100 Days of Change for the Family

May God have mercy on our nation and President.

Kathy Ireland: An Effective Pro-Life Voice

Kathy Ireland recently appeared on the Mike Huckabee show where she shared her Christian testimony and what motivated her to change her stance on abortion from pro-choice to pro-life.

She does in excellent job of articulating a maximum number of facts in a minimal amount of time in a winsome and attractive manner. As Melinda from Stand to Reason notes, she is a "gracious and effective ambassador."

To watch the video, click here.

The President Calls for Comments On Conscience Clause

UPDATE- The President is saying he is going to remove the conscience clause that has been in place.

The Conscience Clause protects physicians and nurses choice not to participate in abortion procedures if it goes against their conscience. By reversing this clause, doctors will be forced to perform these procedures regardless of their individual beliefs. This is a freedom issue and a right to life issue. Here is a great artilce from Stand To Reason on the problem with this decision: "Pro-Choice? Only for One Choice"

YOUR OPPORTUNITY -The President has called for comments on the issue and 30 days were given starting on March 6th. Please consider taking action by being apart of the Be Heard Project.
Sign the petition that has already been siged by over 14,000 people. All it requires is your Name, Age and an email address. or you can call the ACLJ at 877-989-2255 where you can talk with person over the phone.

• Count: 57,259 signatures
• (last updated on 4/4/09)

This petition is presented by the ACLJ, a trusted source. Just go to www.beheardproject.com or www.ACLJ.org to sign this petition and learn more.

Pass on this information if you support this effort.

Palin Parents and Parental Rights

Governor Sarah Palin is reportedly backing a bill that would require parental consent in order for a minor to have an abortion in Alaska. The Governor is supported by Rep. John Coghill (Republican) and Sen. Donny Olson (Democrat).

Palin said, "Wherever you fall on the abortion issue, right or left, this legislation is about families and parents rights and protecting our children,"

The bill would revise the Parental Consent Act originally passed by the State Legislature in 1997. It was later overturned by Alaskan Supreme Court justices in 2007, by a 3-2 vote. The court held that the parental consent requirement was unconstitutional because it infringed on a pregnant teen's right to reproductive freedom.

Planned Parenthood had originally brought the lawsuit in 1997. The organization says it plans to sue again if this bill is signed into law. The Executive Director of Planned Parenthood had this to say:

"We support parental consent and I think that is extremely important. I fully agree that ones parents should be talking about sex and about the consequences of sex, but I don't think that once you are dealing with an unintended pregnancy is the time the state should step in and make parents and teens communicate."


It is interesting that the state legislature can declare this bill unconstitutional because it "infringes on a teen’s right to reproductive freedom." This of course is unreasonable being that it then infringes on parental rights. Besides, couldn’t all laws regarding minors be said to infringe on their personal rights in one way or another?

After all, teen girls aren’t allowed to receive Tylenol from nurses at school without parental consent. Many cities have curfew laws for teens and the government doesn’t allow teen’s to smoke because they aren’t old enough to decide for themselves yet.

So how is the case for “reproductive freedom” solid justification for a minor to make a private decision to have an abortion? What if the unborn child is a female, what about her rights? (Obviously this issue goes hand in hand with the issue of abortion)

With freedom comes responsibility. It would seem to me, the laws should include safeguards for parents to help their children make well-informed decisions. I would think that there would be support both for parents to have to give consent and be informed before such a procedure, as abortion, would be performed on underage teen girls. I understand some people don’t parent well, but that isn’t reason to remove parental rights.

As for Planned Parenthoods Executive Directors statement, I wonder when he thinks it is a good time for the state to “step in” and “make parents and teens communicate.” Would it be appropriate when a minor is contemplating undergoing an invasive medical procedure that will affect the life of another person or is it only appropriate when a minor has a headache?

I think it is very appropriate for parental notification before an abortion, just as it is for every other medical procedure.


Read Full Article Here

What a 12-year-old thinks.

Earlier this month, a young 12-year-old girl from Toronto faced some discouragement and opposition from her teachers at school. The young girl, Lia, had planned a speech for the school wide competition but was told she would be disqualified because her speech was controversial in nature. What was her speech about? Her speech was a pro-life stance on the topic of abortion. Apparently Lia, despite the pressure, presented her speech anyway.

Prior to her giving her speech at the competition, a teacher stepped down from the judging panel in protest of the speech. Afterwards, Lia was told she was in fact disqualified, despite the speech being well received by both students and teachers.

However, that decision was later revoked due to controversy among the judges that even led to the agreement that the 12-year-old deserved to win the competition. You can watch the speech in its entirety down below. After watching it, I think you will agree her presentation of the speech is deserving of a win regardless of your position on abortion. I also think Lia accurately presents compelling arguments for a child’s right to continue to live. Let me know what you think.

Read the full story here.

Pro-life Pastor Prepares for Sentencing

(Onenewsnow.com) Charlie Butts

An Oakland, California, pastor could face jail time for expressing his pro-life views.

Pastor Walter Hoye ran into trouble with an abortion clinic while doing an informational picket. Dennis Howard, leader of The Movement for a Better America, believes Hoye is innocent.

"His approach was simply to carry a sign that said 'Jesus Loves You. Can We Help?' and offering those who wanted it some information about alternatives to abortion," Howard explains.

A complaint was filed and Hoye was found guilty in spite of proof to the contrary. "There was a video taken of him doing this, and it shows that he was not harassing anybody," Howard points out. "In fact, he was being harassed by escorts from the abortion clinic."

Pastor Hoye faces up to two years in jail and a $4,000 fine. Howard is calling Christians into action. "We feel that pro-life organizations around the country ought to take up this man's cause and pray and fast between now and February 19," he concludes.

That is when Hoye is due to be sentenced.

Infanticide Alive and Well in America

(World Net Daily) Bob Unruh

A Florida woman is suing an abortion business for forcing her to witness the "murder" of her daughter, who allegedly was "swept" into a biohazard bag to "suffocate and bleed to death."

WND reported previously on the 2006 case in Hialeah, Fla., which was sparked by an anonymous tipster who notified police of the death. The tipster later called back to prompt a police search that led to the discovery of the baby's body in the biohazard bag in a cardboard box in a closet.

The action was filed by attorneys working with the Thomas More Society and names as defendants the Miramar Woman Center, A GYN of Hialeah, Belkis Gonzalez, Siomara Senises, Frantz Bazile and others allegedly involved in the death of the baby, named Shanice Denise Osbourne.

The case is being brought on behalf of the mother, Sycloria Williams. Tom Brejcha, chief of the law society, said the goal is to establish that there was a wrongful death.

The claim was filed by prominent Miami personal injury attorney Tom Pennekamp, who was retained by the law society for the case.

The case alleges Shanice was born alive, then murdered "by defendant, abortion clinic owner, Belkis Gonzalez." The other defendants are cited for "unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, botched abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records and the killing, hiding and disposing of the baby."

Should the case result in a determination there was a live birth and homicide, it could have national implications because of the issue of care that abortionists are required to provide to babies who survive abortions. While he was a state lawmaker, President Obama opposed such rules, arguing they imposed too great a burden on the abortionist.

The case alleges:

As a direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of the Defendants, Plantiff Sycloria witnessed the live birth and suffering of her daughter as she struggled for life in pain, moving and breathing on the recliner. She witnessed Belkis Gonzalez enter the room and knock the live baby from the recliner seat where she had given birth to the floor. She then witnessed the murder of her daughter by Belkis Gonzalez before her eyes, as Belkis Gonzalez picked up a large pair of orange shears and cut the umbilical cord connecting mother and daughter. Belkis Gonzalez did not clamp the baby's umbilical cord allowing the baby to bleed out and also threw or by some accounts literally swept the breathing live child into a biohazard bag to suffocate and bleed to death. There are reports that Belkis Gonzalez also placed a caustic chemical in the bag with the live baby.

The case explains Shanice's mother learned she was pregnant in July 2006 and decided to have an abortion. She went to the Miramar Woman Center and was referred to abortionist Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique.

The mother, Sycloria Williams, went to the Hialeah clinic July 20, but Renelique wasn't there. In fact, the case explains, there was no one with a medical license at the business.

Even so, the clinic's receptionist gave Williams the drug Cytotec, which induces labor. She waited for five hours before giving birth to a live baby girl, the case explained.

"The baby writhed and gasped for air, still connected to Williams by the umbilical cord. Immobilized by shock, Williams watched Gonzalez run into the room, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of orange-handled shears, stuff the baby and afterbirth into a red biohazard bag and throw the bag into a garbage can," the lawsuit explains.

Someone with inside information about the clinic called police about the death. When officers responded, they found medical records but not the baby's remains. Then six days later, another anonymous call said officers could find the baby's body on the business roof, but they didn't. Following a third call to police, the decomposing body was found in a cardboard box in a clinic closet. DNA confirmed it was the body of Williams' daughter.

The county medical examiner confirmed the baby had been breathing after birth and before death but blamed the death on "extreme prematury."

The Thomas More Society took an interest in the case when a local law school professor was quoted in the Miami Herald to the effect that if the baby wasn't "viable," then it "couldn't be a case of homicide."

"That opinion is dead wrong," said Brejcha. "A disabled or dying patient may not be 'viable' in the sense of being able to live very long or without help, but if you kill them, it's murder. This was a case of infanticide, and we're not going to let it go ignored or unpunished."

A pathologist retained by the law firm established "the acts and omissions of the abortionist and clinic staff were causative factors in Shanice's untimely death." The lawsuit said the clinic staff members refused to call 911 for help nor did they "seek any medical or neonatal assistance of any kind."

Further, the abortion businesses falsified records, the lawsuit contends, stating that Williams left shortly after noon, even though there were blood pressure and other medical readings in her records after that time.

Technically, the death has been "under investigation" by prosecutors for more than two years, without charges being filed.

"This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk," said Brejcha. "Moreover, this case should put some sharp teeth into the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. As we struggle to end the scourge of legal abortion in this country, we must hold the line against infanticide!"

WND columnist Jill Stanek said the baby's brief life and her death "demonstrate the need for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. While it was legal to kill Shanice pre-birth, it was "wrongful death" to do so after, even if she wasn't viable.

"This is exactly the age baby Barack Obama as state senator fought against giving legal personhood status," she wrote.

Obama Stuns Pro-Lifers

(WorldNetDaily) Chelsea Schilling

At the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton Hotel this morning, President Obama caught pro-life advocates off guard when he said God wouldn't condone taking the life of an innocent human being.

Obama spoke of the need for people of all religions to end persecution "in the name of perceived righteousness."

"[F]ar too often, we see faith wielded as a tool to divide us from one another as an excuse for prejudice and intolerance," he said. "There's no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same."

The president said people from various religions all have different views about how humans came to be on Earth and "where we are going next."

Obama attempted to draw similarities among the world's diverse religions.

"No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenant is hate," he said.

"There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."



The blogosphere lit up with comments from pro-life advocates upon hearing that statement. Many referenced Obama's support of partial-birth abortion.

"It is, of course, the Golden Rule, the call to love one another, to understand one another, to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth," he continued. "Instead of driving us apart, our very beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted, to make peace where there's strife and to rebuild what is broken, to lift up those who have fallen on hard times."

Obama also announced the formation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

"The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group of faith over another or even religious groups over secular groups," he said. "It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state."

The president spoke about his professed conversion to Christianity, saying he was born into a household that was not "particularly religious."

"It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck, no matter what they looked like or where they came from or who they prayed to," he said. "It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods that I first felt God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose, His purpose."

Obama's agenda regarding "reproductive choice" is posted on the White House website. It states, Obama "has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration."

The Obama administration repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions during his first week in office.

The president has also said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," a sweeping bill that would abolish pro-life regulations across the nation.

What You Won't See During the Super Bowl

(Onenewsnow.com) NBC has rejected a pro-life ad for the Super Bowl, citing its policy not to run ads involving "political advocacy or issues."

The 30-second television spot, a project of CatholicVote.org and financed by The Fidelis Center for Law & Policy, actually emerged just before the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, explains there is nothing objectionable in its "life-affirming" message, which features ultrasound pictures of a baby in a mother's womb.

"The ad actually sparked so much interest, and we started getting e-mails and calls from people who saw the ad [and] wanted to try to put it on the air," says Burch. "And given the time of year that we're at, there began a campaign to put it on the Super Bowl."

Burch says his organization signed a contract with NBC to air the spot, and they were extremely happy -- "Until we were informed that NBC, in conjunction with the NFL, was rejecting our ad because it was a political or issue ad," Burch states, "and they said they have a policy against it."

He respects NBC's decision but says his group's pro-life ad is not divisive or confrontational and is not really political. It simply asks people to imagine the potential of every human life.

"And particularly one person's human life -- which I won't give it away. You'll have to watch the ad," he says.



Personal Reflection: The point of this ad is simple. Since Roe v. Wade nearly 50 million babies have been aborted in this country. There is no telling how many Einsteins, Mother Teresas, and future leaders have been lost in this holocaust. Case in point: Barack Obama. His own abortion would have been justified in the eyes of many given the poor circumstances he was facing in life. And yet he overcame those obstacles to become President. Ironically, Obama's own life is a testimony against the radical pro-abortion choice position he supports.

Obama, Abortion, and Economics

Let's see...

What can I do to help America in this time of economic crisis?

I know! I'm going to repeal the Mexico City Policy and spend $440 million dollars a year to help fund global abortions! Brilliant!

Hurray for change!

Laura Antkowiak, Research Assistant with the National Right to Life, has written an excellent article responding to economic arguments put forward by pro-abortion choice advocates. Contrary to what many believe, abortion hurts our nation economically. Laura's main points are as follows:

1. Fewer babies means fewer consumers, less demands for good and services, and fewer jobs.

2. Abortion slows labor force growth.

3. Abortion undermines technological innovation.

4. Abortion drives the Social Security crisis.

5. Abortion does not save tax dollars.

In the end, abortion is not just wrong morally. It is wrong economically as well.

Let the Obamanation Begin!

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Officials with the incoming administration of Barack Obama have confirmed that he will indeed overturn a pro-life policy of President Bush on his first day in office. Despite campaigning on the rhetoric of wanting to reduce abortions, Obama will make one of his first actions promoting them globally.

Meanwhile, some 77 members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking Obama to back down from doing so.

President Bush used an executive order on his first day in office to reinstitute a pro-life policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund international groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries.

While U.S. law prohibits funding abortions directly, Bush's Mexico City Policy expands the law by also prohibiting the funding of pro-abortion groups that either do abortions overseas or lobby pro-life governments to sacrifice their abortion limits.

During the presidential election, pro-life groups issued a clarion call to voters telling them their tax money would be used if Obama were elected and saying he would likely reverse the Mexico City Policy immediately after taking office.

The capital publication Congressional Quarterly reports that top Washington officials tell it that the incoming president will reverse the pro-life measure on his first day as president, on Wednesday.

When Obama overturns the limits on global abortions, he will do so over the objections of dozens of members of Congress.

"As a new administration begins, it is our hope you will work, as you have pledged, to create a new era of bi-partisan cooperation. We urge you to continue the Mexico City Policy, which separates abortion and family planning in America's foreign aid programs," the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote Obama on Friday.

They say the policy "ensures that United States family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion as a method of family planning. Such activities would send a wrong message overseas that the United States promotesabortion."

The members, led by Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, also say it is "insulting" to other nations to promote pro-abortion groups that lobby them to overturn long-standing pro-life laws based on their culture and heritage.

"We also have a responsibility to respect the laws of many developing countries who have laws prohibiting or restricting abortion. It is an insult to fund organizations that are intent on overturning those laws by promoting the Western ideology of abortion on demand," they said.

Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat who sponsored legislation in Congress to reverse the provision, told CQ that somehow putting it in place endangers the health care people in third world nations receive.

But Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of National Right to Life, tells LifeNews.com the Mexico City Policy and Obama's reversing it is all about abortion.

Thus, it appears Obama's move will take money away from non-abortion groups that provide services to poor people in foreign nations.

"One effect of Obama's anticipated order will be to divert many millions of dollars away from groups that do not promote abortion, and into the hands of those organizations that are most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method," Johnson explained.

"So, a president who not long ago told the American people that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions, is already effectively promoting the increased use of abortion as a means of population control," Johnson added.

President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.

President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it.

Under the Mexico City Policy, funding for family planning programs is not reduced.

Being Pro-Life Christians Under a Pro-Choice President

A commentary by John Piper:

That is the title of a sermon I preached January 17, 1993, three days before Bill Clinton was inaugurated president. It is just as relevant—or more—today.

The text was 1 Peter 2:17, “Honor the king.” I closed with eight ways to honor a pro-choice president. The seventh was this:

We will honor you by expecting from you straightforward answers to straightforward questions. We would not expect this from a con-man, but we do expect it from an honorable man.

For example,

1. Are you willing to explain why a baby's right not to be killed is less important than a woman's right not to be pregnant?


2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?


3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?


4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the "Freedom of Choice Act" by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?

Perhaps you have good answers to each of these questions. We will honor you by expecting you to defend your position forthrightly in the public eye.

You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better.

Possible Reversal of the "Mexico City Policy"

Washington (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.

Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. Bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

At the time, critics -- including Planned Parenthood -- called the move a "legislative ambush."

Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

Obama Is No Lincoln

Anthony Horvath has posted an excellent article entitled "Abortion and Slavery: Obama as the Anti-Lincoln":

Right there on the Drudge Report was a picture of Obama posturing in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It doesn’t take much to see the relevance. Lincoln was instrumental in liberating black people from slavery in this country. 150 years later, a black person is president. The spin doctors aren’t content to leave it at that. The effort is on to try to relate Obama to Lincoln’s style, intellect, etc. But Obama is no Lincoln.

The prevailing argument in the hundred years leading up to the Civil War was this simple question: is a black person a human person, entitled to the rights and privileges granted to all members of the human race. The debate raged even in Christendom, with pro-slavery Christians trying to manipulate the Bible so as to justify slavery. Among these Christians, sometimes the argument wasn’t so much that blacks weren’t persons as that they deserved what they were getting (mark of Cain type arguments). The Civil War didn’t end the debate. For one thing evolutionary theory provided a new justification, asserting that black people were lesser evolved- animals, if you will.

The question of ‘personhood’ for blacks, at least, has been settled. But the question of ‘personhood’ in general is nowhere near settled.

Today, hundreds of thousands of unborn are slaughtered every year. Today, one can find Christians straining to find ways to continue justifying this from the Scriptures, hoping beyond hope that when we read we are created in God’s image, that image is only imprinted in the birth canal (except in cases of partial birth abortion- the image in that case is only imprinted once the child is fully out. Except when the child isn’t wanted… etc). And Evolutionists continue to leave their mark, thinking in terms of over-population and costs to society.

And where does Obama fall? Obama insists that he finds abortion regrettable and wishes it were rare. And yet he has vowed to pass FOCA “as the first thing he will do” in office. This legislation, it is universally agreed, will toss out all restrictions on abortion, like for example against partial birth abortion and other late term abortions. Obama claims to be a Christian, and yet, like the southern plantation owners of old, has managed to find a way to tell himself that the unborn are not persons. Obama is no Lincoln. He says one thing but does differently.

The woman says “I have the right to do what I want with my body!” irrespective of whether or not there is another body involved. The southern plantation owner made the same argument: “I have the right to do what I want with my property!” irrespective of whether or not there is another body involved.

The argument is extended: “Well, how do you know it is only your body and that there isn’t another body involved?” “Because its my body!” Right. “Well, how do you know that slaves are only property?” “Because they are my property!” See? Settled.

We’ve come so far and yet not far at all. It is a strange irony indeed where a black man takes the presidency, his ‘personhood’ status assured by the spilt blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Civil War and hard fought for the hundred years after, and then that black man makes himself very comfortable depriving another oppressed people their personhood status. It’s a bit like if Jew survives the Nazi holocaust only to come to power and do the same thing to a different class of people.

Obama is no Lincoln. Andrew Jackson, perhaps. He thanks the Lord for his own freedom while continuing to restrict it for others.

The irony persists- this black man also tries to justify his position about the personhood status of another under the guise of Christianity. Meaningless, meaningless, says the teacher: There is nothing new under the sun.

While it is understandable why so many black Americans are cheering the election of Barack Obama it is tragic that they were willing to abandon the very principles that brought them their own freedom, overlooking the fact that there exists in this country, and in the man they elected, the view that that there is another ’subset’ of humanity that does not warrant personhood status. Their success, therefore, is no success at all. They elected ‘one of their own’ and didn’t care if it meant something worse than slavery for millions of people. And many of these believe they are doing the ‘Christian’ thing. It will only be a genuine success after it is achieved in such a way to respect the rights of all individuals- not just those with your skin color or stage in human development.

What Abortion Really Is

Today is Sanctity of Life Day, 2009. It's impossible to speak about the sanctity of life without addressing the issue of abortion. And you cannot address the issue of abortion without talking about what abortion is. Think about the word "abortion." What comes to mind? For many people, the word "abortion" conjures up images of a pro-choice or pro-life protest (or maybe even the bombing of an abortion clinic). Why? Because the majority of people receive their news information through visual media. And when the media portrays the issue of abortion the pictures that are put before us time and time again are like the one shown here: two protesters holding signs. But is that what abortion really is? Absolutely not. Abortion is not a protest. Abortion is not a bombing. So how do you successfully communicate what abortion really is with a culture that, in the words of Ravi Zacharias, listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings? You show them. Meaning needs to be restored to the word abortion before dialogue can take place. And to understand what abortion is you must see what abortion is. The following video shows abortion for what it really is.

Warning: This video is extremely graphic.



It is hard to watch a video such as this and think that abortion has anything to do with what is typically portrayed on television or in the news media. Many people object to the use of graphic images when it comes to the issue of abortion. But why? We use graphic images all the time to communicate the horrors of the holocaust, starvation, and violent acts of terrorism. The question is not whether or not these pictures are emotional. They are. The question is whether or not these pictures are true.

When abortion is hidden, abortion is tolerated. When abortion is seen, everything changes. America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America. Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

January: Sanctity of Life Month

January is Sanctity of Life Month. This seems highly ironic given the most radical pro-abortion choice candidate in U.S. history will be sworn in as President in just a few days.

If you haven't done so, you need to read "Obama's Abortion Extremism" by Robert George. Then you need to sign the petition to fight against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

What is the Freedom of Choice Act? It is an extreme piece of pro-abortion choice legislation which would eliminate all nationwide restrictions on abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. In a speech to Planned Parenthood back in 2007, Barack Obama stated, "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."

It's a shame that Obama's "change" doesn't extend to the unborn.

Pro-Life AND Pro-Capital Punishment???

That's awfully inconsistent, isn't it? How could anyone possibly be pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue and yet at the same time support capital punishment? After all, the "death penalty" certainly doesn't sound pro-life!

Pro-abortion choice advocates (and even some pro-lifers) will occasionally make the claim that being pro-life and in favor of capital punishment is inconsistent. The objection here seems to be that these pro-lifers oppose killing in the case of abortion and yet support killing in the case of capital punishment. It is then concluded by some that the pro-life position on abortion is incorrect. Just recently I heard one pro-lifer said, "If only we didn't support capital punishment," as if to insinuate that this was hurting the pro-life cause. This objection and line of reasoning is flawed in several respects.

First, this objection commits a red herring fallacy. The topic under debate is abortion and our concern is whether or not abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. What exactly does capital punishment have to do with that? Capital punishment is brought up as a distraction to divert attention off of the main issue: abortion. The fact that a pro-lifer may be inconsistent in their views has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortion kills a valuable human person. An inconsistent individual can still draw a good conclusion. But this alleged inconsistency does nothing to support either the pro-life or pro-choice position. Furthermore, wouldn't this argument also make those who are pro-abortion choice and against capital punishment equally inconsistent?

Second, some pro-life advocates do not believe capital punishment is morally justifiable. Certainly these pro-lifers cannot be accused of inconsistency. If a perceived inconsistency is the problem, why not take this position which retains the merits of the pro-life position rather than presumptively conclude the pro-life position is incorrect?

Third, it can be rationally and persuasively argued that the pro-life position on abortion is consistent with capital punishment. The reason pro-life advocates are opposed to abortion is because abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. But not so with capital punishment. Capital punishment is reserved for those guilty parties who have received due process and have been convicted of committing a capital offense, such as murder. Notice that in both cases, abortion and capital punishment, a life is taken. The difference is that one is an innocent life and the other is not. To say that the pro-life position on abortion is inconsistent with capital punishment is to say that there is no difference between taking the life of an innocent human being and taking the life of a guilty one. There is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life and pro-capital punishment since pro-lifers are against killing an innocent human person and capital punishment does not kill an innocent human person.

Finally, this objection is a great example of an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of dealing with the arguments offered by the pro-life position against abortion, the pro-abortion choice advocate attacks the character of the pro-lifer by claiming intellectual inconsistency.

The major points and commentary presented here were taken from two sources:
Defending Life by Francis Beckwith, pg. 126-127, and also this article by the same author.

Thirty-Five Years Since Roe v. Wade

January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary since the landmark case decision Roe v. Wade. A recent article in the OC Register entitled "Who gets an abortion and why?" discusses some of the reasons women are choosing to abort their unborn and provides some very interesting statistics and quotes. While 2005 saw the lowest number of abortions in the United States (1.2 million) since 1976, the total number of abortions for the past 35 years is estimated at close to 50 million. More than one-third of adult women are estimated to have had at least one abortion.

So why are women having abortions? According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization which supports abortion rights, the majority of abortions, well over 90 percent, are performed for what would be considered social/economic reasons. In other words, the unborn are being aborted simply because they are not wanted or due to the economic strain they might incur.

The following quotes in italics are from the above mentioned article. These quotes provide excellent examples of the rhetoric and fallacious reasoning which often accompanies the assertions of pro-abortion choice advocates.

"But often the women getting the abortions say they act in the interests of children they already have. 'It wasn't a hard decision for me to make, because I knew where I wanted to go in my life – I've never regretted it...It wasn't hard to realize I didn't want another child at that time...I was trying to take care of the one I had, and going to college and working at the same time.' She was able to graduate, now has an insurance job, and – still a single mother – has a 3-year-old son as well as her first-born, now 11."

• Notice the assumption that the unborn is not a human being. The article states that women who have abortions "act in the interests of children they already have." This assumes the unborn is not a child they already have! This is begging the question plain and simple. The question is, What is the unborn? If the unborn is a human being, it certainly is not acting in the interest of the unborn to have an abortion.
• Furthermore, the mother says, "It wasn't hard to realize I didn't want another child at that time." Again, this assumes the unborn is not a child and begs the question.
• The mother goes on to say, "I was trying to take care of the one I had." Think about that line of reasoning for a moment. In order to better take care of the child which was already born, she decided to kill the unborn one. This also, once again, begs the question since she assumes the unborn child is not a child she already has. Furthermore, why didn't she consider killing the child which was already born so she would be able to take care of her unborn? That would be wrong of course since she would be killing a human being. Ah, so the question is, What is the unborn? You cannot justify killing the unborn to take care of the born anymore than you can justify killing the born to take care of the unborn, if in fact the unborn is a human being.
• Finally, notice the writer puts this abortion in a positive light by saying, "She was able to graduate, now has an insurance job, and – still a single mother – has a 3-year-old son as well as her first-born, now 11." Notice the rhetoric. A happy ending to this story. No good arguments or reasons are given which justify the taking of an innocent human life for economic reasons. But a nice persuasive story is told which leaves everyone feeling like the mother made the right decision. Pro-abortion choice advocates dare to suggest that women should kill their unborn children in order to make life better for everyone else.

"Martha Girard, on the other hand, says she's appalled by the notion that women should lose the right to choose...'I knew that this pregnancy would end up badly – I could feel it – and we've already got enough problems with the mentally ill son...I was very sad and depressed the first week...But because it's hard on you emotionally and some women regret it, that doesn't mean it's wrong, that you shouldn't have done it, that someone else should decide for you."

• Abortion here is referred to as the "right to choose." Choose what? This is an incomplete sentence. Choice is a relationship between an individual making the choice and a particular thing which is chosen. "The right to choose" is nothing more than a euphemism which distracts people from the real issue: whether or not abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. You first have to establish what exactly is being chosen before you can assert that you have a right to choose it.
• Notice that she doesn't consider killing her already born mentally ill son. After all, that would be wrong. Instead, she kills her unborn child. Like the other comments, this begs the question and assumes her unborn is not a human being.
• Finally, she admits this was a very emotional experience, as I am sure it is. There is no doubt that abortion can be a very psychologically complex decision. But notice that she has to rationalize her decision. She admits she was sad and depressed but ends by saying "that doesn't means it's wrong." Here's something to consider. Maybe the reason you feel sad and depressed is because it is wrong. Is that at least a possibility? Maybe the reason we feel guilty is because we are guilty. In addition, just because something may be psychologically complex does not mean it is morally complex. It's wrong to take an innocent human life simply because they are in the way and can't defend themselves, regardless of how psychologically complex that decision may be.

"The Journal of Family Issues published a report earlier this month asserting that women often choose abortion because of their wish to be good parents...'The women believed that it was more responsible to terminate a pregnancy than to have a child whose health and welfare could be in question.'"

• Once again, think about what this is saying. Women choose abortion because they want to be good parents? Does that seem wrong to anyone else? Why on earth would anyone think that having an abortion makes them a good parent? Unless of course they are assuming the unborn is not a human being. Our society is so morally confused it sees nothing wrong with suggesting that parents kill their unborn in order to be considered "good."
• Also, notice the euphemism "terminate a pregnancy." Another great example of rhetoric. You're not "ending a life" or "killing your unborn." You're simply terminating a pregnancy...a simple standard procedure to remove a piece of non-viable tissue mass, no different than an appendectomy. How tragic and degrading for our unborn.

Interestingly enough, why isn't adoption every mentioned? Isn't that an option anymore in our society? In fact, there are currently close to 2 million families in this country waiting to adopt. 35 years after Roe v. Wade and unfortunately our culture seems just as morally confused over the issue of abortion as the Supreme Court Justices were on this fateful day in 1973. One pro-life advocate in the article stated, "We've begun to depend on abortions...We feel we have to choose between our unborn child and our born children. We shouldn't have to choose." She's right. Some choices are wrong. We can do better than abortion.