The global tragedy of abortion is that, behind the thin veils of human flesh, it accomplishes an ethnic, racial, and gender purging of such efficiency and scale as to make Adolf Hitler appear inconsequential. In the United States, the most recent data indicate that 64% of abortions are obtained by black, Hispanic, and other women of color, despite the fact that they only account for 28% of the population. (Guttmacher Institute; U.S. Census Bureau).
As if that data were not disturbing enough, consider this statistic: since ultrasound technology has enabled parents to identify the gender of their unborn child, 160 MILLION girls have been lost to abortion in Asia alone, triggering a staggering gender imbalance that has demographers wringing their hands.
C.S. Lewis saw through the game of “choice” long ago, as he warned that “[T]he power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please. … [T]he man-molders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.”
If anyone were to posit a plan to systematically annihilate non-whites and females, imagine how he would be received in our enlightened society where equality and diversity are so highly prized. But as long as this same result is accomplished through the “choice” of members of the affected populations, our society doesn’t mourn the slaughter, but celebrates it.
Our collective ignorance of history has made fools of us. For in fact, what we identify today as merely unfortunate statistics are really the indicia of success of the careful plans and propaganda created by those who sought to mold the human population to their liking.
The organization that is today Planned Parenthood and now trumpets women’s “right to choose,” gave birth to its deadly “Negro Project” in the 1930’s, hoping to stunt the growth of black families. It is surely no accident that today, a whopping 80% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods.
Other American population activists collaborated to combat the “problem” of unbounded population growth, which they believed would strain world resources and exacerbate poverty in developing nations. John D. Rockefeller III organized a "Conference on Population Problems" in Williamsburg, Virginia in 1952, then went on to work with the Ford Foundation, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to sell Asian nations on the concept of population control. Their message was simple: lower birth rates lead to richer people.
Of course, some "population activists" had more sinister motivations. In her book, Unnatural Selection, journalist Mara Hvistendahl posits that, privately, "Western donors worried less about poverty than they did about the global balance of power and specifically about what they believed to be one of poverty's effects: communism." Many American elites worried that rising birth rates in developing nations would make these regions more susceptible to communism and less likely to become American allies.
As these wealthy, Western organizations succeeded in selling developing nations on their "less is better" pitch, baby girls were the casualties.
So here is the great irony: on a personal level, women may believe that exercising their “right” to have an abortion is an act of liberation and power, but on a larger scale abortion is a hallmark of manipulation and subjugation.
Every abortion is equally tragic, whether its victims are white, black, red or yellow, male or female. But as a society, we are blind if we fail to see that there is no racial, ethnic or gender “equality” in the practice of abortion. Behind millions upon millions of thin veils of pregnant tummy flesh, the beautiful, natural diversity of mankind is being destroyed, one “choice” at a time. And this was always part of a plan.
We should mourn and expose this great injustice.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Scary Stuff - Worshiping at the Altar of "Choice"
Yesterday I filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a coalition of 30 female state legislators from across the country, Concerned Women for America, and Susan B. Anthony List. The brief asks the Court to review a recent decision by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which struck down an Arizona law that banned abortion after 20 weeks, except where the mother's life or health is in danger.
The elected representatives of Arizona passed this law after receiving credible, unrefuted scientific and medical evidence revealing two things: that babies in the womb feel pain after 20 weeks, and that abortions performed after this same point carry much higher health risks to the mother. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence to mean that states can never ban abortion before the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb (generally 23 weeks). Nevermind that what we are doing is torturing a living human being; nevermind that the woman faces a significantly greater chance of suffering serious complications or death when she waits this late to exercise her "right."
The Supreme Court recently acknowledged that “a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. at 147. Science now reveals that, far from being an impersonal blob of tissue for whom the descriptor of “living” is little more than a technical, biological fact, the post-20-week human being within the womb is so fully developed as to be wholly capable of feeling pain as his or her body is literally ripped apart and removed from the womb, piece by piece. This, of course, is how abortion is most often accomplished at this stage in pregnancy.
A humane, civilized society cannot retain its identity as such if its courts preclude lawmakers from imposing reasonable limitations on such brutality. Even animals—which most people would agree are not possessed of the same degree of individual value and dignity as humans—are entitled to and receive legal protections against cruelty and barbarism.
And what of "women's health," for which those who champion abortion rights express such concern? When confronted with credible scientific data demonstrating that abortions performed beyond the 20-week point are significantly less safe for women than those performed prior to that point, it is surely appropriate for legislators to protect women’s health by requiring physicians to perform the procedure at the earlier, far safer stage.
The recent tragedies of the Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia serve as a poignant reminder of how easily both individual women and the sensibilities of a humane society can become the casualty of an ideological battle.
We have become a society that worships "choice" itself; we say no one should consider what value is ultimately gained or what is lost by my choice, provided I am uninhibited and unconstrained as I choose. That, my friends, is scary stuff.
Please join me in praying that the Supreme Court will hear this case and correct this great humanitarian injustice.
The elected representatives of Arizona passed this law after receiving credible, unrefuted scientific and medical evidence revealing two things: that babies in the womb feel pain after 20 weeks, and that abortions performed after this same point carry much higher health risks to the mother. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence to mean that states can never ban abortion before the point at which the baby can survive outside the womb (generally 23 weeks). Nevermind that what we are doing is torturing a living human being; nevermind that the woman faces a significantly greater chance of suffering serious complications or death when she waits this late to exercise her "right."
The Supreme Court recently acknowledged that “a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. at 147. Science now reveals that, far from being an impersonal blob of tissue for whom the descriptor of “living” is little more than a technical, biological fact, the post-20-week human being within the womb is so fully developed as to be wholly capable of feeling pain as his or her body is literally ripped apart and removed from the womb, piece by piece. This, of course, is how abortion is most often accomplished at this stage in pregnancy.
A humane, civilized society cannot retain its identity as such if its courts preclude lawmakers from imposing reasonable limitations on such brutality. Even animals—which most people would agree are not possessed of the same degree of individual value and dignity as humans—are entitled to and receive legal protections against cruelty and barbarism.
And what of "women's health," for which those who champion abortion rights express such concern? When confronted with credible scientific data demonstrating that abortions performed beyond the 20-week point are significantly less safe for women than those performed prior to that point, it is surely appropriate for legislators to protect women’s health by requiring physicians to perform the procedure at the earlier, far safer stage.
The recent tragedies of the Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia serve as a poignant reminder of how easily both individual women and the sensibilities of a humane society can become the casualty of an ideological battle.
We have become a society that worships "choice" itself; we say no one should consider what value is ultimately gained or what is lost by my choice, provided I am uninhibited and unconstrained as I choose. That, my friends, is scary stuff.
Please join me in praying that the Supreme Court will hear this case and correct this great humanitarian injustice.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
An Unheeded Plea for Journalistic Truth-Telling
Frankly, I am weary of hearing about “media bias.” It has become too obvious and widespread to remain interesting. And yet, when a news reporter is caught telling an outright falsehood to countless unsuspecting consumers, there is something much more fundamental than media “neutrality” which hangs upon his willingness to make the necessary correction; what is at stake here is basic integrity.
I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.
While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.
Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:
Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.
After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:
“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”
To this, I responded:
“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”
To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”
My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.
Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.
If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?
I submit that the reporter’s duty to be truthful is heightened (if such a thing is possible) when he reports facts in the context of election season about legislation which one candidate has supported and the other opposed.
While the average news media consumer can be expected to be skeptical about the possibility of a journalist ever being truly objective about the news he reports, particularly where it concerns controversial policy issues, the same consumer does not generally question the basic veracity of statements of fact which are easily verifiable. But maybe she should.
Last week, in reporting on a debate between the two candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, political reporter Bob Lewis stated that a certain pro-life bill (supported by the Republican candidate and opposed by the Democrat) would “outlaw almost all forms of abortion.” Lewis’ article did not state this as anyone’s opinion or speculation, but as an item of factual background. (You can read the article here:
Now I know this claim to be false, because I have been the chief advocate for the legislation in question for the past four years. Moreover, I can prove, and have proven the claim to be false, on a number of grounds, to the satisfaction of countless legislators and public policy organizations. But if my own testimony is not enough, I offer any Doubting Thomas the collective judgment of the United States Supreme Court, which dismissed a legal challenge to the identical language in Missouri over 25 years ago. In short, the falsity of Lewis’ claim is so glaring that it is not even open to serious debate.
After I read the story, I immediately contacted Lewis to request a correction. I laid out my evidence for the falsity of the statement, and offered to provide more if he remained doubtful. In his response to me, Lewis justified his statement this way:
“I don't know whether Jackson has read Marshall's bill, but I have. Were I writing on Bob's bill, I would concede your point. This story is about a debate and views expressed in it. Nothing more.”
To this, I responded:
“I appreciate your response. However, my issue here is with the statements you made in your article; not with the candidates’ expression of their respective positions. Your article states: ‘[Northam] was discussing so called “personhood” legislation supported by Jackson among other Republicans, which would outlaw almost all forms of abortion by conferring the full rights of personhood to an embryo from the instant of conception. Destroying such an embryo, under such a law, could be construed as homicide.’ The bolded portions are statements presented as fact by you, the reporter. And they are false. You might have said that Northam believes or that some people predict that the law would have the stated effect. But you did not.”
To this, Lewis simply replied, “Story stands.”
My appeal to Lewis’ editor at the Richmond Bureau of the Associated Press was met with an equally unjustified, flat denial.
Associated Press policy states that it “abhor[s] inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions” and that “When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.” With respect to the Richmond Bureau, however, this policy appears to be defunct.
If the story’s false statements had been damaging to a particular person, the reporter and publisher could be held accountable through a libel lawsuit. Shouldn’t there be a way of holding them accountable for misleading the public about important public policy concerns?
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Today's "Liberal" Causes
In a recent article, Professor Peter Dreier appropriated Martin Luther King Jr. as champion of the “liberal” side of several raging public debates. Having been inspired from childhood by the justice of King’s struggle for racial equality and the effective and eloquent way in which he pursued his “Dream,” I find Dreier’s conclusions surprising and counter-intuitive. I reject the assumption that this giant of a man can be so neatly categorized.
Dreier claimed, for instance, that “King would stand — and sit in when necessary — with the LGBT community to help push states toward legalizing same-sex marriage…” The staggering presumptuousness of such a statement is exposed by the preceding sentences, in which Dreier first concedes that “King did not approve of homosexuality,” but then declares that King’s viewpoint would certainly have changed over time in light of the NAACP’s position and growing support for gay rights among black clergy members.
First of all, it is the height of arrogance for anyone to start from King’s known, stated position (disapproval of homosexuality), and assume that he knows King’s psyche, religious convictions and motivations well enough to conclude that King would have done an about face as a result of special interest groups or polling data.
But beyond that, the rationale behind Dreier’s conclusion is unconvincing. Historical giants like King are historical giants precisely because they don’t form their moral views based on cultural trends; rather, they resist man-made constructs that ultimately harm and degrade human beings and lead us, instead, to what is true, good, and beautiful.
William Wilberforce stood against the slave trade and Dietrich Bonhoeffer against the Nazis because, like King, Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer believed that every human being is created in the image of God and therefore has unique dignity and inherent worth. There is no escaping it: at the core of these heroes of humanity is a decidedly and specifically biblical worldview. Their passion for honoring the teachings of Jesus Christ was their motivation for waging war against various iterations of human oppression.
Where would King have stood on gay marriage? I don’t presume to know the answer. Although the Bible consistently identifies homosexual activity as a moral wrong, many today profess to be convinced that Jesus Christ himself would have championed gay marriage as a step toward love, compassion and equality.
My respect for King is deep enough, however, to convince me that he would have studied the Scriptures to critically evaluate that claim. In considering whether recognition of gay marriage really is loving and compassionate, he probably would have examined the reasons for marriage and the likely societal consequences of defining this fundamental institution based on individual preferences. He would have looked past value-laden labels and studied the contents of the package under a lens comprised of both compassion and truth.
Another label King would have parsed is that of “reproductive freedom.” Dreier trots out the fact that King once received a “Margaret Sanger Award” as ironclad proof that he would have been an abortion rights activist. Dreier candidly admits, however, that “King never spoke publicly about his views on abortion,” and that he was assassinated before Roe v. Wade was decided.
We live in a culture committed to the concept of liberty and obsessed with the idea of “choice,” so any conduct packaged in the trappings of “right to choose” (as any conduct at all might well be packaged) appears, superficially, to be a moral good. But I believe King would have balked at the idea of labeling one human being’s purposeful destruction of another human being as a liberty or “choice” that is beyond the power of a civilized society to restrict.
While supportive of Planned Parenthood’s educational efforts on birth control, I think King would have wept at the rate at which babies of color —babies with unique dignity and inherent worth — are being aborted. I think he would have been outraged that a whopping 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically located in minority neighborhoods.
It is impossible for anyone to credibly claim King’s endorsement for causes that arose after his death. But this much we know: King was a follower of Jesus Christ.
His boldness, compassion and commitment to serving others were beautifully consistent with the Christ depicted in the Bible. And just as Christ stood for timeless moral absolutes, I believe King would have looked beyond labels, politics, and polls and stood for transcendent truth, goodness and beauty.
Dreier claimed, for instance, that “King would stand — and sit in when necessary — with the LGBT community to help push states toward legalizing same-sex marriage…” The staggering presumptuousness of such a statement is exposed by the preceding sentences, in which Dreier first concedes that “King did not approve of homosexuality,” but then declares that King’s viewpoint would certainly have changed over time in light of the NAACP’s position and growing support for gay rights among black clergy members.
First of all, it is the height of arrogance for anyone to start from King’s known, stated position (disapproval of homosexuality), and assume that he knows King’s psyche, religious convictions and motivations well enough to conclude that King would have done an about face as a result of special interest groups or polling data.
But beyond that, the rationale behind Dreier’s conclusion is unconvincing. Historical giants like King are historical giants precisely because they don’t form their moral views based on cultural trends; rather, they resist man-made constructs that ultimately harm and degrade human beings and lead us, instead, to what is true, good, and beautiful.
William Wilberforce stood against the slave trade and Dietrich Bonhoeffer against the Nazis because, like King, Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer believed that every human being is created in the image of God and therefore has unique dignity and inherent worth. There is no escaping it: at the core of these heroes of humanity is a decidedly and specifically biblical worldview. Their passion for honoring the teachings of Jesus Christ was their motivation for waging war against various iterations of human oppression.
Where would King have stood on gay marriage? I don’t presume to know the answer. Although the Bible consistently identifies homosexual activity as a moral wrong, many today profess to be convinced that Jesus Christ himself would have championed gay marriage as a step toward love, compassion and equality.
My respect for King is deep enough, however, to convince me that he would have studied the Scriptures to critically evaluate that claim. In considering whether recognition of gay marriage really is loving and compassionate, he probably would have examined the reasons for marriage and the likely societal consequences of defining this fundamental institution based on individual preferences. He would have looked past value-laden labels and studied the contents of the package under a lens comprised of both compassion and truth.
Another label King would have parsed is that of “reproductive freedom.” Dreier trots out the fact that King once received a “Margaret Sanger Award” as ironclad proof that he would have been an abortion rights activist. Dreier candidly admits, however, that “King never spoke publicly about his views on abortion,” and that he was assassinated before Roe v. Wade was decided.
We live in a culture committed to the concept of liberty and obsessed with the idea of “choice,” so any conduct packaged in the trappings of “right to choose” (as any conduct at all might well be packaged) appears, superficially, to be a moral good. But I believe King would have balked at the idea of labeling one human being’s purposeful destruction of another human being as a liberty or “choice” that is beyond the power of a civilized society to restrict.
While supportive of Planned Parenthood’s educational efforts on birth control, I think King would have wept at the rate at which babies of color —babies with unique dignity and inherent worth — are being aborted. I think he would have been outraged that a whopping 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically located in minority neighborhoods.
It is impossible for anyone to credibly claim King’s endorsement for causes that arose after his death. But this much we know: King was a follower of Jesus Christ.
His boldness, compassion and commitment to serving others were beautifully consistent with the Christ depicted in the Bible. And just as Christ stood for timeless moral absolutes, I believe King would have looked beyond labels, politics, and polls and stood for transcendent truth, goodness and beauty.
Friday, May 24, 2013
The Untold Story of House Bill 1 - The Unalienable Right to Life Act
Upon eagerly opening The Family Foundation’s latest “Report Card,” I was surprised to find no record of the votes on Delegate Bob Marshall’s House Bill 1, which figured so prominently into the highly-publicized weeping and gnashing of teeth by Virginia abortion lobbyists in 2012. This legislation would clarify that, for purposes of construing Virginia law, every human being is considered a person with fundamental rights, from the time of conception until natural death.
But when the vote was taken, it was 8-7 to report the bill to the full Senate (a win!). That was incredible!
In the lobby, opponents chanted and waved their arms menacingly. At one point, one woman took a swing at Delegate Marshall and had to be restrained by the police. I was verbally accosted by two different women, separately. After several minutes, police gave the order to "clear the lobby." Opponents proceeded outside, where they lined the street with their signs, chanting, "My body--my choice!"
Just a few hours later, in a rare procedural move, the Senate leadership had expedited the bill to the Senate floor (where it was not expected until Monday). Senator Dick Saslaw, a Democrat from the Education and Health Committee, moved to send the bill BACK to the same Committee that had just passed it, for reconsideration in 2013. His motion was seconded by the Republican Majority Leader, Senator Tommy Norment.
I am hopeful that all those who care deeply about the sanctity of human life will coalesce around the few champions we have in the General Assembly, and that House Bill 1--broadly recognizing the unique, inherent value of every human life--will yet become the law of Virginia.
One of the practical effects of the legislation would have been the automatic creation of a civil cause of action for the wrongful death of an unborn child—allowing either parent of an unborn baby to bring a lawsuit against a person whose wrongful act killed the baby. While this was important, and a laudable pro-life goal in and of itself, the implications and effects of House Bill 1 are much broader, deeper, and more significant.
The goal with HB1 was never limited to the creation of a lawsuit, but was more fundamental: the recognition of the humanity of pre-born babies for all legal purposes. Such recognition makes a loud, clear pro-life statement, of course. The statement is that abortion is the killing of a human baby—the killing of a person endowed with inalienable rights rather than the dignified disposal of impersonal, meaningless “products of conception.”
But there is more to HB1 than even that bold proclamation of truth. By acting on the Commonwealth’s prerogative to decide for itself which “persons” are possessed of fundamental rights under the Virginia Constitution and Code, the legislature can significantly impact judicial decisions on legal challenges to future pro-life legislation. In essence, while HB1 does nothing to directly erode the “reproductive rights” created by the United States Supreme Court, it would introduce a new category of “rights” to be considered by the courts: the bundle of fundamental rights the bill explicitly acknowledges as belonging to every human being from conception until natural death.
I don’t know why HB1 wasn’t mentioned in the Report Card. Maybe it was because the story was too big to be reduced to a few lines of print and evaluated with simple plus and minus symbols. Maybe it was because The Family Foundation was content that a separate bill, Senate Bill 674, created the wrongful death cause of action that would also have resulted from passage of HB1– even though it omitted that critical recognition of the humanity and basic rights of the unborn child. I don’t know the reason, but here is the untold story:
HB1 passed the House of Delegates easily, for the second consecutive year. Then it headed to the Senate to be heard by the highly unpredictable Education and Health Committee. When we arrived at the Committee room at around 7:30 a.m., lines were already forming. It was Planned Parenthood's Lobby Day, and abortion activists turned out in droves.
Our hopes were not particularly high that HB1 would survive this Committee. In fact, we were convinced that it would be quite the miracle for that to happen after The Family Foundation had given its support to SB674, which many viewed (incorrectly) as an acceptable alternative.
Our hopes were not particularly high that HB1 would survive this Committee. In fact, we were convinced that it would be quite the miracle for that to happen after The Family Foundation had given its support to SB674, which many viewed (incorrectly) as an acceptable alternative.
The hearing was long and heated. The spiritual battle in that room was almost palpable. A number of times, opponents of the bill (who, again, packed the sizeable room) were threatened with removal for their inappropriate comments and interruptions. At one point, someone was removed.
But when the vote was taken, it was 8-7 to report the bill to the full Senate (a win!). That was incredible!
In the lobby, opponents chanted and waved their arms menacingly. At one point, one woman took a swing at Delegate Marshall and had to be restrained by the police. I was verbally accosted by two different women, separately. After several minutes, police gave the order to "clear the lobby." Opponents proceeded outside, where they lined the street with their signs, chanting, "My body--my choice!"
Just a few hours later, in a rare procedural move, the Senate leadership had expedited the bill to the Senate floor (where it was not expected until Monday). Senator Dick Saslaw, a Democrat from the Education and Health Committee, moved to send the bill BACK to the same Committee that had just passed it, for reconsideration in 2013. His motion was seconded by the Republican Majority Leader, Senator Tommy Norment.
Senator Mark Obenshain courageously spoke against the motion and insisted that a recorded vote be taken on it. However, five Republicans voted with the Democrats to send the bill back to Committee. These five were Tommy Norment, Frank Ruff, Frank Wagner, John Watkins and Harry Blevins, who had voted to report the bill from Committee only hours before! (Ponder the motivations of these five. Are they not pro-life? Do they believe life begins sometime after conception?)
This effectively killed the bill for the year. While Senator Steve Martin could have convened a special session of the Committee last fall to revive the bill, he declined to do so.
The rest of the story remains to be written.
The pro-life community should thank Delegate Marshall for doing the hard, unpopular work of carrying strong, meaningful legislation that holds real potential to change the game in abortion law. I am unspeakably sad about the fact that his valiant efforts appear to have been ignored by those who should be providing the strongest support.
We should also thank Senator Mark Obenshain for taking a courageous stand on the Senate floor, resisting the efforts of some politicians (including Republican leaders) to pervert the normal legislative process by avoiding a full, recorded floor vote on the legislation itself.
These legislators deserve to have this story told.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
This is Abortion.
The recent conviction and sentencing of Kermit Gosnell, along with the national attention it ultimately commanded, marks an important chapter in the contentious debate about abortion. Many in the pro-life camp were initially outraged about the media’s conspicuous decision to ignore the whole story. But the sad truth is that the silence reveals greater logical consistency than the outrage.
Gosnell’s clinic existed to perform the perfectly lawful service of killing human babies inside their mothers’ wombs. While that act will always be horrific in the minds of some, to many others it is--though perhaps sad and unfortunate--a necessary reality in a world of “reproductive rights.”
If we are honest about it, we must admit that the lawful acts we knew Gosnell to be doing and passively accepted (the same acts that will end the lives of over 3,000 babies in the U.S. today) are only marginally distinct from the unlawful acts that have forever branded Gosnell so deviant as to be practically sub-human.
How arbitrary we are, as a society, in our moral judgments! One physician performs an intentional act that ends the life of a tiny human being, and an army of elite, educated, activists will dedicate their lives to applauding and defending his ability to legally do so. Another physician performs the same act on a tiny human being who has emerged from the woman’s womb, and he is roundly deplored as the brutal criminal of the year.
How is it that a matter of spatial inches or relative anatomical positioning could ever be the dividing line between an act that is celebrated as the facilitation of civil rights--the empowerment of women--and an act that is condemned as heinous murder? How is it that if an angry boyfriend kills an unborn child he can be prosecuted for homicide, but if the mother kills the same child, it is a private, protected “choice”?
This is the absurdity of legalized abortion. Where do we go from here?
As a modest starting point, we might seek means of investigating claims that Gosnell’s practices were an aberration from the allegedly clean, safe, and dignified business of abortion. Under present circumstances, it is difficult to do so systematically.
In a recent article that appeared in the Washington Post, reporters cited statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to demonstrate the alleged safety of abortion. According to CDC numbers, 10 women died from abortions in 2010, compared with 793 deaths from bicycle accidents.
The comparison is misleading and irresponsible because, in the case of CDC abortion statistics, the numbers that tell the real story are the numbers that aren’t there. Even states that require abortion reporting do not require reporting to the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute has estimated that the voluntarily reported information excludes data on as many as 45-50% of annual abortions.
Awareness of this “missing data” problem seems to be growing. For instance, a 2011 Chicago Tribune story by Megan Twohey flagged the disparity between the number of Illinois abortion providers that reported required data to state officials (26) and the number of providers actually in business (37). The article also suggested that the state’s data failed to account for as many as 17,000 abortions annually.
Rather than burying deadly realities in spurious statistics, let’s have the intellectual honesty to admit that abortion politics have paved the way for a new kind of “back alley.” Let’s take what we have learned from the Gosnell tragedy and insist, at the very least, upon meaningful oversight of businesses built upon human demolition.
But let’s not stop there. Let’s be “enlightened” enough to admit that we are hypocrites when we accept legalized abortion as a paragon of civil rights but we cringe in horror at the mention of snipped baby spinal cords. We have strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel.
Yes, our judiciary has hijacked our ability to maintain morally consistent, life-honoring laws. But we, the people, must never rest in our efforts to reassert our authority and restore our collective integrity.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
A Call For Honesty and A Call For Resistance
I'm rarely surprised by what I read in the newspaper. The blatant, inaccurate, one-sided propaganda faithfully reported by the media in countless articles about The Inalienable Right to Life Act (HB1) over the past few years have numbed my sense of outrage when the press not only gets its facts wrong, but then doesn't seem to care when you let them in on reality. But I must admit that I did a double-take over a few sentences I read at the end of an article in Sunday's Washington Post.
In the feature piece, "5 Myths about abortion," author Rickie Solinger lists as the fifth "Myth" that "'Choice' guarantees woman [sic] the opportunity to decide whether to become a mother." She goes on to explain that this is a myth because "[T]he Hyde Amendment - a rider attached to appropriations bills each year since 1976 - forbids the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, making the decision not to be a mother financially impossible for some women."
First of all, let's be clear: The Hyde Amendment contains exceptions, allowing federal Medicaid funds to be used for abortions where the mother's life is endangered or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. This is important to the analysis of Solinger's claim because it means that she is saying that where the mother is pregnant as a result of consensual sex, a lack of federal funding for abortion "mak[es] the decision not to be a mother financially impossible for some women."
Of course, saying "no" to sex doesn't cost anything from a financial perspective. So I see only two possibilities in assessing this outlandish assertion. Either Solinger does not know the facts of life, or she believes that poor women are such slaves to their sexual impulses that they simply are not capable of exercising their "decision not to be a mother" through available means of personal responsibility: by choosing not to engage in sex in the first instance, or by using contraceptive methods that are available through Medicaid.
I believe the first possibility can be safely dismissed, based upon Solinger's education credentials and life experience. That leaves us stuck with the more sinister, troubling, second conclusion, which should sound as a figurative call to arms to every thinking, breathing, caring woman who grasps the implications of it.
Solinger may call herself a feminist (I don't know, in fact, whether she does so), but this line of thinking is the stuff of oppression. Women--even those below the poverty line--are not pathetic victims who must depend upon government tax policies and welfare programs to shape their most intimate life choices.
Barring the commission of an actual crime against our bodies by another person (which, again, is not a scenario encompassed by Solinger's reasoning), we do choose to engage in the acts that lead to motherhood, and we can also choose not to engage in them, or to engage in them after taking precautions to prevent pregnancy. Solinger has not made any case for these alternatives' being financially impossible, but rather has dismissed them as alternatives altogether. That is as insulting as it is dishonest.
The abortion activists in America may have already succeeded in redefining "choice" to mean the particular choice to end the life of another distinct human being. I hope that we, as America's women, will refuse to allow Solinger and her ilk to convince us that the only way to "choose" not to become a mother is to choose abortion after having already become one.
In the feature piece, "5 Myths about abortion," author Rickie Solinger lists as the fifth "Myth" that "'Choice' guarantees woman [sic] the opportunity to decide whether to become a mother." She goes on to explain that this is a myth because "[T]he Hyde Amendment - a rider attached to appropriations bills each year since 1976 - forbids the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, making the decision not to be a mother financially impossible for some women."
First of all, let's be clear: The Hyde Amendment contains exceptions, allowing federal Medicaid funds to be used for abortions where the mother's life is endangered or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. This is important to the analysis of Solinger's claim because it means that she is saying that where the mother is pregnant as a result of consensual sex, a lack of federal funding for abortion "mak[es] the decision not to be a mother financially impossible for some women."
Of course, saying "no" to sex doesn't cost anything from a financial perspective. So I see only two possibilities in assessing this outlandish assertion. Either Solinger does not know the facts of life, or she believes that poor women are such slaves to their sexual impulses that they simply are not capable of exercising their "decision not to be a mother" through available means of personal responsibility: by choosing not to engage in sex in the first instance, or by using contraceptive methods that are available through Medicaid.
I believe the first possibility can be safely dismissed, based upon Solinger's education credentials and life experience. That leaves us stuck with the more sinister, troubling, second conclusion, which should sound as a figurative call to arms to every thinking, breathing, caring woman who grasps the implications of it.
Solinger may call herself a feminist (I don't know, in fact, whether she does so), but this line of thinking is the stuff of oppression. Women--even those below the poverty line--are not pathetic victims who must depend upon government tax policies and welfare programs to shape their most intimate life choices.
Barring the commission of an actual crime against our bodies by another person (which, again, is not a scenario encompassed by Solinger's reasoning), we do choose to engage in the acts that lead to motherhood, and we can also choose not to engage in them, or to engage in them after taking precautions to prevent pregnancy. Solinger has not made any case for these alternatives' being financially impossible, but rather has dismissed them as alternatives altogether. That is as insulting as it is dishonest.
The abortion activists in America may have already succeeded in redefining "choice" to mean the particular choice to end the life of another distinct human being. I hope that we, as America's women, will refuse to allow Solinger and her ilk to convince us that the only way to "choose" not to become a mother is to choose abortion after having already become one.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Abortion Clinic Safety Regulations
In case you missed it in the news, the Virginia Board of Health passed final health and safety regulations--including construction standards--for abortion clinics in a vote of 11-2 last Friday. The regulations now go to the Attorney General's office and to the Governor for final certification.
Click here to read my Op-Ed on this, which was published today in the Richmond Times Dispatch.
Click here to read my Op-Ed on this, which was published today in the Richmond Times Dispatch.
Monday, April 15, 2013
160 Million Dead Girls - Part 1
I recently finished reading a book that rocked my world. The author, Mara Hvistendahl, is a Beijing-based correspondent for Science and a supporter of a woman's "right" to abortion. In her book, Unnatural Selection, she chronicles the epidemic of sex-selective abortion that has already swept certain Asian countries and India and is spreading. She explores the practice's origins and effects, including the perspectives of demographers, parents, economists and others. I wanted to share some of the factual high points, which are well-documented and discussed in fascinating detail in the book (and I encourage you to read it!).
Speaking from a technological/medical perspective, it was the combined availability of ultrasound and abortion that led to the annihilation of 160 million baby girls in the womb. But before you shake your head in dismay at the idea that "other" societies could adopt "one-child" policies or embrace abortion as a routine part of family life, consider this: it was all part of a plan hatched in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Fueled by concerns that unbounded population growth would strain world resources and exacerbate poverty in developing nations, American "population activists" collaborated to combat this perceived problem. John D. Rockefeller III put together a "Conference on Population Problems" in Williamsburg, then went on to work with the Ford Foundation, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to "sell Asian nations on population control, primarily by spreading the logic that lower birth rates lead to richer people."
Of course, some "population activists" had more sinister motivations. Hvistendahl posits that, privately, "Western donors worried less about poverty than they did about the global balance of power and specifically about what they believed to be one of poverty's effects: communism." Many American elites worried that rising birth rates in developing nations would make these regions more susceptible to communism and less likely to become American allies.
As these wealthy, Western organizations succeeded in selling developing nations on their "less is better" pitch, baby girls were the casualties. Hvistendahl reports that parents in nearly all cultures prefer sons to daughters.
The impact of widespread sex selection is profoundly visible today, and Hvistendahl describes it well. She visited Asian schools and playgrounds where the ratio of boys to girls is 2:1 or even 3:1. Is it any wonder that demographers are concerned about the global impact of such imbalance? That parents--even those who aborted baby girls so that their own one child would be a son--now worry that their precious son will not be able to find a wife?
But the problem doesn't end with parental worries. Other unintended consequences of this deep gender imbalance include the rising trend of "bride buying," and, worse, the perfect fuel for human trafficking and other sex industries.
Maybe playing "God" isn't such a good idea after all.
Speaking from a technological/medical perspective, it was the combined availability of ultrasound and abortion that led to the annihilation of 160 million baby girls in the womb. But before you shake your head in dismay at the idea that "other" societies could adopt "one-child" policies or embrace abortion as a routine part of family life, consider this: it was all part of a plan hatched in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Fueled by concerns that unbounded population growth would strain world resources and exacerbate poverty in developing nations, American "population activists" collaborated to combat this perceived problem. John D. Rockefeller III put together a "Conference on Population Problems" in Williamsburg, then went on to work with the Ford Foundation, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to "sell Asian nations on population control, primarily by spreading the logic that lower birth rates lead to richer people."
Of course, some "population activists" had more sinister motivations. Hvistendahl posits that, privately, "Western donors worried less about poverty than they did about the global balance of power and specifically about what they believed to be one of poverty's effects: communism." Many American elites worried that rising birth rates in developing nations would make these regions more susceptible to communism and less likely to become American allies.
As these wealthy, Western organizations succeeded in selling developing nations on their "less is better" pitch, baby girls were the casualties. Hvistendahl reports that parents in nearly all cultures prefer sons to daughters.
The impact of widespread sex selection is profoundly visible today, and Hvistendahl describes it well. She visited Asian schools and playgrounds where the ratio of boys to girls is 2:1 or even 3:1. Is it any wonder that demographers are concerned about the global impact of such imbalance? That parents--even those who aborted baby girls so that their own one child would be a son--now worry that their precious son will not be able to find a wife?
But the problem doesn't end with parental worries. Other unintended consequences of this deep gender imbalance include the rising trend of "bride buying," and, worse, the perfect fuel for human trafficking and other sex industries.
Maybe playing "God" isn't such a good idea after all.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
A Woman With a Sign
Every Friday on my way to The Rutherford Institute, I pass by a Planned Parenthood clinic. There is usually at least one person on the sidewalk outside--sometimes a handful--holding signs or just bowing in prayer.
I sometimes wish that there were more people there.
I always want to stop and just go thank these folks for taking a stand that is wildly unpopular and branded by most as "judgmental" or downright mean. In fact, I usually feel a pang of guilt for not being right out there with them.
If we really believe that tiny, helpless human lives are being snuffed out inside that building, isn't it right that we should peacefully protest that? Who knows whether God might choose to work through a well-worded sign pointing a desperate mother to a greater Hope?
Last week, the vision I saw brought me to tears. One woman, bundled against the cold, head bowed in prayer, held a sign that read simply, "I regret my abortion."
That is a testimony.
For me, stopping on that particular day was not an option. But if I ever see her there again, I will stop. I will thank her for doing what all Christians should be about: giving both our best and our mess to the Father--holding back nothing--and letting him use us as He sees fit.
I sometimes wish that there were more people there.
I always want to stop and just go thank these folks for taking a stand that is wildly unpopular and branded by most as "judgmental" or downright mean. In fact, I usually feel a pang of guilt for not being right out there with them.
If we really believe that tiny, helpless human lives are being snuffed out inside that building, isn't it right that we should peacefully protest that? Who knows whether God might choose to work through a well-worded sign pointing a desperate mother to a greater Hope?
Last week, the vision I saw brought me to tears. One woman, bundled against the cold, head bowed in prayer, held a sign that read simply, "I regret my abortion."
That is a testimony.
For me, stopping on that particular day was not an option. But if I ever see her there again, I will stop. I will thank her for doing what all Christians should be about: giving both our best and our mess to the Father--holding back nothing--and letting him use us as He sees fit.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
They aren't just numbers.
A friend sent me a link to a Washington Examiner news article today that was deeply disturbing. According to the article, Planned Parenthood's 2011-12 annual report shows a banner year for abortions.
The organization performed 333,964 abortions in 2011. Stated another way, Planned Parenthood was paid to kill 333,964 people. 333,964 babies. 333,964 individuals, created by God in His image. To put this in perspective, last September the death toll for U.S. troops in Afghanistan reached 2000.
And according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, Planned Parenthood received a whopping $542 MILLION in various forms of taxpayer funding, comprising 45% of its budget. In Afghanistan, we are (ostensibly, at least) spending money to protect Americans; here at home, we are actually and openly spending money to kill Americans.
This news brings to mind a quote that another friend uses under his signature line:
“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”
-- Abraham Kuyper (Prime Minister of The Netherlands 1901-05).
To read the article, click here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-reports-record-year-for-abortions/article/2517801#.UOwpz4njlF1
The organization performed 333,964 abortions in 2011. Stated another way, Planned Parenthood was paid to kill 333,964 people. 333,964 babies. 333,964 individuals, created by God in His image. To put this in perspective, last September the death toll for U.S. troops in Afghanistan reached 2000.
And according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, Planned Parenthood received a whopping $542 MILLION in various forms of taxpayer funding, comprising 45% of its budget. In Afghanistan, we are (ostensibly, at least) spending money to protect Americans; here at home, we are actually and openly spending money to kill Americans.
This news brings to mind a quote that another friend uses under his signature line:
“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”
-- Abraham Kuyper (Prime Minister of The Netherlands 1901-05).
To read the article, click here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-reports-record-year-for-abortions/article/2517801#.UOwpz4njlF1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)