Ryan Bomberger

Fact-checking my interview with MSNBC after the March for Life

Ryan Bomberger
By Ryan Bomberger

January 29, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - By now, everyone knows that mainstream media once again neglected its duty to inform the American public. Most turned a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands that participated in the March for Life on Friday, January 25th in DC.  The MSM was sure to cover the barely one thousand anti-gun/anti-2nd Amendment protestors who assembled at the same National Mall. ABC News, and many media outlets, oddly highlighted Newark Mayor Corey Booker, though, for his deep humanity in his “heroic” act to save the life of a freezing dog! Way to cover the important stuff.

MSNBC hasn't been silent on the abortion issue at all. Granted, they've taken the 40th Anniversary of Roe to heavily promote it through many hosts like Maddow, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Toure. They even invited the nation’s largest abortion chain’s spokesperson, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, to discuss the need to increase access to abortion (as if there's any lack of access now). MSNBC Host Toure had no lack of access. He "thanked God for abortion" explaining how he was in a "committed" relationship when his girlfriend got pregnant. But he knew she wasn't "the one". So much for "commitment.” She had an abortion. He thanks God.

There’s nothing like news media personalities shilling for killing.

As hard left as MSNBC feels it needs to lean to go forward, we give them kudos for asking The Radiance Foundation to share our perspective. We just don't think they were prepared for a pro-life advocate (an adoptee and adoptive father) who wasn't taking the liberal pro-abortion bait.

Breaking down the facts

Craig Melvin, who is one of MSNBC's most cordial hosts, tried to tout the latest deceptive NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. In the first question of the survey, 41% responded that they didn't have enough of an opinion of Roe v. Wade to state whether they felt it should be overturned or not. In other words...they didn't know what the Roe decision is. This is from their own poll. Shouldn't that invalidate the survey? Of course not. The false conclusion continued. And so did the deception in the poll Question #21 (the second question on the abbreviated version available on MSNBC's site) which claimed Roe allowed abortion within only the first three months of pregnancy. The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling allowed abortion through the point of viability, which at that time was determined to be 7 months. The companion case, Doe v. Bolton, allowed abortion through the rest of the pregnancy, including partial birth abortion. The facts and the news media rarely coexist.

Anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment issue is a red herring 

Any loss of life, regardless of the cause of inflicted death, is tragic. But let's not let the left define the debate. The two issues are not comparable. The number of firearm deaths for 2011 was 31,672 according to the CDC. Of those deaths, 19,392 were intentional (self-inflicted suicide), 606 were from accidental discharge of weapon, 11,078 were homicides, 252 were from undetermined intent. Apparently, the CDC can't figure out the remaining 344 deaths. There were 1,212,250 abortions in the latest reported year (2008) according to the pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood funded Guttmacher Institute. All abortions have the intent to kill human life.

There is no comparison.

More black babies aborted than born alive in NYC, home of Planned Parenthood 

This is the tragedy we expose through our TooManyAborted.com campaign. These aren't "our" numbers, as the MSNBC host suggested. “I have not seen that poll,” Melvin asserted. These numbers are not from a survey. These are reports from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. More black babies are aborted in the home of Planned Parenthood than are born alive! For every 1,000 black babies that are born alive, 1,448 are aborted (38,674 abortions divided by 26,635 live births). A staggering 59.2% of viable black pregnancies were aborted in 2010 (the most recent year reported). This is "reproductive justice"?  Contrast that with 244 white babies aborted for every 1,000 born alive (9,220 abortions divided by 37,780 live births). Any loss of life, as a result of abortion, is a tragedy. Women and children deserve much better than a billion dollar industry that profits from the destruction of human life and fails to prevent unintended pregnancies. (The national unintended pregnancy rate, of 49%, hasn't budged since 1995 reports the CDC, despite Planned Parenthood's syphoning of half a billion taxpayer dollars annually).

New Mexico's new proposed bill to prevent rapists from eliminating the evidence of their crime 

Journalists are supposed to research, not revise. That's exactly what MSNBC tried to do with New Mexico Representative Cathrynn Brown's (R) proposed legislation (HB206) to criminalize forced abortions by those who commit sexual crimes against women. The original language of the bill called out those who had "intent to destroy evidence of the crime". Why in the world would anyone think that that would mean the victim--the pregnant woman--would be incarcerated? Rep. Brown already clarified the bill's language on Friday (a day before this interview) so as to remove any false accusation that women would be jailed, clearly declaring that it prohibits "prosecution of the mother of the fetus."

MSNBC also didn't mention, too, that all nine female Republican NM state representatives signed on as co-sponsors.

No matter the prolife protection, pro-abortion activists and organizations fight against every effort. Abortionists like Kermit Gosnell are free to maim and kill without intervention by many states. Gosnell's House of Horrors in Philadelphia was allowed to commit heinous acts of murder, sterilization and botched abortions for over 10 years. Pro-abortion activists remained silent. The state failed to enforce existing laws. The incredible new documentary, 3801 Lancaster, shows this grisly story. Pro-abortion groups denounced laws passed after Gosnell’s clinic was closed. Go figure. They show their lack of concern for the lives of women and children at every turn. Their actions prove they’re focus is on protecting abortion.

America needs more than media cheerleaders for the abortion industry. We need the truth. And in this MSNBC interview, we speak it.


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook