Tag: abortion

‘Time’ makes me laugh.

Bitterly, that is. Pro-abortion activists are losing? Really? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Cheap. After the election, I wrote about how the campaign had…

Bitterly, that is. Pro-abortion activists are losing? Really? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Cheap.

After the election, I wrote about how the campaign had in fact been about values, just not values that I and other pro-lifers hold. In fact, we’d been too silent. For at least the second cycle of national elections, we – as part of the family values movement – bought in to the conventional wisdom that we should temper the values talk and focus on the economy. Look where that got us. The other side, however, was outspoken about their values on abortion and against traditional marriage. Hardly heard anything about the economy. They got the White House. We all got the fiscal cliff. [maybe we should call it a canyon since it seems to contain a lot of cliffs?]

Read my latest at National Catholic Register to see just how misleading the Time article is, especially considering the annual Planned Parenthood report that was released just days after.

 

No Comments on ‘Time’ makes me laugh.

What does Sandy Hook have to do with abortion?

On Friday, we were all shocked and stunned to hear of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. It was an unspeakable crime. Every time I see a headline of human tragedy,…

On Friday, we were all shocked and stunned to hear of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. It was an unspeakable crime.

Every time I see a headline of human tragedy, particularly involving large numbers of innocent people, I can’t help putting it in the context of abortion. There’s a noon Mass that I sometimes frequent and one of the attendees, when asked to share additional prayers for the faithful, always reminds us to pray for the 3,000 innocent, unprotected, unborn babies who will be aborted that day and to pray for their mothers. It chokes me up. These children have lives full of promise and hope before them and they are killed in their mother’s womb, what should be the safest place they will ever experience.

Ben Stein has a good piece reflecting on Friday’s tragedy. He asks a provocative question which reinforces my focus on the abortion discussion:

[Why] are these killers always men? What is it that we teach our young men in this world that makes them think it’s a mark of manliness to kill the unarmed and innocent? Whatever it is, it’s disgusting. It’s not manly to kill any unarmed human. It’s miserable, crawling cowardice.

What is it that we teach them? Mo. Teresa answered this very question in 1994 when she spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. She stood before President Clinton and the First Lady, both outspoken supporters of abortion and she said:

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?…

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. [Full text here.]

Almost as soon as the news of the shootings broke, there were calls for increased gun control.

I suggest, instead, that we look at our broader cultural experience. Not only do we, as a nation, protect the so-called right of women to kill their unborn children; but we glorify random violence. The perpetrator of Friday’s massacre was an avid player of violent video games. Surely, his thinking had to have been shaped by countless hours spent in front of a screen where he mindlessly murdered human looking forms.

And then, there’s also the family. I’ve yet to hear of anyone involved in a killing spree like this who didn’t have some serious family dysfunction at home. Yes, having divorced parents is a form of family dysfunction. Sometimes a divorce may be necessary, but the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of children experiencing family breakdown or “incomplete families” as John Paul II put it. I’m not suggesting that we blame the family of Adam Lanza; I’m assuming they did the best they could. I am suggesting that we examine what we can do to strengthen families.

The family is a child’s first experience of reality. If the family cannot offer that foundation, the child is already at a disadvantage, especially if the child is also suffering from a mental illness. Then put the child in a world where he learns at an early age that the most innocent human beings are not protected. Add to that a steady diet of violence, particularly in video games where he himself commits the violence, and you’ve got a recipe for destruction and dysfunction that has little to do with guns. It’s about evil. And evil will use whatever means necessary to accomplish its goal.

For the record, the internet abounds with all sorts of instructions on how to wage mass destruction without guns. Are we going to call for a ban on the internet?

Abortion has created a society with multiple personality disorder. On the one hand, we proclaim that every person is created equal and has equal rights under the law, unless of course that person has not been birthed and is not wanted. However, if that person’s mother wants him, then many states will protect the right of that person to be free from harm even before birth.

We are a society that places our hope in its youth, as long as we allow them to be born, meeting some arbitrary standard.

If one doesn’t have a strong personal grounding, things can become very confusing and that’s all that evil needs to take root: confusion.

It is my hope and prayer that the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary will at least teach us to better love and protect innocent human life. However, it’s a lesson that comes at a dear, dear price.

 

No Comments on What does Sandy Hook have to do with abortion?

Responding To Akin: When Pro-Lifers Do The Work For Abortion Advocates

I think I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m a little surprised at the reaction to Rep. Todd Akin’s idiotic and unfortunate remarks on “legitimate rape” and the…

I think I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m a little surprised at the reaction to Rep. Todd Akin’s idiotic and unfortunate remarks on “legitimate rape” and the theory that rape victims’ bodies somehow protect them from getting pregnant as a result of the attack.

All of us say (and do!) stupid things at one time or another. Unfortunately, more of us are caught saying them now that media are omnipresent. And politicians seem to say more than their share of things that shouldn’t have been said, as our Vice President appears all too happy to demonstrate time and again.

But Akin has a 100% voting record from the Family Research Council and the National Right to Life Committee, meaning that he’s a 100% against abortion and 100% pro-life. If you want to go after people who are pro-abortion, look no further than Catholics for Obama or Emily’s List.

Instead, people like the editors at National Review Online and others (cf. Dennis Pragerand Ann Coulter), are taking their cues from The New York Times and NPR, calling for Akin to step out of the Senate race in Missouri. In other words, those who claim to support pro-life causes are essentially making this a bigger issue than it should be.

The NYT ran a story yesterday, “Health Experts Dismiss Assertions on Rape.”

Here’s a quote from the first expert:

“There are no words for this — it is just nuts,” said Dr. Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School.

Shouldn’t an expert be able to point to hard facts? Maybe a study or two? Instead, “it is just nuts.” Thanks for the expert opinion.

Here’s the second expert:

Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina, said, that “to suggest that there’s some biological reason why women couldn’t get pregnant during a rape is absurd.”

Wow. Passing his exams must be easy. His students just have to give opinions. No science here, folks. Just keep on driving. Nothing to see.

The only reference to a reputable study? Here you go:

But several experts said there is no solid data on such issues. A 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, generally considered one of the few peer-reviewed research efforts on this subject, estimated that 5 percent of rapes result in pregnancy.

To say that there’s no solid data is not the same thing as refuting a theory. The rate of births among women of fertile age is about 6%. Adjusting for miscarriage, still birth, and abortions, would make the pregnancy rates higher. The one study offering a 5% rate of pregnancy resulting from rape is hardly conclusive one way or the other.

Interestingly, when searching the terms “nytimes.com stress infertility,” The first ten articles, all from the NYT, included seven which suggested a link between the ability to get pregnant and stress. One article proclaimed no such link. Two were irrelevant.WebMD offers references to several articles supporting a connection between infertility and stress.

Now, if women trying to get pregnant are impeded by stress and the associated hormone factors, I don’t think it’s a far stretch to wonder if women who are raped might have a lesser rate of pregnancy resulting from the rape. After all, being the victim of a violent crime would be stressful, to say the least.

With regard to the use of the term “legitimate rape,” it’s a bad, bad choice of words which belies all sorts of confusion since terms like “date rape” were introduced. It’s either rape or it’s not. If it’s rape, it’s bad.

Is Akin a liability? Perhaps. But he becomes more of one when pro-lifers lead the attacks. If NPR and Mother Jones want to dissect Akin, by all means they can. There’s no secret about their ideological or political persuasions. [I don’t see how an editor at MJ is an expert on the question of conception rates for rape victims, but the experts themselves have set the bar pretty low judging from the NYT piece referenced above.] However, people who are supposed to be on the same side of the issues as Akin should not do the work of his opponents. If there are bigger liabilities than a really bad gaffe, then please enumerate them.

Aside – the whole situation makes all too clear just how defensive people can be when trying to defend a pro-life position. Rape has nothing to do with the human dignity of the fetus. Both the fetus and the mother deserve much better than rape, but neither of their lives is worth any less insofar as they are victims.

 

No Comments on Responding To Akin: When Pro-Lifers Do The Work For Abortion Advocates

‘October Baby’ Touches A Nerve

The New York Times has a review of the new movie October Baby that fails to tell the reader anything about the movie as a film, but it sure tells…

The New York Times has a review of the new movie October Baby that fails to tell the reader anything about the movie as a film, but it sure tells us a lot about the author’s attitudes on abortion. More precisely, it tells us a lot about her views of pro-lifers.

Take a look at the first paragraph:

More slickly packaged than most faith-based fare, “October Baby” gussies up its anti-abortion message with gauzy cinematography and more emo music than an entire season of “Grey’s Anatomy.” But not even a dewy heroine and a youth-friendly vibe can disguise the essential ugliness at its core: like the bloodied placards brandished by demonstrators outside women’s health clinics, the film communicates in the language of guilt and fear.

And then there’s this:

But this G-rated road trip is only an appetizer: the film’s pièce de résistance arrives in the haunted form of Jasmine Guy, playing the clinic nurse who assisted at Hannah’s birth. Her pivotal speech, a gory portrait of fetal mutilation and maternal distress, conjures a vision of medical hackery that is clearly intended to terrify young women — and fits right in with proposed state laws that increasingly turn the screws on a woman’s dominion over her reproductive system.

If you want to know anything about the film, forget NYT and check out the Los Angeles Times review. Check out this first paragraph:

Fine performances and authentic emotion trump some heavy-handed speechifying in co-directing brothers Andrew and Jon Erwin’s faith-based, anti-abortion drama “October Baby,” a film whose poignancy is hard to deny whatever side of the abortion debate you fall on.

As I write this, I’m headed to the annual conference of Heartbeat International, an international network of pregnancy help centers. (I’m on the board.) While Heartbeat’s work is certainly guided by the belief that abortion is a serious transgression of human rights, what moves me the most is that their work ends up having very little to do with abortion. They meet women when they are most in need, when they feel as if they have no choice but abortion, and they offer resources so that women can actually have choices.

But I digress. My point is simply that the NYT should know better. The “review” should have been cast as an op-ed. That, at least, would have been intellectually honest.

Meanwhile, if you haven’t seen October Baby, by all means do so. Don’t wait for DVD/download. (Here’s my piece on this from last week.)

No Comments on ‘October Baby’ Touches A Nerve

Does Planned Parenthood Even Know What An Abortion Is?

So, there’s a bit of controversy surrounding the proposed informed consent law in Virginia that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound. Of course, radical abortion advocates find…

So, there’s a bit of controversy surrounding the proposed informed consent law in Virginia that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound. Of course, radical abortion advocates find this offensive. Because women can’t be trusted with information about their bodies, I guess.

Couple of points:

  1. If they really care about women’s health then wouldn’t they want an abortion doctor to do an ultrasound so that the doctor can accurately know the age of the fetus and perform the abortion with as little risk to the mother?
  2. In what other health scenario is a patient not given detailed information about her condition? If I break a bone, I’m shown an x-ray. If I have a tumor, clot, etc., I’m shown a scan. Why withhold the information now? -Except for the fact that the truth of the ultrasound also reveals the truth about abortion, namely that it destroys a living human being.

But this New York Times piece makes me wonder if Planned Parenthood and co. even know what an abortion is. You see, they’re protesting the informed consent legislation by saying that the vaginal ultrasound required early in the pregnancy is akin to ….. RAPE. Really? Really.

“Akin to rape,” one legislator called the bill. “Asking doctors to commit a sex crime,” declared another. Liberal women’s groups fanned outrage over “forced vaginal penetration,” and Virginia was mocked on comedy shows.

Planned Parenthood echoes the sentiments:

“There are no other situations where the legislature injects itself into the examining room and dictates how physicians practice,” said Dr. Scott Spear, medical director for Planned Parenthood in central Texas and the Austin region.

So my question for these abortion advocates: Do you know what an abortion is and how it takes place? It involves forced and often painful vaginal penetration, FYI.

Is abortion rape? If you follow their logic, it certainly sounds like it.

And, btw, if there weren’t laws governing how physicians practice, there would be no medical malpractice suits…

No Comments on Does Planned Parenthood Even Know What An Abortion Is?

39 Years of “Roe v. Wade”

Yesterday marked 39 years of court mandated abortion rights in every state in the U.S. People all over the country have been commemorating the decision with the biggest event happening…

Yesterday marked 39 years of court mandated abortion rights in every state in the U.S. People all over the country have been commemorating the decision with the biggest event happening today in Washington, DC, the March For Life.

There are so many things that could be said, but I think I’ll just let this essay by Paul Vitz and Evelyn Vitz address one key concern, namely that a movement that claims to be about choice should at the very least inform women about… their choices.

Most women who have abortions feel as if they have no choice but to have an abortion. And most are in no way prepared for the fallout of their choice.

Could we at least have an honest conversation about that?

No Comments on 39 Years of “Roe v. Wade”

When Consumerism And Motherhood Collide

It’s a brave new world. We’re so far down the slippery slope, we don’t remember when we started sliding. Seriously. Now, the right to choose means that women can not…

It’s a brave new world. We’re so far down the slippery slope, we don’t remember when we started sliding. Seriously.

Now, the right to choose means that women can not only choose the sex and even some of the genetic traits of their infant, but it also means that they can dispose of their “products” at will. Sounds like ancient Rome to me, only this time it’s the women with the power, not the men. Read more here.

No Comments on When Consumerism And Motherhood Collide

NPR + Planned Parenthood = More Bias

Just this week, KUOW, NPR’s Seattle station, ran a story on the “Controversy Surrounding Limited Service Pregnancy Centers.” In fact, it was a direct attack on a local ad campaign…

Just this week, KUOW, NPR’s Seattle station, ran a story on the “Controversy Surrounding Limited Service Pregnancy Centers.” In fact, it was a direct attack on a local ad campaign undertaken by the Vitae Foundation, a client of mine. (Vitae’s response is here.)

The problem with the ad campaign? It offered women choiceS – gasp! – about their pregnancies. It provided a website which clearly states that women have several options including abortion. It also makes clear that the website neither promotes nor refers for abortions. That’s pretty straightforward.

But NPR did the story without contacting Vitae and, apparently, without consulting much of the website. It did however spend quite a bit of time hearing from the public affairs director of the local Planned Parenthood. Their complaint? They don’t like the competition that Vitae represents. Somebody hand them a box of tissues, please. In the meantime, let legitimate organizations get back to doing the legitimate work of trying to reach their audiences.

At the same time, the battle to limit the free speech of pregnancy help centers wages on. Legislation that would have required PHCs to advertise that they don’t provide abortions was defeated in the state legislature earlier this year. So, similar efforts are now expected at the county level, following the same pattern in New York and Maryland. The Baltimore city ordinance was overturned by a district court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional because it limited the right to freedom of speech of the PHCs. (You can read my commentary along with the decision here.) Nevertheless, abortion providers and supporters continue to try and force the same unconstitutional provisions in other parts of the country. One can’t help but wonder if NPR, or at least this particular NPR journalist, is using its broadcasting ability to support these efforts. At the very least, they aren’t offering unbiased and fair journalism.

All the while, Planned Parenthood itself misleads the public about the services it provides. LiveAction just released another expose in which it documents that PP does not provide mammograms even though Cecile Richards, PP CEO, claims that losing their federal funding will impact women for whom they provide mammograms.

The pro-life movement has always argued for transparency beginning with its challenge of the Roe v. Wade decision. It’d be great to see abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, maintain similar transparency.

I’m all for truth in advertising, but it should go both ways. After all Planned Parenthood isn’t known for promoting and facilitating parenthood…

No Comments on NPR + Planned Parenthood = More Bias

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search