Ben Johnson

Is “Jane Young” an abortionist?

Ben Johnson
Image

Do you believe an abortion mill is a “sanctuary” where “abortion caregivers” perform “nurturing” abortions? The person who founded the website ThisIsMyAbortion.com does. This individual, who goes by the name “Jane Young,” claims to be a woman who has experienced a most blissful murder and chose to post pictures of her own aborted victim to counteract the graphic images held by pro-life protesters – a move that minted a new star in the pro-abortion world. But is “she” everything she claims to be?

Color me skeptical, but I don’t buy it. The author’s every word demonizes pro-life protesters while elevating those who dismember unborn babies to the status of demigods. Her cloying account has the depth of a cardboard cutout, and her obsessive adulation for abortionists would make even NARAL’s most fevered PR hand blush. Its rhetorical excesses force one to question the author’s honesty on every front, including the writer’s purported identity.

In an op-ed in the Guardian, Young claimed her mother had an illegal abortion in a foreign country “and almost died.” (Cliche 1, check.) Another beloved friend was “mortified” by pro-life protesters holding signs en route to her appointment. (Cliche 2.) 

Soon, Young returned to the clinic for her own abortion, when she bolted into action with her spontaneous education campaign. “Due to the security risk to patients and abortion caregivers, the clinic had moved down the street,” she wrote. (Cliche I’ve-already-lost-count.) As she walked, she was palpably “afraid of being harmed by the anti-abortion protesters,” although she admits most just “prayed silently.”

This specter lifted when, upon opening its “bulletproof” doors, she experienced nirvana, met the most venerable of all medical professionals: abortion providers.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

In real life, abortionists are people like Kermit Gosnell, Abraham Alberto Hodari, or Carol Everett. But in Young’s psychodrama, they are inevitably described as “abortion caregivers” imperiled by misogynistic troglodytes seeking to hinder their selfless service to womyn everywhere.

She did not merely receive a Planned Parenthood sales pitch before climbing onto an unsanitary table; her “psyche [was] held by empathetic professionals.” 

The abortion industry profiteers did not merely make a depressing and potentially life-threatening service more tolerable; they created “a safe, warm space within the clinic, they genuinely cared for my overall well-being and were nothing short of professional.”

They were not helpful or comforting; they were “hands-down incredible…These caregivers are true heroes.”

In her public statements these “caregivers” are mentioned at least as much as the women who use their services – supposedly like herself – and inevitably presented in embarrassingly superlative terms. But when one likens an abortion mill to a “sanctuary,” that makes abortionists the priests and shamans of a very bloody religion whose sacred rites Young does not like to see mocked.

When she took her pictures, she made sure that “none of the abortion caregivers were in any of the shots out of respect for their privacy and security.” After they, they were just “doctors that were trying to do their jobs.”

Young claimed pro-lifers’ “heartless use of lifeless fetus images” was “just propaganda…being used as a weapon” to leave the public “cheated, lied to and manipulated.” Is this picture of Feng Jianmei’s forcibly aborted child a “fraud”? Isn’t the allegation that the child depicted here – who looks just like the child in the photos Young besmirches – revictimizing Feng and the millions of women forced into an abortion Chinese authorities would prefer they not depict?

Abortions differ. Some methods – particularly the one forced upon unwilling multitudes in China – leave a corpse like this one. Others reduce the unborn child to little more than a collection of mutilated body parts swimming in a cocktail of its own blood. That does not mean, as this writer claimed elsewhere, “There was no dead baby in the jar.” 

“I think the biggest misconception about abortion in the U.S. is that it is always a barbaric experience,” she writes. “The very act of abortion has been propagated as murder and women and abortion caregivers have been vilified as murderers…Rather, it has been secure, clean and I would argue, even nurturing.”

The use of the word “nurturing” takes us into the kind of bizarre fantasyland that exists only in recruitment pamphlets.

When Young makes policy pronouncements, they center around the caregiver/hero/high priests.

She claimed, “It is absolutely imperative that every measure is taken to keep abortion legal and safe for women to obtain and for their caregivers to perform.” (Emphasis added.) She also demands pro-lifers be barred from protesting within several feet of clinic entrances – a demand abortionists have long made.

Young claimed she took a low dose of pain-killers so she could remain awake to snap these pictures without being seen. But could an abortionist not as easily snap a few unnoticed photographs while her, or his, patient was sedated into a light sleep?

Could the reason that no abortionist is in the picture – a fact Young takes pains to explain away – be caused by the fact that she was the abortionist?

It wouldn’t be the first time an abortionist had profited by lying about his work, taking unethical advantage of women, and denying the humanity of his unborn victims.

This article originally appeared on TheRightsWriter.com and is reprinted with permission.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com

,

15 contradictions you have to believe to fit in with pop culture

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

One of the great quotations of our time is from James Burnham, a former Trotskyite Communist-turned-conservative who became an editor at National Review.

Fifty years ago, he wrote in his book Suicide of the West that “Modern liberalism, for most liberals, is not a consciously understood set of rational beliefs, but a bundle of unexamined prejudices and conjoined sentiments. The basic ideas and beliefs seem more satisfactory when they are not made fully explicit, when they merely lurk rather obscurely in the background, coloring the rhetoric and adding a certain emotive glow.”

To compensate for five decades of public education and pop culture, let's simplify Burnham's message to say that most left-wingers do not base their views on facts but on their feelings.

The truth of Burnham's observation can be proven by examining the cavernous gulch that exists between the ideas modern pop culture idols must believe and espouse at the same time. For example, to be a sexual revolutionary in good standing, you must believe:

  • That someone's sex is an infinitely malleable social construct that can be changed at will, but who someone feels the desire to have sexual intercourse with is permanently fixed and can never be altered, even if the person wants to change it. 
     
  • That capitalism is evil, and that in our corporatist society every big business will lie, cheat, steal, and possibly kill its own customers for the sake of short term profit – except Big Abortion.
     
  • That government should more closely regulate every corporation in the world for health and safety standards – except the abortion industry.
     
  • That conservatives are waging a “war on science” – and that scientists have never determined when life begins.
     
  • That gay “marriage” is “inevitable,” because the rapid, tidal wave sea change in public opinion on the issue of same-sex “marriage” proves that the polls can never, ever change again.
     
  • That it's wrong to abuse a position of power to dictate private health care decisions, especially about birth control and abortion – unless you are telling your boss or the U.S. taxpayer that he has to pay for your birth control and abortion(s).
     
  • That feminism frees women to have it all, as long as their children and home are not their whole world.
     
  • That there is no difference between the races or sexes of mankind – and that we need special testing scores and government programs to compensate for those differences.
     
  • That eating chicken eggs is immoral but aborting a child should be available free, on demand, and without apology.
     
  • That only women should make decisions on abortion – and that men have abortions.
     
  • That teens and preteens are responsible enough to decide whether to have sex or do drugs, but they are not mature enough to pay for their own health insurance until they are 26.
     
  • That is it wrong to sexually objectify women – and that men should lust after all women regardless of their weight or appearance.
     
  • That the sex lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy have no bearing on their fitness to serve in office. And the sex lives of Scott DesJarlais, David Vitter, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig are the only criteria determining whether they should hold office.
     
  • That there are no moral absolutes – and that is absolutely certain.
     
  • That it's wrong to be prejudiced against anyone because of their race, sex, religion, or ideology, and it's certainly wrong to base your social life around these artificial distinctions. But you would already know that if you weren't an ignorant, closed-minded, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal, rural, Christian, white, cisgendered male. Which is why I'm unfriending you on Facebook.

This far-from-complete list of contradictions affirms the words of a greater writer than Burnham or I, who wrote, “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” Sorry, double-minded men or womyn.

So, which ones did I miss?

Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com

Prayer alert – Pope Francis family members killed in car crash

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

The Pope prays for the whole world every day; today, he is asking the world to pray for him.

Three relatives of Pope Francis – including two infants – have died and one remains hospitalized after a car wreck in Argentine overnight.

According to a Vatican spokesman the Pope's 38-year-old nephew, Horacio Bergoglio Emanuel, was driving his family over a mountain road near the city of Cordoba when his Chevy Spin collided with the back of a truck.

Emanuel is the son of the Pontiff's late brother, Alberto Bergoglio.

The accident killed Emanuel's wife, Valeria Carmona, as well as their two children, ages two years old and eight months old, respectively.

The collision took place just as Pope Francis returned from a trip to South Korea, where he visited a cemetery dedicated to aborted children and strongly called the world to pursue moral truth.

Vatican spokesman the Reverend Federico Lombardi said that "the pope was informed about the tragic accident.”

“He is deeply pained," he said.

The pope asks "all who share in his grief to unite with him in prayer."

Please feel free to pray in your own words, in your own way, or to share some of these traditional prayer forms from different Christian traditions:

Catholic:

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen.

Eastern Orthodox:

Grant rest, O Lord, where the blessed repose, to the souls of Thy servants who have fallen asleep, and may their memory be eternal. Amen.

Anglican:

O God, whose mercies cannot be numbered: accept out prayers on behalf of Thy servants. and grant them an entrance into the land of light and joy, in the fellowship of Thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, Who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image

,

Mainstream media discover 6-wk-old story on Satanist ‘religious objection’ to pro-life laws

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

The media have been abuzz for the past 24 hours with a report that The Satanic Temple is demanding that women be excused from mandatory pre-abortion counseling on the grounds that it violates the religious teachings of Satanism. Indeed, there has been so much reporting that you may be tricked into believing it is news.

But the story is old hat to readers of LifeSiteNews. We reported the group’s decision more than six weeks ago.

The national spokesman of The Satanic Temple, “Lucien Greaves” (who was apparently born Doug Mesner), announced more than a month ago that abortion restrictions violate Satanic beliefs, and that same-sex “marriage” is a Satanic sacrament. “We [members of the demonic cult] feel we should protect women from superfluous procedures like the transvaginal ultrasound, with [a] religious exemption,” Greaves told a local media outlet at the time.

I brought this story to national attention in a piece on LifeSiteNews June 10. In fact, I did an entire radio segment on it on “As the Spirit Leads” Catholic radio program, based in Philadelphia. (And, ahem, you can contact me for other radio gigs.) A few other outlets have picked up the story since then.

Then the story made its way into the mainstream media in the usual way: A liberal group sent out a press release, a reporter barely rearranged its contents, and – voila! – journalism.

The Satanic Temple finally went through with its threat to lampoon religious objections. A letter (pdf) posted on its website yesterday states that the demon-worshiping body is “asserting a religious exemption from the burden of state-mandated ‘informational’ abortion materials for those who share their deeply held beliefs.”

The group says that warnings contained in such materials – e.g., that women suffer from post-abortion psychological trauma, and information linking abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer – are “'scientifically unfounded’ and ‘medically inaccurate’” and are therefore an affront to Satanic religious beliefs. The group has drawn up a letter that women may print and hand to their abortionist, telling him, “I trust that you will … keep me fully and accurately informed of my health based on science, not politics.”

Most reporters have likened this purported “religious objection” to the one Hobby Lobby successfully cited to opt out of the HHS mandate. Like most MSM reporting, that does a disservice to religion. The owners of Hobby Lobby place their faith in Jesus Christ at the center of all their decisions. The founders of The Satanic Temple do not actually believe in Satan at all.

“While the original thinking was that the Satanic Temple needed to hold to some belief in a supernatural entity known as ‘Satan,’ none of us truly believed that,” Mesner/Greaves told Vice.com. Thus, they have no religious beliefs to violate. He has been open about the fact that he and his largely unpublicized circle of followers intended the group to satirize those mostly evangelical and orthodox Catholic people who exert their First Amendment rights.

To that end, the inveterate publicity hounds have milked the media for every ounce of fame they could wring out of them. They defiled the grave of Fred Phelps’ mother, attempted to host a Black Mass at Harvard, and petitioned to erect a statue of Satan at the state capitol building in Oklahoma. Indeed, they have collected an untold sum of donations to build this yet-to-be-produced sculpture of the dark one, proving P.T. Barnum’s assertion about intelligence and obstetrics.

Expect more in the future. The Satanic Temple says this is “the first campaign in a series of Women’s Health [sic] initiatives the Satanic Temple intend [sic] to make public in the near future.” (Any actual religious group that so mangled the English language would have seen its errors highlighted in media coverage.)

The mainstream media love Mesner, et. al., for two reasons. Reporting the jokesters’ actions allows the media elite to attack the nation’s moral, faithful majority via proxy. And it lets them pretend they are covering news in a timely manner, reinforcing their delusion that they are actually journalists.

To read what the mainstream media will report tomorrow – and what it is covering up today – keep reading LifeSiteNews.

Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook