Last week, I had the opportunity to attend part of the 54^th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the United Nations in New York. The CSW is a UN body with power for global policy-making on issues related to women and gender. Every year delegates from member states meet at UN headquarters in NY to evaluate progress and draft policies to promote women and gender equality. The question of abortion is always hotly debated and presented in a variety of creative forms from anti-life advocates.

With the memory still fresh from my first CSW (five years ago) I was much encouraged this year with the number of pro-life lobbyists present. Most lobbyists fell into two categories: generous college students on Spring Break or fed up pro-life moms from the Midwest! Both groups “made their presence felt;” there was no question that they were a viable force. There were also a significant number of pro-life, pro-family side-sessions, with speakers including Miriam Grossman and Pam Stencil, as well as researchers, MDs, and ObGyns. In particular, one session about the importance of motherhood was attended by approximately 500 persons.

Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, representatives of the Obama Administration weren’t tuned into the pro-life U.S. citizens present (you know, the American people whom they represent). They were more concerned about advocating for things like the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Ratification, among other things.

CEDAW is a women’s rights international agreement of the UN that was first adopted in 1979. Worthy of mention is the fact that this agreement would also advance such policy areas as abortion rights; same-sex marriage; legalization of prostitution; gender re-education; and would negate parental rights. Out of 192 member countries, the U.S. is one of eight not to ratify; ratification would require 67 senators to vote affirmatively.

Despite efforts from previous Democrat Administrations, proponents have not been successful in achieving ratification. But the Obama Administration is actively working to change that. In her remarks to the CSW, Secretary Clinton named CEDAW ratification as a major priority for the Obama Administration. Karen Richardson, Senior Advisor on International Organizations to State Department Ambassador for the Global Women’s Issues Bureau Melanne Verveer, spoke at a number of CSW workshops and affirmed that the Obama Administration and in particular Amb. Verveer are working actively with the Hill to ratify CEDAW.

Interestingly, Secretary Clinton also noted in her remarks to the CSW the recent issue article on Gendercide in The Economist, noting that sex selection abortion has left the world with 100 million fewer girls than it should have. While I appreciated the fact the Secretary noted this tragedy in her remarks, I only wish she would make the necessary connection between the abortion rights she so aggressively advocates and the societal ramifications that follow, such as this appalling gendercide reality. Abortion never has been — and never will be good for women.

Comments: - |

Today the Grey Lady carries an op-ed titled, “A Chance for the Bluefin.”  It begins with this sentence: “There finally might be a reprieve for the bluefin tuna of the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, which are spiraling rapidly downward toward commercial extinction.”  The piece waxes eloquent about the need to protect the bluefin, an important food resource for the U.S. and much of the world.

That’s good news.  But given the Times’ addictive advocacy of unrestricted access to abortion on demand (federally funded, at that), I could not help but being impressed by the unintended irony of the op-ed’s title.  This year, somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 million unborn children will be aborted in the United States. 1 This does not count the many who will die due to abortafacient contraceptives.

It is estimated that more than 70 percent of the abortion facilities in the United States are located in or near minority population centers. 2 The “black genocide” is real, as the abortion industry targets little ones of color long the targets of eugenicists like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.  Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, notes, “[T]he abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women.”  3

Worldwide, approximately 42 million unborn children will be killed in utero this year, many of them due to the largesse of the United States (the Obama Administration’s funding of international “family planning” groups that provide abortions to women in the developing world). 4 Although the Times warns against “waking up one day and discovering there are no tuna left to fish,” protecting those little lives far outweighs protecting tuna.  As Jesus said to His disciples, “You are far more valuable than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:31).  He might have added, “and than many fish.”

I’m glad the bluefin might be saved.  I like a good tuna salad sandwich as much as the next guy.  But I long for the day when as much moral urgency will be given the preservation of the unborn as the New York Times has today given to the continued sustenance of a fish.

1 http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

2 http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html

3 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

4 http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html

Comments: 1 |

I am currently following the blog of a young woman who has chosen to abort her second child via medical abortion, or, RU-486. My heart aches for this woman (and for her unborn baby), who, by her own account is the victim of abuse and has suffered depression and suicidal thoughts.

“Angie,” a single mother of a four-year-old son, is documenting her second child’s termination via Twitter and blog. She also appeared on YouTube to discuss her decision and experience. Angie is getting cheered on for her “brave” decision by fellow bloggers posting on her site.

Anyone following this story or watching her on youtube will feel sorry for Angie and want to do whatever they can to help her. Those responding on her blog think the helpful response is to support her “choice” and encourage Angie’s termination of her baby.

I, however, disagree with Angie’s cheerleaders. Supporting her decision to abort her baby unintentionally does a grave injustice to Angie, her unborn child, her son and even her boyfriend.

Abortion kills one person and wounds at least one additional person.

For any woman who might think that abortion could ever be the “best” option, I would encourage visiting this site, which includes testimony from women who underwent abortions.

I would also encourage reading the pamphlet on the psychological effects of abortion, co-authored by a formerly pro-choice psychiatrist who continually counseled women struggling emotionally and psychologically after having an abortion.

The following link shows studies with the physical consequences of abortion.

For boyfriends, husbands and men who are struggling with the decision or aftermath of abortion, see this link.

And for any woman who has chosen abortion and is struggling with her choice, please visit the following link.

To Angie, or anyone who has been in her position — may you find the necessary peace and healing that can only come by accepting that abortion is never the best choice for a mother or baby.

Comments: 2 |

Yesterday, as I was digesting my second cup of coffee, my friend sent me a link to something she deemed really off the charts.  I clicked on the link only to be disturbed by the accounts on a blog, in addition to watching a YouTube video that brought tears to my eyes listening to the accounts of a woman describing her abortion.  The woman had no guilt or remorse for the harm she was placing on the baby she conceived, and this was hard to contemplate.

I said a prayer for this woman, but I began to ponder whether this is the first of many videos covering senseless acts of tragedy against an unborn life.  Abortion is the loss of a life with much potential, and the fact that this was broadcast online for the world to see only provides the opportunity for bringing an alternative to abortion into the limelight.

With the help of a Pregnancy Resource Center, this woman could have received assistance and sound medical advice to bring her child into the world.  Even if she did not want the child, there is the option of adoption.  Adoption would allow this child to be loved and cared for by a family, in addition to allowing that child to pursue dreams and opportunities.

FRC recently published a report about the difference Pregnancy Resource Centers are making in the lives of women contemplating abortion.  Take for example, Megan, who was considering using RU-486 (the same drug the woman in the video used) to abort her baby.  However, after a change of heart and receiving support from her local Pregnancy Resource Center, she gave birth to her daughter, Ava.

Megan’s decision saved a beautiful life with much potential.  The tragedy is that the woman in the video will never know her terminated child’s potential.

Comments: - |

President Obama’s powerful words at today’s National Prayer Breakfast were rightly examined by my dear colleague, Cathy Ruse. How can the same man who wants to force us to pay for the slaughter of innocents seem so convincing? He is surely right to say we must see the face of God in our fellow human beings. We must. Does he?

Abraham Lincoln said it well in 1858. He said the Founders believed that “nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon.” Our question to President Obama, with all due respect, is: Are not unborn children so stamped? Can we not see the face of God in their faces?

Lincoln condemned no one in his Second Inaugural, but he said it must seem strange for anyone to ask the help of a just God in wringing his bread from the sweat of another man’s brow. Then the President quoted Scripture: Let us not judge lest we be judged. So we must not judge.

Continue reading »

Comments: 3 |

Last year, it was as if we had all been inundated by the great Wave. Barack Obama as candidate said he felt “a righteous wind” at his back. For many of us, though, his support–so broad, so overpowering, so irresistible–was a force of nature.

That great Wave threatened to sweep all before it. The work of decades would be undone. The people had spoken. For many in this democratic republic, the voice of the people is the voice of God. To say no to anything President Obama wanted was to risk being called an obstructionist, a blinkered reactionary, or worse, a racist, a terrorist.

Mr. Obama took the advice of those who specialize in doing things the smart way. If you’re going to do something many of the people might not like, do it fast, do it early, and give them time to forget about it.

It’s the same cynical advice these smart types gave to John Edwards. Wait until an earthquake happens in Haiti, or a revolution occurs in Massachusetts, before you admit paternity, before you stop your relentless lying. And then hope nobody notices. The roar of the Wave might mask whatever you say.

So, President Obama very quickly cast down the Mexico City Doctrine of Ronald Reagan. That policy was duly reaffirmed by both Presidents Bush. Who cares about this stuff, anyway? Wingers? Thumpers? People who are, in the dismissive words of the Washington Post, “poor, uneducated, easy to command?”

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |

Is the unborn child a human life? President Reagan used to say if you were in doubt whether a body you found on the sidewalk was dead or alive, you would never just assume it was dead.

President Obama, by contrast, famously answered Rev. Rick Warren’s question about when the unborn child begins to have human and civil rights by saying “that question is above my pay grade.” But Mr. Obama’s policies all assume the body on the sidewalk is dead.

There’s yet another thing you will never learn reading the papers about Roe. Just where were those abortion laws of the fifty states that were struck down by the Supreme Court that dread day? They were not in the family law codes. Nor in the child custody codes. Not in the medical licensing statutes.

The abortion laws of the fifty states were typically found in the “Homicide” sections.

No state made abortion a homicide in the first degree (“pre-meditated murder,” to most of

us lay people.) This may have been due to wise 19^th century state lawmakers who did not want to prosecute women. And it may have taken account of the difficulty of obtaining convictions where the evidence of the unborn child’s body was hard to find.

Still, that these laws were homicide laws tells you volumes. Some of our younger pro-life friends believe that the Court could not have known about the humanity of the unborn child in 1973. Not so. Yes, we know so very much more now. Yes, we have 4D ultra-sound that we did not have then.

But they knew in 1973. Everyone knew. I recall sitting in the Catholic hospital where my mother worked in the late 1960s. Across from me in the waiting room was an expectant  Filipino woman. She could hardly speak English, but she wore a tee shirt with an arrow pointing down at her tummy. The tee shirt said: “Baby.” Everyone knew what that meant.

The state lawmakers knew as early as 1857, when science discovered that human life begins at conception. And every accurate scientific and medical textbook since has acknowledged this inescapable but, to politicians like Al Gore, inconvenient truth:
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

President Obama: I have the honor to present to you the human oocyte and sperm. And they didn’t even have to crash your White House dinner. I was introduced to them in high school biology. Sir, I wanted you to meet them.

Since the public has been deliberately misled about Roe v. Wade, it will be necessary to educate people about it. That’s why, when confronted with insistent media questions on “overturning” Roe v. Wade, I hope the pro-life community will resolutely respond:

Roe overturned all fifty state laws that protected unborn children and their mothers. Roe needs to be corrected.

“Overturn” is what happens to SUVs in a ditch. “Overturn” is radical and dangerous. The American people are inherently conservative and reflexively reject that which is radical and dangerous. Liberal activists and journalists know this. That’s why they always frame every question about abortion—or at least the ones they lob at pro-life candidates—in terms of “overturning” Roe.

They know what they are doing. Shouldn’t we?

Comments: - |

The Gallup Company created quite a stir last spring when they announced that, for the first time, a majority (51%) of Americans consider themselves pro-life. We would think, therefore, that a majority would also favor “overturning” Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that gave us abortion-on-demand. Not necessarily.

First, we must remember that the American people have been misled by the major news media about Roe v. Wade since that dark and dreary day 36 years ago.

The media regularly call Roe a “landmark decision.” Landmark is a good thing. It connotes something historic and of great weight. You never hear the infamous 1857  Dred Scott ruling that upheld slavery in the territories called “landmark.”

Almost never will a story about Roe include the critique of Yale Law School Dean, John Hart Ely. Prof. Ely, although he favored liberalizing our abortion laws, was unimpressed by the legal reasoning behind Justice Harry Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade ruling: “It is not constitutional law and it gives no impression of an obligation to be constitutional law.” According to Bob Woodruff’s behind-the-scenes book on the Supreme Court, the Justices’ clerks were even more dismissive, calling the opinion “Harry’s abortion.”

Harvard Law Professor Archibald Cox was a friend of the Kennedy family. He, too, was not impressed with the land that Roe was marking:

[Blackmun’s opinion] fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization, not merely by guarding life itself, however defined, but by safeguarding the penumbra, whether at the beginning, through some overwhelming disability of mind or body, or at death.

Continuing to blast Roe, Cox wrote:

The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations, whose validity is good enough this week but will be destroyed with new statistics upon the medical risks of child-birth and abortion or new advances in providing for the separate existence of a fetus. . . . Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.

President Kennedy’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Byron R. “Whizzer” White was one of two votes against Roe on January 22, 1973, and faithfully ever after. Justice White condemned the ruling as an example of “raw judicial power.”

But the media, in their worshipful treatment of Roe, rarely include such comments. Nor do they remind Americans that Roe was so radical it overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states. Even the most liberal state laws on abortion—like those of New York, Washington, California, and Colorado—were overturned by Roe’s yet more radical rule.

Further, the media regularly report that the Supreme Court “legalized abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.” That’s true, but misleading.

Yes, the Court made abortion legal in the first trimester (three months), but it also so strictly limited the protections a state might afford to unborn children after the first trimester as to effectively give us abortion-on-demand until birth. (And, in some horrific cases, even after birth.)

Describing Roe this way is like describing Hitler’s blitzkrieg in Western Europe like this:

“German forces today overran Belgium and Luxemburg.” Surely they did. But they also simultaneously invaded France!

In practice, Roe legalized abortion in all three trimesters. This makes U.S. abortion law more radical than any other advanced democracy.

So the public has been consistently misinformed about the radical nature of Roe v. Wade.

But it is also misinformed about the reasons given for most abortions. Well over 90% of abortions are done today–and have been done since 1973 for reasons that the American people do not support–reasons of financial hardship or emotional distress.

Liberal Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, who retired earlier this year, famously wrote that the three reasons for abortion are “rape, incest, and me.” She was candidly admitting that pro-abortion groups use the horrors of rape and incest to conceal their true agenda: abortion-on-demand.

The numbers of abortions are typically reported in decimal form—1.2 million. Cynical Communist dictator Joe Stalin said it: “A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” He should know. By not reporting the annual deaths from abortion as 1,200,000, or the total since Roe was issued as 49,000,000, the press collaborates in minimizing the impact.

By way of comparison, America’s Civil War claimed the lives of 630,000 young men, World War II cost us 424,000. Is there any other way to assess the gravity of a war? The worst riots? The worst flood? The worst earthquake? They’re judged by the numbers of human lives they take.

(continued in Part II)

Comments: - |

Here’s some articles of interest for your post-Thanksgiving enjoyment.

• “Mercy Gilbert scores state first with stem-cell treatment,” Parker Leavitt, The Arizona Republic
• “Adult stem cells have yielded successes,” Linda D. Schauer, The Argus Leader
• “Forming New Brain Cells: Key Regulatory Peptide Discovered,” ScienceDaily
• “The New Inquisition: Ideology’s Corruption of Science,” Wesley J. Smith, First Things
• “Christian leaders’ stance on civil disobedience is dangerous,” Editorial, The Los Angeles Times
• “Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren on abortion, sexuality and Obama,” Nia-Malika Henderson, The Politico
• “N.J. Bishops Rally Flocks to Promote, Support Marriage,” Lawrence D. Jones, The Christian Post

Comments: - |

Here’s some articles of interest for this afternoon.

• “Most Americans Against Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill,” Nathan Black, The Christian Post
• “Church, state and gay marriage,” Editorial, The Los Angeles Times
• “Iowa conservatives still focused on gay marriage,” Mike Glover, Associated Press
• “NJ teen barred from abortion protest sues school,” Geoff Mulvihill, Associated Press
• “Sex ed. vs. abstinence,” Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow
• “Pew: Faith-based initiative still popular,” Matthew Hay Brown, The Baltimore Sun
• “Abortion clinic ‘bubble’ law met by protests,” Dan Simmons, Chicago Tribune

Comments: - |

“This shouldn’t be a debate about abortion,”‘ says the President’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod. The President himself argues that he and his allies in Congress are not “in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but on the other hand that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices.”

This is sort of like saying that when eating a four-scoop sundae, the dessert really isn’t about ice cream. Abortion is essential to the Democratic approach to health care. Why? Because if, as the great majority of national Democrats believe, abortion is a matter of public moral neutrality, a procedure not unlike the removal of a nasty tumor, it should be funded (or, as an interim step, subsidized) as part of any federal health insurance regime.

After the vote on the Stupak pro-life amendment on November 7, pro-abortion Members of Congress and their allies in the so-called “progressive” movement became apoplectic. “Abortion is healthcare. That’s the whole point,” wrote ultra-feminist and the Left-wing magazine Nation writer Katha Pollitt. Pollitt has made a career as a Left-liberal who actually speaks her mind (example: after 9/11, she wrote that the American “flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war”). Of course, her perspective is warped, but at least she says what she thinks.

And what she thinks seems to be what’s in the heart of the current Administration. Mr. Obama has built a career by stating two opposing views and pretending to find common ground between them. Of course, there is – as he admitted in his speech earlier this year at Notre Dame – no real common ground between the culture of life and the culture of death.

By subsidizing health insurance plans that provide abortion, the US government would be providing funds to companies that would thereby have greater financial freedom to pay for abortion and related services.

Mr. President, we either “restrict women’s choices” by refusing to allow the federal government to subsidize abortion providers, or we subsidize insurance companies that pay for abortion. There is no way around it. Your key allies know it. And, in the integrity of your mind, so do you.

Comments: 1 |

Wednesday’s headline in The Hill led with the caption “Abortion-rights groups threaten not to fund Rodriquez and Teague.”  Apparently NARAL and Planned Parenthood are ticked because Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas) and Congressman Harry Teague (D-N.M.)  voted in support of the Stupak Amendment which removed abortion funding from the health care bill (1).

Very few news organizations are reporting on the divide that is developing within the Democratic Party.  Many Congressional Democrats, who firmly believe in the federal funding of abortion, are out for the blood of those who exercised a vote according to their conscience.  This shouldn’t be terribly surprising since these pro-abortion House Members are also interested in taking away the conscience rights of doctors, but I digress.

Still, there is a huge overlooked question that begs to be asked.  Why is a charitable organization which receives federal funds allowed to make financial contributions to candidates who vote for giving federal funds back to the organization?  Let alone threaten to remove the base of support when the candidate votes their conscience.  Does anyone see anything wrong with this circular problem?  Planned Parenthood receives over $350 million annually in federal funds (2).  Through this legislation, they were lobbying to up the ante significantly, thus lining their fat pockets even more.  And, although the Stupak Amendment passed the House for now, they are not done with that fight!

While NARAL doesn’t receive federal funds, their business practices are questionable as they fail to meet the Better Business Standards for Charity Accountability (3).  Considering NARAL’s work got its start through the successful use of enormous lies, this is simply par for the course (4).  Every time NARAL comments on issues like these, the public should be reminded of their questionable practices and roots

When will this outrageous behavior end?  Who are elected officials representing:  the people who vote for them; or the special interests who pay for slick advertising to sway the voters?  Okay, so that question is too easy.

Every time Planned Parenthood opens their mouth on an issue like this, why aren’t reporters calling into question the dog Planned Parenthood has in this hunt?

Why isn’t Planned Parenthood being investigated?  As previously mentioned, they make campaign contributions to Members of Congress who reciprocate through the funding of Planned Parenthood.  Their staff have been recorded numerous times counseling underage girls who admit to being impregnated by adults.  Instead of reporting a crime of rape, they provide abortion counseling support and encourage the girls to conceal the age and specifics of their rapists (5).

Reporters need to stop scratching their heads and the surface of these stories.  We’ve heard it before and I’ll shout it again, “it’s time they dig deep, accurately investigate and report on these issues.” We’ve come a long way from the days of Murrow.   Even worse, we’ve come even further from a time when our elected truly represented the electorate.

(1) Abortion-rights groups threaten not to fund Rodriguez and Teague http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67473-threat-to-rodriguez-teague-from-abortion-rights-groups-

(2)  Planned Parenthood Annual Report: Abortion Totals, Government Funding Increase http://www.lifenews.com/nat4978.html

(3) BBB Wise Giving Report for

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/naral-pro-choice-america-foundation-in-washington-dc-507

(4) Lies and Fraud of Roe v. Wade: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872

(5) Live Action Films:  http://liveaction.org/

Comments: - |

Here’s some articles of interest.

• “N.Y. Senate Delays Gay Marriage Vote,” Jeremy W. Peters, The New York Times
• “AMA votes to seek repeal of ‘don’t ask,don’t-tell’,” Associated Press
• “The Politics of Loosening Healthcare’s Abortion Restrictions,” Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News and World Report
• “House Health-Care Bill Does Not Prohibit Paying Federal Funds to Health Providers Who Withhold Food and Water From Patients,” Karen Schuberg, CNSNews.com
• “Federal judge nixes SC license tag with cross,” Jim Davenport, Associated Press
• “Cord Blood Reverses Cerebral Palsy in Colorado Girl,” Jessica Ryen Doyle, Fox News
• “UK starts study on using human DNA in animals,” Associated Press
• “D.C. council committee approves same-sex marriage bill,” Tim Craig, The Washington Post

Comments: - |

Comments: 1 |

Here’s some articles that might be of interest.

• “Code words,” Emily Belz, WORLD Magazine
• “Bloomfield man fights cancer with his own stem cells,” Patti Singer, Democrat and Chronicle
• “Attacking the Defense of Marriage Act,” The Washington Times
• “Michigan panel to discuss stem cell research bills,” Associated Press
• “Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging stem cell rule,” Associated Press
• “MSU profs offer same-sex marriage solution,” Dawson Bell, The Detroit Free-Press
• “In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key,” Adam Liptak, The New York Times
• “How Pro-life Dems Will Justify Voting for Taxpayer-funded Abortions,” Mike Brownfield, The Foundry
• “Anti-abortion protesters sue Milwaukee, saying civil rights were stifled,” Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Comments: - |

News fans unite. I am back with another segment of In the Know…. Here’s today’s articles of the day.

• “Regents to hear stem cell comment,” Omaha World-Herald
• “Obama’s ’safe schools czar’ acts up,” Editorial, The Washington Times
• “Infusing stem cells to heal heart,” Maureen McFadden, WNDU
• “US marshal pick was already gay rights pioneer,” Patrick Condon, Associated Press
• “Gay Marriage Battle Focuses on Schools,” Fox 23 Maine
• “Paterson Revives Call for Vote on Same-sex Marriage,” Associated Press
• “Supreme Court blocks release of R-71 signatures,” Chris Grygiel, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• “Judge bars restrictive Oklahoma abortion law requiring online posting of patient data,” Robin Abcarian, The Los Angeles Times
• “Two Missouri ballot initiatives on abortion-related issues OK’d,” Jason Noble, Kansas City Star

Comments: - |

How can anyone ignore the irony in this awful story reported in the Washington Post yesterday?

A young woman walks out into a field with a pink towel, scissors, and a plastic bag, gives birth to a daughter, cuts the umbilical cord and leaves the baby to die.

Of course she could have had an abortionist legally kill the child.

The Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton mandates that an abortion be legal even after viability if an abortion doctor cites emotional or “familial” reasons for the abortion.  During a post-arrest interview the woman said she had been raped, and the prosecutor said the woman got rid of the baby because she was afraid the man she was living with, whom she considered her husband, would break up with her for having another man’s child.  Plenty of legal grounds for a late-term abortion.

Assistant State’s Attorney Renee Battle-Brooks argued that whether she was impregnated because she was raped was irrelevant.  “That doesn’t make [the baby's] life any less valuable,” Battle-Brooks said. “That baby struggled for breath in that plastic bag. She was alone, she was cold and she was hungry.”

Last month a 33-year old Rhode Island woman was sentenced to 25 years for killing her newborn daughter.

The baby was found in a plastic garbage bag under a laundry appliance in the woman’s parents’ home.  Judge Robert Krause of Providence County said, “Not to impose a substantial jail sentence … would simply devalue the life of a child.”  Krause added: “No civilized society is prepared to do that and neither am I.”

My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions – no one in the pro-life movement seeks that – but to show the irony in our law, and the striking quotes from those in the legal system as they recognize and defend the humanity of the youngest of babies.  They sound so much like pro-lifers.  One day, God willing, everyone will speak this way about children, even before birth.

Comments: 2 |

Here’s some interesting articles for your reading enjoyment this morning.

• “Duke Studies New Approach in Fetal Transplants for Metabolic Disorders,” PhysOrg.org
• “Catholic bishops bemoan condoms, gays as threats to marriage,” Daniel Burke, Religion News Service
• “Maine gay marriage campaigns report donations,” Glenn Adams, Associated Press
• “UMD Debates New Anti-Pornography Policy,” News Channel 8
• “Study: Abortions decline, but unsafe procedures still kill 70,000 women,” Michael Winter, USA Today
• “Between lines on poster ban,” Marybeth Hicks, The Washington Times
• “Church wins fight for homeless ministry,” Ed Blazina and Amy McConnell Schaarsmith, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• “Faith-Based Discrimination,” Editorial, The New York Times

Comments: - |

Here’s some articles of interest for your morning.

• “Child-porn arrests: `Shooting fish in a barrel’,” Mitch Stacy, Associated Press
• ” Texas Gay Couple’s Divorce Lawsuit Draws National Spotlight,” Nathan Black, The Christian Post
• “D.C. gay marriage bill could find tough going late,” Michael Neibauer, The Washington Examiner
• “Americans Don’t Want Government-Funded Abortions In Health Reform,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, Fox News
• “Abortion foes fail in bid for ‘Choose Life’ plate loses,” Dave McKinney, Chicago Sun-Times
• “Ban on religious signs at football games roils Georgia community,” Bob Allen, Associated Baptist Press
• “Ga. bone marrow donor meets recipient in Ill.,” Associated Press
• “Texas Judge Declares State Marriage Law, DOMA Unconstitutional,” LifeSiteNews.com
• “Useful Pew backgrounder on faith and U.S. healthcare debate,” Ed Stoddard, Reuters
• “Issues which “may frankly be too dangerous for pro-choice movements to acknowledge”,” JivinJehoshaphat

Comments: - |

Here’s some articles of interest this morning.

• “Catania to introduce same-sex marriage bill,” Melissa Castro, Washington Business Journal
• “To heaven from Times Square,” Julia Duin, The Washington Times
• “Abortion and Health Care Reform,” Editorial, New York Times
• “Chicago City Council panel backs plan to limit anti-abortion activists,” Hal Dardick, Chicago Tribune
• “Senate committee restores $50 million in abstinence ed funding,” Catholic News Agency
• “When is a cross not a Christian symbol?,” Erwin Chemerinsky and Joseph Infranco, Los Angeles Times
• “‘Imagine No Religion’ Billboards Hit Detroit,” Jennifer Riley, The Christian Post
• “Spiritual spirit squad squelched,” Pete Chagnon, OneNewsNow.com
• “Planned Parenthood Says Pro-Lifers Winning, Misleads on Insurance, Abortion,” Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com
• “Personal Stories Reveal How Pregnancy Resource Centers Empower Women, Help Families,” Penny Starr, CNSNews.com
• “Most Stay-at-Home Moms Start That Way, Study Finds,” Donna St. George, The Washington Post

Comments: - |