With God as Their Cover

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a great piece at NRO that discusses the anger of the Democrats and Pro-Abortion activists at Congressman Bart Stupak’s amendment to the House healthcare bill that would not allow federal funds to be used for abortions.

Abortion, they say, wasn’t supposed to be an issue in the health-care debate. By which they mean: The revolution must include abortion. “Reproductive rights are human rights” is the way Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, put it. Abortion is, in fact, a “God-given right,” according to the Rev. Carlton Veazey, a Baptist minister and the president and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Huh??? Abortion is a God-given right??? He must be talking about one of those other gods.

Those who oppose abortion, of course, agree with them on the first part of that assertion, the “keep abortion out” mantra. However, the abortion advocates insist that it is “gender discrimination” to treat abortion as something other than just another medical procedure. They view the House version of the health-care bill as a “rollback” of women’s rights. The problem is: If you want government to take over health care in America, you can’t avoid stirring up this issue. Because the life-ending, do-harm “medical procedure” of abortion is legal — either you avoid government financial entanglement with it or you don’t, and, if you don’t, you violate the conscience rights of millions of Americans.

Read the rest of Lopez’s article.

Tiller Killer Says More On Way

Looks like abortionist George Tiller’s killer, Scott Roeder, is playing on the pro-abortion crowd’s conspiracy theories. He called the AP from jail and said that more killings are planned across the country. Here’s the story.

Roeder told the AP he know of “similar events planned around the country” as long as abortion is legal.

He would not elaborate.

Again, lest any pro-abortion folks accuse me of advocating unlawful violence to end the immoral act of abortion, I want to repeat that I believe that Scott Roeder’s actions were wrong. Period.

I’d also like to repeat that we should not forget that Tiller’s actions, while maybe not illegal (at least according to any court of law), were also wrong. We can’t forget about the thousands of babies he killed in the womb.

More reaction on Tiller shooting

I’ve had a few ugly comments thrown my way, both here and on another blog where I left comments (see here). Most of the pro-choice blogs and commentors are using this incident to bash pro-lifers and lump them all into the same “right-wing, militant, religious, wacko” basket. Obviously, as it’s turning out, the shooter acted alone. The important thing that these pro-abortion folks are glossing over is the fact that all of the major pro-life organizations have come out with nothing but condemnation for the shooter and sympathy for the abortionist’s family and church. This entire incident is a tragedy all around. The doctor was prevented from repenting his lifestyle of death (as some of the folks who used to work for him did) and becoming a voice for life instead. Thousands of babies were killed by the man. And the cowardly act of the shooter is not doing anything positive for the pro-life movement. We don’t need violence to win the hearts of our country. We’ve got logic and morality on our side.

I like Annie’s post at Generations for Life.

But the truth is that the kind of peaceful prayer witness, compassionate sidewalk counseling and lawful protest that the Pro-Life Action League and Generations for Life promote has NOTHING to do with violence.

The sort of person who will go out to humbly pray at an abortion clinic week after week or reach out to abortion-bound mothers with hope and love has nothing in common with someone who would turn to
violence.

Let’s pray that God will be able to use this terrible act to open the eyes of America to the truth of what abortion is doing to our collective soul.

Arizona To Entertain New Pro-Life Law

AZCentral.com is reporting that a new bill is making its way through the Arizona legislature that would provide a big win for pro-lifers after years of vetoes by Arizona’s former pro-abortion governor.

The legislation would require a pre-abortion waiting period and mandatory disclosures to women seeking abortions. It also would allow pharmacists and health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion or emergency contraception on moral grounds. Other provisions toughen the existing law on parental rights.

Former Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democratic abortion rights supporter, vetoed every anti-abortion bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature during six years in office.

Dr. Candace Lew, a Planned Parenthood Arizona leader and an obstetrician-gynecologist who practices in Tempe, said the so-called “informed consent” provisions are insulting to women.

“It is not government’s place to make a woman’s decision for her and this bill certainly attempts to do that,” Lew said.

Huh? Dr. Lew, the government is NOT trying to make the woman’s decision for her. It is trying to ensure that the woman is more informed before making a life-changing (and life-taking) decision. Why do pro-abortion activists always get riled up when it comes to making the public better informed about abortion?

Powerful Pro-Life Ad to Air during Inauguration

CatholicVote.com is going to air a powerful new ad during the Inauguration today on BET which reminds everyone of the difficult life that Obama was born into. It also reminds everyone of how pro-abortion Obama is.

Brian Burch, Executive Director of CatholicVote.org, explained the motivations for the advertisement in a Monday press release.

“Our message is simple: Abortion is the enemy of hope. The purpose of our new ad is to spread a message of hope about the potential of every human life, including the life of President-elect Obama,” Burch said.

“Many Catholics and pro-life Americans recognize that Barack Obama steadfastly supports abortion. And while we’ll pray for his conversion, that doesn’t diminish an essential truth: that each human life has dignity and worth,” he continued.

“Given the political climate, we acknowledge that the fight to protect human life faces an uphill climb. For this reason, we developed an ad that we hope can transcend the political obstacles ahead, and provoke the consciences of our leaders and fellow Americans.”

Pro-Life and Pro-Obama?

Grant Swank has some great points when he tells about some conversations he had with a black minister friend who had led his life as an evangelical Christian, but in the months leading up to the election, his support for Obama caused Swank to question his friend’s stance. I will say that although I agree with most of what he says, I think it is unnecessary to refer to Obama as “B. Hussein”. This is a tactic that is clearly meant as a way to play on people’s biases against Muslims and Arabs. Swank would still have plenty of ammo to work with in this article without having to resort to basically a form of name-calling. It’s just silly and immature. Still, I agree with the point of his article.

Abortion is murder.

Homosexual practice is abhorrent to the biblical God.

Both can never fit with the scriptural ethic. Never. Therefore, I cannot ever reason that it is legitimate for a person to testify to being a biblical Christian while at the same time openly confirming abortion and sodomy as acceptable.

There are those who say that every woman has a right to control her own body. That is true. Then, having control over her own body, she should not become pregnant if she does not want children. That is control! When she becomes pregnant, then she has lost her control over that situation.

But more importantly, only God has final rights to any person’s body. He brought that body into life and someday will take that body out of life. In the meantime He provides the very sustaining power for the body’s life to continue.

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person.

“Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk … and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit” (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

“Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name…and now the LORD says — he who formed me in the womb to be his servant…” (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

Chuck Colson: From Rhetoric to Deed

Chuck Colson has an excellent piece about how, when faced with the truth of what being pro-choice actually means, those who perform abortions often lose their enthusiasm for being “pro-choice”.

The Nov. 23 issue of the Washington Post magazine told the story of a medical student named Lesley Wojick. She plans to specialize in obstetrics and gynecology and is unapologetically “pro-choice.” She even helped organize a “day-long abortion seminar” at her medical school.
At the seminar, a medical director for Planned Parenthood of Maryland asked the attendees, “How pro-choice are you?” She asked them what their families and neighbors would think of their performing abortions.

Ms. Wojick was determined to “walk the talk,” to make her “actions to be consistent with [her] words.” She thought that if “pro-choice” doctors like her didn’t do this, “the right to abortion might be rendered meaningless.”

Ms. Wojick then attempted to “walk the walk.” But not for long. During her obstetrics rotation, she realized that “vacuuming out a uterus and counting the parts of the fetus” wasn’t for her. “Somebody else … would become an abortion provider. But it wouldn’t be her.”

It’s not surprising. Once you get past the rhetoric of choice, what’s left is a bloody and, for most people, disreputable business. As Ms. Wojick discovered, even people who insist that it’s a right want little to do with the actual practice or the practitioners.

Continue reading Mr. Colson’s article to learn more about the effect of performing abortions. This is a perfect example of why the pro-abortion crowd is so violently opposed to pro-lifers trying to present the images of abortions to the public.

More from Abort73.com: The Facade of Choice

In this post, I’m highlighting another area of the Abort73.com website–the facade of “Choice”. Before I add a snippet from them, let me say that if you want more information on how to persuade friends or family members on what abortion is really about, one of the best websites is Abort73.com. They’ve done their research, have all the facts, and present them in a way that is impactful and creative. It’s especially designed to speak to the Facebook and MySpace generation. Okay, now for a sneak preview of what they have to say about “Choice”…

Since abortion is impossible to justify on the merits (it kills a living human being, remember), “choice” has become the foundation of its political justification. Abortion advocates don’t want to talk about facts or science, but they love to talk about “choice”. “This is America…We’re free to choose…You can’t legislate morality!” Nothing has so clouded and confused the politics of this debate more than the misconstrued application of this one little term. The bottom line is this. Choice is nothing apart from the context to which it is applied. Individual choices are either recognized or restricted based upon the circumstances at hand. That’s how our laws work. You simply cannot talk about choice in isolation.
For thirty years, however, abortion advocates have sought to bestow upon choice a nobility all its own, a nobility it has no claim to. They refuse to be called “pro-abortion”, but they gladly accept the label “pro-choice” (despite the fact that there are countless other issues for which they are decidedly not pro-choice). The fact is, laws against rape, murder, assault, theft, speeding, drunk-driving and even smoking are all “anti-choice”. They take away legal protection from one particular choice in order to protect a more foundational freedom. All such laws are “legislating morality”. That’s the only way society can survive. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. Therefore, anyone who defends legal abortion by simply arguing that people must be free to make their own choices is either ignorant or dishonest.

Again, please direct anyone who is undecided on the whole issue of abortion to Abort73.com. Also, if you know of anyone considering getting an abortion, please use this site to educate yourself and them.

More on Freedom of Choice Act

Don’t Drink the King’s Wine has posted about Americans United For Life (AUL) and their fight against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). They’ve started an ad campaign against it. For more info go to FightFOCA.com. Here’s some more info from their website.

This [FOCA] would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support, such as:

- Bans on Partial Birth Abortion
- Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion
- Only licensed physicians can perform abortions
- Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter’s abortion

FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

A Reminder of Obama’s Promise

Americans United for Life is reminding voters that Obama has promised that if he’s elected, the first bill he’d sign into law would be the Freedom of Choice Act.

“Many people still don’t even know about this radical bill and Obama has promised Planned Parenthood it would be his first priority in the White House,” AUL president Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews.com on Tuesday.

Sen. Obama last year promised the national Planned Parenthood abortion business, “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

Yoest says FOCA would wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide, and prevent enactment of future protective measures like common-sense parental involvement laws and prohibitions on partial birth abortion.

The letter specifically focuses on how the Obama-backed legislation would overturn parental notification and consent laws and leave parents in the dark about their minor daughters having an abortion.

AUL’s letter tells the story of a 14-year-old girl from Cincinnati who became pregnant by her 22-year-old soccer coach.

“Planned Parenthood gave her an abortion after turning a blind eye when the soccer coach pretended to be a family member for the parental notification requirements,” Yoest said.

AUL explains that the FOCA bill would make unlimited abortions the national law and overturn state laws such as informed consent requirements, bans on taxpayer-funding of abortion and conscience protections for pro-life doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals.