"Pro-Choice" Really Means "Pro-Abortion"

Many of you are aware of what happened to Carolyn Savage of Sylvania, Ohio. She and her husband, Sean, decided to have a baby via in vitro fertilization. The good news: it was a success. The bad news: it was someone else's embryo.

(Read the full article here.)

The Abortion Issue: A Conflict of Rights

The subject of abortion deals with the inevitable clash between property rights and the right to life. Given that predicament, how should this conflict be resolved? To put it in more crass terms, if protecting the rights of one means "violating" the rights of another, whose rights should take precedence?

(Read the rest at Examiner.com.)

Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade

He has already introduced the "We the People Act" (H.R. 539) designed to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. More here.

Abortion Funding Part of Democrat Stimulus Plan

Why? Because children are a drag on financial resources, and with the government funding just about everything under the sun, expect to see more of this in the future.

When watching this video clip, keep in mind that terms like "family planning services" and "contraception" are pro-choice euphemisms for infanticide:

Ain't change wonderful?

Death Certificates for Christmas

This is a new low, even for the pro-death racists at Planned Parenthood:

Indiana residents in need of a quick stocking stuffer this holiday season have an unusual option: Planned Parenthood gift certificates.

The group's Hoosier State chapter on Wednesday began selling gift certificates redeemable at any of its 35 facilities for any service provided -- from basic health screenings to birth control to abortions.

Betty Cockrum, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said the program was initiated in response to the state's ailing economy.

It seems some people just aren't satisfied with the current abortion rate among poor minorities in Indiana.

McCain's "Pro-Life" Position

You have to hand it to John McCain. He knows exactly what to say to his conservative constituents to convince them that he is pro-life. The facts, however, speak for themselves:

Source: Vision Forum Ministries

Another thing to remember is that John McCain has received the enthusiastic endorsement of Republicans for Choice, a political action committee which praised McCain for inserting language into the GOP platform "that talked about the need to work with those in the Party who disagree on this issue to find common ground." According to RFC, "This is the first time ever that any Presidential contender tried to tinker with that plank to add in language that recognized us."

Barack Obama Supports Black Genocide

Sound outrageous? Well, considering his strong support for Planned Parenthood, and the fact that Planned Parenthood hasn't deviated one bit from its racist roots, I think the charge is quite fitting:

Genocide, infanticide, call it what you will. It's still evil.

Speaking of Abortion...

Chuck Baldwin spells out John McCain's "pro-life" position:

John McCain openly embraces embryonic stem cell research. In 2000, he boldly said he did not favor the overturn of Roe v. Wade. John McCain was a member of the infamous "Gang of 14" senators from both parties whose purpose was to oppose pro-life, strict constructionist judges.

Speaking of judges, John McCain voted for the pro-abortion justice, Stephen Breyer, and the radical, pro-abortion, ACLU attorney, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So much for the argument that we need John McCain for the sake of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court. For that matter, Republican appointments dominated the Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and the one that later gave us Doe v. Bolton. Proving, once again, that the Republican Party, as a whole, has no real commitment to the life issue.

John McCain also gave us McCain-Feingold. This is the law that keeps pro-life or pro-Second Amendment organizations from broadcasting ads that mention a candidate by name 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. This proves that John McCain believes neither in the right to life nor the right to keep and bear arms. (This is one reason why the Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F.)

In a debate with George W. Bush in May of 2000, John McCain attacked Bush's support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party. Still today, John McCain believes that babies who are conceived via rape or incest should be murdered. I remind readers, however, that there are no "exceptions" in the womb, only babies.

If all of the above is not enough, as a senator, John McCain has repeatedly voted to fund pro-abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars. In fact, McCain has voted to use federal tax dollars to support abortion providers at home and overseas. Yes, this "pro-life" senator (along with "pro-life" President, George W. Bush) has significantly increased federal spending for abortion providers to levels eclipsing even the appropriations authorized by President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats.

If you consider yourself pro-life and still intend to vote for McCain, go ahead. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you're actually taking a step toward ending America's abortion holocaust.

Christians Show Love by Supporting Abortion

Led by the likes of emergent guru Brian McLaren, professing Christians are lining up behind Barack Obama:

They call themselves the Matthew 25 Network. Here is their mission statement:

The Matthew 25 Network is a community of Christians -- Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Evangelical -- inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable.

The election of our public officials, and the politics they stand for, are a reflection of our core values. We believe that those elected to public office carry an important trust, as their decisions have a profound impact on our nation and our world.

We believe that people of faith should actively participate in the political process as an important avenue for social change. We are called by our faith to engage in the world as it is, while we seek after and hope for God's Kingdom.

Therefore, while no elected official will be without flaw, we come together as individuals to support candidates for public office who share the values of the Matthew 25 Network: promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God's Creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad, and promoting the common good.

The group takes its name from Matthew 25:40: "I tell you the truth, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." I find this ironic given the fact that Senator Obama is rabidly pro-abortion and stands behind Roe v. Wade 100%. Try as I might, I just can't imagine supporting someone who sees the infanticide going on in this country (49 million dead and counting) and thinks there's nothing wrong with it.

To be fair, Republican Christians aren't off the hook either. Their candidates of choice -- George W. Bush, John McCain, and every other "conservative" who believes in waging preemptive war on civilian populations -- are anything but pro-life.

Abortion: Weeding out the Undesirables

Eugenics is the study of the possibility that the quality of the human race can be improved by encouraging people with "desirable" traits to reproduce while at the same time discouraging reproduction among those with "undesirable" traits. It was practiced by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s and continues to this day.

The link between eugenics and the modern abortion movement is no conincidence. Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood), was a huge fan of eugenics. In 1932, she wrote an essay entitled "A Plan for Peace," in which she called on Congress to create a Parliament of Population. The objective would be to "direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals." One of the methods for accomplishing this goal was "to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

Today, eugenics carries with it such a negative connotation. We're more enlightened, so we call it "reproductive freedom."

Abortion is already being used to "filter out" undesirable kids. Last year, the LA Times ran an opinion piece entitled "The Abortion Debate Brought Home." The author, Dan Neil, boasts about the decision he and his wife made to selectively murder two of their four children. They did so because the in-vitro fertilization process resulted in four babies: two girls and two boys. And since no one in the history of civilization has ever given birth to more than two children at once, they concluded that two of them had to go.

So, they did what any concerned parent would do: they had genetic testing done to see which of their kids would be less of a hassle to raise. In the end, they decided to off the boys. As Neil explains, "Some studies show offspring of older fathers (I'm 47) run a higher risk of autism, and males are four times as likely to be autistic." What a brave and loving father!

Oh, but the decision wasn't all that easy. Neil "had reservations about bringing girls into the world now, when forces seemed to be aligning to disenfranchise them (nine of 10 GOP presidential candidates favor reversing Roe vs. Wade)." He wasn't too keen on the idea that his daughters would "have to fight the battles their mothers and grandmothers fought." (Come on. I'm sure Mom would be more than happy to teach them how to burn their training bras.)

Neil wishes there were more doctors out there willing to murder children and that those of us who have a problem with infanticide should just lighten up. He goes on to express his gratitude to the Hippocratic Oath-breaker who butchered his two sons -- withholding her name, of course, "for fear that she might be terrorized by some gun-toting antiabortion extremist." He concludes, "For our part, we are grateful that she was out there. Without her, we wouldn't have been able to have a family. When Roz and Viv grow up, I hope one day I can introduce them to her. I think she'd be proud."

You're quite a guy, Mr. Neil. I suppose the rest of us should be on our knees, thanking you for not bringing two potential freaks into the world. Who knows? Those boys could have turned out to be just as sick and twisted as their father. I don't know about your anonymous "doctor" friend, but I am certain that Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Build a House, Butcher a Child

Truly a match made in hell:

The nation's largest Christian ministry dedicated to housing the poor has drawn criticism from pro-life groups recently over its joint partnership with the nation's largest provider of surgical abortions.

In an agreement with Planned Parenthood, Habitat for Humanity is allowing the group to bypass zoning regulations in Sarasota, Fla., that restrict the opening of abortion facilities "without the presence of a multifamily liner building."

According to a statement released earlier this month by the Sarasota City Commission, Habitat for Humanity will reportedly facilitate the opening of Planned Parenthood in the area through a $10 real estate purchase from the group.

"We are excited to have Habitat be a part of the Planned Parenthood team," a Planned Parenthood representative reportedly said after the agreement.

What's the deal, Jimmy?

Mother's Day Insult

Oh, the irony.

Planned Parenthood's Racism

Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood) to help control the growth of minority populations and other "undesirables." This video shows that the organization still embraces its racist roots.



More at Michael Hirsh's blog here.

Sacrificing Children for the Environment

Meet the women who won't have babies -- because they're not eco friendly:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers -- and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. ...

... At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

This is an example of "ecofeminism" at its worst.

What I find interesting is that people like this have no problem sacrificing their children to "save the planet," but they never seem to think of sacrificing themselves or their sex lives. They aren't environmental heroes; they're sick, twisted, selfish individuals who are practicing child sacrifice in an effort to appease their pagan god.

China Stepping Up Population-Control Measures

As many of you know, my wife and I are in the process of adopting a little girl from China. So, you can understand why it breaks my heart to read stories like this:

An intensive campaign to enforce strict population-control measures prompted violent clashes between the police and local residents in southwestern China in recent days, witnesses said, describing the latest incident of rural unrest that has alarmed senior officials in Beijing.

Villagers and visitors to several counties of the Guangxi autonomous region in southwestern China said rioters smashed and burned government offices, overturned official vehicles and clashed with the riot police in a series of confrontations over the past four days.

They gave varying accounts of injuries and deaths, with some asserting that as many as five people were killed, including three officials responsible for population control work. A local government official in one of the counties affected confirmed the rioting in an interview by telephone but denied reports of deaths or serious injuries.

The violence appeared to stem from a two-month-long crackdown in Guangxi to punish people who violated the country's birth control policy. The policy limits the number of children families can have legally.

Pray that America will change its ways before we get to this point. And pray for China. What we are seeing over there now is what happens when the sanctity of life is no longer cherished.

Abortion on the High Seas

Forget all those cruise ship horror stories you've seen in the news. Here's a vessel that loses half of its passengers on every trip. From TimesOnline:

An "abortion ship" is planning to sail to countries where the practice is illegal and take women out to sea for terminations after the Dutch Government lifted restrictions banning it from international waters.

Rebecca Gomperts, the director of Women on Waves, told The Times: "We have just received the licence and there are some restrictive conditions but, yes, we are going to prepare a new campaign, that is for sure.

"We are in touch with women's organisations in several different countries. There are still three countries where abortion is illegal in Europe but there are also invitations from Argentina and some other South American countries."

Under the terms of its licence, the group is able to sail under the Dutch flag in international waters and hand out "abortion pills" for women up to seven weeks pregnant, causing them to have a miscarriage.

Kind of makes the tragic voyage of the Sea Diamond seem like a pleasure cruise.

Mexico City Legalizes Infanticide

Mexico City has officially entered the 21st century. By voting to legalize abortion on demand, lawmakers have set a precedent that is "likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America."

Congratulations, Mexico. You're well on your way to becoming as "civilized" as we are. But until you start killing 3,700 kids per day, you'll still be considered a lightweight.

Abortion Is a "Motherly Act"?

I ran across Caitlin Moran's latest column at TimesOnline entitled "Abortion: Why It's the Ultimate Motherly Act." If you want to get at the heart of the evil of abortion, then read this article. It is by far the most unashamedly selfish argument I have ever seen in favor of murdering one's own children:

My belief in the ultimate sociological, emotional and practical necessity for abortion did, as I have mentioned before, become even stronger after I had my two children. It is only after you have had a nine-month pregnancy, laboured to get the child out, fed it, cared for it, sat with it until 3am, risen with it at 6am, swooned with love for it and been reduced to furious tears by it that you really understand just how important it is for a child to be wanted. And, possibly even more importantly, to be wanted by a reasonably sane, stable mother. Last year I had an abortion, and I can honestly say it was one of the least difficult decisions of my life. I'm not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being. I knew I would see my existing two daughters less, my husband less, my career would be hamstrung and, most importantly of all, I was just too tired to do it all again. I didn't want another child, in the same way that I don't suddenly want to move to Canada or buy a horse. While there was, of course, every chance that I might eventually be thankful for the arrival of a third child, I am, personally, not a gambler. I won't spend £1 on the lottery, let alone take a punt on a pregnancy. The stakes are far, far too high. ...

... However, what I do believe to be sacred - and, indeed, more useful to the earth as a whole - is trying to ensure that there are as few unbalanced, destructive people as possible. By whatever rationale you use, ending a pregnancy 12 weeks into gestation is incalculably more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world. Or a child that, through no fault of its own, would be the destructor of a marriage, a family, a parent. It's fairly inarguable to say that unhappy children, who then grew into very angry adults, have caused the great majority of mankind's miseries. If psychoanalysis has, somewhat brutally, laid the responsibility for mental disorders at parents' doors, the least we can do is to tip our hats to women aware enough not to create those troubled people in the first place.

Sure. This is the kind of B.S. you want to read after finding out that your own adoption process will most likely take three times as long as you once thought.

I can't help but wonder: if Ms. Moran really wanted to ease "mankind's miseries," then why not make more of a personal sacrifice? Couldn't she just as easily abstain from sex? It's 100 percent effective. No sex, no unwanted children. Oh, but that would mean exercising a little self-control and assuming personal responsibility - and those are exactly the kinds of burdens abortion on demand is supposed to alleviate.

Compare Moran's reasoning with that of Miranda Sawyer, who detailed how she came to "rethink" abortion in a recent article for The Observer:

Like most women - at least most British women - I have always been firmly in the pro-choice camp because I've spent nearly all of my sexually active life trying not to get pregnant. Throughout my twenties and the better part of my thirties, I did everything that was required for me not to have a child (other than, you know, not having sex). I wasn't always safe - I've necked morning-after pills like vitamin tablets - but I was lucky enough not to end up in a situation where I was pregnant and didn't want to be. I've never had an abortion, though I am mighty glad that legal abortion exists.

When I got pregnant so soon after my Granny's death, it felt weird. My mind kept returning to the pregnancy test. If my reaction to those fateful double lines that said 'baby ahead' had been horror instead of hurrah - and, to be honest, it wasn't unalloyed joy that I felt when I saw them; I was scared, too - then I would have had little hesitation in having an abortion. But it was that very fact that was confusing me. I was calling the life inside me a baby because I wanted it. Yet if I hadn't, I would think of it just as a group of cells that it was OK to kill. It was the same entity. It was merely my response to it that determined whether it would live or die. That seemed irrational to me. Maybe even immoral.

Ms. Sawyer still thinks women should be allowed to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. However, she believes that "once an embryo has developed enough to feel pain, or begin a personality, then it has moved from cell life into the first stages of being a human," so, for her, "ending that life is wrong." I guess that's at least a step in the right direction.

But she points out the inherent fallacy of the pro-abortion argument. It isn't about determining whether what's being killed is a human life or not. If a woman wants it, it's a baby; if she doesn't, then it's just a blob of tissue. That's why I have never bought into the notion that having an abortion is a "tough decision" for a woman to make. It's the easy way out of a difficult situation. Deciding what's best for the child - whether to keep it or give it up for adoption - that's a tough decision. But that's also one that doesn't have to be made alone.

Ask anyone who has adopted, or is trying to adopt, and they will tell you that there is no such thing as an "unwanted child." That's a lie perpetuated by those whose bloodlust and selfishness get in the way of reason.

A Holocaust Museum of a Different Sort

There wasn't much press coverage, but a new museum opened in Austria this week. It's known as the Museum of Abortion and Contraception.

It is the brain child (no pun intended) of Christian Fiala, a butcher who is seen as a staunch advocate of women's health issues. He has been the director of an abortion clinic in Vienna for the last decade, and is the current chairman of the International Association of Abortion and Contraception Specialists.

Now, I'm sure you are familiar with the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. It serves as a somber reminder of the pain and suffering inflicted upon millions of innocent people in the hope of preventing such a thing from occurring again. Imagine what would happen if someone opened a museum dedicated to the philosophy that while the Holocaust wasn't pretty, the real horror was the shortage of gas chambers. Imagine if we were told that the real problem wasn't the killing of "undesirables," but rather the difficulty in rounding them up and disposing of them in a more efficient and humane manner. The public would be outraged beyond belief.

So, you can see that it really is ironic to see a museum celebrating the slaughter of untold millions of babies in a country where a person can be sentenced to prison for Holocaust denial. I guess when the "undesirables" in question are unborn children, no one really gives a damn.

Abortion Is Not a Private, Personal Choice

According to a recent study published in the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, abortion is linked to higher rates of child abuse. From LifeSiteNews.com:

The findings were drawn from an analysis of data on 237 low-income women in Baltimore who had physically mistreated or neglected at least one of their children or allowed someone else to do so. Researchers controlled for a history of miscarriage or stillbirth, as well as for family history, aggression by the woman's partner and other key factors. While all the women in the study had some connection with child maltreatment or neglect, the authors found that those who reported a history of abortion reported significantly more frequent acts of physical violence, such as slapping, hitting or beating, directed at their children.

Priscilla Coleman, a professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green State University and lead author of the study, suggested that the link between abortion and child abuse may be influenced by a number of key factors, including unresolved grief, having felt pressured into an unwanted abortion, and disruption in maternal bonding with subsequently born children.

Unresolved grief issues, Coleman noted, "may negatively impact parental responsiveness to child needs, trigger anger, which is a common component of grief, and/or increase parental anxiety regarding child well-being." Some research indicates that grief may be more difficult to resolve if women undergo an unwanted abortion due to pressure from others. In one study, cited by Coleman, 64 percent of American women with a history of abortion reported feeling pressured to abort by others.

Dr. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute and a leading researcher who has been involved in more than a dozen studies on the impact of abortion on women, said that this latest study confirms the general findings of previous studies linking abortion with a higher risk of abuse or neglect.

"Previous research has also shown that abortion is linked with a subsequent increased risk of alcoholism, drug use, anxiety, rage, anger and psychiatric hospitalization," Reardon said. "Any of these factors, individually or in combination, can significantly increase the personal and family stresses that can lead to maltreatment or neglect."

A previous study by Coleman found that a maternal history of abortion was linked to less supportive home environments for subsequently born children and that subsequent children exhibited more behavioral problems than the children of women without a history of abortion.

A New Zealand study that tracked young women from birth to 25 years of age found that young women who had abortions were significantly more likely to experience subsequent depression, suicidal behavior and substance abuse, even after the researchers controlled for previous mental health problems.

"Taken all together, these studies show that the mental health effects of abortion don't stop with women," Reardon said. "They will impact their families, too."

In short, abortion is not simply a private, personal matter between a woman and her doctor. There are always multiple victims.

I think it's safe to assume that this most recent study will not be trumpeted by the mainstream press.