Choose Life Blog

Kansas NOW Throws a Party and No One Shows Up.

There really is nothing like the pro-abortion press machine.  They really can make a mountain out of a mole hill quite effectively.  Case in point... an article in the Kansas Free Press promoting a candlelight vigil for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the celebrating the life of Dr. George Tiller.  This really is a must read. Some of the highlights from their spin machine.  

First of all, the outrage they feel at the "thousands of women who died prior to Roe v. Wade and the abortion providers and staff that the nation has lost to senseless acts of violence".  Hello... just this January, an estimate on the number of abortions as topping over 52 million children.  Now, I certainly feel bad for the small number of women who suffered injury or death seeking illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade, but c'mon, comparing the thousands to 52 million.  Wow.  And no where in the article is there a mention of the number 52.  Surprising?

Second, in reading the article, it sounded like a fairly significant event.  Wondering how many people actually skip dinner with the family to show up to support Roe v. Wade and "honor" an abortionist, I thought I'd check out the photos on the Kansas NOW site.  Heck, PBS even covered the event.  Must have been quite a shin-dig.  Boy was I a bit underwhelmed to find the Candlelight Vigil Photos from the vigil web site.  This looks really sleepy.  A lot of open chairs and a few votives doesn't seem to map to the coverage given by the Kansas "Free" Press.  Not sure how free these guys are...

Third, and most disturbing is the glowing references made to Tiller by NOW as well as other late term Abortionists Warren Hern and Susan Wicklund.  Now remember, these guys perform late term abortions.  These are the most controversial of all procedures as they kill children that are viable outside the womb if allowed to be delivered.  So... when I read things like the following quotes, I just can't find a way to map it to the reality of what they are actually doing.  Think about it.  They are killing human lives and the glowing references keep coming:

"His purpose was to liberate and save women by providing them with abortion care."

"George was a wonderful, kind, generous human being and dedicated physician."

"We know that the Pro Choice movement lost one of our biggest heroes, a compassionate, extremely competent physician, a voice that spoke truth, a rock we all thought could never be moved."

Again, you're losing me on the compassionate, kind and "abortion care" comments.   Remember, these are kids he's been killing for the last several decades.  Then... and maybe most disturbing are the quotes from abortionists Wicklund and Hern around their own struggle: 

Wicklund is required to read abortion patients misleading, politician-penned scripts that refer to an embryo as an "unborn baby"

"We don't know how many more clinics will be burned, staff terrorized or doctors killed. We don't know if our government will actually step up and make sure abortion is treated as the basic health care we all know it is."

"And it is about your mothers and wives, your sisters and daughters and granddaughters and best friends. It is about someone else wanting to control us. It is about power."

God forbid we call a "fetus" an unborn baby in front of a mother that is discerning ending the life of her baby.  And we'd surely want to trade a baby's life for more power and control over our own lives...  Wow, the spin continues. The truth of the matter is that with Roe v. Wade, millions die and without it, perhaps a few do... No excuse for what happened to Tiller, but I just don't want to be played.  Let's tell it like it is, folks.  Agree?

Pro-Aborts: Stumped by Tim Tebow

Boy is the pro-abortion movement completely stumped on how to react to the upcoming Tim Tebow advertisement during the Super Bowl.  It seems to me that with every criticism of the ad from the pro-abortion movement, they seem to make a stronger case for the pro-life message.  Promoting the truth, in prime time, on one of the biggest advertising time slot in the world is really driving them crazy.  And it should.  It's tough to argue such a directly positive statement around the value of human life. 

So what are they left to say?  Here's the arguments they are unsuccessfully trying to debate:

• "CBS has no right to promote such a hot political topic." - So... we would rather see ads for beer and sex vs. a positive message about a mother making a decision towards life in a difficult circumstance. Why would we NOT want to see more positive ads on TV.  Perhaps they are so incensed because there is nothing positive to promote in their thinly veiled pro-death message.  Imagine the same ad from a mother that decided to have an abortion... even one that paints it as a positive thing for mother and child (if that's possible).  Creepy.
• "Focus on the Family has an agenda to push and they are doing it on prime time television" - Yes, they do.  ...and they should not apologize for using their dollars (which are entirely funded by grass-roots conributions vs. any other funds say... from... killing children) to promote their agenda.  I think they have come up with an ad that does a great job of telling a real story about a mother and son and the real decisions that are made in life.  Again, if Planned Parenthood wants to come up with a heartwarming ad about a mother making the decision to terminate her child's life, then make it so.  Not sure this will get the same reaction from the majority of Americans that are now pro-life.  Planned Parenthood does not need the publicity.
• "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than unite has no place in sports." - So does that mean that we should not have political ads run at any time on TV.  What about, say, a 30 minute infomerical by a presidential candidate.  Say... a presidential candidate that has a massive pro-abortion agenda.  Look, this is America and political discourse and debate is a way of life.  Deal with it and don't use the cover of a sports event to try to discount a message that is against your political position.
• And here is one that really sums up their rather weak position:  From the Planned Parenthood leaning Women's Media Center:  “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers."  Obviously a couple things going on here.  First of all, WMC is using the tactic of calling every name in the book (equality, choice, homophobic) in an attempt to confuse the issue.  Just tell me what is equal, promotes choice or accepting about the pro-abortion message.  Certainly they only like the idea of choice being promoted when it is promoting abortion. There is nothing equal about valuing the life of one individual (the mother and father) over another (the child).  And abortion is clearly a more serious targeting of a "class" of individual (the unborn) that results in the death of that unwanted, less than human person.  Sound familiar (insert slavery or homophobic reference here...)

No, Planned Parenthood and others on the pro-abort side.  There is no good answer for Tim Tebow.  That's because when it comes to the truth being discussed as pro-family and pro-life... the American people can't be fooled by your usual tactics.  Am I right?

MLK's Neice: "Protect the Civil Rights of the Unborn"

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, does a great job of explaining pro-life issues in the context of civil rights.  Having gone through two abortions herself, she is an excellent example of how education on the lies of planned parentood and the pro-abortion media can change hearts. 

Why would our President support Planned Parenthood?

Why does our radically pro-abortion president elect, Barack Obama, support Planned Parenthood when the very foundation of Planned Parenthood, conceived of by Margaret Sanger, is so very much aligned against the poor, weak and minority groups in society? Some might say that Planned Parenthood has changed in the last 80 years since Sanger created the organization… or that it was a different time when she made her racially dividing statements… but would Barack Obama agree with her radically divisive views? Would our President, and ultimately our government align themselves with the thinking below?

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. (Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech).

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." (Birth Control Review, April 1932)

Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists -- similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" -- but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. (Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80)

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in The Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12)

The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin the April 1933 Birth Control Review. Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as "human weeds," "reckless breeders," "spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

Most disturbing is Sanger's claims that her ultimate intention was to do away with all blacks. She admitted, however, that it might be necessary on occasion to employ a few, for appearance sake.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

Does Barack Obama know the specifics of Planned Parenthood’s origins or has he, like so many in our country, been deceived by the continued misinformation of Planned Parenthood’s and the Pro-Choice (abortion) movement.