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?

Even a President can get it wrong.

This is part of the problem.  Former President, Bill Clinton clearly thinks that embryonic stem cells are yet to be fertilized.  A simple search in Wikipedia would tell him otherwise.  Does this mean he does not support embryonic stem cell research now... given that these are fertilized eggs? In all segments of our population, there needs to be clear and definitive education on just what these "cells" really are. ...and why isn't Dr. Gupta speaking up?

"Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells." - Wikipedia

March for Life 2009!

This year's March for Life in Washinton DC was the largest, and perhaps, the most important pro-life event since the Roe vs Wade 36 years ago (the photo to the left is from the Dallas March that I attended).  It was especially moving to see 100 americans tell their stories of how abortion has affected them and their families as part of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign.  

"The Silent No More campaign is an effort to make the public aware of the devastation abortion brings to women, men, and their families. Our hope is that the emotional and physical pain of abortion will no longer be shrouded in secrecy and silence, but rather exposed and healed. Believing that women deserve better than abortion we pray this effort will make abortion unthinkable as every culture develops ways to help women and men embrace their pre-born children."

Certainly, more needs to be said about the the truth about what abortion is and how it affects both men and women.  I'm afraid that the mainstream media typically doees not cover these types of stories...

Try this... type "March for Life" into Google News and see how many times CNN or another major network media outlet appears on the first page of news listings...  

Now type... pro choice...

 

 

 

The Freedom of Choice Act in Plain Language

I've found it difficult to find a simple and comprehensive list outlining the impact of the Freedom of Choice Act promoted by our new congress and President-Elect. Here's a simple list I ran across recently. Among the more than 550 federal and state laws that the Freedom of Choice act would nullify are:

• Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
• Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions)
• Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals
• Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal employees
• Informed consent laws
• Waiting periods
• Parental consent and notification laws
• Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics
• Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions
• “Delayed enforcement” laws (banning abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned and/or the authority to restrict abortion is returned to the states)
• Bans on partial-birth abortion
• Bans on abortion after viability. FOCA’s apparent attempt to limit post-viability abortions is illusory. Under FOCA, post-viability abortions are expressly permitted to protect the woman’s “health.” Within the context of abortion, “health” has been interpreted so broadly that FOCA would not actually proscribe any abortion before or after viability.
• Limits on public funding for elective abortions now covered by the Mexico City Policy (thus, making American taxpayers fund a procedure that many find morally objectionable)
• Limits on the use of public facilities (such has public hospitals and medical schools at state universities) for abortions
• State and federal legal protections for individual healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions
• Legal protections for Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals who, while providing care to millions of poor and uninsured Americans, refuse to allow abortions within their facilities

Support Fight FOCA. Sign the petition... or at the very least, make sure you know the details of what you are for or against.

The Consequences of our Actions

Arzigul Tursun is a Chinese citizen, a mother of 2 and six months pregnant with her third child. This week, she was placed in a hospital in in China's northwestern Xinjiang region to undergo a forced abortion mandated by the Chinese Government (see ABC news story). Under China's One Child policies, Arzigul is bound by law to limit the number of children she can bear to only one.  Despite international pressure and condemnation across the globe, the child will likely be put to death in the next few days. 

 Would any American agree that the policy above is moral under any circumstances?  Would any American want their tax dollars supporting China's One Child policies?

One of the first things Barack Obama has stated he will do by executive order is overturn the Mexico City Policy put in place by Ronald Reagan in 1984.  The policy specifically restricts US government funding for any organization that performs or promotes abortion in other countries.  When this happens, US funding will immediately be available to international organizations, like the UN Population Fund, an organization that promotes abortions worldwide.  While they deny their direct connection to the One Child policy, the US government, again, has refused funding (under the Kemp-Kasten amendment) to this organization due to evidence they've found connecting the UNFP to promotion of coerced abortions in China and other countries.  The executive order to remove the Mexico City Policy will be the initial step in making our tax dollars available to China.  Oh yeah... and to Planned Parenthood over here. 

We may have voted this man into office, but now it's our responsibility to make sure that he knows the implications that go along with a stroke of his pen.

Read here for a further explaination of the China's One Child policy and the implications that the Mexico City rule have on these horrible practices. 

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.

Is this not a life?

Cool video.  It's amazing to me that in the United States, abortion is legal through full term.  It's hard to look at these pictures and justify, for any reason, that these humans do not have the sames right to life as those outside the womb.   98 of the 154 most populous countries in the world ban late term abortions.  The Unites States does not. 

While I've heard all kinds of theories on what will happen if Obama gets in the White House, we're likely in for a strong push by the pro-abortion movement when/if he gets elected (go McCain go!).  Note the quote in the video above..."It's not just about defense.  It's about playing offense."Very disturbing...    Nonetheless, here is a very succinct list of the top ten things that could happen if we elect a pro-choice president On November 4th (thanks to phatmass.com):

1. Roe v. Wade would exist for at least another 30 to 40 years by the US Supreme Court appointments he makes. The next president will make at least one, and probably two US Supreme Court appointments. If elected to a second term, he could make as many as six appointments. The average Supreme Court Justice serves 23 years. Because the next two justices that are likely to retire are both pro-abortion, a pro-life president could position the courts to overturn Roe V. Wade in the next few years.
2. The "Freedom of Choice Act" would override all state laws regarding abortion and eliminate 35 years of laws that have reduced abortions in the USA. Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (S. 1173) and would make passing it one of his "first priorities as president". It would eliminate parental notification laws, 24-hour waiting period for abortions, and education of women about the abortion risks and development of her unborn child. The Freedom of Choice act would require taxpayer funding of abortion and make partial birth abortion legal again.
3. A pro-choice president would sponsor a bill for elimination of the Hyde Amendment, and thus force all taxpayers to bear the costs of free abortions for the poor. The Hyde Amendment has protected federal taxpayers from being forced to fund abortions through Medicaid.
4. A pro-choice president would include abortion as a "covered procedure" in any national health care insurance plan making abortions more readily available and forcing taxpayers to fund them.
5. A pro-choice president would require all medical schools to train doctors to perform abortions and force doctors to perform abortions regardless of their personal moral or religious beliefs or convictions.
6. A pro-choice president would likely issue an Executive Order (probably on his first day in office as did President Clinton) eliminating the Mexico City policy. The Mexico Citypolicy bars USforeign aid money from being given to organizations or companies that perform or promote abortion overseas.
7. A pro-choice president would restore funding for UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) which provided millions of dollars of funding for abortions and forced sterilizations in many Third World countries and China.
8. A pro-choice president would remove the current restriction prohibiting use of US Defense Budget monies on abortions for military personnel.
9. A pro-choice president would lead the way to the repeal of the ban on partial-birth abortions, where a baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan. Obama co-sponsored S. 1173 making partial birth abortion legal again.
10. A pro-choice president could overturn the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was a law passed by the United States Congress in 2002. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed into law on August 5, 2002 by President Bush.

One issue vote?

The Bishop of the Dallas Diocese, Kevin Farrell, released a statement last week that gave concise and specific direction on the issues of life that leaves little question for Catholics on the church's postion for voting in the upcoming election.  In his words, "to vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative, would be to cooperate in the evil and therefore, morally impermissable. 

This bold connects the act of voting (supporting) a candidate that promotes abortion rights with the act itself.  We've seen other bishops take this bold stance in recent weeks.  The bishop of Scranton (a political hot spot of late), Joseph Martino, takes similar stance.  "“Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s command,” he wrote. “They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent life is so heinous, so horribly evil and so absolutely opposite to the law of the Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics but the entire electorate.”

While there are many issues facing our society today, to refuse to defend the most basic right of all humans is the singlular issue of our time.  Without life, there is no debate on the economy, security, taxes, etc.  These are all important issues.  However, their moral gravity is secondary to life itself.