FRC Blog

The sonogram’s secret is out

by Jared Bridges

April 10, 2007

Caitlin Flanagan is one of those talented writers for whom I imagine it is hard to find an ideological home. Feminists and liberals despise her for suggesting that feminism might not have worked out for the benefit of women. Likewise, she doesn’t quite fit the conservative mold —- she is, for example, regrettably on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

However one chooses to label Flanagan, she is nevertheless refreshingly honest at times. Writing in the latest issue of The Atlantic, she argues that while, “a thousand arguments about the beginning of human life will never appeal to me as powerfully as a terrified pregnant girl desperate for a bit of compassion,” there is one effort by pro-lifers that gives her pause:

But my sympathy for the beliefs of people who oppose abortion is enormous, and it grows almost by the day. An ultrasound image taken surprisingly early in pregnancy can stop me in my tracks. In it is much more than I want to know about the tiny creature whose destruction we have legalized: a beating heart, a human face, functioning kidneys, two waving hands that seem not too far away from being able to grasp and shake a rattle. One of the newest types of prenatal imaging, the three-dimensional sonogramwhich is so fully realized that happily pregnant women spend a hundred dollars to have their babies first photograph takenis frankly terrifying when examined in the context of the abortion debate. The demands pro-life advocates make of pregnant women are modest: All they want is a little bit of time. All they are asking, in a societal climate in which out-of-wedlock pregnancy is without stigma, is that pregnant women give the tiny bodies growing inside of them a few months, until the little creatures are large enough to be on their way, to loving homes.

These sonogram images lay claim to the most powerful emotion I have ever known: maternal instinct. Mothers are charged with protecting the vulnerable and the weak among us, and most of all, taking care of babiesthe tiniest and neediestfirst. My very nature as a woman, then, pulls me in two directions.

The secret of the sonogram in preventing abortions is out, and both sides of the debate know it. The South Carolina House of Representatives has even passed a bill to require women seeking an abortion to have ultrasounds before proceeding with an abortion. Not surprisingly, many pro-abortion advocates want what amounts to censorship, and therefore seek to keep distressed pregnant women as far away from ultrasound machines as possible.

Indeed, in this debate there is much to lose. For the abortion industry, business is in jeopardy. For humanity, there is much more.

Continue reading

A View from Princeton

by Family Research Council

April 5, 2007

Marybeth Hagan, author of Abortion: A Mothers Plea for Maternity and the Unborn, attended Charmaine’s lecture yesterday at Princeton. Here is how she describes the reaction by the audience:

While some in the audience nodded or facially expressed their approval of Charmaine Yoests anti-abortion message at Princeton University last night, others made it clear during questioning that Yoest spoke a foreign language which they had no desire to learn.

Read the whole thing at Hagan’s blog.

Continue reading

Thinking About Thought Crimes: A Response to HRC

by Peter Sprigg

April 5, 2007

The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual organization, has accused the Family Research Council of lying about the issue of Thought Crimes (i.e., so-called hate crimes), under which offenders are punished once for their actions and then again for the politically incorrect thoughts they were thinking while committing the action.

HRC President Joe Solmonese says FRC is lying in saying that America doesnt have a federal hate crimes law. Actually, a recent FRC paper carefully explains that there are two federal laws related to so-called hate crimesa 1990 law which mandates the collection of statistics on them, and a 1994 law which provides for sentence enhancement (higher penalties) for existing federal offenses motivated by bias. HRC contends, however, that we have had a federal hate crimes law since 1969, citing the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. 245.

Continue reading

She Can’t Be Syria-ous

by Tony Perkins

April 5, 2007

Splashed across this morning’s newspapers are photos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sporting a headscarf as she visited Syria, which included a stop at a mosque. While it is troubling that the leader third in line for the presidency (behind only the Vice President) would kowtow to a country that is a major purveyor in the trafficking of women, illegal drugs and terrorism, it’s even more disturbing that she would concede by covering her head—which is usually seen as a sign of submission in the Muslim world.

On the home front we continue to uncover the anti-family efforts of this new Congress. The major accomplishments the new Democratic Leadership in the House can point to are furthering taxpayer funding of destructive human embryo research, de-funding (and demoralizing) our troops fighting the war against terrorists and passing a budget that would raise our taxes by at least $400 billion.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. Waiting in the on-deck circle are bills that would treat homosexuals as a special protected class, eliminate abstinence funding and use tax money for abortions—just to name a few. The more this Congress attacks the values important to American families, the clearer it is that they have strayed from their mandate.

Continue reading

Hoosiers Seek New Game Plan on Marriage

by Tony Perkins

April 5, 2007

Due to some backroom machinations by Indiana State House Speaker Patrick Bauer (D), it looks like Hoosiers will be denied a right to amend their constitution and protect marriage. Despite Bauer’s promise that the full House would be given an opportunity to vote on the marriage protection amendment, members of the House Rules Committee failed to pass the amendment in a 5-5 vote. Although several conservative leaders have vowed to reintroduce the amendment, it’s uncertain whether they can do so in time to ensure that the issue appears on the 2008 ballot.

FRC Action has been heavily involved in the fight, publishing an ad in a local newspaper last week and promoting it in an audio/radio alert throughout the state over the weekend. As Indiana’s pro-family leaders regroup, we urge citizens across the state to encourage Speaker Bauer to revive the proposal—before time runs out.

Continue reading