go see it.
Priceless, isn't it?
The movie opens today. Go see it.
Friday, March 16, 2012
October Baby
NateDawg and I were blessed to see a pre-screening of a new movie coming out on March 23, October Baby. We were part of a group of bloggers chosen specially for this honor. Just kidding. I won the tickets through 95.1 Shine FM. The DJs were handing out tissues as we entered the theater, and they were right. It isn't all tears. There are many funny and beautiful moments. It was a wonderful, moving, emotional story of forgiveness and love, of the miracle of life, and adoption. I think I will try to go again when it opens next weekend.
And a hint for when you go see it (opening weekend!): be sure to stay for at least the beginning of the credits.
And a hint for when you go see it (opening weekend!): be sure to stay for at least the beginning of the credits.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Moral Compass of the Obama Administration
I often hear pro-choice people argue that they are not really FOR abortion. No one, they say, thinks abortion is a good thing -- it is merely the best of a bunch of bad options in some tragic cases. Well, there are probably plenty of pro-choice individuals who really do consider abortion a bad thing and even a tragedy, but the leaders of the Democratic party are definitely not part of that group.
In fact, for them abortion is so precious that the very word is avoided, lest it produce a negative reaction. Democrats don't talk about abortion -- they always use euphemisms like "the right to choose," "women's rights," and "family planning services." The right to choose what? They never say. Someone unfamiliar with American political word games would be utterly clueless as to what these politicians were even talking about. Of all the important choices that exist in this world and all the important rights that women have, it all boils down to one thing for the Obama crowd: abortion. Abortion for any reason, at any stage in the pregnancy, with no restrictions. They mean nothing more and nothing less than this when they talk about "choice" and "women's rights." This right is so sacrosanct to Obama that he refused to support a bill in the Illinois state legislature that offered protection to babies that were delivered alive as a result of botched abortions. It is so sacrosanct to Senator Barbara Boxer that she once stated on the Senate floor that a baby obtains rights once the mother "takes it home from the hospital."
For Democratic leaders and liberal activists, "the right to choose" (you know, abortion, that procedure that nobody thinks is a good thing) trumps almost every other issue. It was one of the only major issues that President Clinton never compromised with the Republicans on during his time in office, even going so far as to veto a ban on partial-birth abortion. Obama and Pelosi insisted on taxpayer funding for abortion in the final version of the health care bill even when doing so risked the defeat of the entire measure.
But if you really need proof of how sacred abortion rights are to the modern Democratic party, look no further than the Obama Health and Human Services Department, led by pro-abortion crusader Kathleen Sebelius. I found this article from the National Catholic Register, which tellingly shows what happens when the cause of helping victims of human trafficking comes into conflict with promoting abortion. The author of the article, Steven Wagner, formerly directed the Human Trafficking Program at HHS.
To summarize: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was chosen in 2006 as the organization best qualified to administer the Human Trafficking Program, and has been doing so ever since. That is, until this year, when Sebelius changed the rules of the competition to give "strong preference" to applicants that offer "the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care" (translation: perform abortions). Even under the new rules putting the USCCB at a disadvantage, their grant proposal still scored the second highest of all proposals submitted. Sebelius still chose to deny any funds to the USCCB and gave those funds instead to two other abortion-providing organizations that were deemed by the non-political program staff to be unqualified.
Wagner, who is very familiar with the horror of the sex trade, goes on to explain why having an abortion puts women who are trafficking victims in more danger. Victims are under the domination of someone else and therefore cannot provide informed consent to an abortion. Pregnancy keeps the victims off the street; an abortion merely serves the interest of the pimp by putting the victim back on the street to face further risk of exploitation and death (average life expectancy of victims involved in the sex trade is 7 years). Pregnancy also dramatically increases the likelihood that a woman will seek help, while an abortion reduces that likelihood.
It's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that in Obama's HHS, abortion must be promoted at all costs, even if it harms victims of human trafficking. The moral priorities of this administration could not be clearer. I hope that pro-choice people who do at least acknowledge some moral dilemma in regard to unrestricted abortion -- rather than regarding it as a positive moral good to be promoted at all costs -- will recognize how radical this administration's position really is. You don't have to believe that life begins at conception to recoil at the actions of people like Sebelius and late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart in Germantown.
In fact, for them abortion is so precious that the very word is avoided, lest it produce a negative reaction. Democrats don't talk about abortion -- they always use euphemisms like "the right to choose," "women's rights," and "family planning services." The right to choose what? They never say. Someone unfamiliar with American political word games would be utterly clueless as to what these politicians were even talking about. Of all the important choices that exist in this world and all the important rights that women have, it all boils down to one thing for the Obama crowd: abortion. Abortion for any reason, at any stage in the pregnancy, with no restrictions. They mean nothing more and nothing less than this when they talk about "choice" and "women's rights." This right is so sacrosanct to Obama that he refused to support a bill in the Illinois state legislature that offered protection to babies that were delivered alive as a result of botched abortions. It is so sacrosanct to Senator Barbara Boxer that she once stated on the Senate floor that a baby obtains rights once the mother "takes it home from the hospital."
For Democratic leaders and liberal activists, "the right to choose" (you know, abortion, that procedure that nobody thinks is a good thing) trumps almost every other issue. It was one of the only major issues that President Clinton never compromised with the Republicans on during his time in office, even going so far as to veto a ban on partial-birth abortion. Obama and Pelosi insisted on taxpayer funding for abortion in the final version of the health care bill even when doing so risked the defeat of the entire measure.
But if you really need proof of how sacred abortion rights are to the modern Democratic party, look no further than the Obama Health and Human Services Department, led by pro-abortion crusader Kathleen Sebelius. I found this article from the National Catholic Register, which tellingly shows what happens when the cause of helping victims of human trafficking comes into conflict with promoting abortion. The author of the article, Steven Wagner, formerly directed the Human Trafficking Program at HHS.
To summarize: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was chosen in 2006 as the organization best qualified to administer the Human Trafficking Program, and has been doing so ever since. That is, until this year, when Sebelius changed the rules of the competition to give "strong preference" to applicants that offer "the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care" (translation: perform abortions). Even under the new rules putting the USCCB at a disadvantage, their grant proposal still scored the second highest of all proposals submitted. Sebelius still chose to deny any funds to the USCCB and gave those funds instead to two other abortion-providing organizations that were deemed by the non-political program staff to be unqualified.
Wagner, who is very familiar with the horror of the sex trade, goes on to explain why having an abortion puts women who are trafficking victims in more danger. Victims are under the domination of someone else and therefore cannot provide informed consent to an abortion. Pregnancy keeps the victims off the street; an abortion merely serves the interest of the pimp by putting the victim back on the street to face further risk of exploitation and death (average life expectancy of victims involved in the sex trade is 7 years). Pregnancy also dramatically increases the likelihood that a woman will seek help, while an abortion reduces that likelihood.
It's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that in Obama's HHS, abortion must be promoted at all costs, even if it harms victims of human trafficking. The moral priorities of this administration could not be clearer. I hope that pro-choice people who do at least acknowledge some moral dilemma in regard to unrestricted abortion -- rather than regarding it as a positive moral good to be promoted at all costs -- will recognize how radical this administration's position really is. You don't have to believe that life begins at conception to recoil at the actions of people like Sebelius and late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart in Germantown.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Herman Cain- Answer the question?
Is Herman Cain pro-life? That's difficult to say based on recent interviews. I personally have seen segments from three different interviews lately in which he is asked about his stance on abortion. He is quite clear on the fact that he supports life from conception. Wonderful so far. The problem comes when the interviewer asks him to state an opinion on whether or not abortion should be legal. Below is the segment in which John Stossell interviewed him on the subject.
Tonight on his show, Sean Hannity showed two other segments that followed the same lines: one on Piers Morgan's show and one on Megyn Kelly's. He asked Cain to clarify. Cain's response? He had been taken out of context. No clarification or statement of his views. Hannity unfortunately did not press the issue.
Cain gives the impression that he believes he is making himself crystal clear in responding to these questions. I could possibly excuse one instance as perhaps lack of experience at handling interviews or simply a gaffe, though that in itself points to other problems with Cain as a potential candidate in the general election. However at least three cases with essentially the same situation is inexcusable. I applaud the fact that Herman Cain is pro-life from conception, however he must also be able to articulate his official stance on abortion and whether it should be legal.
The following is posted prominently on the homepage of Cain's website:
Cain's View on Abortion Policy
"Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply "order" people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life."
Herman Cain-
I don't think that I personally have a problem with the views Cain expressed in this statement. I do find it very disturbing that he had multiple chances recently to articulate his stance and he failed to do so. He wasted a chance on Hannity tonight when he could have made this explanation on a show that is watched by many members of the demographic from which he is hoping to receive votes. Herman Cain's stance on abortion is rare enough. It is extremely disappointing that he is unable to articulate it clearly when given the chance.
Tonight on his show, Sean Hannity showed two other segments that followed the same lines: one on Piers Morgan's show and one on Megyn Kelly's. He asked Cain to clarify. Cain's response? He had been taken out of context. No clarification or statement of his views. Hannity unfortunately did not press the issue.
Cain gives the impression that he believes he is making himself crystal clear in responding to these questions. I could possibly excuse one instance as perhaps lack of experience at handling interviews or simply a gaffe, though that in itself points to other problems with Cain as a potential candidate in the general election. However at least three cases with essentially the same situation is inexcusable. I applaud the fact that Herman Cain is pro-life from conception, however he must also be able to articulate his official stance on abortion and whether it should be legal.
The following is posted prominently on the homepage of Cain's website:
Cain's View on Abortion Policy
"Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply "order" people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life."
Herman Cain-
I don't think that I personally have a problem with the views Cain expressed in this statement. I do find it very disturbing that he had multiple chances recently to articulate his stance and he failed to do so. He wasted a chance on Hannity tonight when he could have made this explanation on a show that is watched by many members of the demographic from which he is hoping to receive votes. Herman Cain's stance on abortion is rare enough. It is extremely disappointing that he is unable to articulate it clearly when given the chance.
Monday, September 19, 2011
A Couple Great Articles...
I found a couple of really great British opinion pieces today, courtesy of Jay Nordlinger of National Review. Both articles are in response to an amendment brought before Parliament that would have required that women considering an abortion receive counseling from a group separate from the group performing the abortion. This seemingly reasonable requirement, which has been influential in reducing abortion rates in Germany, was met with vitriol from the powers that be in Britain -- the same vitriol that we have come to expect here in America in response to even the most basic, commonsense regulations or restrictions on abortion. The first piece is by Mary Wakefield of The Spectator, and is one of the best articles I have ever read on the topic of abortion. I highly recommend it. The second is from The Telegraph, and while not as comprehensive as the first it makes some very good points. Among them is this:
In fact abortion is one of those “Left-wing” things that should be a Right-wing thing. After all, you’re far more likely to be aborted if you’re black, poor, disabled or female – the demographics of aborted foetus would give diversity consultants goosepimples if their protected characteristics were visible. And for people obsessed with equality, you don’t get a bigger inequality than life and death.
The second article also addresses the claim that the pro-life movement is merely a fringe religious movement by noting that opposition to slavery also started out as a religious movement:
The pro-life movement does remain strongly religious, which is a weakness, but it does not necessarily mean it is irrational or “unscientific”. Moral campaigns are often dominated by religious groups; once only tiresome weirdo Quakers opposed the natural and universally accepted institution of slavery. We might all now assume slavery is wrong, but to 18th century people it was not obvious.
In fact abortion is one of those “Left-wing” things that should be a Right-wing thing. After all, you’re far more likely to be aborted if you’re black, poor, disabled or female – the demographics of aborted foetus would give diversity consultants goosepimples if their protected characteristics were visible. And for people obsessed with equality, you don’t get a bigger inequality than life and death.
The second article also addresses the claim that the pro-life movement is merely a fringe religious movement by noting that opposition to slavery also started out as a religious movement:
The pro-life movement does remain strongly religious, which is a weakness, but it does not necessarily mean it is irrational or “unscientific”. Moral campaigns are often dominated by religious groups; once only tiresome weirdo Quakers opposed the natural and universally accepted institution of slavery. We might all now assume slavery is wrong, but to 18th century people it was not obvious.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Must-see: "Fight For The Children" official video
Natedawg posted in July about a song by the group Christcentric called "Fight For The Children."
While the song and lyrics themselves are powerful, the group has just released an official video that perfectly complements and enhances it. I strongly encourage you to view it. I teared up watching it.
If you can't catch all the lyrics, you can read them here.
While the song and lyrics themselves are powerful, the group has just released an official video that perfectly complements and enhances it. I strongly encourage you to view it. I teared up watching it.
Official Christcentric Video- "Fight For The Children" from Christcentric on Vimeo.
If you can't catch all the lyrics, you can read them here.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Must-See Video From Summer of Mercy 2.0!
Kelly Stauffer - Summer of Mercy 2.0 from Michael Martelli on Vimeo.
Please check out this amazing video testimony from Kelly Stauffer, speaking at the Summer of Mercy rally outside Carhart's clinic in Germantown, MD on Friday evening. Kelly had a 3rd-trimester abortion when she was 14 years old. She vividly describes the horror of feeling her unborn child kicking and somersaulting inside her womb and then feeling the child go still after the lethal dose was injected into her stomach. She describes the sick feeling she had going back to her hotel that night knowing she was carrying a dead baby -- a baby she was responsible for killing. She recounts the coldness and indifference of the abortion clinic staff as she delivered her dead baby over a toilet in a janitor's closet. She recounts the deep guilt and depression she experienced over the next decade of her life, including suicidal tendencies and bulimia. Finally, she tells the story of how she came to experience God's forgiveness through attending a Catholic retreat for women struggling with post-abortive depression. She is now happily married with a 18-month-old daughter and is an outspoken advocate for the rights of the unborn. This honest, courageous, and humble woman has one of the most emotionally powerful stories you will ever hear!
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The Washington Post Slanders Pro-Life Activists
Well, the Summer of Mercy has reached the ears of The Washington Post. They have weighed in with two recent "news stories" about Carhart and the Germantown protests -- two laughably biased reports filled with deceptions and inaccuracies. The most recent contribution of the paper to the Germantown late-term abortion debate is this July 31st gem entitled "Abortion Is Topic of Dueling Protests in MD." This ostensibly innocent news report is a textbook example about how the press distorts the facts and manipulates public opinion under the pretense of objective reporting.
The astute reader will notice that the report identifies the number of pro-choice demonstrators as "around 180" but makes no mention of the number of pro-life demonstrators, presumably an attempt to marginalize the pro-life opposition to Carhart. In fact, attendance at the first pro-life rally outside of the clinic on Monday morning was significantly higher than 180 -- I attended it and am confident there were at least 300 people there. The opening rally of the Summer of Mercy at Covenant Life Church had probably twice that number. Also, participants in the "Summer of Choice" are positively described as "pro-choice" and "supporters" of local physician Leroy Carhart. By contrast, participants in the "Summer of Mercy" are never positively referred to as "pro-life" or "supporters of life," only as "abortion foes" or "antiabortion demonstrators."
It only gets worse from there. The article does everything possible to discredit Keisha, the Philadelphia woman scheduled to have a late-term abortion at Carhart's clinic but who chose to keep her baby instead after talking with some pro-life activists outside of the clinic. The author quotes Carhart as saying that Keisha was a "plant" by "antiabortion forces" and leaves the accusation hanging without further comment. Is it too difficult for a paper with the resources of The Washington Post to do a little simple investigation to verify Keisha's story and determine whether or not Carhart is lying? Apparently so. But in the meantime the author subtly pushes this angle, noting sinisterly that the woman "identified herself only by her first name," as though her wish to preserve some level of privacy for herself and her family disproves her claims. (Any other time, The Post would be trumpeting the importance of preserving a woman's right to privacy to the ends of the earth!)
No mention is made of the fact that Keisha was all smiles in the video interview as she held her newborn baby and that she expressed thanks to the pro-life women outside of the clinic for the help they offered her, mentioning two specific women by name who had befriended her. She and her boyfriend referred to the pro-life activists as "beautiful people" with "good hearts" who made them "feel comfortable." No mention is made of the fact that pro-life activists referred her to organizations in Philadelphia who provided her with free pre-natal care and resources, continued to stay in touch with her up to the present day, and raised more than $1,100 to help with her financial needs at their opening night rally (which I attended). Of course, those details would not be helpful in furthering The Post's desired narrative, so the article merely makes the curt comment that "abortion foes" "talked her out of" having her abortion. As though a group of fast-talking activists manipulated her into a rash decision.
The article repeats a blatantly false claim originally found in a fawning profile the newspaper did of Carhart a week earlier: the claim that "all of the late-term abortions Carhart has done in Germantown have involved fetuses with abnormalities." Keisha specifically stated in her video that Carhart said nothing to her about any "fetal abnormalities" prior to her scheduled abortion -- her reason for the abortion had nothing to do with any actual or perceived health problems with the baby. This example alone disproves Carhart's ridiculous claim -- and not only does the article fail to mention this very important point that Keisha's baby was perfectly healthy and normal, but it twists Keisha's words in order to mislead its readers into thinking the opposite. Completely out of context, it quotes Keisha as saying "I just thank God that I had a healthy daughter," as though this occurrence was a source of unexpected relief for her!
Further belying Carhart's claim is the pro-life activist who helped Keisha choose life, Dr. Grace Morrison. She has been standing outside the clinic every week since Carhart came to Germantown in December, and said that out of the 27 women going into Carhart's clinic for abortions that she has spoken to over the past six months, only 1 of those 27 had an unborn baby with "abnormalities." In two articles in a row, The Post chose to take Carhart's claim at face value without doing even the most basic investigation into it or bothering to present any of the opposing evidence.
After discussing Keisha, the article seizes another opportune moment to caricature the pro-life activists, using a quote from Carhart to claim that they were "subjecting" the patients to "harassment." If these activists are so threatening, then why would Keisha even have stopped to talk with them in the first place, much less have been swayed by their advice? In fact, Dr. Morrison said that since Carhart's arrival in Germantown, 13 women have chosen not to go forward with scheduled abortions, at least temporarily, after conversations with pro-lifers outside of the clinic! If these activists were the hateful, angry people The Post claims, then why would any of these women have given them the time of day?
But the most disgraceful and inexcusable slander in the article comes near the end, when the author writes, "Because he [Carhart] wants to expand services, he has become a top focus of antiabortion groups. His friend and mentor, Kansas doctor George Tiller, was fatally shot by an abortion opponent in 2009." In two simple sentences, the author presents a close link between the activists peacefully protesting outside Carhart's clinic and a crazed madman who killed another abortionist two years ago in a state thousands of miles away. Tiller's murder was an evil act committed by a rogue killer that was strongly condemned by every pro-life group in the country, including the ones involved in the Summer of Mercy. That murder flew in the face of everything the pro-life movement stands for. We believe life is precious and should be protected. I have attended numerous pro-life rallies in the Germantown area over the past few months, and I have not witnessed a single expression of hatred or violence against Carhart or pro-choice activists. Over and over again, I have heard pro-life leaders pray for Carhart and plead that God would give him a change of heart. I have not heard any vicious personal attacks or expressions of hatred against him. Over and over again, I have heard it emphasized that our protests must be peaceful and demonstrate love and compassion. Both 40 Days for Life and the Summer of Mercy banned the use of signs with graphic images and encouraged us not to respond when heckled by pro-choice activists. At a rally a few months ago, we were interrupted by loud, disruptive chants by pro-choice activists claiming we "don't care if women die." We responded by spontaneously singing "Amazing Grace." Our pro-life protests are legally and constitutionally protected and have been conducted under the watchful eye of the Montgomery County Police Department. There is no link whatsoever between any of the groups currently involved these protests and the murder of George Tiller in Kansas, and there is absolutely no reason for the author to make this false association in his news story except raw prejudice against the pro-life position.
The story about Carhart that I linked to above is just as flagrant an example of propaganda. The author, Lena Sun, writes so glowingly of Carhart one might suppose she has an actual crush on him. He is described as a "grandfather and retired Air Force surgeon general" who "speaks softly" in an "understated manner." His "voice is weary" after a long, hard day of serving patients, but he remains "committed" to his important work. Unlike most abortionists who refuse to perform late-term abortions, Carhart is a brave man who doesn't care about "social stigma." (Insert the obligatory reference to the killing of George Tiller in Kansas and the association of the entire pro-life movement with his murder.) Many other doctors look up to him and "have asked to train with him." Despite persecution from those evil pro-life activists, Carhart's "tenacity" led him to work as an abortionist full time despite living in constant fear for his safety and his life. Still, their viciousness has created a stigma which makes him and other abortionists often feel "isolated," fearful of being "targeted by protestors." Often "you feel like you're alone in the world," quoth the good doctor, whose other interests include "adoption counseling" and pap smears for gay and transgendered people. (Insert obligatory reference to how he ONLY does late-term abortions "if the medical situation warrants.") Indeed, from this article it would be hard to understand how such an All-American Grandfather and All Around Good Guy could be considered remotely controversial, much less how he manages to attract hundreds of protestors outside his clinic week after week.
In fact there are some reasons why Carhart is controversial, although you'll never find out about them from reading The Washington Post. This pdf document from the http://kickoutcarhart.com/ website summarizes much of this information. Let's start with the fact that Carhart is under investigation by the Maryland Board of Physicians for making some very specific false claims on his application to practice in the state. He claimed he was an emergency room physician, but he hasn't had hospital rights in nearly 25 years! He also claimed he was a university professor even though this information too was more than a decade out-of-date, and omitted more than a decade of pertinent information related to his controversial practice of late-term abortions in Nebraska and Kansas. He is under criminal investigation back in his home state of Nebraska, based on sworn testimony by former employees of illegal activities occurring in his clinic. This testimony includes claims of "unlicensed employees... conducting medical tasks, illegal post-viability abortions, drug violations, financial malfeasance," the use of unsterilized and unclean medical instruments, and the failure of Carhart to follow even the most basic rules of personal hygience such as washing his hands between patients. After his Nebraska clinic partially burned, apparently due to unsafe storage practices, he tried to continue to perform abortions using a generator and extension cord until government authorities shut him down! Worst of all, in January 2005, a 19-year old girl with Down syndrome named Christin Gilbert died as a result of a botched 3rd-trimester abortion. Gilbert's death resulted from an infection that could have been avoided if she had received proper care. More information on this can be found here.
Let's cut to the chase. What does Carhart actually do that is so controversial? Well, he performs a nice humane procedure known as "Dilation and Evacuation" that involves sticking a needle into a woman's belly to inject poison into the "fetus." The woman goes back home for two days to wait for the "fetus" to die. Then she returns to the clinic, where the abortionist uses forceps to remove the arms and legs of the "fetus." Then the tiny skull of the "fetus" is collapsed so it can be easily removed. Finally the remaining remnants are suctioned out of the uterus. If the "fetus" is older, sometimes it will be delivered whole into a toilet rather than being dismembered. Carhart routinely does this procedure in the third trimester, and legally he can do it in Maryland up until the ninth month of pregnancy, long past the point of viability. Sometimes the "fetus" is still alive at the time the abortionist begins the pleasant process of dismemberment, and there is abundant evidence it can feel pain. Much more information about this, including photos, diagrams, and descriptions, can be found here. Fellow late-term abortionist Martin Haskell testified in court: "Typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure." He goes on to say that often the "fetus's" limbs are removed while the "fetus" is still alive. Carhart himself testified back in 2004 that frequently in the process of performing these late-term abortions the "fetus" was delivered whole and alive, but added that he thought "removing the brain contents eventually would [kill the baby]." Well, thank goodness for that.
As you can see, there are a lot of relevant facts about Dr. Carhart's history and abortion practices that paint a slightly different picture than The Washington Post profile of a kindly, soft-spoken grandfather who just wants to help women. It is disheartening for those of us fighting so hard against Carhart's brutal late-term abortion practice to read such biased reporting from the most influential media outlet in the area. With news organizations like The Washington Post shaping public opinion, it is hard to believe that anyone is willing to identify as pro-life.
I suppose all those pro-choice activists carrying signs saying "Dr. Carhart is my hero" and "We love Dr. Carhart" are perfectly within their legal rights. But what kind of a sick, twisted individual would choose a man like this to be his or her hero? The pro-choice community hides behind euphemisms and vague language like "women's rights," "choice," and "reproductive services." The thing they want to avoid at all costs is any description of what is actually happening in abortion. The truth is our greatest weapon, and their greatest enemy. And so we fight on, until the whole world knows the real truth about "late-term abortions," until justice is really administered in this country for ALL.
The astute reader will notice that the report identifies the number of pro-choice demonstrators as "around 180" but makes no mention of the number of pro-life demonstrators, presumably an attempt to marginalize the pro-life opposition to Carhart. In fact, attendance at the first pro-life rally outside of the clinic on Monday morning was significantly higher than 180 -- I attended it and am confident there were at least 300 people there. The opening rally of the Summer of Mercy at Covenant Life Church had probably twice that number. Also, participants in the "Summer of Choice" are positively described as "pro-choice" and "supporters" of local physician Leroy Carhart. By contrast, participants in the "Summer of Mercy" are never positively referred to as "pro-life" or "supporters of life," only as "abortion foes" or "antiabortion demonstrators."
It only gets worse from there. The article does everything possible to discredit Keisha, the Philadelphia woman scheduled to have a late-term abortion at Carhart's clinic but who chose to keep her baby instead after talking with some pro-life activists outside of the clinic. The author quotes Carhart as saying that Keisha was a "plant" by "antiabortion forces" and leaves the accusation hanging without further comment. Is it too difficult for a paper with the resources of The Washington Post to do a little simple investigation to verify Keisha's story and determine whether or not Carhart is lying? Apparently so. But in the meantime the author subtly pushes this angle, noting sinisterly that the woman "identified herself only by her first name," as though her wish to preserve some level of privacy for herself and her family disproves her claims. (Any other time, The Post would be trumpeting the importance of preserving a woman's right to privacy to the ends of the earth!)
No mention is made of the fact that Keisha was all smiles in the video interview as she held her newborn baby and that she expressed thanks to the pro-life women outside of the clinic for the help they offered her, mentioning two specific women by name who had befriended her. She and her boyfriend referred to the pro-life activists as "beautiful people" with "good hearts" who made them "feel comfortable." No mention is made of the fact that pro-life activists referred her to organizations in Philadelphia who provided her with free pre-natal care and resources, continued to stay in touch with her up to the present day, and raised more than $1,100 to help with her financial needs at their opening night rally (which I attended). Of course, those details would not be helpful in furthering The Post's desired narrative, so the article merely makes the curt comment that "abortion foes" "talked her out of" having her abortion. As though a group of fast-talking activists manipulated her into a rash decision.
The article repeats a blatantly false claim originally found in a fawning profile the newspaper did of Carhart a week earlier: the claim that "all of the late-term abortions Carhart has done in Germantown have involved fetuses with abnormalities." Keisha specifically stated in her video that Carhart said nothing to her about any "fetal abnormalities" prior to her scheduled abortion -- her reason for the abortion had nothing to do with any actual or perceived health problems with the baby. This example alone disproves Carhart's ridiculous claim -- and not only does the article fail to mention this very important point that Keisha's baby was perfectly healthy and normal, but it twists Keisha's words in order to mislead its readers into thinking the opposite. Completely out of context, it quotes Keisha as saying "I just thank God that I had a healthy daughter," as though this occurrence was a source of unexpected relief for her!
Further belying Carhart's claim is the pro-life activist who helped Keisha choose life, Dr. Grace Morrison. She has been standing outside the clinic every week since Carhart came to Germantown in December, and said that out of the 27 women going into Carhart's clinic for abortions that she has spoken to over the past six months, only 1 of those 27 had an unborn baby with "abnormalities." In two articles in a row, The Post chose to take Carhart's claim at face value without doing even the most basic investigation into it or bothering to present any of the opposing evidence.
After discussing Keisha, the article seizes another opportune moment to caricature the pro-life activists, using a quote from Carhart to claim that they were "subjecting" the patients to "harassment." If these activists are so threatening, then why would Keisha even have stopped to talk with them in the first place, much less have been swayed by their advice? In fact, Dr. Morrison said that since Carhart's arrival in Germantown, 13 women have chosen not to go forward with scheduled abortions, at least temporarily, after conversations with pro-lifers outside of the clinic! If these activists were the hateful, angry people The Post claims, then why would any of these women have given them the time of day?
But the most disgraceful and inexcusable slander in the article comes near the end, when the author writes, "Because he [Carhart] wants to expand services, he has become a top focus of antiabortion groups. His friend and mentor, Kansas doctor George Tiller, was fatally shot by an abortion opponent in 2009." In two simple sentences, the author presents a close link between the activists peacefully protesting outside Carhart's clinic and a crazed madman who killed another abortionist two years ago in a state thousands of miles away. Tiller's murder was an evil act committed by a rogue killer that was strongly condemned by every pro-life group in the country, including the ones involved in the Summer of Mercy. That murder flew in the face of everything the pro-life movement stands for. We believe life is precious and should be protected. I have attended numerous pro-life rallies in the Germantown area over the past few months, and I have not witnessed a single expression of hatred or violence against Carhart or pro-choice activists. Over and over again, I have heard pro-life leaders pray for Carhart and plead that God would give him a change of heart. I have not heard any vicious personal attacks or expressions of hatred against him. Over and over again, I have heard it emphasized that our protests must be peaceful and demonstrate love and compassion. Both 40 Days for Life and the Summer of Mercy banned the use of signs with graphic images and encouraged us not to respond when heckled by pro-choice activists. At a rally a few months ago, we were interrupted by loud, disruptive chants by pro-choice activists claiming we "don't care if women die." We responded by spontaneously singing "Amazing Grace." Our pro-life protests are legally and constitutionally protected and have been conducted under the watchful eye of the Montgomery County Police Department. There is no link whatsoever between any of the groups currently involved these protests and the murder of George Tiller in Kansas, and there is absolutely no reason for the author to make this false association in his news story except raw prejudice against the pro-life position.
The story about Carhart that I linked to above is just as flagrant an example of propaganda. The author, Lena Sun, writes so glowingly of Carhart one might suppose she has an actual crush on him. He is described as a "grandfather and retired Air Force surgeon general" who "speaks softly" in an "understated manner." His "voice is weary" after a long, hard day of serving patients, but he remains "committed" to his important work. Unlike most abortionists who refuse to perform late-term abortions, Carhart is a brave man who doesn't care about "social stigma." (Insert the obligatory reference to the killing of George Tiller in Kansas and the association of the entire pro-life movement with his murder.) Many other doctors look up to him and "have asked to train with him." Despite persecution from those evil pro-life activists, Carhart's "tenacity" led him to work as an abortionist full time despite living in constant fear for his safety and his life. Still, their viciousness has created a stigma which makes him and other abortionists often feel "isolated," fearful of being "targeted by protestors." Often "you feel like you're alone in the world," quoth the good doctor, whose other interests include "adoption counseling" and pap smears for gay and transgendered people. (Insert obligatory reference to how he ONLY does late-term abortions "if the medical situation warrants.") Indeed, from this article it would be hard to understand how such an All-American Grandfather and All Around Good Guy could be considered remotely controversial, much less how he manages to attract hundreds of protestors outside his clinic week after week.
In fact there are some reasons why Carhart is controversial, although you'll never find out about them from reading The Washington Post. This pdf document from the http://kickoutcarhart.com/ website summarizes much of this information. Let's start with the fact that Carhart is under investigation by the Maryland Board of Physicians for making some very specific false claims on his application to practice in the state. He claimed he was an emergency room physician, but he hasn't had hospital rights in nearly 25 years! He also claimed he was a university professor even though this information too was more than a decade out-of-date, and omitted more than a decade of pertinent information related to his controversial practice of late-term abortions in Nebraska and Kansas. He is under criminal investigation back in his home state of Nebraska, based on sworn testimony by former employees of illegal activities occurring in his clinic. This testimony includes claims of "unlicensed employees... conducting medical tasks, illegal post-viability abortions, drug violations, financial malfeasance," the use of unsterilized and unclean medical instruments, and the failure of Carhart to follow even the most basic rules of personal hygience such as washing his hands between patients. After his Nebraska clinic partially burned, apparently due to unsafe storage practices, he tried to continue to perform abortions using a generator and extension cord until government authorities shut him down! Worst of all, in January 2005, a 19-year old girl with Down syndrome named Christin Gilbert died as a result of a botched 3rd-trimester abortion. Gilbert's death resulted from an infection that could have been avoided if she had received proper care. More information on this can be found here.
Let's cut to the chase. What does Carhart actually do that is so controversial? Well, he performs a nice humane procedure known as "Dilation and Evacuation" that involves sticking a needle into a woman's belly to inject poison into the "fetus." The woman goes back home for two days to wait for the "fetus" to die. Then she returns to the clinic, where the abortionist uses forceps to remove the arms and legs of the "fetus." Then the tiny skull of the "fetus" is collapsed so it can be easily removed. Finally the remaining remnants are suctioned out of the uterus. If the "fetus" is older, sometimes it will be delivered whole into a toilet rather than being dismembered. Carhart routinely does this procedure in the third trimester, and legally he can do it in Maryland up until the ninth month of pregnancy, long past the point of viability. Sometimes the "fetus" is still alive at the time the abortionist begins the pleasant process of dismemberment, and there is abundant evidence it can feel pain. Much more information about this, including photos, diagrams, and descriptions, can be found here. Fellow late-term abortionist Martin Haskell testified in court: "Typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure." He goes on to say that often the "fetus's" limbs are removed while the "fetus" is still alive. Carhart himself testified back in 2004 that frequently in the process of performing these late-term abortions the "fetus" was delivered whole and alive, but added that he thought "removing the brain contents eventually would [kill the baby]." Well, thank goodness for that.
As you can see, there are a lot of relevant facts about Dr. Carhart's history and abortion practices that paint a slightly different picture than The Washington Post profile of a kindly, soft-spoken grandfather who just wants to help women. It is disheartening for those of us fighting so hard against Carhart's brutal late-term abortion practice to read such biased reporting from the most influential media outlet in the area. With news organizations like The Washington Post shaping public opinion, it is hard to believe that anyone is willing to identify as pro-life.
I suppose all those pro-choice activists carrying signs saying "Dr. Carhart is my hero" and "We love Dr. Carhart" are perfectly within their legal rights. But what kind of a sick, twisted individual would choose a man like this to be his or her hero? The pro-choice community hides behind euphemisms and vague language like "women's rights," "choice," and "reproductive services." The thing they want to avoid at all costs is any description of what is actually happening in abortion. The truth is our greatest weapon, and their greatest enemy. And so we fight on, until the whole world knows the real truth about "late-term abortions," until justice is really administered in this country for ALL.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Summer of Mercy 2.0
I wanted to post information about an upcoming local nine-day event co-sponsored by my church called "Summer of Mercy 2.0." The purpose of Summer of Mercy is for people who care about life to come together to fast, pray, and take a public stand against abortion, and in particular against the horrific form of late-term abortion practiced by Leroy Carhart in Germantown, MD. As noted earlier on this blog, Carhart kills viable babies up to ninth month of pregnancy. Today (July 20) and next Wednesday (July 27) are days of fasting and prayer in preparation for the event. Next Saturday, July 30, Summer of Mercy kicks off with a 7:00 pm rally at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg featuring a live ultrasound presentation and several speakers. There will be a second rally on July 31 with a youth emphasis. Then, from August 1 through August 5, there will be daily prayer at 8:00 am and noon and evening prayer rallies outside of Carhart's clinic. On August 6 there will be another meeting at Covenant Life Church at 7:00 pm. The event will close with a day of fasting on August 7 and a final big Cross 4 Life Prayer event outside of Carhart's clinic.
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman: "We sense a critical need to gather in Germantown to expose the horrific late-term abortion business of LeRoy Carhart, to prayerfully intervene on behalf of the babies that are scheduled to die, and to provide a peaceful yet powerful pro-life witness to the nation.... Now is the time for us to embrace the cross and walk in radical obedience unto the Lord. Our desire is to see a sovereign God powerfully move, shift history, bring awakening to our nation and end abortion."
My pastor, Charlie Baile: "We have seen many pro-life victories in this past year and are praying for a big tipping point for a Pro-Life America. Fetal pain laws are now being passed in many states due to the scientific proof that unborn children do indeed feel pain in the womb. As the technology of ultrasounds continues to improve, the heinous acts of abortion are being exposed. As post-abortive woman come out of the shadows and share their heartache and pain, it is plain for all to see that women know instinctively that killing their offspring is awful to live with. They need our prayers, Christian love, and forgiveness found at the cross of Jesus Christ.
"The pro-choice activists have sensed the growing swell of pro-life concern in Germantown, MD and they are putting all of their energies this summer into what they are calling the “Summer of Choice”. They are calling for the greatest pro-choice demonstration in history to come to Germantown and show their support for their hero, Dr. Leroy Carhart. They have borrowed our idea of a prayer walk and they are doing their own walk on Sunday afternoon, July 31st to raise monies for those who cannot afford their abortion. They are planning counter demonstrations during the Summer of Mercy dates. I want to appeal to you to come and be an advocate for the children at risk in the womb. 1/3 of our current generation has been killed off through this holocaust of abortion."
Germantown, MD, a mere 15 minutes from my home, has become Ground Zero in the battle over abortion in this country. Since this is happening in my backyard, I want to be involved in this event. To you my readers: I truly hope that if you live in the area, you consider attending at least some of the events or meetings. If you are unable to do so, at least you can stand with us in prayer for the countless victims of abortion (both mothers and babies) and for God to change hearts and minds on this crucial issue.
For more information, please check out the website at http://summerofmercy.com.
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman: "We sense a critical need to gather in Germantown to expose the horrific late-term abortion business of LeRoy Carhart, to prayerfully intervene on behalf of the babies that are scheduled to die, and to provide a peaceful yet powerful pro-life witness to the nation.... Now is the time for us to embrace the cross and walk in radical obedience unto the Lord. Our desire is to see a sovereign God powerfully move, shift history, bring awakening to our nation and end abortion."
My pastor, Charlie Baile: "We have seen many pro-life victories in this past year and are praying for a big tipping point for a Pro-Life America. Fetal pain laws are now being passed in many states due to the scientific proof that unborn children do indeed feel pain in the womb. As the technology of ultrasounds continues to improve, the heinous acts of abortion are being exposed. As post-abortive woman come out of the shadows and share their heartache and pain, it is plain for all to see that women know instinctively that killing their offspring is awful to live with. They need our prayers, Christian love, and forgiveness found at the cross of Jesus Christ.
"The pro-choice activists have sensed the growing swell of pro-life concern in Germantown, MD and they are putting all of their energies this summer into what they are calling the “Summer of Choice”. They are calling for the greatest pro-choice demonstration in history to come to Germantown and show their support for their hero, Dr. Leroy Carhart. They have borrowed our idea of a prayer walk and they are doing their own walk on Sunday afternoon, July 31st to raise monies for those who cannot afford their abortion. They are planning counter demonstrations during the Summer of Mercy dates. I want to appeal to you to come and be an advocate for the children at risk in the womb. 1/3 of our current generation has been killed off through this holocaust of abortion."
Germantown, MD, a mere 15 minutes from my home, has become Ground Zero in the battle over abortion in this country. Since this is happening in my backyard, I want to be involved in this event. To you my readers: I truly hope that if you live in the area, you consider attending at least some of the events or meetings. If you are unable to do so, at least you can stand with us in prayer for the countless victims of abortion (both mothers and babies) and for God to change hearts and minds on this crucial issue.
For more information, please check out the website at http://summerofmercy.com.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
"The War Against Girls"
I read this fascinating article in The Wall Street Journal today entitled "The War Against Girls." The article is actually a review of the book Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl. Unnatural Selection details the systematic targeting of female babies for abortion in many countries of the world, most notably China and India. In China, largely due to forced abortions resulting from the country's One Child policy, 121 boys are born for every 100 girls, with the ratio topping out at over 150 in some towns. In India, the ratio is 1.12. Sadly, Hvistendahl concludes that approximately 163 million girls that would otherwise have been born based on biological averages have been aborted over the past three decades by parents seeking sons. Aside from the obvious tragedy of females being systematically targeted for destruction, Hvistendahl points out the problems inevitably resulting from such a significant gender imbalance, including increased social turmoil and violence and the booming of a global female underclass through prostitution, forced marriage, and mail-order-bride businesses. And institutions such as the United Nations and Planned Parenthood have been instrumental in promoting such sex-selective abortion overseas.
The reviewer points out that Hvistendahl is adamantly pro-abortion and expresses fear that the facts in her book will jeopardize legalized abortion; yet, despite her biases she has documented something very important and tragic that should cause all of us to wake up and see where the culture of abortion has taken us. Ironically, a practice touted as a basic woman's right has resulted in tremendous harm to -- indeed in the systematic extermination of -- women in many countries around the world. It turns out that women themselves are the greatest victims of abortion.
Jonathan Last sums up his review this way:
Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: "I have patients who come and say 'I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' "
This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Germantown Press Conference
Here is the link to the press release regarding the state medical board's investigation into abortionist Leroy Carhart. There was a press conference and prayer vigil in Germantown this morning.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Germantown clinic update
Quite a bit has been happening lately in Germantown! The Maryland Coalition for Life is now leasing an office space directly across from abortionist Leroy Carhart's clinic. See pictures here. The space is intended to be a Resource and Referral Center for both undecided and post-abortive women. The center will be working with and referring women to the Rockville and Shady Grove Pregancy Centers. Training for receptionists is being held this coming Sunday.
40 Days for Life is continuing to ensure a peaceful and prayerful pro-life presence outside the abortion clinic. Apparently Leroy Carhart has now begun performing abortions on Sunday evenings, possibly to avoid the constant pro-life presence that 40 Days for Life has provided. Ironically (or Providentially), his procedures last Sunday evening just "happened" to coincide with the candlelight vigil celebrating the mid-way point of 40 Days for Life! There will be another candlelight vigil this coming Sunday from 8pm to midnight.
Here is a Gazette article about the new rental space. Given the Gazette's usual slanted coverage, I have been impressed with the balance I have seen in their past couple articles on the abortion debate in Germantown. ABC Channel 7 news also covered the story (you'll see two of my pastors at the beginning of the video). I understand the interviewer was surprised at their inability to find anyone from the office park, from Carhart's office, or from NARAL to interview for the pro-abortion perspective on their story (though there was a statement from a national abortion organization in the coverage). Donations are being accepted here to pay for the expenses of running the Resource and Referral Center in Germantown.
There is much more going on surrounding this issue, including legislation in Annapolis, than I can go into at the moment. I am amazed at the response to Carhart's move to Germantown in December, and that this movement continues to build momentum. There are so many wonderful people behind this effort to save the lives of the unborn. May God continue to work and be glorified through all of those involved in this debate, in their words, actions and presence.
40 Days for Life is continuing to ensure a peaceful and prayerful pro-life presence outside the abortion clinic. Apparently Leroy Carhart has now begun performing abortions on Sunday evenings, possibly to avoid the constant pro-life presence that 40 Days for Life has provided. Ironically (or Providentially), his procedures last Sunday evening just "happened" to coincide with the candlelight vigil celebrating the mid-way point of 40 Days for Life! There will be another candlelight vigil this coming Sunday from 8pm to midnight.
Here is a Gazette article about the new rental space. Given the Gazette's usual slanted coverage, I have been impressed with the balance I have seen in their past couple articles on the abortion debate in Germantown. ABC Channel 7 news also covered the story (you'll see two of my pastors at the beginning of the video). I understand the interviewer was surprised at their inability to find anyone from the office park, from Carhart's office, or from NARAL to interview for the pro-abortion perspective on their story (though there was a statement from a national abortion organization in the coverage). Donations are being accepted here to pay for the expenses of running the Resource and Referral Center in Germantown.
There is much more going on surrounding this issue, including legislation in Annapolis, than I can go into at the moment. I am amazed at the response to Carhart's move to Germantown in December, and that this movement continues to build momentum. There are so many wonderful people behind this effort to save the lives of the unborn. May God continue to work and be glorified through all of those involved in this debate, in their words, actions and presence.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Walk for Choice
Abortion supporters are protesting the House's attempts to defund Planned Parenthood by holding "Walks for Choice" accross the country on Saturday, February 26. There will be a prayer vigil in Annapolis, where one of these walks is being held, and I would imagine similar pro-life events will be held elsewhere.What strikes me is the logo for this event (above). The words "We have a voice. We have a choice." appear to me to contradict the image of the faceless woman. The pro-abortion crowd claims that they are the ones who truly care about women and that they are standing up for them and for their rights. However, to me this image of a generic woman with only words for a face implies that individual women with individual personalities and individual needs don't really matter to them, only that they stand for a "woman's right to choose." It saddens me how many women buy into these lies.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Planned Parenthood Defunding Passes the House
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)