It’s not the airports, the traffic, the bag-checking, or even the shoe removal and full-body X-ray. That stuff is no fun, but I can tolerate it. I hate actually being in the air. Even though I’ve heard the statistic (“It’s safer than driving a car!”) a million times, what I call my “primitive monkey brain” kicks in as soon as I look at the plane. A tiny, primeval voice in my head says, “That is a building with wings, and buildings can’t fly.”
No matter how many times people try to explain it to me, using words like “propulsion” and “thrust” and “imbecile,” I still can’t wrap my brain around it. I feel certain that the plane I am about to board will be one of the rare ones that drops out of the sky like a stone.
I was sitting at DFW airport, after the car I was riding in had a flat and I had to be handed off to another family member in the pouring rain by the side of the freeway like a parcel of contraband. I bolted from the car at the terminal ten minutes before my flight was to depart, sprinted through security like a maniac, and screeched to a halt at the gate to find that my flight had been delayed an hour… then another hour… and then another.
In this short video, a young man explains eloquently why more and more young people are flocking to the pro-life movement. Displaying a great deal more intelligence than many of the youth we’ve been seeing in the news lately, this young person accurately quotes the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all people. He also warns that allowing the slaughter of the unborn “opens the floodgates” to violating further rights, and not just for the unborn.
Watch the video here and share it with your friends.
On Thursday, Sep. 15, Planned Parenthood of North Texas hosted a presentation by Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, to discuss their lawsuit against the state of Texas’s new sonogram law. The event, called “Trust Texas Women,” was held at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas, and I attended, ostensibly as a concerned pro-choicer, although no one asked me my affiliation.
I had to RSVP beforehand, and I did so, using my real first and last name and email address. When I arrived, I was checked in by a smiling woman and ushered toward free refreshments. Another smiling woman, nibbling a cookie, complimented my cowboy boots. Someone else said she liked my tattoo – a large, black state of Texas on my arm. I thanked them both, wondering if they could smell the pro-life on me, but despite being younger and blonder than most of the people there, I seemed to attract no undue attention. Only seconds later, someone else came and ushered us into the sanctuary, where approximately 50 or so other people, mostly women, were already seated.
Live Action President Lila Rose is leading a protest this coming Thursday, August 4, at Mercy Regional Medical Center in Durango, CO. The event, which will include a press conference, is intended to draw attention to the fact that Mercy Regional, a Catholic hospital, employs an abortionist on its staff.
Dr. Richard Grossman is a Quaker, an adherent of the Protestant Christian sect famous for its aversion to violence. He is 67-years-old, graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, and spends his Fridays perpetrating abortions at the Durango Planned Parenthood.
It’s undeniably true that one does not have to be Catholic or even Christian to be pro-life. It is also equally true that one cannot be Catholic without being pro-life. To quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law… Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, ‘by the very commission of the offense.'”
One of the most powerful weapons in the pro-life arsenal is the authentic testimony of those who have advocated for and helped provide abortions, and later seen the light. People like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Carol Everett, and Abby Johnson have information and insight that will help us win the fight against the abortion industry.
Allentown, Pennsylvania native and mother of three Jewels Green has made the courageous decision to finally speak up for life. In her first public pro-life testimony, she tells Live Action about suffering the pain of abortion as a teenager and later spending several years working in an abortion clinic.
This is her story:
“My first baby would be 22 this week. I was a 17-year-old drug-using high school drop-out, but when the lady wearing scrubs told me I was pregnant, I already thought of myself as a new mother.
Everyone wanted me to get an abortion… except me.
I actually stopped using drugs, went to the library and checked out a book called Under 18 and Pregnant and started to read it to prepare. I scheduled my first prenatal check-up. My boyfriend was relentless. I am deliberately omitting the details of the violence, both real and threatened, but I finally caved in to my boyfriend’s insistence to not have our baby. On January 4, 1989, he took me to the abortion clinic, but I literally ran out in the hope of saving my baby. Two days later, on January 6, 1989, at 9 1/2 weeks gestation, I had an abortion. It nearly killed me. No, not the surgical procedure, the psychological aftermath. I attempted suicide three times after my abortion and finally ended up in an adolescent psychiatric ward of a community hospital for a month to recover.
I like Google. I use it a lot. Sometimes when I get bored I type in random word strings, such as “grapefruit courtney love mosquito” just to see if anything comes up. But I also use Google to find information about what’s going in with the abortion issue in the United States, and that’s the problem: I usually find what I need, and it’s giving me a bleeding ulcer.
Under the Texas law, the abortion provider would be required to describe the fetus and its limbs and organs and have the woman listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. It also requires that a woman wait 24 hours after the sonogram before undergoing the abortion… The restrictions are waived in cases of sexual assault, and the waiting time is reduced to two hours for women who live 100 miles or more from the abortion provider.
I wouldn’t have included the sexual assault clause, but it sounds pretty reasonable, right? Not to the CRR. Here is their response:
“This law is asking [doctors] to do something unethical at the cost of threatening to prosecute doctors for a crime, and forcing them to lose their medical license,” said Susan Hays, a Dallas lawyer for the New York-based Center.
How far down the rabbit hole have we fallen when people who are okay with abortion — the legal killing of a human being — use the word “unethical” to describe a doctor showing an ultrasound to an expectant mother?
If we think carefully about what CRR is saying in their lawsuit, it’s not that the mother is being misled. No one is arguing that. They simply can’t argue that, because it isn’t so.
So the CRR’s argument is against a doctor telling the truth to a patient before a procedure. That’s all the sonogram and its description is. In essence: Here is your baby, here are its arms and legs and head, this is how big it is, here is the heartbeat. All true. All factual information. No opinion, no commentary is required by the law. Many women, I know from experience, think of their babies as a “clump of cells.” The ultrasound proves otherwise. Shouldn’t they know, don’t they deserve to know, what it is an abortion will dismember and vacuum out of their womb?
What organization or individual sincerely interested in choice would be against the simple provision of information to a patient about to undergo a serious medical procedure?
None would. But the CRR are not interested in “choice.” They are interested in women continuing to have abortions. They are, as the title of the article accurately describes, a pro-abortion group. If all women in America decided spontaneously tomorrow to stop having abortions forever, do you think the CRR or Planned Parenthood would smilingly accept this? Oh, no. There would be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Choice has nothing to do with it.
We pro-lifers are pro-choice as well. We believe you should have a choice to participate — or not — in sex, which, in case you weren’t aware, more and more scientists believe leads directly to babies in many cases.
Once fertilization occurs, a separate human being is present, and the time for choice is over. It’s no longer “my body, my choice.” It’s a child, and the law should protect it.
The Sonogram Law is an attempt to do just that: advocate for the child who, in an abortion clinic, has no one on its side.
Here’s hoping CRR is unsuccessful in their attempt to deal a serious blow to the rights of the unborn in Texas.
I happened today upon a charming little piece of work entitled “Why Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Bankrupt America.” The gist of the article, which the author helpfully puts in bold letters, is that abortion will save us all money. Yes, folks, you heard it here: it’s much cheaper to kill human beings than to let them grow up and be a drain on society.
This is an argument I hear pretty often when talking to people about abortion. After I school them in basic biology so they have no choice but to stop telling me the embryo is not a separate human being, they fall back on utilitarian arguments, or what I like to call the Hitler Thing. “Crime has gone down since Roe v. Wade,” they’ll say. Or, “What would we do with all those babies?”
I usually reply with, “Well, you know, I don’t really have all the answers to crime or ‘overpopulation’ (by now it’s late and I don’t feel like getting into the fact that overpopulation is a myth). I don’t know that I can give you a simple prescription for how to make life better for human beings, but I know what the answer isn’t: killing the weakest and smallest human beings.”
I encourage you to read the article I mentioned so you can see the Hitler Thing at work. It sounds just as elegant and reasonable as Der Fuhrer’s “final solution” to the Jewish problem must have seemed to Germans in the 1930s. As a pro-life activist, don’t be tripped up by the utilitarian argument. Learn how to argue against it. Remind any anti-lifer who attempts to use the Hitler Thing on you that society exists for people, and not the other way around. Recommending we kill humans because there’s too much crime or not enough food is like burning down your house because you have termites, or sawing a few inches off your legs because your pants don’t fit.
Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.
That’s it, you guys. I admit it. I oppose Partial Birth Abortion not because I have a problem with half-born babies being stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors so their brains can be sucked out with a vacuum, but because I can’t stand the idea of women having equal rights. You got me!
This is the kind of moral upside-downness that pervades our culture. In whatever passes for morality in Obama’s mind, denying women equal rights with men is a far worse than stabbing babies in the back of the neck with scissors, never mind that it is beyond me what “equal rights for women” has to do with abortion. Men don’t get pregnant, but if they did, I’d have a problem with them aborting their babies, too.
Until we as a culture recognize that abortion is inherently evil and must be prohibited, we have unfailing proof that our moral compass is pointed in the wrong direction. Many of the same people who sob their eyes out because gay couples can’t register at Macy’s have no problem with women killing their unborn children for any reason at all. This tells us there is something terribly wrong with our morals: namely, that as a nation we no longer have any.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the kick-off performance of “Daily Show” creator Lizz Winstead’s Planned Parenthood benefit tour turned into a showdown outside the Pontiac, Michigan, venue. The participants? Pro-life protesters and anti-life PP supporters ranting about “women’s health.”
First of all, between Ms. Winstead doing stand-up about her abortion to benefit PP and affiliates, and Jon Stewart yelling at Chris Wallace that FOX News viewers are “consistently misinformed,” I hope we can go a little bit further toward putting to rest the “just comedy” myth about “The Daily Show.” It’s comedy, sure, and it’s often very funny and intelligent comedy. It is also, however, comedy with a viewpoint, that is to say, the viewpoint of its creators, writers, and on-air personalities. The show has even come over quite critical of the U.S. House’s valiant attempt to defund PP.
I know nothing about Ms. Winstead other than that she had an abortion and wants everyone to know how totally cool she is with it. I have, however, checked out the tour blog, in which she boasts about great ticket sales in “Boehner country.” (John Boehner is our very vocally pro-life U.S. Speaker of the House.)
“Do you stand with Planned Parenthood?” her blog asks. “If so, you’re in good company.” What follows is a video showing several quasi-famous women, including Sarah Silverman, intoning that they stand with PP. “Families take planning… I should know: I’m a lesbian with two sons, and that took a lot of planning,” quips comedian Judy Gold. Actress Kathryn Erbe, star of the “Law & Order” nobody watches, also chimes in somewhat ineffectually, in a blurry video in which she reads haltingly from a written statement.
Well-known comedian and SNL star Amy Poehler also began stumping for Planned Parenthood recently. A Google search for “Amy Poehler Planned Parenthood” gets 896,000 results, which is pretty good, although significantly less than the 18.3 million results in a search for “Sarah Palin hate.”
It can be discouraging to look around at the culture and find that so many of the people touted as smart, cool, and funny are also anti-life. Meanwhile, we pro-lifers are routinely sneered at as backwards, uncool, moronic, intolerant… And those are just taken from the subject lines in my email inbox.
You and I know pro-lifers can be — and usually are — intelligent, witty, interesting, culturally savvy individuals. It’s time we let the rest of the world know it, too.
If you’re not already, start using Twitter and Facebook to influence the culture. Post comments on pages like Lizz Winstead’s tour blog. Let the media elite in New York and Hollywood know there is another America out there made up of all different kinds of people, many of whom are not impressed with Planned Parenthood’s genocidal agenda.
Let’s make it our business to let the world know that you don’t have to be cool with killing babies to be cool.
Have you ever seen a Planned Parenthood magazine ad? If you know anything about the reality of PP, you’ll find them quite funny.
They usually depict smiling, interracial groups of people, enjoying freedom of “choice” in their own special ways, usually in bright sunlight, with professionally whitened teeth.
Have you ever been inside a Planned Parenthood clinic? It would be interesting to see how many new customers they’d bring in if they used a snapshot of one of their waiting rooms as an advertisement. Here in Texas, what I have mostly seen are dingy walls, birth control brand logos on every poster and calendar and clock, uncomfortable chairs, dirty carpet, and of course, young, desperate-looking women, many of them black or Hispanic, sitting alone or with young, desperate-looking men.
The old adage “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” must be embroidered on a throw pillow in Cecile Richards’ house. These minority women living at or below the poverty line, the ones PP wants you to think they are helping, are the “human weeds” this organization was invented to destroy.
Planned Parenthood may provide something in the way of actual health care for some women. (Then again, if the PP agenda was not so vociferously pushed on children, we probably wouldn’t need quite so many STD checks and penicillin shots.) But any help they provide is incidental. Planned Parenthood was founded to curtail the “mongrel” population. Margaret Sanger wanted to discourage poor people of color from breeding, and to this day, whether they admit it or not, the foundation she created carries out her purpose.
Abortion kills a disproportionate number of black babies. The preceding link uses Center for Disease Control statistics to show that abortion kills more black Americans than the seven other leading causes of death combined. When you consider that fact, and then consider that Planned Parenthood’s original raison d’etre was to, well, kill a disproportionate number of black babies, you realize why it is horrifying to see a black person holding a “Keep Abortion Legal” sign.
Of course, most people – of all races– have bought the lie that Planned Parenthood is here to help them, to provide flavored condoms and pap smears and other forms of tender loving kindness. When – and only when – the black population of America learns the truth about Margaret Sanger’s genocidal organization, we will have a real chance of eradicating it – and abortion – from our midst.
Unfortunately, there is not yet enough of an outcry from the black community against this nefarious organization. Too many black politicians drop the pro-life plank from their platform when they realize it won’t fly with their party. Jesse Jackson famously went from pro-life to pro-choice for political reasons in the 1980s before his unsuccessful bids for the Democratic candidacy for president.
One of the many other black Americans who has bought the PP lie – in cash – is our President. In 2007, he spoke in front of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In reading his speech, a shocking revelation is made. Here are Obama’s words, verbatim:
“In 1966, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America gave its first Margaret Sanger Award to Martin Luther King, Jr. And in his acceptance speech, which was delivered by his strong and wonderful wife Coretta, Dr. King wrote, ‘Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by non-violent, direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.’”
“Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted… Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.”
That was Dr. King himself, in his speech accepting the award.
Dr. King spoke out against abortion on many occasions, and in 1966 abortion was still illegal and therefore not provided at Planned Parenthood. It was birth control and sterilization that Sanger believed could be used to keep “unwanted” populations down. What is obvious here is that Martin Luther King, Jr., was deceived. Even our nation’s most famous and celebrated advocate of civil rights for black Americans misunderstood Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.
Which was exactly her plan. Here she is in her own words:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Sanger apparently found her “colored ministers.” One of them, sadly, was Dr. King, and the other is President Barack Obama, who said in his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. “
Recently, when the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood (it was shot down in the Senate), Obama defended the organization, saying in response to video evidence acquired by Live Action showing PP breaking the law: “I think sometimes these issues get manufactured…”
Does anyone else feel an overwhelming urge for a slow, sarcastic clap? You kind of have to hand it to Planned Parenthood. They’ve spent the past century legally killing babies, a disproportionate number of whom are black, and what have the country’s most prominent black leaders done but thank and laud them? In effect, they have said, Thank you for killing us, thank you for sterilizing us, thank you for encouraging our teenagers to have premarital sex, leading to more abortions, more poverty, and more struggle!
The message is clear for black leaders like Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., and an outspoken pro-life activist. The message is clear for organizations like Live Action who continue to expose Planned Parenthood. On this fundamental issue, they will not yield, so you must not yield.
On Monday, June 27, Texas became the largest state to defund Planned Parenthood. The legislature passed an omnibus health bill that, among other things, will stop the flow of state money to the nation’s largest abortion provider. Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry, said, “The governor continues to champion the protection of unborn life in Texas.”
And so he does. Gov. Perry recently signed into law House Bill 15, also known as the Sonogram Law, which requires abortionists to point out features of the fetus to the mother before the abortion and offer her a view of the ultrasound. Because many women go into an abortion thinking of their baby as a “clump of cells,” even those women who decline to look at the sonogram image will be told that their baby has a heartbeat, a head, arms, legs, hands, feet. The truth will save many lives.
Of course, it’s also possible women will sign an acknowledgement form, one of many, before the procedure, never having actually been given the information. But the Sonogram Law is a start, and we take what victories we get, knowing each one may save at least one precious life.
These victories in Texas are not small. Texas already has its own sort of happy notoriety as one of the more conservative and prosperous states in the Union. Often associated in the minds of Americans, for good or ill, with George W. Bush, oil money, and an in-your-face brand of rugged, gun-toting individualism, it makes sense that my home state would be among the first to do what we hope many will do: stop forcing taxpayers to pay for other people’s elective abortions.
In response to news of the defunding, which is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Perry soon, social networking sites were flooded with hyperbolic rants such as the following:
“So much for cheap healthcare for women in Texas!”
“Now where will women get affordable birth control in TX? I sure hope all those pregnant teenagers choose adoption!”
“Rick Perry proves yet again he is not pro-life, he is anti-woman and anti-health care!”
And so on.
Of course, those of us who pay attention to facts know that this maneuver on behalf of the Texas legislature does not kick Planned Parenthood out of Texas. Would that we could! But no, it only stops the flow of state money to the organization.
Funnily enough, the people who screech that PP is the only place for women to get cheap healthcare – which is not true – don’t seem to understand that other affordable women’s health clinics, even those that provide abortions, could probably manage to become better known if they had anywhere near the budget PP has. We’ve been giving them about $100 million in federal funds per year, and their revenues are in the hundreds of millions. They must spend a good portion of this on PR, because I see their magazine ads every once in a while, and I rarely look at magazines.
As for the contention that PP is actually in the business of providing cheap birth control and healthcare, and that abortions are a sad but necessary service they would rather not provide… Well, it’s hard for me to hear that without laughing out loud. Like Carol Everett and other abortion industry whistle-blowers have told us, birth control pills – usually low-dose – and condoms – usually cheap – are given to young people because abortion providers know eventually they will fail. The only surefire way of avoiding pregnancy is abstinence from sex, and you will never hear PP advocating such a thing. No, we must break down a young woman’s natural modesty, fill her purse with Trojans and little pink compacts, tell her these things will keep her from getting pregnant, and then pat her hand and offer to “help” when she does get pregnant.
Indiana recently became the first state to defund Planned Parenthood, eliciting a strong response from the federal government. As other states follow in Indiana footsteps, the battle to defund PP is also becoming an interesting states-rights issue.
A friend of mine who has been heavily involved in the pro-life movement as a social worker for many years recently told me that if pro-lifers and anti-lifers were divided geographically the way they were during the struggle for – and against – the abolition of slavery, she could see it leading to another Civil War. But such is not the case. We’re all mixed in together for this fight. However, states with pro-life legislatures and conservative majorities may find themselves locked in a struggle against the federal government for the right to decide for what their citizens should and should not be compelled to pay.
A couple years ago, I overheard two middle-aged career counselors in a public college – one black man, one white woman – discussing taxpayer funded abortions. “People may not like it,” said the black man, “but it’s the law. You gotta do what the law says.”
I couldn’t help but shake my head at the irony of a black man saying this. One hundred and fifty years ago, individuals broke the law to save his forefathers from slavery, torture, and death.
Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is right. Slavery is as old as humankind, but as we grew into a more moral, civilized society, we did what had to be done to eradicate it from our civilization. Now we have the opportunity to do the same thing with abortion, and the good people and lawmakers of states such as Indiana, Wisconsin, and Texas, must not back down from the inevitable fight.
UPDATE 7/12/11: Kyleen Wright at Texans for Life Coalition was kind enough to point out an interesting fact about the Sonogram Law of which I was not aware. In her words: “Just know, Kristen, that unless abortion advocates prevail in the courts, that sonogram HAS to be displayed where she [the mother] can see it – something we fought very hard for, even as we were attacked by friend and foe alike for it.”
According to the June 14 issue of The Daily Texan, “A New York-based reproductive rights group filed a class-action lawsuit Monday against a new law passed by the Texas Legislature that increases regulations on Texas women seeking abortions and physicians who perform the procedure.”
The legislation in question is of course the so-called sonogram bill, signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on May 19 of this year. The law requires that women in Texas be given a sonogram before an abortion. The woman is not required to view the ultrasound, but the doctor is required to point out features such as the size of the fetus.
The argument the Center for Reproductive Rights is using to advance its anti-life agenda is privacy, and it is as unsurprising as it is unconvincing. Abortion proponents have been screaming “PRIVACY!” at the top of their lungs since roughly the 1960s. Ironically enough, the “right to privacy” is guaranteed nowhere in our Bill of Rights or other founding documents. (The right to life, however, is the first one mentioned.)
The CRR is behaving as though every abortion took place after a heartfelt, informative discussion between a woman and her private physician, when in actuality the patient at an abortion clinic usually doesn’t see her doctor until she’s got her feet in the stirrups. As former abortion clinic owner turned pro-life activist Carol Everett described in her testimony to the Pro-Life Action League of Chicago, “The doctor walks in, sees the patient for the very first time, pats her on the leg, says, ‘Hi, baby, how are you?’ You call them ‘baby’ so you don’t have to remember their name. And she says, ‘Oh, I’m scared,’ or, ‘I’m cold.’ Never anything positive. And he doesn’t really ask her any questions. It’s just get the abortion done.”
So much for the myth of the noble doctor and his trusting patient, having their sacred and private relationship intruded upon by the tyrannical State. So much for the image of the empowered woman nodding soberly as her comforting physician helps her make an informed decision. That is what CRR would have us believe is going on when they lament, “The law treats women as if they are too immature or incompetent to make their own important medical decisions… It’s very demeaning and patronizing to women.”
Really? It’s demeaning and patronizing to women to require their doctors to make them aware of a medical procedure before they do it? Please give me just a small break.
Can we consider that maybe it’s demeaning and patronizing to women to pretend like we find this law demeaning and patronizing? Do you know how anti-lifers really find this law? Not demeaning. Not patronizing. Threatening. They know that if a woman views an ultrasound of her baby she is less likely to abort it, so they are going to do everything in their power to stop that from happening.
Behind every well-meaning feminist who has convinced herself that giving medical information to a woman is somehow demeaning to her, there is a Planned Parenthood lackey who is desperate to protect a multi-billion dollar business.
Carol Everett again: “I have seen doctors walk out after three hours work and split $4,500 between them on a Saturday morning.” Not too shabby.
And speaking again of an abortion doctor, she said, “If he discovers that she may be farther along than anyone thought she was, they stop right there, collect the money, and then finish the procedure… If abortion is such a good thing, why don’t they give them away? If abortion is such a good thing, why don’t they go ahead and do the abortion then, and trust you to pay the extra $200 when they’re finished?”
I would add: if abortion really doesn’t kill anything, really just rids the woman’s body of an extra clump of cells, why are they worried about showing her a sonogram? Is it because they’re afraid she might see something recognizable, something with a heartbeat, something human?
The sonogram image is a powerful one. It was another abortion provider turned pro-life activist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, whose documentary “Silent Scream,” which showed a sonogram image of a fetus during an abortion, shocked the world in the early 1980s. President Reagan even had it screened at the White House. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director, now a best-selling pro-life author, Abby Johnson, had the epiphany that changed her life while viewing an ultrasound. Carol Everett said, “I’ve seen sonograms with the baby pulling away from the instruments…”
Who are we helping by withholding this information? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not women.
It’s an industry. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry.
The abortion clinic is not like a birthing center. You won’t find caring people, soft lighting, and comfortable chairs. You won’t have intimate heart-to-hearts with nurses who remind you of your great-aunt and doctors who remind you of your grandpa. You will find instruments of death and people who want your money. It’s a joke that these places are even referred to as “health care” facilities. They are factories, and the products they manufacture are dead children and wounded, empty women.
Back in the dim, long-dead days of my youth when I was pro-choice, those dark ages of the early and mid 2000s, I fancied myself especially clever whenever I advanced the following “argument.”
“How come so many so-called ‘pro-lifers’ support the death penalty? That’s completely illogical and hypocritical.”
This is a favorite pro-choice rejoinder, so it’s a good idea as a pro-lifer to know how to make short work of it.
First of all, this tactic – to accuse pro-lifers of being hypocrites if they support the death penalty – is not an argument at all. It’s just an attempt to discredit the pro-life movement by “proving” that we are illogical woman-haters and not so much concerned with preserving life as stripping “reproductive rights” from people.
It’s important to know how to combat this tactic even if you happen to be, as I am, against the death penalty. No matter your feelings on capital punishment, it is simply ridiculous to compare it morally to abortion.
It’s instructive here to look at what the Catholic Church believes concerning abortion and capital punishment. It’s not necessary to be Catholic to understand this argument, just as it is not necessary to be Catholic or even Christian to be pro-life. Catholics are more likely to believe in what they call a “consistent life ethic,” in other words, the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Some call this the “seamless garment.”
The idea behind this is that only God has the right to take life from a person, and as long as a human being can be kept from committing further harm against society – for example, by locking them up in prison – we should keep them alive so that God may do with the person’s life whatever He intends.
Others oppose the death penalty because they believe it’s ineffective or that it gives the government too much power over its people.
Then again, there are those, Christian and non-Christian, who are a bit more Old Testament when it comes to punishment. Eye for an eye, and all that. Many of these people happen to oppose abortion.
Whatever your position, don’t allow pro-aborts to tell you that being pro-capital punishment and pro-life is an oxymoron. It isn’t.
Executing, via legal means, a person who has been convicted in a court of law of a reprehensible crime is not even in the same ballpark as a woman paying a doctor to kill her unborn baby in the womb for any reason she chooses.
The pre-born infant has committed no crime. She has had no legal representation. She does not have the voice to plead her case. She simply, through no fault of her own, exists, an entire and complete human being from the moment of her conception. She is blameless.
By contrast, the vast majority of people who are executed by the state are guilty. And even in those rare cases where the accused was wrongly convicted, at least he had a chance: to live, to make other choices, to run, to escape, to defend himself.
The pre-born infant is trapped. She can’t beg for a commutation of sentence and hope for life without parole. She can’t appeal. She can’t ask for a new lawyer. If her mother decides she must die, she will die. It is the ultimate in “might makes right” thinking, the kind of thinking most pro-aborts condemn when it comes to issues such as war, women’s rights, humanitarian causes, institutional racism, and the criminal justice system. Why then do they overlook it by giving a woman carte blanche power of life and death over another human being, for any reason she chooses?
In order to execute a criminal offender, an astoundingly complex legal process takes place. Motions are filed, witnesses called, juries instructed, great quantities of money spent, mountains of paperwork amassed. The defendant is allowed, if he so chooses, to speak in his own defense. Appeal is automatic. Great care is taken, great time is spent, making sure his rights are protected, and in almost every case, they are, and it is an unquestionably guilty man who goes to his death.
The pre-born infant is at the mercy of one woman’s whim. That woman, her mother, whether from selfishness, guilt, coercion, fear, or even the law – as in the case of China’s one child policy – makes a decision to kill her, pays some money, and it’s done. Often the only advocates for that child are the people outside the clinic, offering information, counseling and prayer, to any who will take it. There is no requirement that she listen to them. In fact, burly men in orange vests will often escort her past them, as though she were in danger from them, when it is in fact the child inside her that is in danger.
The pre-born infant receives no escort. She is completely alone when she is dismembered, sucked from the womb, and disposed of as waste.
The executed offender, at least, may have his family present. He may be buried in the manner befitting his beliefs. He may be mourned.
The pre-born infant is mourned, if she is mourned at all, by a few pro-life strangers. Her mother’s only grief often takes the form of depression and psychological trauma she does not even connect to the death of her child, which she quite possibly thought of as a clump of cells.
The pre-born infant is remembered only as a nameless, faceless victim, one of millions, in the prayers and thoughts of people around the world who daily petition God and man for an end to the evil of abortion.
In short, it’s quite inaccurate, and even irresponsible, to compare abortion to capital punishment, even if you happen to oppose both, as I do.
This issue gets brought up a lot by pro-aborts. But the good news is, the counter-argument can be summed up pretty easily. For example, if ever I’m asked why I’m not speaking out against the death penalty instead of abortion, I tell them very simply: “Criminals have lawyers. Fetuses have me.”