Gosnell Not An Aberration

5 06 2013

In the wake of the Gosnell atrocities and the other outrages that are coming to the light of day, Ian Tuttle from National Review has a great article on the mounting evidence that is beginning to show that these cases aren’t exactly an aberration in the world of abortion.

The accumulating evidence shows that Gosnell was not an “outlier,” and that it was not particularly lax oversight of abortion clinics in Pennsylvania that permitted his grisly operation to continue. It shows, instead, that horror clinics are distributed throughout the country — and that those who operate them frequently take their life-threatening operations on the road.

But a woman does not need to walk into a “house of horrors” to find herself in danger. Investigators in not only the states mentioned above, but also Alabama, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Colorado, are presenting evidence that abortion clinics are regularly out of compliance with state health regulations.

It should not come as a surprise that an industry that has so little regard for human life should have so little regard for laws and regulations.





Chinese Activist Escape Begins New Era of Outrage Against Forced Abortion

16 07 2012

The National Catholic Register has an excellent article about how blind Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng’s recent escape into the U.S. embassy has created a great opportunity to generate international disapproval against China’s one-child policy.

Few activists are prepared to suggest that the headlines have provoked an official reversal of a national policy that has touched every life in China. But those who have labored for decades to expose the practice of forced abortion and sterilization are making the most of this unexpected period of public outrage and open debate.
That zeal was on display during a July 9 congressional hearing organized by the Subcommittee on Africa, Human Rights and International Programs, spearheaded by Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a pro-life leader in the House who has struggled for years to get political traction on the issue.
Smith and the other activists who testified at the hearing issued a spate of demands: Defund and repudiate the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), deny visas to Chinese officials responsible for imposing forced abortions, and increase pressure on Beijing to end the policy.
A series of Republican administrations have barred funding to the UNFPA because of past allegations that it had participated in the one-child policy — a charge repeatedly denied by the organization. Thus, while President George W. Bush cut off U.S. financial support, President Barack Obama quickly reinstated it soon after his inauguration in 2009.

It’s interesting to note that the UN Population Fund is a major partner in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s campaign for birth control.





A Parent is Born, part 1

15 07 2012

Jill Stanek has been posting some videos that Pampers has been creating. This series won the 2012 Fatherhood Award from the National Fatherhood Initiative.





Condi Rice Not the Best Choice For Veep

15 07 2012

Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review Online has some great points why Condeleeza Rice wouldn’t be the best choice for Mitt Romney’s running mate. His top three reasons all relate to her views on abortion.

1) Her selection would seriously offend many social conservatives — possibly enough to depress their turnout. In general, I think claims that conservatives will stay home in this election are overblown: Opposition to President Obama is running pretty hot. A vice-presidential nominee who is “mildly” in favor of letting a million unborn children be killed every year, though, would be one of the few things that would make this scenario plausible. Keep in mind, she would be the first pro-choicer on a Republican ticket since Roe v. Wade — unless she flipped and made herself look like a political hack just as the country was being introduced to her as a candidate.

2) Related: Her selection would require Romney to go back on his word. During the primaries, he committed to picking a pro-life vice president. (See the South Carolina forum held on September 5, 2011.)

3) Further related: Her selection would reinforce doubts conservatives already have about him.

I hope Romney hasn’t already forgotten how hesitant many socially conservative Americans have been to accept his candidacy, based in large part on his previous pro-abortion stance when he was governor of Massachusetts. What he needs now is a running mate who will solidify his status with core conservatives.





Starting back up

15 07 2012

Well, it’s been too long since I last posted here. It’s interesting how sometimes our lives become filled with all kinds of things. A lot of those things are important, such as going to our children’s games, meeting the guys for breakfast and accountability, or going out for a date with our spouse. But too many of the things that fill our days are not really that important, when you think about it for a second. How many TV shows do I really need to have in my queue on the DVR? When I’ve checked my email and sports scores and facebook statuses, maybe it’s time to do something a bit more constructive when I sit there trying to figure out where to go next online.

Okay, so before I shut the lid on the laptop, I could post here on my blog. Promoting the cause of life is vitally important to the soul of our nation. While this blog by itself won’t matter a whole lot, I want to contribute to the national conversation taking place, with a tiny little hope that someone out there will be influenced towards protecting the lives of our unborn babies.





Personhood Measure Clears First Hurdle To Get On Ballot In California

19 11 2011

The AP is reporting that a pro-life group has been cleared to begin gathering signatures to get a personhood measure on the ballot in the 2012 election.

Union City-based California Civil Rights Foundation must collect more than 807,000 signatures by April to qualify for the November 2012 ballot, the secretary of state’s office said.

The foundation’s president, Walter Hoye, is an Oakland pastor known for protesting outside abortion clinics. He said he launched a similar campaign in California in 2010, but it fell short of the required signatures.

“The more of this conversation that we have, the stronger the pro-life movement becomes,” Hoye said.

He said he is hoping for a spirited signature drive for the “California Human Rights Amendment.” Hoye declined to identify any major financial contributors.

The California proposal would define a person as a living human being from the time of fertilization, giving embryos equal protection under the state Constitution.





Pregnancy Centers Fight San Francisco’s Blatant Discrimination

18 11 2011

No one should be surprised at anything that happens in San Francisco, the bastion of hyper-liberal politics. But here’s the latest one coming out of that city. According to Courthouse News Service, the city’s mayor, Edwin Lee, signed a bill on 4 November that would fine pregnancy centers if they make “untrue or misleading” statements. The bill’s sponsors readily admit that they are targeting two pregnancy centers that try to offer alternatives to abortion to pregnant women. But the centers are fighting back.

…in a federal complaint, one of those centers says the legislation is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. First Resort calls itself a “state-licensed health clinic that provides free counseling and certain free medical services to women who seek pregnancy-related information and medical care.”
“The purpose of the ordinance is to destroy or minimize First Resort’s ability to communicate with women who are or may be considering abortion,” according to the group’s 16-page complaint.
The law would allegedly have a chilling effect on organizations like First Resort “by threatening the imposition of severe fines and penalties for violations of unconstitutionally vague regulations of speech.”
Noting that it neither performs abortions nor refers clients to abortion providers, First Resort says it is being singled out for its political views.

Wait a minute…I thought San Francisco was all about freedom of expression. I mean, isn’t that what all the gay pride parades and walk-around-without-clothes-days are all about? The government shouldn’t be telling us how to live our lives, right? EXCEPT if the way we’d like to live (or work) happens to conflict with the official liberal party line. I’m sorry, but could someone please tell me the difference between what the city of San Francisco is attempting to do and what the Nazi party did in its earliest stages in 1933? If you don’t spout the official party nonsense, you shall be punished.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.