Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Pro-Life’

Note for January 2013: Download this for a limited time free on Amazon Kindle before this week ends!

abortion sproul

I appreciated Sproul weighing in on this topic. Those who have read other works on pro-life works (see my review of Scott Klusendorf’s work) will not find anything dramatically new here. Yet it’s good to read and review the pro-life’s argument. One thing that stood out as unique in this book was actually George Grant’s preface. Grant summarized the current landscape in our society, political sphere and culture as the result of the abortion debate since Roe vs. Wade. This fascinating essay filled with footnotes by Grant puts into perspective for the Christian the extent of how much the abortion controversy has seeped into so many spheres of our lives today. The book is worth reading for the preface alone. Getting into Sproul’s actual work I do appreciate how the author does deal with various objections given against the prolife position. I was reminded that more women have been known to have been killed by abortion after Roe vs. Wade than before it which makes the back alley abortion argument for legalizing abortion kind of ironic. Concerning the argument that the fetus is part of the woman’s body, Sproul bring modern study of cells to bear, noting that babies have a different genetic fingerprint than the mother. The more interesting part of the book is the appendix that ended up being a rather lengthy testimony of a medical expert on the status of the embryo. Perhaps a little too lengthy. Sproul could have had his arguments tighter and I say this because I’ve seen other works that have made it air tight in their presentation. For those who might want to read an introductory work or to remind and refresh their prolife apologetics I can recommend this work.

Purchase: Westminster | Amazon

Read Full Post »

abortion-and-racism

In light of the 40th year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we thought it would be appropriate to share some thoughts on abortion/murdering of human life.

1) After I watched this heart-rending documentary, I was not surprised at the spiritual condition of the United States.  As I said many times to others, this country can be described as a culture of death.  Although abortion is practiced by many people from many races, this video points out that abortion is the number one killer of African Americans.  The abortion takes place in a Women’s Medical Society center at 3801 Lancaster, Philadelphia, PA.  Disclaimer: This video reveals some graphic images.  Here is the video: 3801 Lancaster

2) In this article from Desiring God, David Mathis talks about Martin Luther King, Jr. and the night of Black genocide.  Just as a footnote, I am not wholly aware about everything concerning Martin Luther King’s view of life, ethics, and the Bible, but my understanding is that he has been labeled as a heretic because of his very dangerous views against the Bible.  Please see this link concerning Martin Luther King’s views on the Bible: The Troubling Aspects of the Manhattan Declaration.  I would also encourage the readers, if time permits, to read some of his theological works.  As a result, I cannot give my full endorsement to him, but I can endorse what he stood up against such as racism.

It should also be noted that Martin Luther King Jr. was not the only man who fought against racism and segregation, but there were many godly men and woman of God who strongly voiced their repudiation against racism and segregation.  At any rate, in this article,  Mathis links abortion to racism.  This is a interesting read.  Here is the link: MLK’s Dream and the Nightmare of Black Genocide.  Since Margaret Sanger is mentioned in this article from Desiring God, I would also encourage readers to read into Margaret Sanger’s racist views towards African Americans and other races and groups.  Abortionists will tell you that she was not a racist, but do your research and you will find out her true colors.

3) Randy Alcorn contributes an article on abortion and covers the doctor accused of murdering many lives at Women’s Medical Society center at 3801 Lancaster, Philadelphia.  Please see this link: It’s Time to Stop Pretending Abortion Is Anything Other Than the Ruthless Killing of an Innocent Human Being

4) For a book documenting Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist; and the founder of Planned Parenthood (started around the 1930s), get your hands on this free PDF book: Killer Angel.  Here are some excerpts from the book,

As her organization grew in power and prestige, she began to target several other ‘ill-favored’ and ‘dysgenic races,’ including ‘Blacks, Hispanics, Amerinds, Fundamentalists, and Catholics'” (73).

I ‘wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under White supervision” (74).

5) For Margaret Sanger’s book, please see this link: Pivot of Civilization.  Here is one excerpt from her book that reveals her view on other races as being inferior,

The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately.  Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period.  Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives.  The male defectives are no less dangerous.  Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem” (101).

Read Full Post »

Pro-life Pastor Walter Hoye of Berkeley, California, was ordered to serve 30 days in county jail by Judge Stuart Hing of the Alameda Superior Court.

wh1Hoye had been found guilty on January 15, 2009, of unlawfully approaching two persons entering an abortion clinic in Oakland. Judge Hing had also ordered him to stay one hundred yards away from the abortion clinic for three years. However, Walter Hoye refused this term of probation and would not agree to a stay-away order. Therefore, the judge denied the defense motion to stay the sentence pending appeal. Hoye was taken into custody from the courtroom.

At a hearing on February 19, Judge Hing stated that he had not intended to impose any fine or jail time on Hoye if he would agree to stay away from the abortion clinic. After Hoye refused to agree not to offer alternatives to abortion-minded women, Judge Hing imposed a 30-day sentence and $1130 fine.

Dozens in the African-American and pro-life communities from around the nation who came out in support of Pastor Hoye were outraged by the sentence. The consensus of these leaders is that it was a travesty that Pastor Hoye was found guilty in the first place for standing in the gap for black children targeted by the abortion industry.

“It is absolutely incredible that in America an individual can be sentenced to jail for engaging in peaceful free speech activity on a public sidewalk,” remarked Allison Aranda, Staff Counsel for Life Legal Defense Foundation. Aranda further stated, “Rev. Hoye is being singled out for particularly harsh punishment because he refused to agree not to offer help to women considering abortion. Where is the justice in that?”

Hoye is an African-American pastor who feels a special calling to work for the end of the genocide-by-abortion taking place in the African-American community. As part of his efforts, he stands in front of an abortion clinic in Oakland with leaflets offering abortion alternatives and a sign reading, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help.” In response, the Oakland City Council passed an ordinance making it a crime to approach persons entering abortion clinics to offer alternatives to abortion. Approaching women to encourage them to enter the clinic is permitted, according to City policy.

According to 2004 statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, about 37 percent of pregnancies of black women end in abortion, compared with 12 percent for non-Hispanic white women and 19 percent for Hispanic women.

LLDF Legal Director Catherine Short and attorney Mike Millen, who also represented Rev. Hoye at trial, are currently challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance on Hoye’s behalf in federal court. They are hopeful the ordinance will be struck down and Pastor Walter Hoye vindicated [article from here].

More from,

World Magazine (reports on his time in jail with others)

Free Republic

Read Full Post »

t4a

I have been thinking about attending this conference (T4A) but knowing that with technology the audios will be provided. I was hoping to hear from Russell Moore but due to voice problem he could not make it.

Here are the audios,

HT: Jason Kovacs/ABBA fund

Read Full Post »

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, where he lectures on constitutional interpretation, civil liberties and philosophy of law. He also serves as the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He was educated at Swarthmore College (BA), Harvard Law School (JD), Harvard Divinity School (MTS), and New College, Oxford (DPhil). At Oxford he studied under John Finnis and Joseph Raz. Formerly, he served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and as a fellow at the U.S. Supreme Court. He currently serves on the U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

These were the Norton Lectures given at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

  1. Embryo Ethics: Justice and Nascent Human Life
  2. Marriage and the Illusion of Moral Neutrality
  3. Democracy, Morality and Judicial Usurpation

Dr. George is a Catholic and a prominent conservative who is always speaking up for the unborn.

Read Full Post »

Al Mohler wrote today that America has chosen a new President.

Read the whole article.

Read Full Post »

This is a great site for the Born Alive Act.

BornAliveTruth.org

Read Full Post »

Robert P. George writes on Barack Obama’s record on abortion. With a law degree and a theology degree from Harvard, and a doctorate from Oxford, he currently serves as McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and as the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He also serves on The President’s Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Obama’s Abortion Extremism by Robert George
Oct 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama’s views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals – who aggressively promote Obama’s candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama’s self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama’s abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice.”

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers’ money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people – Thomas Jefferson was one – reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn’t think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as “pro-choice”? Of course we would not. It wouldn’t matter to us that they were “personally opposed” to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were “unnecessary,” or that they wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said “Against slavery? Don’t own one.” We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being “pro-abortion” and being “pro-choice.” Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called “pro-choice,” then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, “forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.” In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons.” In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not endure. He has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing “pro-choice” about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is “pro-choice” rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can’t get worse than that. But it does.

For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President’s restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents’ decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.

But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This “clone and kill” bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.

Can it get still worse? Yes.

Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama’s extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama’s injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! “pro-choice”-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood’s own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, “abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.” In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that “abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.” No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies – so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

But for a moment let’s suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama’s proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: “that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Read Full Post »

Would it be called infanticide to have voted against the Born Alive Act?

Read Full Post »

The Facts

In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Voted At Least Six Times Against Legislation That Would Protect The Life Of A Child Born Alive During An Abortion Procedure. (S.B. 1082: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Rejected, 4-6-0, 3/12/03, Obama Voted Nay; S.B. 1093: Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, Passed, 7-4, 3/27/01, Obama Voted Nay; S.B. 1094: Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, Passed, 7-4, 3/27/01, Obama Voted Nay; S.B. 1095: Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, Passed, 7-4, 3/27/01, Obama Voted Nay; S.B. 1662: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 30-12-10, 4/4/02, Obama Voted Nay; S.B. 1663: Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, Passed, 6-3-1, 3/5/02, Obama Voted Nay)

FactCheck.org: While Barack Obama Says He Would Have Voted For The Federal “Born Alive” Legislation, He Voted Against A “Nearly Identical” Bill In The Illinois State Legislature. “Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 ‘born alive’ bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been ‘fully in support’ of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade. We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.” (Jess Henig, “Obama And ‘Infanticide,'” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 8/25/08)

Barack Obama’s Campaign “Acknowledged That He Had Voted Against An Identical Bill In The State Senate.” “His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.” (Russell Berman, “Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record,” The New York Sun, 8/18/08)

FactCheck.org: Barack Obama’s Stated Reasons For Voting Against The Bill Are “Wrong.” “The statement was still on Obama’s Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of ‘lying.’ But Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.” (Jess Henig, “Obama And ‘Infanticide,'” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 8/25/08)

Read Full Post »

Is the title fair?

Obama on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

After the baby is born alive (failed abortion), they let the baby die outside the mother’s womb.

This is a research done by Jill Stanek:

IL Senate 2001

  • Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
  • Voted “no” in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
  • Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (March 30, 2001) (see pp. 84-90 of this PDF)
  • Voted “present” for the bill (March 30, 2001)

IL Senate 2002

  • Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
  • Voted “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
  • Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002) (see pp. 28-35 of this PDF)
  • Voted “no” for the bill (April 4, 2002)

IL Senate 2003

Jill Stanek’s interview on O’Reilly,

Read Full Post »

Obama said, “The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

So, what is this Freedom of Choice Act?

The Freedom of Choice Act supercedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.

This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions.

If Barack Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion.

More of Freedom of Choice Act at NRLC

Read Full Post »

This morning John McCain made his announcement for his Vice Presidential pick – Governor Sarah Palin. One of the many things that stood out in his running mate is that she is a pro-life Governor of Alaska who just had a down syndrome baby 4 months ago. She lived out her belief of pro-life.

Albert Mohler says it well in his commentary and below is taken from his website.

A little boy with an extra chromosome was born on April 18. His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin and his new home is the Alaska Governor’s Mansion in Juneau. His mom is Governor Sarah Palin, who along with her husband Todd, has welcomed Trig as their second son and fifth child.

Governor Palin has already made a mark on the political scene. A high school basketball star and beauty queen, she was elected Alaska’s governor in 2006. She is often mentioned as a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain. The Palins’ other children include Track, their oldest son, who now serves in the U.S. Army. They also have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

Trig made news long before he was born, as Alaska’s citizens learned that their governor was pregnant. Then, for the Palins, the story got more complicated.

This past December, Sarah Palin was told that her baby was likely to have Down syndrome — just one extra chromosome.

As the Associated Press reports:

The doctor’s announcement in December, when Palin was four months pregnant, presented her with a possible life- and career-changing development.

“I’ve never had problems with my other pregnancies, so I was shocked,” said Palin.

“It took a while to open up the book that the doctor gave me about children with Down syndrome, and a while to log on to the Web site and start reading facts about the situation.”

When he was told, Todd Palin quickly said, “We shouldn’t be asking, ‘Why us?’ We should be saying, ‘Well, why not us?'”

The Palins never considered aborting the baby. That means that Trig Palin is now is a very rare group of very special children, because it is now believed that the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth are being aborted.

Modern diagnostic tests are driving a “search and destroy mission” to eliminate babies judged to be inferior, disabled, or deformed. Some experts now believe that up to 90 percent of all pregnancies diagnosed as having a likelihood of Down syndrome end in abortion.

Back in 2005, ethicist George Neumayr commented: “Each year in America fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.”

The Palins would not even consider aborting their baby. “We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life,” Governor Palin said. “We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential.”

She loves her baby boy and is proud of him. “I’m looking at him right now, and I see perfection,” Palin told the Associated Press. “Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?”

Some ethicists now go so far as to argue for a “duty” to abort a baby with a Down diagnosis. This is an assault upon the dignity of every human being. The fact that so few Down syndrome babies now make it to birth is a sign that America is making its own pact with the Culture of Death.

Trig Paxson Van Palin has an extra chromosome, two proud and loving parents, four very happy siblings, and he will bring his own joy to untold numbers of lives.

He will face some unique challenges, but he has a loving family who will face those with him. They will learn together the wonder and beauty of a Down syndrome child and will learn to see the glory of God in his trusting face.

Mothers Day 2008 is certain to be a special day in the Alaska Governor’s Mansion. What an unspeakable tragedy that so many other homes will have aborted that joy.

Welcome to the world, Trig Paxson Van Palin. Your very existence defies the Culture of Death and gives us all hope.

Read Full Post »