PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, February 24, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The nation’s number one talk show host drew attention to Barack Obama’s history of supporting infanticide on Friday’s show.
Discussing this week’s CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners said the president’s vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003 amounted to “the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember.”
The question met with loud audience disapproval, as it was widely interpreted as intended to embarrass Rick Santorum.
Gingrich, who replied first, objected that in 2008, “not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”
“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion,” Gingrich said. “It is not the Republicans.”
As a state senator, Barack Obama voted against a bill that would require abortionists to provide care to an infant who is born alive during the course of a failed abortion. The legislation was brought forward after Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, exposed abortionists’ practice of abandoning babies born alive after failed abortions, leaving them to die in a hospital utility room.
President George W. Bush signed the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002. The federal bill passed the U.S. House in an overwhelming 380-15 vote, with a majority of outspokenly pro-abortion representatives supporting the legislation. Even after NARAL withdrew its opposition to the federal version of the bill, Obama had continued to oppose the state version.
“We talked about it during the 2008 campaign,” Limbaugh told an audience of millions. “Nobody wanted to hear it. The hopey-change thing was just too big of a theme.”
Newt “had the courage to use the word ‘infanticide,’” he said. “It’s exactly what was being defended. And unbelievable as this may sound to those of you who never heard about this, every word of it is true.”
All four Republican candidates voiced their opposition to the HHS mandate, as well.
After record-breaking pro-life year, pro-life group releases model legislation for 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 24, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – One of the nation’s most effective pro-life advocacy groups is topping off a year of legislative triumphs by unveiling this year’s agenda.
On Thursday, Americans United for Life (AUL) pre-released the seven top proposals from the forthcoming Defending Life 2012. The publication, issued annually since 2005, contains proposals to move beyond defunding Planned Parenthood to tighten the regulation of abortionists, require parental consent, and assure the president’s health care reform cannot fund abortion.
“Many of these initiatives simultaneously lay the groundwork for the ultimate reversal of Roe v. Wade,” while “eliminating taxpayer funding of abortion providers,” and protecting women and girls from “the increasingly predatory practices of the scandal-ridden abortion industry,” the publication says.
The seven bills AUL will promote in the upcoming year include:
The “Defunding the Abortion Industry and Advancing Women’s Health Act of 2012.” The model legislation not only defunds abortion “but also eliminates the manipulation and misuse of other state funding sources by abortion providers.” A joint report issued by the Alliance Defense Fund and the Susan B. Anthony List discovered nearly $99 million of potential fraud at Planned Parenthood affiliates, often through “unbundling” services performed as part of an abortion.
The “Abortion Mandate Opt-Out Act.” Although Barack Obama signed an executive order on March 24, 2010, about funding abortion as part of ObamaCare, AUL notes the order could allow funding of abortion providers after states establish their local insurance exchanges. Twelve states have already passed opt-out bills based on AUL’s statutory language, assuring their states comply with the Hyde Amendment. Another 18 have introduced or plan to introduce similar legislation.
The “Women’s Health Defense Act,” bans abortions conducted on babies at 20 weeks of development or beyond, based on the harm those abortions cause to mothers, as well as the child’s ability to feel pain. Five Supreme Court justices upheld a challenge to Roe on the grounds that women had come to rely on abortion as part of their health care. “AUL’s model is the only one to directly attack the Supreme Court’s primary rationale for affirming Roe v. Wade – the ‘reliance interest,’” the press release states.
The “Abortion-Inducing Drugs Safety Act” would end “telemed” prescription of the abortion pill. Often doctors only confer with women seeking a pharmaceutical abortion remotely; this bill will require the doctor to respond in person.
The “Parental Consent Act” requires notarized, written parental consent before an abortion clinic can perform an abortion on a minor girl.
The “Abortion Patients’ Enhanced Safety Act,” requires abortion clinics – which often bill themselves as “medical facilities” – to “meet exacting and medically appropriate standards of patient care” and would mandate “regular inspections by state health inspectors.” Abortion mills such as Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” are the true “back alley abortion clinics,” AUL writes.
The “Health Care Freedom of Conscience Act” is bill as the “most comprehensive and protective legislation of its kind,” protecting “all individuals, institutions, and health care payers.”
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of AUL, says her organization is offering this first-ever preview of its agenda “because the time is right for building on a foundation of success.”
“Last year we saw unprecedented levels of pro-life activity in state legislatures across the country,” she said in a statement sent to LifeSiteNews.com. “AUL’s model legislation provides the tools to address these challenges effectively and pursue defending life in law.”
Last year, 86 bills were introduced in 32 states that were based on AUL’s model language, with the organization’s active advice and consultation.
“The passage of 28 pieces of pro-life legislation based on AUL’s models was a significant pro-life victory, and represents increasing strength in the pro-life movement,” said Dr. Yoest.
2011 was a record year for pro-life legislation. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 83 pro-life laws passed last year, more than triple the previous record.
The final Defending Life 2012 report will include a section demonstrating the physical harm and substandard conditions of abortion clinics, a comprehensive ranking of all 50 states’ protection of the unborn, a thorough discussion of the legislative issues facing the pro-life movement, and 42 pieces of model legislation.
Model legislation is available upon request to lawmakers now. The extended releases include a ban on coerced or sex-selective abortions, ending assisted suicide, and protection of health care workers’ conscience rights.
Virginia shelves bill saying life begins at conception until 2013
February 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Thursday the Virginia Senate voted to send personhood legislation back to committee in a 24-14 vote, effectively killing the bill until 2013.
Earlier this month the Republican-led House of Delegates had passed the bill by a vote of 66 to 32.
The legislation states that unborn children “at every stage of development” are considered persons. It would not have affected abortion access in the state but would have simply affirmed the scientific fact of when a human life begins.
Mathew Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, lamented the demise of the legislation saying, “Every legislator should understand one simple and basic truth – that human life begins at conception. If government leaders cannot understand this essential fact, they have no business serving in public office.”
POLAND, February 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At one o’clock in the morning the lights were dimmed. The heavy thumping rhythms of the electronically-produced music pounded through the bodies of 20,000 young people who had gathered for a rave at a party hall in Dortmund, Germany. Lasers pierced through the darkness carving out strange and mysterious images on the walls and ceiling. Lights pulsated. Video flashed on screens. Thousands of electronic watts created a wall of sound and light that Lech Dokowicz could only stand back and admire. After all, he had helped to create the show as one of its leading camera operators.
The year was 1997. For 30-year-old Lech this was the show he had been anticipating for a long time. Tonight, Lech’s mentor, one of the chief movers behind the techno scene, had promised to reveal to the young man the meaning and purpose behind the massive techno movement.
As the ravers screamed and cheered, Lech watched in awe as his mentor masterfully manipulated lasers and lights to produce what he remembers as scenes of desolation, destruction, and terror.
“They represented the world at war, culminating in global nuclear war and utter destruction,” Lech recalled in a 2005 memoir that appeared in the magazine Love One Another. “Also represented were people belonging to the Techno scene taking control of non-participants.”
At one point a cross-shaped structure laden with lights that could be moved over the heads of the ravers became the center of attention. Graphic images projected by lasers onto the overhead cross suddenly made it clear to Lech who he was really working for.
“I understood that these people were Satanists leading the world’s youth to destruction. I was one of them, and there was no way back for me – or so it seemed at first.”
As the young people moved to the pulse of the music and the swirl of the lasers, Lech all at once saw a vision of his future unfold before his eyes.
“Ahead was the tantalizing prospect of doing whatever I felt like doing, of working at whatever I wanted, choosing the people I wanted to work with. Money was no object. It occurred to me then that in choosing this, I would have to leave behind my wife and child, as they could not go where I was going.”
With utter clarity Lech saw what lay in store for him if he continued to travel down this road.
“I sensed what it would be like to be a soul plummeting into darkness in a powerful, appallingly hopeless and terrible free-fall.”
As the crashing rhythms and dazzling lights threatened to take control of the young man, Lech found himself falling on his knees and crying out the words of the Lord’s Prayer. To this day, Lech credits the power of God for his deliverance from the dark presences he experienced that night.
This journalist contacted Lech and asked him to explain what he experienced on the techno scene as a camera operator.
LSN: When you came to Germany as a young man in the mid 80s, what was happening in your life at this time?
Lech Dokowicz: I left Poland in 1984 when I was only 18 years old and I ended up in Munich in Germany. I worked at the Bavarian National Opera as a lighting technician. Finally I started working in television, where after a few years I met a Swiss camera operator. It is thanks to him that I chose to become a camera operator.
In my private life, I was a typical self-centered young man. My goals were simple – every year I had to have a larger car, travel further, to own more expensive clothes… In time, and because of many bad decisions that I made, I became a terrible egoist and cynic.
LSN: How were you involved in the emerging techno culture? What did you bring to it? What kind of a person did you become in this culture?
LD: I partied along with my friends at these large techno events where some ten thousand people would gather. During one of these events, I came up with the idea for creating an acoustic device that would stimulate the brain, but this system was complicated and costly. A friend said that he would introduce me to a person who would be able to figure out if it would be worthwhile to work on this system. This is how I got to know Peter [who would become my mentor].
From our first meeting I got the impression that I was dealing with a genius – someone with encyclopedic knowledge who had the ability to do immediate analysis and to create solutions and who possessed rare artistic talent. Gradually I started to adopt his world-view. I opened myself up to the world of energies and undefined forces. I learned about an art and a culture created by people who viewed the world in a very different way than most of the people whom I had met up to this point. This was a very strong experience for me and it seemed that I had found what I had been looking for a long time.
During that time I could no longer tell the difference between good and evil, or to be more precise in my case, the difference between darkness and light. I had a completely distorted view of truth, good and beauty. I took their substitutes as being the originals.
LSN: Why was your mentor interested in you and your skills as a camera operator?
LD: I worked primarily with and for Peter. Using special techniques, I filmed various events for him. I used these materials to create films, which were shown during big events, these films acted on people’s subconscious and influenced them spiritually.
LSN: Why are there so many lights and lasers at these huge rave events?
LD: First I will explain why symbols have such a significant meaning in the spiritual world. A symbol is the sign of a ritual, and behind a ritual there is a presence – either that of the Holy Spirit or of a fallen demonic spirit.
Culturally we all give certain symbols the same meaning. Occultists give these same symbols another meaning, different from the widely accepted meaning. By knowing this second meaning, we can understand the producers’ real intentions and the message they are trying to tell with their albums, films or images. This method of communication is used to create a spiritual dimension and to express the spiritual intention of various works.
People who craft various occult works have certain spiritual limits. On the spiritual level they are unable to create or invent anything new. Instead, they copy the works of the Creator, under the guise of light, creating weak plagiarisms with the spiritual intention of separating man from God. In this way, the symbols used in the techno scene, for example, help to create a space for demonic beings to act in. This is an anti-church with its own priests (DJs) along with believers (the youth coming to party) with its own para-liturgical celebration of the body through music, images and lights, whose goal is to give tribute to demons and to destroy humans.
LSN: In your experience, is there a diabolical spirituality behind the techno movement?
LD: In my opinion, this youth movement was, from the very beginning, inspired by demons. For instance, thanks to this movement, narcotics, which at the end of the 80s were still treated by most young people as a very negative phenomenon, became in the first half of the 90s something that was completely acceptable for around 30% of youth in first world countries. By 1995 every weekend in Germany, around 2 million tablets of MDMA (known commonly as Ecstasy) were consumed – which even just a few years earlier would have been unthinkable.
This movement originated and developed most rapidly in the great metropolises of the world. It affected the rhythm of life and the sensitivity of the youth who live in concrete deserts, who commune daily with electronics, and who live life in the fast-lane, constantly searching for newer experiences. It overtook a developing world and gave them a certain rhythm. Today we can say that the movement has already reached its climax, and is now morphing into various novelties, all of which receive their inspiration from the dimension of darkness. What this movement left behind was a world of night madness, hedonism, narcotics and overturned moral values that have become the foundation for building a new civilization – a civilization without God.
LSN: In your experience, what is at the core of the music itself?
LD: Some of the creators of this music are under the direct influence of demons. The demonic impressions are reflected in the music’s expression, which the inventors experience when in contact with the demons. The music is created in honor of evil spirits and becomes part of the space that encourages their actions. Satan is God’s monkey, so music that is made in his honor also has an influence on those who listen. The same spiritual mechanisms can be applied to images, lights and lasers.
LSN: What did you discover the techno movement to be all about on the night of the rave in 1997?
That night, in a completely clear manner, I understood that the people with whom I worked with were Satanists. They were destroying the souls of young people around the whole world. Through them I was subjected to a demonic initiation that was supposed to lead me into choosing and serving Satan as my lord. Through the grace of God and the intercession of the Virgin Mary, along with 17 years of my mother’s prayers, this initiation did not occur. In fact the opposite happened: I received the great gift of conversion. Since that time I have started a new life in the Catholic Church.
LSN: What message do you have for young people who are caught up in the rave and techno scene?
LD: My message is simple: There is only one Holy Trinity of God in Three Persons, the God of Isaac and Jacob, Who revealed to us the truth about Himself through His Son Jesus Christ. Repent and believe in the Gospel. Whoever believes will be saved, whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Leading pro-abort defends illegal UK sex-selective abortions after undercover sting
LONDON, February 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While the revelations that British doctors are performing illegal sex-selective abortions has caused a furor in the media, abortion advocates have lost little time defending the practice.
The day after the Daily Telegraph published the results of an undercover “sting” operation that showed the law was being routinely flouted, Marge Berer, a major player in the international abortion movement, wrote that a doctor can justify sex-selective abortion on the grounds that the woman’s health may be endangered by the abuse she will suffer from male relatives “whose cultures practise discrimination against women and girls” if she gives birth to a girl.
Berer is the founding editor of the online magazine Reproductive Health Matters and has been the chair of the Steering Committee of the International Consortium for Medical Abortion since 2002. She contends that sex-selection can be justified by “taking the woman’s social situation into account, and because the woman’s physical and mental health and well-being may be at risk, and also her existing children.”
“The potential for abuse of a woman by her husband and family, and poor treatment of and even purposeful neglect of girl children (leading to poor development and even death), are common outcomes in Asian cultures that demand that women produce boys.”
Berer continues, “Moreover, it is also the case that a woman may not want another baby anyway, for other valid reasons, and fetal sex may be the only acceptable excuse she can give in her family situation for seeking an abortion.”
She reiterates the pure abortionist ideology, saying, “I believe health professionals and everyone who is pro-choice on abortion should support pro-choice doctors and women seeking abortions, whatever their reasons, even when sex selection may be involved.”
Berer blasted the Telegraph for what she called an “unethical” attack on abortionists, saying their aim was only to “stigmatise abortion and women who have abortions, to frighten women and abortion providers that they are breaking the law, and to seek to restrict the law on abortion.”
While the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has called sex-selective abortion “morally repugnant” and illegal, and today police have reportedly visited the Telegraph offices, Berer pointed out that the law does not contain a specific prohibition against sex-selection.
Meanwhile, pro-life advocates have condemned Britain’s abortion law, the provisions of which are regularly interpreted by doctors to allow abortion on nearly any justification, filed under the sweeping grounds of the woman’s “mental or physical health.”
The British government’s own statistics show that 185,000 of the of the UK’s 200,000 annual abortions, 92 percent, are granted under the “mental health” grounds, but a review by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) published in December last year, showed that abortion does not improve mental health outcomes for women with unplanned pregnancies. In fact, the review found that in some circumstances the risk of serious mental health issues increases after abortion.
Dr. Peter Saunders, head of the Christian Medical Fellowship, contends that this means that the great majority of Britain’s abortions are being carried out illegally. Saunders wrote today that the Telegraph’s revelations are just the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to illegal abortions.
“By forcefully making the point that some abortions (ie. for sex selection) are illegal [Health Secretary Lansley] has already opened the question as to where exactly the line should be drawn.”
“Having started asking questions, Mr. Lansley may now find it very difficult to stop, because in reality sex selection abortions are actually just the tip of a large iceberg of illegal activity.”
The Abortion Act 1967 does not specify any particular circumstance under which it is illegal to have an abortion. The Act is worded entirely in the negative, listing only those circumstances under which an offense has not been committed. This means that it does not give any provision for prohibiting abortions under specific circumstances, including for reasons of sex selection.
In addition, it provides for no penalty for coercion of abortion or if the woman is under age, both recognized by both social workers and police as ongoing problems in Britain’s Asian community.
The law requires two doctors to sign off for each abortion, but specifies that the requirement can be waived if one physician “is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.”
In 2007 Dr. Vincent Argent, the former medical director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology committee, saying that there is widespread abuse around signing of abortion permission forms.
He said he had personally witnessed doctors signing batches of forms before patients are even seen for consultation. He said that doctors commonly sign the forms with no knowledge of the particular patient and without reading the notes, without seeing or examining the patients and even signing after the abortion has been completed. Forms are regularly faxed to other locations for signature and in some cases, abortion facilities use signature stamps without any consultation with the doctor.
At that time, the Labour government’s Health Secretary did nothing about these allegations.
Evangelical group releases compilation of Canadian abortion polling statistics since 2007
OTTAWA, February 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Centre for Faith and Public Life released a comprehensive report this week on data from recognized polling and survey companies on the topic of abortion in Canada for the period of 2007-2012.
The report is organized topically, with information regarding the number of surveyed participants, the year the survey was conducted as well as the wording of the question itself, in order to assist readers in evaluation of the data.
The EFC says it hopes that the document, by providing specific information, will assist writers with drafting of articles, columns and blogs as well as preparation for interviews and debates.
Some of the data presented points to Canadians’ woeful lack of knowledge about their country’s current abortion laws.
In one 2008 poll by Angus Reid Strategies and Signal Hill, 1004 survey participants across Canada were asked, “As far as you know, when can an abortion be performed in Canada?” Sixty-one percent of respondents said, “Only in the first three months of gestation,” while 19% said they were “Not sure.” In fact Canada allows abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.
In answer to the question, “Before today, were you aware that publicly subsidized abortions in Ontario cost taxpayers at least $30 million per year?” 91% of said, “No” and only 9% said, “Yes.” That question was posed in a 2011 poll by Abacus Data and surveyed 1014 participants in Ontario.
With regard to sex-selective abortion and gendercide, the data reveals ambivalence among Canadians who support unrestricted abortion for any reason but believe sex-selected abortions should be illegal.
While 48% of respondents said abortion should be “Legal under any circumstances” to the question, “Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” in a 2010 poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion, 92% said sex-selective abortion “Should not be legal” in Canada according to a 2011 poll by Environics of 2000 survey participants across Canada who were asked “Do you think sex-selected abortions should or should not be legal in Canada?”
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada report titled, “Abortion Polls in Canada: A Compilation by Topic of Opinion Polling in Canada from 2007-2012” is available here.
EDITORIAL: Canada’s new tyranny: the state’s takeover of the family
February 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The great English writer G.K. Chesterton once wrote: “The family is the test of freedom; because the family is the only thing that the free man makes for himself and by himself.”
But if what Chesterton says is true, then Canada fails the test, because the Canadian family is no longer free.
In the past week we have witnessed the Supreme Court of Canada dismiss the appeal of a Quebec family for permission to exempt their child from that province’s controversial ethics and religious culture course, which critics say is “relativistic,” and teaches that all religious are equally valid. And we have heard a spokesperson for the Alberta education minister state that under the province’s new Education Act even homeschooling parents will no longer be allowed to teach their children traditional Christian sexual ethics.
These two developments come amidst the ongoing efforts of the Ontario government to impose their “equity” program, “diversity” curriculum, and transparently ideological “anti-bullying” bill on all schools – whether Catholic or public. Already the largest school board in the province has said that parents will not be permitted to exempt their children from parts of the curriculum they deem unacceptable.
It is perhaps ironic that this has happened at the same time that the Canadian Parliament voted a second time to repeal the country’s much-ballyhooed Section 13 “Hate Crimes” provision, which has been used to drag conservatives and Christians through lengthy and expensive “human rights” proceedings for nothing more than publicly speaking opinions that someone else deemed “offensive.”
But while the Canadian Human Rights Commission may soon no longer be able to use Section 13 as the club to beat politically incorrect Christians into submission, or at the very least into silence, the Canadian provinces are doing their very best simply to make sure there won’t be any more such Christians in the first place. Mandatory “diversity” education imposed on all schools, including home schools, without parental right to opt out is the chosen method to achieve this goal.
But those who care about freedom and democracy must call out and oppose this effort for what it is – tyranny.
While even conservative commentators are urging caution in the interpretation of last week’s Supreme Court ruling, which was narrow in scope and not the final word on the Quebec course, what is certain is that the decision, whether intentionally or not, has already sent a booming message across Canada: namely, that the authority to educate children comes from the state, and not from parents. The decision leaves the distinct impression that the state is no longer in loco (in the place of) parentis, but is the parent, and holds the final say in matters of education.
While the justices demurred from deciding with finality whether the Quebec course violates the parents’ ability to transmit their faith to their child, because there was insufficient information about the course and its content entered into evidence to make that decision, this reasoning ignores the central point: namely, that it doesn’t matter whether the court thinks the course really harms the parents’ ability to raise their child in the faith. The important thing is that the parents think it does.
In saying that it needs more proof that the course harms the parents’ rights in this way, the court is implicitly saying that it doesn’t believe the parents, and might very well know better than them. But it should be obvious that the parents, and not the court, are in a far better position to say whether the course is hampering their ability to educate their child according to their values: because it is their child, and their values.
Given that Quebec has also imposed the course on private and home schools - thereby leaving the parents without even the option of escaping the course by withdrawing their child from the public system - it is difficult to see how the Supreme Court arrived at any other conclusion than that the course obviously violates the parents’ rights, regardless of its content.
Let’s be perfectly clear: parents are the first and primary educators of their children, not the state. Period. This principle is the basis of a free and democratic society. Wrest this authority from parents for any reason less grave than serious abuse or neglect, and you have not simply paved the way for tyranny, but you already have a tyranny. For without the right to educate our children as we choose according to the values we choose, what do we have left? State-imposed orthodoxy. Totalitarianism.
The only difference between the totalitarianism of other regimes and the totalitarianism being imposed by the Canadian provinces is that the Canadian breed of totalitarianism is couched in the Orwellian doublespeak of “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” and “diversity.” But simply because the language is new and more soothing does not make the reality any less frightening.
We who have witnessed the slow but steady drumbeat of Canada’s soft tyranny know by now that “tolerance” increasingly applies only to those who hold to the official state-sanctioned opinions, or who remain silent; “multiculturalism” is only deemed a virtue insofar as the cultures in question jettison any part of their heritage that might be deemed “offensive”; while “diversity” is mainly a celebration of superficial differences whilst demanding a deeper ideological similitude.
If, as Chesterton says, the family is the ultimate test of freedom, then homeschooling is the ultimate expression of that freedom. For homeschooling is founded on the radical notion that when it comes to the most important things in life – most especially the raising and educating of children – it is the common man who is to be trusted, and not the “expert” or the state. It is not coincidental that this is the same principle that stands at the very root of democracy.
By explicitly targeting homeschoolers, and/or by explicitly forbidding the right of parental opt-out, the Quebec, Ontario and Alberta governments have played their hand. They have made it clear that they will tolerate no dissent, and that, as the source and symbol of freedom, they fear the family. Perhaps this all sounds eerily familiar. It should, if you have studied any history. Every attempt to create a totalitarian regime begins with this attempt to eradicate, or at the very least mitigate the influence of the family: to tear the roof off the family home and to reach the fingers of the state inside.
Don’t let them do it.
Dear England, I’m very confused. Is abortion a ‘woman’s choice’ or is it ‘morally repugnant’?
I won’t ask if you are doing well, because I read the news every day and I already know. But I hope you will be well enough to help me clarify a few things that have appeared in the news in the last day or so that have confused me.
Yesterday, it seems everyone flew into a tizzy because the Daily Telegraph reported that abortion facilities are allowing women to abort their children if the child is the “wrong” sex. The papers and politicians are saying that “sex-selective abortion” is illegal and “morally wrong.” In fact, the whole business has upset everyone so much that Scotland Yard is now involved.
But I’m afraid I just don’t understand, England. Hadn’t you accepted the abortionist movement’s assertion that abortion is always a “woman’s choice”? Isn’t it supposed to be entirely a “private decision between the woman and her doctor”? I had understood that you believe it is the woman’s choice alone that makes the act “moral.”
Yet here we have one of your elected officials, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, saying yesterday, “sex-selective abortion is morally wrong” because it isn’t on the list of accepted reasons. Today he wrote in The Telegraph: “Carrying out an abortion on the grounds of gender alone is in my view morally repugnant.”
Do I understand this correctly? It is morally wrong to kill someone specifically because she is a girl (and I am going to assume specifically because he is a boy, though this seems never to be mentioned out loud), but you can certainly kill a girl because you just don’t really feel like having a child at all, of either sex.
Or, as the law currently permits, if the girl is suspected of being “severely handicapped”? To clarify: it is morally wrong to kill a child specifically because she is female, but not morally wrong to kill a child who has Down’s syndrome, but just happens to be female at the same time? Or, to look at it another way, is it “morally repugnant,” as Mr. Lansley says, to kill a female child who, let us say, has a cleft palate or a club foot and who also happens to be female if your reason is not a loathing of these malformations but a loathing of female children? This seems odd because the end result is precisely the same.
I would like to ask you, and Mr. Lansley, according to what criteria is an act “morally wrong”? What possible difference does it make to anyone what reason is given on the forms? Isn’t the whole point of legalized abortion to allow women to kill their children? If we have established that it is ever morally permissible to do this, does it matter so very much why they want to?
England, you say that the woman has to have, or, more to the point, has to say she has the correct, socially approved reasons. But if you have accepted that a woman can kill her child, that in some cases doing so is even a meritorious act, how does this killing ever become “morally repugnant” if it is carried out for some reason that does not make the current list of socially approved reasons?
Also, could I ask, England, who makes this list? Where does it come from? How are the criteria for “morally repugnant” and illegal and the criteria for legal and meritorious decided?
It certainly doesn’t come from your ancient Christian heritage, that says deliberate killing of an innocent is morally wrong all by itself, whatever the reason given. Nor does it come from your 1000 years of jurisprudence that established civil liberties based on the person’s inherent rights as a human being. It also doesn’t come from traditional medical ethics, the ancient cornerstone of which is “Do no harm” to anyone, mother or child, and which specifies that no doctor can give a woman a “pessary to cause an abortion”.
At the risk of sounding impertinent, where did you get the idea that abortion is acceptable under any circumstances? Who exactly told you that? And why did you suddenly decide to believe it?
If the list of morally acceptable reasons for abortion is derived from the general social opinion, what happens if and when that changes? What if you, England, become a society dominated by a culture that thinks it is not the least bit “morally repugnant” to kill girls before or after birth? Will this mean that it is still, objectively, immoral? Will you change the law?
Once you have established that a woman can kill her unborn child, what is the point of maintaining any sort of pretense of moral outrage if the reason for killing is not to your personal liking or the personal liking of your politicians? Why retain these oddly archaic, traditional moral restrictions at all? Does this not seem somewhat contradictory?
The Telegraph’s video clip of a Dr. Raj approving an abortion more or less sums up the whole problem. The pregnant woman tells Dr. Raj, “I want to kill this child because she’s a girl…” What happens next?
“Is that the reason?” Dr Raj asks. “That’s not fair. It’s like female infanticide isn’t it?”
The solution becomes clear in an instant: simply put down some other reason. Dr. Raj says, “I’ll put too young for pregnancy, yeah?” Because everyone in that room, including Dr. Raj and the Telegraph reporter, knows that these regulations are a farce.
Clearly the difficulty you are having, England, is that while abortion comes with a moral framework that admits of no exceptions, politicians know that that framework is not accepted by the general public, which views it as “morally repugnant.” The trick so far to keeping everything going has been to never talk about it. Never let anyone ask the kind of questions I have asked above.
The Telegraph tells us, “The disclosures are likely to lead to growing pressure for pregnant women considering an abortion to be offered independent counseling”. And Mr. Lansley has said that there will be a “public consultation” on the issue. So it seems we are, at last, going to talk about it.
This seems like a good idea, but I wonder if we are clear about what, exactly, the consultation will ask the public? Mr. Lansley seems to think it is only a matter of women receiving “independent counseling”. “All women seeking an abortion should have the opportunity, if they so choose, to discuss at length and in detail with a professional their decision and the impact it may have,” he says.
But who is going to do this counseling? The staff and operators of these abortion “charities” whose six-figure salaries depend upon abortion? Or independent psychologists who start with the premise that there is nothing morally wrong with killing an unborn child?
Is this what you consider objective and impartial, England? Because it seems that anyone expressing any sort of opposition to the sexual revolution’s values, is likely to automatically be disqualified.
But I wonder, England, are you really ready to face the results of such a public discussion? You are clearly ill at ease with things as they are now. You seem to want to keep the new mores of the sexual revolution operating, while being at the same time deeply conflicted about the direction that ideology is taking you.
Either way, it seems that we are getting close to the time when you will have to decide which way you want to go. These contradictions can no longer be hidden, even from those most determined to ignore rampaging elephants.
Dearest England, if there is to be a consultation, I do hope that you will not hesitate to ask the questions I have asked above. Should you ever feel the need to revert back to your previous moral convictions – that something that is “morally wrong” is so because of the nature of the act itself, and not because it contravenes the strictures of some ephemeral social trend – please be assured of my whole-hearted support, and that of many more who love you tenderly.
I remain your devoted friend,
French socialist presidential candidate retreats under fire from pro-euthanasia position
February 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - France’s socialist opposition candidate for the nation’s presidential elections in April seems to be backing off from his stated position in favor of legalizing euthanasia, after his opponents attacked his position.
On Saturday, Socialist and Radical Left Party candidate Francois Hollande gave an interview to the French magazine Marianne, claiming that he is now “not favorable” to the legalization of euthanasia. However, he added that he is “for the right to die with dignity.”
“Today, there are 10,000 to 15,000 beds for palliative care, and there is a need for twice that,” said Hollande on Saturday. “When should one decide to end palliative care or not, even if it does reduce suffering? It is necessary to have the expression of the person, of the family, of doctors who must be consulted and at that moment, in some very rare cases, we are talking about an act of compassion that will relieve not the family, but the person.”
Hollande’s words seem to debilitate the position expressed in his campaign platform, which states in “proposition 21” that “all adults in the advanced or terminal phase of an incurable illness, provoking unbearable physical or psychic suffering, and that can not be alleviated, can request, within precise and strict conditions, to receive medical assistance to end their life with dignity.”
Jean Leonetti, the author of France’s current end-of-life law, blasted Hollande’s “vague” new language on the subject.
“It is a serious and complex subject regarding which one cannot be permitted to be vague,” said Leonetti in an interview with Le Figaro. “We are talking about life and death. Being vague is a blameworthy attitude.”
“We’re talking about injecting a deadly product into patients. It’s necessary to say so clearly. ‘To name things badly, is to increase evil in the world,’ Albert Camus said. Francois Holland wants to send out two signals: to simultaneously reassure both those who work for the development of palliative care, as well as the ADMD (Association for the Right to Die with Dignity). It’s not coherent. It’s dishonest,” Leonetti said.
Legalizing euthanasia is “a false good idea” added Leonetti, who noted that Hollande’s proposal seems to be based on the Netherland’s notorious euthanasia regime. “Who will be these experts who have the right to life or death over patients? What criteria would their decisions depend on? This situation would be against our democracy and our values.”
Leonetti’s end-of-life Law, passed in 2005, provides for palliative care for patients, enabling them to have access to pain relief when their suffering becomes extreme. It does not permit euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Two attempts to legalize euthanasia in the last three years have been roundly defeated in the French Parliament, one by the Senate in 2011 and another by the lower house, the National Assembly, in 2009.
Hollande’s principal opponent, President Nicolas Sarkozy, opposes changes in the current law.
“Legalized euthanasia risks leading us to dangerous extremes and would be against our conception of the dignity of human beings,” he told Le Figaro in February. “The Leonetti law is perfectly balanced, and establishes a principle, one which respects life.”
After I was raped I aborted my child, but that only increased the pain
Editor’s note: The following unsigned article is part of HLI America’s series “Testimonies: Finding Hope through the Struggle.” This brave testimony recounts a story of regret for choosing abortion after rape, and finding forgiveness in the love and mercy of Jesus Christ.
February 24, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - My story is not an easy one to tell. However, I think it’s important to try, because I know what it’s like to feel alone. I don’t know who needs to hear this, but I believe in the deepest part of my heart that what I’ve experienced has not been in vain. If talking about what has happened in my life can help one less person to feel like she is struggling by herself, then I will try.
Living for Christ
To begin, I am a convert to Catholicism. My decision to enter into the Church was a long but peaceful one, stemming from a desire to realize God more fully in my life. After a five year period of slowly developing a beautiful relationship with the Lord, I made the decision to be confirmed a Catholic and begin to know Him in a more profound way. The memory of this Sacrament, just after my college graduation, is still one of the most beautiful moments of my life and one that I will hold close to my heart forever.
In the year that followed, I used every opportunity that I could to soak up my newfound faith. To say that I was on fire for God would be putting it lightly. I loved the Lord and I loved His Church. I accepted Catholic teaching and Church doctrine easily. I was happy and involved; I felt as though I had found what I had always been looking for. As I reflect upon this period, I see it very much as a time that the Lord used to draw me intensely close to Him, almost as though He were fitting me with the armor that I would need in the years to come.
An Attack on My Person, and My Faith
One particular night, I left a long day of work to meet some friends at praise and worship event at our local parish. It was truly a beautiful evening and when I left, I felt refreshed and alive. When I got home I did the normal things that I would do to unwind on any night. I listened to music, wrote in my journal for a while and finally went to sleep after midnight.
I woke up just a few hours later to what sounded like doors slamming. The commotion definitely got my attention, but I barely thought anything of it. In retrospect, it is utterly painful for me to recollect what a false sense of security I had. It did not even begin to cross my mind that something was wrong, or that I might be unsafe. I just fell back to sleep. The next thing that I realized, there was a man walking into my bedroom. Any delusion of safety that I’d had immediately vanished.
In the hours that followed, I encountered absolute evil – I was beaten severely and raped several times. A virgin up until this point, I remember a feeling of anger toward God beginning almost instantaneously. After all, wasn’t I trying my hardest to follow Him? Wasn’t I maintaining purity and doing everything that I thought He wanted me to do? Why would He allow this to happen? In a moment of complete desperation, I begged my attacker to kill me. In my mind, surely death would have been better than withstanding one more moment of that terror. He did not kill me, however. He just vanished, as mysteriously as he’d appeared, into the early morning hours, leaving me all alone.
The next day at the hospital remains a blur to this day. I spoke with more police, received more stitches and cried more tears than I ever thought was possible. A kind doctor, who I believe really was trying to help me, asked if I wanted to receive emergency contraception. Actually, it was offered to me in a way that seemed like it was assumed that it is what I would do. Surely I would not want to become pregnant from such an act. Surely this was the logical next step. I weakly accepted it and felt relieved that this would be the last I’d ever have to think about it.
Abortion Only Adds Pain and Guilt
The weeks that followed were emotional and messy. I moved in with my family and made my way, day by day, clinging to their love and support. I definitely did not feel well, but figured that was due to having just sustained severe emotional and physical trauma. About a month later, at a follow up visit, my doctor asked me if I could be pregnant. My mind could not even begin to wrap itself around this as a possibility. After all, I’d taken emergency contraception at the hospital. Moreover, there was no way that God would choose to create life from something so horrific. There was no way that I could be pregnant.
But I was.
It devastated me to my very core. What is usually beautiful and happy news for women made me want to rip my skin off. I felt completely disgusted. I hated myself, I hated God and I hated the child that I was carrying.
I left the doctor’s office that day unsure of what I would do. I knew abortion was wrong and went against everything I had believed up until that point. At the same time, I had no ability to process what was happening in my life. I couldn’t even tell anyone. I was shocked, embarrassed and disgusted with myself. In the week that followed, anger and fear built up in my heart until I felt I had no other option. There was no other choice. My child was three and a half weeks old when I made the decision to have an abortion, killing him and wounding my heart forever. I was completely alone and sure that God would never forgive me.
A few years passed and I tried my best to forget what happened. Stitches were removed, wounds healed and even scars began to fade. From an outside perspective, I looked as though I was doing much better, but my heart was plagued with the decision that I’d made. I could never fully push it away, despite my best efforts.
I put up a good front, pretending that everything was fine. In reality, I had found my way to a secret life of drugs, alcohol and just about anything else I could do to numb the pain I felt inside my heart. I wanted nothing to do with God. I had not told even one soul what I’d done and I was certain that I never would.
Finding Forgiveness in God’s Love
God had different plans, however. He gently began to call me back to Him. He put people into my life who I felt that I could trust, people who did not judge me and loved me as I was. Through these people I began to remember that I needed God. I needed forgiveness. My heart, at long last, was brought back to life when I finally received the Sacrament of Reconciliation for my abortion. I began to heal, and Jesus was there to pick up the pieces.
Now, nearly five years removed from the decision to have my abortion, I can say with some certainty that I regret it to the fullest extent possible. My heart hurts deeply with the wounds that came from my assault. But the pain of knowing that I will never meet my child hurts more deeply. While I continue to wonder how I could have coped with having a baby from rape, I know that killing him did nothing to heal my pain.
I have taken a lot of time recently to think about my child. I have always believed that God took him straight to Heaven; I do not believe that he suffered and I know that Jesus holds him close.
Why should I tell my story? I am writing this because I know that abortion hurts women.
I know that the devil plays on the hearts of the confused and vulnerable and that many women are left alone and feel like they have no choice.
I know that many women carry this deep wound, alone, for years; maybe even forever.
I know this, because this is my story. But my story does not end here.
I believe that every life, no matter how long or short, has a purpose. I believe that at least part of the purpose of my child’s life was to help me become the woman that God intends me to be. My identity is forever changed because of my child; no matter how he came into this world, or how he left it. I hope that with God’s infinite mercy and grace that I can embrace this new identity and continue to grow closer to Him; to be a daughter, a sister, a friend and a mother.
February 24, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - If you are around young children very often, you’re probably familiar with the Olivia the Pig series. My niece loves those books. But you’re probably not as familiar with Oliver the Egg. Let me tell you about him. Christopher Franceschelli has written a cute book about Oliver, who is really a chick growing inside of an egg.
Since I’d really not enjoy being sued for copyright violations, I won’t quote this entire six sentence book. Suffice it to say that Mr. Franceschelli describes the very few things that Oliver could do as an egg. He says, “But he was simply an egg and that was that.”
This little book (while very cute) completely misses the boat on science. It’s final pages say, “until one day” (with a picture of an egg) “everything changed” (with a picture of a chick). While rather entertaining for a small child, this book lacks any scientific or accurate value. It’s patently untrue to say that, before hatching, a chick is “simply an egg.” Uh, no. It’s an unhatched chick inside an egg.
Oliver serves to illustrate the general lack of scientific and medical knowledge that many people and some pro-lifers have about the beginning of human life. When exactly does human life begin? Is there such a thing as a “fertilized egg”? What’s the accurate term to call a new human being at the earliest stages? Can we really prove from science that we should defend all human life? What do medical experts say about this issue? Pro-lifers need to be more knowledgeable about what we are for and why we believe what we believe.
1. When exactly does human life begin? What do the medical experts say?
Well, the very simplest way to answer this question is to say “at the beginning.” What a novel thought. Honestly, though, pick up any embryology textbook (yes, doubters, please go do this), and you will find that these textbooks teach that a new, unique human being (i.e., not the potential for life, but an actual life) begins at the moment of fertilization; the moment the sperm meets the egg.
To clarify even further, an egg or a sperm are “potential life” because, under the right circumstances, they can combine to create a new, unique human being. However, once that combination (fertilization) occurs, we are talking about an actual human being.
Don’t want to take my word for it? I don’t blame you. Read from these experts:
“(Fertilization is) that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.” Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in Biology of Gestation Volume One
“A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” Encyclopedia Britannica
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception….I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage….” Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni—professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the U. of Penn
2. Is there such a thing as a “fertilized egg”?
Uh, no. Only in the biased minds of A LOT of media and Planned Parenthood and company. Several politicians and others also parrot this term commonly. But really, to call a new, unique human being a fertilized egg is just ignorance (or blatant lies) talking. There’s a really BIG difference between an egg or sperm and a human being.
Fertilization is the means by which a new human being is usually created, but that human being is never a fertilized egg. He or she is a human being at the very moment that fertilization occurs. “Fertilized egg” is an ignorant, dehumanizing, and VERY unscientific term.
3. What’s the accurate term to call a new human being at the early stages?
Well, if you want to use scientific terms, the early stages of human growth and development include: blastocyst, zygote, embryo, and fetus. You may think these don’t sound any better than “fertilized egg”, but “fertilized egg” does nothing to communicate the fact that a new human being is actually who we’re talking about. At least the scientific terms are human and living terms. They communicate that who we’re talking about is human and living.
It would also be perfectly fine to call an unborn child at any stage exactly that…an unborn child, baby, etc. We don’t tend to refer to any other human being by the scientific stage of growth they’re in, after all!
Along these lines, it’s also important to note that humans continually move through different growth and development stages throughout our lives. These stages just happen more rapidly when we first start to grow. If you think about it, though, why should a “zygote” be any less worthy of protection than an “adolescent”? Every person (who lives that long) goes through every stage and is the exact same person at each stage. Their value shouldn’t—and doesn’t—change as they go along.
Ok, so there you go, in a nutshell. We pro-lifers have no excuse to fail to understand or be able to explain exactly how and when human life begins from a scientific standpoint. If you believe that every human is worthy of protection, here’s your scientific basis for arguing that a new human life begins at the moment of fertilization and ought to be protected from that point.
One last thing. All pro-lifers should read this research paper, or at least the section on science. It’s incredible! I’d also suggest that before you disagree with anything I’ve written here, you read the paper. If, after that, you disagree, let’s hear what you have to say.
February 24, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - In the summer of 2006 I needed an internship in order to graduate from college. I had partied away through the first two and a half years of college until one day I realized that I might be left behind by my girlfriend and then working a job that I hated. So, I anxiously ripped out 80 credits in two years. I was finally in position to graduate; only thing left is the internship. I was so excited to finish school. I had the proud feeling of “I did it” deep within me.
So, I had an inside scoop within state government and submitted my application to the governor’s office hoping to obtain the prestigious internship. On paper it was a “non-political” internship and I would be working everyday as a public civil servant instead of having political affiliation with the governor whose political views I did not share. So that is what I told myself.
I was very sensitive to my position being a “non-partisan position” due to the fact that I did not agree with the governor’s stance on abortion. I wanted the internship and “on paper” I had nothing to do with any such political agenda of the governor’s so I was all set and I was hired as the intern.
Life was great as I was on schedule to finally graduate and move on to an exciting chapter in my life.
One day during the internship all young student-interns were asked to go down the road and join a rally – sounded very exciting. News, all kinds of media, standing around next to the governor – wow, what a portfolio builder!
As I get there, I see picket lines of people screaming with passion towards a fiery crowd. It was all coming together – this was a pro-choice rally supporting abortion.
I was overcome with the “you’re in a place you shouldn’t be” feeling and my chest pulsated as I started to walk up towards the crowd. I could feel a thick coat of judgment and resentment from not only the picketers looking at me but also me being disappointed in myself.
I told myself, “this is a great perspective for me. I am adding credibility to my stance as a pro-lifer going ‘behind enemy lines.”
Deep down I knew that I was just telling myself that so I could avoid being brave and also add comfort to the horrendous situation I found myself in. “Here you go, hold on to this sign” a voice said to me. “No thanks” I responded. And that was as bold as I had gotten that day. That was the extent of my bravery.
Join the pro-lifers in a heroic demonstration? Nope. Forget about the internship and follow what I believe right then and there and not care about the repercussions of doing so? Nope – I stood like a statue telling myself I am “gaining perspective.”
I didn’t need any more perspective at the time. I didn’t need to witness a politician slamming her fists on a podium yelling about how a woman should have the right to choose abortion. The only perspective I obtained that day was how weak I was as a person and failed to stand up for what I believe in.
I had one agenda – disregard my personal beliefs and what I think is right if that means obtaining the things I want in life. I left the rally with deep regret.
I will never forget being on the “other side” of that rally and walking past the pro-lifers. My entire body wanted to lunge to them and embrace their passion with love and support and join them – but instead I did nothing. And to this day I don’t do enough.
The guilt I feel when I think about that day is grueling. I try to use that day as an example of how I get caught up with what I want instead of listening to God and how I turn away from what is good in order for my own pursuits.
MESA, ARIZONA, February 23, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)—At the last Republican presidential debate before voters in Michigan and Arizona cast their votes, Newt Gingrich labeled Barack Obama the real abortion “extremist” because of his opposition to a bill that would have required doctors to care for babies who were born alive after failed abortions - a vote Gingrich said condoned “infanticide.”
The audience booed CNN moderator John King at Wednesday night’s debate in Mesa, Arizona, when he asked if each candidate “believes in birth control.”
The former House speaker, who has a habit of reformulating questions during debates, told King, “I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign—not once did anybody in the elite media—ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”
President George W. Bush signed the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002. The federal bill had passed the U.S. House in an overwhelming 380-15 vote, with a majority of outspokenly pro-abortion representatives still supporting the legislation. Even after NARAL withdrew its opposition to the federal version of the bill, Obama had continued to oppose the state version.
“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion,” Gingrich said. “It is not the Republicans.”
King’s question targeted Rick Santorum, who has been outspoken in his opposition to abortion and about his belief in his church’s teachings on contraception. In October, Santorum told an interviewer, “One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”
At Wednesday’s debate, he affirmed his opposition to sex outside marriage and the rising illegitimacy rate, which is now 40 percent.
“Here’s the difference between me and the Left - and they don’t get this,” Santorum said. “Just because I’m talking about it doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it. That’s what they do. That’s not what we do.”
Black pro-life leader: ‘We don’t have to kill our children to be successful’
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 23, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A black pro-life leader is fighting back against comments from the black outreach director of Planned Parenthood that advocates for the unborn “could care less” about children once they are born.
Ludwig Gaines, the African American leadership and engagement director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told a reporter from CNSNews.com that those who supported an abortion ban under consideration in Congress were guilty of “hypocrisy” that “needs to be exposed.”
“Quite frankly, if you look at the records of the proponents of this bill and others who would support it, they are the very same people who will not support after-school care, or food stamps, or other programs meant to elevate communities of color,” Gaines said.
“Suddenly, they’re concerned about black children quite frankly prior to birth, but could care less once they arrive.”
Gaines’ comments were made in opposition to a bill introduced by Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, that would not allow abortionists inside Washington, D.C., city limits to abort children at 20 weeks of gestation or older. Under the Constitution, Congress exercises control over the District of Columbia.
Day Gardener, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, told LifeSiteNews.com that Planned Parenthood has been marketing abortion to the black community since its founding. “The whole Negro Project back in [the 1930s] was to do exactly that,” she said.
Margaret Sanger, a supporter of racial eugenics who once addressed the Ku Klux Klan, “hired – and I think that’s a key word there – charismatic leaders and ministers and community leaders, those people who they knew could get the message of death across to their congregations, communities, and neighborhoods.”
Even today, “people for money…will continue to perpetrate this horrible lie that we need to kill our children to have a better life,” Gardener told LifeSiteNews.
“We don’t have to kill our children to be successful or educated,” she said. “As a matter of fact, our children will make us better.”
She said that Gaines’ words were disingenuous and misleading. “If you do not allow [babies] to be born they have no life at all,” she said.
Pro-life advocates have long noted the disproportionate rate of abortion in the black community. Rev. Walter B. Hoye II, president and founder of the Issues4Life Foundation, told this year’s March for Life, “Even though we are only 12 percent of the population, we account for over 30 percent of all abortion in this country.” Sixty percent of black babies in New York City are aborted. Pastor Luke Robinson told marchers abortion was “genocidal” and “the destruction of a people.”
“Where is the voice of President Obama? Where is the voice of Jesse Jackson? Where is the voice of Al Sharpton? Where is the voice of the Black Congressional Caucus?” he asked.
Gardener said pro-lifers love children, and their mothers, before and after pregnancy by providing medical care, vitamins, and housing to some prospective mothers. “Then they provide what the mother needs afterwards – like formula, diapers, car seats, and cribs,” she said.
“I think the sad thing is that we are taught to believe this lie that we need all these subsidized programs from the government,” Gardener told LifeSiteNews. “I believe that we should do as God intended, that we reach out a hand and help each other.”
The high abortion rate among blacks has had unforeseen and negative consequences on their political power, as well, Gardner said.
In the 1960s, “everybody wanted to reach out to us and get our vote, especially the Democrats,” she said. “We were a voting bloc.”
“Now they are courting the Hispanics, because we are no longer the largest minority in the United States.”
“They feel, ‘OK, we have the blacks in our pocket, so let’s go and court the Hispanic vote.’ That’s what everyone seems to be doing, especially the more liberal people who are running for office.”
“They’re saying we’re not as important, because we’re not that big voting bloc anymore,” she said.
Advances such as 3-D ultrasounds have changed the minds of many members of the younger generation. “I’m excited about the fact that a lot of young blacks get it,” Gardener said. “We are seeing a turn in the black community that is exciting.”
“Now we’re at a place where we really have to work together, all of us unite again to save the lives of all children.”