Category Archives: pro-choice

Michelle Bachman: 100% Prolife

Republican
Candidate Michelle Bachmann: “I am 100% pro-life.”

jillstanek.com

I am 100 percent pro-life.
I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my
home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I
believe in the sanctity of human life…

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our
Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with
inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of
that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and
only God can take…

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I
stand for the right to life.
The very few cases that deal with those
exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get
all the attention
. Where all of the firepower is and where the real
battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.
I stand for life from conception until natural death.

~ Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota) stating
her pro-life position during the GOP 2012 debate hosted by CNN
as quoted by LifeNews,
June 14

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, adoption, anti-abortion, euthanasia, healthcare, personhood, Pregnancy, pro-choice, Quality of Life, Rape, Sanctity of Life, Social Issues

The Gipper Got it Right: Pro-Life Ronald Reagan on Abortion

by Chuck Colson | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 5/22/11 2:16 PM

A few weeks ago a friend sent me something he thought I would enjoy reading — something that had been published nearly 30 years ago by Ronald Reagan. I found it so moving, I wanted to share it with BreakPoint listeners.

In 1983, then-President Reagan sent an unsolicited manuscript to the editors of Human Life Review, who published it in a small book. It was a heart-felt plea to the American people to recognize the sanctity of life of unborn babies — and to never give up working to protect them in law.

Reagan reminded readers that neither the American people nor our legislators had ever had a chance to decide if they really wanted to legalize abortion through all nine months of pregnancy: That’s still true today.

Nor is abortion a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Reagan wrote that Roe v. Wade was “not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives.” The Dred Scott decision affirming slavery has that dubious distinction.

He wrote of the great need to clearly frame and present the issue of abortion — just as abolitionists exposed the terrible truth about slavery.

And what is the real issue? Reagan asked. “The real question today is not when human life begins,” he wrote, “but What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the [torn-apart] arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been [removed] from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being.”

And in 1981, Senate hearings on the beginning of human life involved many medical and scientific witnesses who agreed, based on scientific evidence, “that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, [and] is a member of the human species.”

So “the real question,” Reagan wrote, “… is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.”

Reagan quoted Lincoln, who wrote that “nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on.” He quoted sociologist William Brennan, who warned: “The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.” And he quoted Malcolm Muggeridge, who said that “Either life is always and in all circumstance sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some [cases] the other.”

How right these men were.

In order to bring back protection for the unborn, which involves fighting the powerful abortion lobby and activist judges, Reagan said, quoting Mother Teresa, we must become “a soul of prayer,” In fact, we must be like William Wilberforce and his friends, who, Reagan recalled, prayed for decades for the end of British slavery. “Let his faith and perseverance be our guide,” Reagan wrote.

The Gipper would be pleased to know that, thanks to the ceaseless efforts of many Christians, more Americans now call themselves prolife than ever before.

Come to our website, BreakPoint.org, and we’ll tell you how to get a copy of this wonderful little book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, conservative, Family, Legislation, pro-choice, Sanctity of Life, Social Issues

Pro-Life Movement makes strides…

Five Reasons the Pro-Life Movement is Winning on Abortion
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 5/18/11 3:10 PM

PrintEmailNational, Opinion 886ShareTrevin Wax, an editor at LifeWay Christian resources and a blogger at Kingdom People, is out with an article that is making the rounds in pro-life circles explaining five reasons why he believes the pro-life movement is winning on the issue of abortion.

Wax says the pro-life movement is moving in the right direction on public opinion, he sees the mainstream media as moving away slightly from the pro-abortion mantra, and he points out the next generation or two of Americans are taking strongly pro-life positions and, like Justin Bieber, going as far as saying they are pro-life in public and not worrying about any backlash.

Wax also contends black and Hispanic pro-life advocates are joining the pro-life movement, which has long since been dominated by Catholics and evangelicals. He calls them the “Third Wave” of pro-life advocates who will make the pro-life perspective even more mainstream — especially among people who have a tendency to vote for abortion advocates for elected office. Ultimately, he believes abortion advocates are on the defensive — saying they are having to downplay abortion in favor of verbiage on women’s health

He concludes: “The tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause is not evident to all. Time magazine recently chose Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards for their 100 Most Influential List (a decision akin to choosing segregationist George Wallace over crusader Martin Luther King, Jr.). There is much work to be done. The abortion debate will not go away. The fundamental issue at stake is not reproductive freedom but the desire to extend human rights to all — even the smallest and most vulnerable human beings among us. Those who continue to ignore or deny the humanity of the unborn are increasingly on the defensive because new technologies are opening the window into the womb. What we find there are not tissues to be discarded, but human lives worth protecting.”

Wax has good points and he could likely flesh out other arguments as to why the pro-life movement is winning, starting with his mention of technology (ultrasound) making it crystal clear the humanity of the unborn child. Additionally, significant research on topics like fetal pain, post-abortion problems, and the link between abortion and breast cancer is bringing new information to light that people didn’t have during Roe v. Wade (or even 10 years ago) showing how abortions cause problems.

Other points buttressing Wax’s argument include the fact that abortion numbers nationally have declined and are down to historic lows in many states, the number of pro-life laws approved on the state level is on the rise, the abortion industry is coming under exposure for hurting women and overlooking things like sexual abuse of minors and sex trafficking, and the Planned Parenthood business in particular is facing more opposition than ever before.

Of course, the biggest reason is that we may very well be one vote away on the Surpeme Court from overturning Roe and beginning the process of restoring legal protection for unborn children. Next year’s presidential election will determine if we make ore progress on that front.

Below is the first of the five arguments from Wax and a link to his full writing:

The pro-life cause is winning. In state legislatures, in the media, and in grassroots efforts to reduce the number of abortions, pro-life activists have put abortion rights advocates on defense. The pro-life movement certainly has hurdles to overcome before the United States can become a place where all human life is legally protected. Yet the eventual outcome is certain. Here are five reasons I believe we have reached a tipping point in favor of the pro-life cause.

1) Public Opinion
A majority of Americans surveyed in a recent Rasmussen poll, including a large percentage of those who identified themselves “pro-choice,” said they believe abortion is “morally wrong most of the time.” Last year, for the third consecutive time, Gallup found that more Americans accept the pro-life label, a result that led the polling firm to acknowledge “a real change in public opinion.”

One reason for this shift is the high-tech ultrasound machine that reaffirms what embryology textbooks have told us all along — that the unborn child is truly a human being. In a recent Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling, former President of Catholics for Choice, advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies: “We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible.” Yet few pro-choice activists seem to be listening to Kissling’s advice. They continue to cast themselves as the defenders of “women’s reproductive rights.” This worn-out strategy fails to resonate with a large number of Americans because it ignores the point of tension. The debate has moved on from “reproductive rights” to the more perplexing question: “What are the unborn?”

Meanwhile, many people — including some you would not expect — are openly registering their unease with the procedure. Take the recently released autobiography of Steven Tyler, the “screamin’ demon” lead singer of rock band Aerosmith. When he impregnated a teenaged girl in the mid-1970s, friends convinced them they could not raise the child and should seek an abortion. “They put the needle in her belly and squeeze the stuff in and you watch,” Tyler recounted. “And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?”

Twenty years ago, many of those who considered themselves “pro-life” were a little hesitant to say so publicly. Today, the reverse is true. Even those who advocate a woman’s right to abortion don’t want to fight for that position too passionately.

Read the full article here.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, pro-choice, Uncategorized

Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: Best Friends Forever or Coincidental Business Associates?

by Hannah Carter, Director of Education

Like many families, my grandmother and great-grandmother both had breast cancer. The issue of wanting to fight what harms your family or friends is noble. So when I tell people that I do not support Susan G. Komen an organization that exists to “fight breast cancer”, I normally get the look of one: why would you abandon your family or two: oh there goes one of those extremist.

However, my reasons are not that extreme, but rather principled. I’m sure many of you reading this article have also been confronted with the issue of if I ‘m pro-life then how can I support an organization that supports the nation’s leading abortion provider. Hopefully, the following principles can shed some light on how to respond sympathetically, yet firm with why you cannot wear pink, or join the race, or all the various ways that Susan G. Komen is supported.

Principle # 1 Don’t give to organizations that promote the shedding of innocent blood.

If this were a list of commandments, we could start with Thou Shall Not Kill. However, Proverbs 6:17 states that one of the seven things God hates are hands that shed innocent blood.

Unfortunately, Susan G. Komen has given over $3 million dollars between 2003 and 2008 to Planned Parenthood which is the nation’s leading abortion provider. While Susan G. Komen makes claims that these grants go for breast exams, once the funds go to Planned Parenthood they are fungible. For example, you can throw two twenty dollar bills into a purse one from a friend and one from your own account, but when you go to pay the light bill you use both.

The same is true with Planned Parenthood’s money it receives from Komen. Whenever someone applies for a grant they can say that while this $5,000 is going to breast cancer research, 20 percent of that money is going to pay for administrative costs like keeping the lights on and paying rent. So in essence, the money that people are raising to fight breast cancer is also going to keep the lights on at Planned Parenthood.

According to the 2008 Annual Report from Planned Parenthood, breast cancer services decreased by 4% and abortion procedures increased by 6%.

In 2008, Susan G. Komen gave $731,000 to Planned Parenthood.

Principle # 2 Know and Recognize the Risk Factors for the Disease You are Trying to Prevent.

There are certain risks that can increase an individual’s chance of getting breast cancer. While Susan G. Komen says that they believe in knowing your risk factors, they have repeatedly denied the link between breast cancer and one of the greatest avoidable risk factors, abortion.

According to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, “29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion.”

When a woman has an abortion she interrupts the natural process of estrogen production and breast development. When a woman first becomes pregnant her body produces a Type 1 carcinogen, cancer causing agent, estrogen in order to nourish and provide for the baby. If the mother has her child, her body stops producing as much estrogen and her breasts mature. However, if that process is interrupted, the estrogen production continues and her breasts stay in an immature state, making them more susceptible to breast cancer.

Groups like Susan G. Komen acknowledge that the level of exposure to estrogen throughout a woman’s lifetime is one of the greatest predictors for breast cancer. Sadly, they do not acknowledge that the increased exposure to estrogen after an abortion could increase risks of breast cancer as well. For an organization whose primary goal is “to have a world without breast cancer”, you would think they would try to let women know of all the risk factors for breast cancer, especially those that are preventable like abortion.

Recently, in an article by Jill Stanek, pro-life author and blogger, asked a very thought-provoking question, “Is it really “morally permissible” to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?”

Stanek also noted in her article that recently that the ties between Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen are running deeper and deeper. See an excerpt below from Stanek’s article:

Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006. PPGNW is Washington’s largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.) Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker. Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK’s board. Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, “This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre.” But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available. So there is much still unanswered. Why didn’t PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn’t Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.

In essence, Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen’s nephew own a mall together.

The bottom line is that Susan G. Komen is not accomplishing its mission every time it gives to Planned Parenthood.

Every time a woman has an abortion and part of the money to fund that center staying open came from Komen, they are putting women at a greater risk for breast cancer.

Every organization no matter how noble the cause they claim to represent seems to be needs to be held accountable.

The question is will you?

 

To continue your search for the ties between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood, please visit:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure Awards 72 Grants to Planned Parenthood

http://www.bdfund.org/breastcancer.asp

Komen Giving to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Down as Donations Drop

http://lifenews.com/nat6297.html

Planned Parenthood Deepens Link to Breast Cancer Group

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=134729

Susan G. Komen’s List of Grants to Planned Parenthood

http://ww5.komen.org/ResearchGrants/CommunitybasedGrants.html

Studies about the Link between Abortion and Breast Cancer

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/index/

Report: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood: A Visible Link http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf

If you would like to give to organizations that are pro-life and do breast cancer research go to:

http://www.polycarp.org

http://www.bcpinstitute.org

4 Comments

Filed under abortion, anti-abortion, Birth Control, breast cancer, Parenting, planned parenthood, Pregnancy, pro-choice

This Year Like Last Year

We have asked House Rep. Bill Hembree to kill SB 177, the Georgia House’s fake prolife bill.  Please call him at his District Office at 770-942-1656 or his Capitol House office at 404-656-6801 and give him that message politely but firmly.

A little history is in order.  This year, like last year, Speaker Ralston has pulled a last minute move to pass fake prolife legislation in order to say that he has “done something.” Last year, on the final 3 days and ultimately on the last day, the Speaker tried to pass a version of SB 529 that no committee had ever seen.  The Speaker’s version had never been discussed in any kind of hearing. It didn’t matter that the original bill (SB 529) that the Rules Committee saw, had been vetted by a number of different Judiciary committees and approved by 100% of the Senate in a 2-3 hour floor debate. No, Speaker Ralston and his attorney, Bill Reilly came up with their own version of the bill to try and save the day! In the end, GRTL was accused of being unwilling to negotiate and work within the process; however, GRTL had been negotiating with and working with legislative committees and the senate for months in producing a legitimate prolife bill.

Now the Speaker is again crying that we don’t have time to properly vet any other prolife legislation but his. In an interview with the AJC  (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/legislatures-agenda-packed-in-887707.html) he says that SB 210 has not been vetted properly, therefore, he will not have time to have a hearing for it. He fails to mention the fact that SB 210 IS the Private Right of Action part of SB 529 that was vetted to “death” – all the way to the 40th day last year!!

So, here we go again, to the last 4 days of the session and we find ourselves with a substituted, fake prolife bill (SB 177) for opting out of Obama Care.  This “opt-out” bill now will be offered to the House and sent to the Senate as the only pro-life legislation this year.

But that’s not all….there is more! Not only is this Obama Care opting-out legislation…it is opting out of abortion funding for all abortions except, life of the mother AND, now . . . rape and incest”! Last year one of the additions to SB 529 by the Speaker was to add “rape and incest” exceptions to the bill.  GRTL hasn’t supported “rape and incest” exceptions in years and never will.

My question is this. If prolife legislation is as important as the Speaker says then why doesn’t his version of the bill (SB 177) need to be vetted by the same committees that are required of GRTL? It seems improper to me to imply that a person can write a bill that doesn’t even have the need of being vetted before it is sent to the floor for debate and a vote. I would dare to say that this gives the impression that he is not interested in having his bill vetted and that this is why he waits until the last minute to bring it forward.

But that’s not all . . . there is more! As you know, Doe v Bolton gave us abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy—for ANY and for ALL reasons. The courts have defined a “life of the mother” exception to mean not just her physical health but also her mental and emotional health. The Speaker’s version of this Obama Care bill leaves the door wide-open for the court defined familial health exception. This means that, if passed AND if the poorly written language can withstand a court challenge, the end result is that NOT ONE child will be spared by this bill. All the mother has to do is claim that her emotional or mental health is impaired and she can get a late term abortion right up until the DAY BEFORE BIRTH! This is an outrage and a mockery of our prolife gains these last twelve years.

So a rabbit is being pulled out of the hat again at the last minute. And what we find is not really a rabbit but a RAT!  Prolife legislation that is really not prolife at all. Why don’t the other legislators see this? Some do, but most don’t! If you keep ignoring error you will eventually not notice it anymore. Some of those who do notice these facts are too afraid to speak up for fear that they will suffer political repercussions within the Republican caucus in general, but more specifically from Speaker Ralston.

The bottom line is that, in these last 2 years, Speaker Ralston, along with other House Leadership, are demonstrating that they are NOT principled prolife politicians, but, at best they are PrINO’s! Prolife In Name Only! And they must be exposed!

I am reminded of what Fredrick Douglas once said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Now is the time for all prolife Georgians to get involved and to let the House Leadership know that you are tired of them playing political games with the lives of innocent babies! Their legislation does not pass the authenticity test.  We smell a rat – what about you?

1 Comment

Filed under abortion, anti-abortion, conservative, elections, georgia, Georgia Right to Life, Legislation, Political Action, pro-choice, Social Issues

Planned Parenthood pathetically scrambling to paint its profit as compassion!

by Gabriel Garnica

As pro-life New Jersey Governor Christie defunds Planned Parenthood arguing and demonstrating that many of its services could be offered by other clinics and federally qualified health centers, we see Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards scrambling to save her cash cow from being slaughtered so her organization can keep on slaughtering innocent, unborn children. Asking for an “emergency donation” to counteract efforts by “dangerous politicians who oppose women’s health and the right to choose,” Richards adds “That’s the frightening reality we face, and it’s only going to get worse.” Citing this perceived threat to her organization’s cushy financial support, Richards has vowed “I promise you this: Planned Parenthood will never stop caring for women, and we will never stop fighting for their rights.

http://tinyurl.com/29wp8bm

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, Birth Control, eugenics, Georgia Right to Life, Parenting, personhood, planned parenthood, pro-choice, sex

More news from around the country and the world

Only One Pro-Life Issue on the Ballot in Entire U.S. – ‘Personhood Amendment 62′ is Best Hope for Babies in November

September 14, 2010

Arvada, CO (MetroCatholic) – Pro-life voters will have only one pro-life measure to vote on this November, and that is only if they are registered to vote in Colorado. Colorado’s Personhood Amendment, Amendment 62, is the only pro-life ballot issue to make it to the November polls this year in the United States.

Continue reading here.

A Legal Review of Sherley v. Sebelius and Obama’s Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy

PDF

by Margaret Datiles, Esq.   

datiles_new.jpgI.    IntroductionIn his August 24, 2010 order in Sherley v. Sebelius [1],  U.S. district court Judge Royce Lamberth declared that the Obama Administration’s new embryonic stem cell research policy is illegal because it violates the plain language and intent of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.  For a short time, all federally-funded embryonic stem cell (ESCR) research was halted. With the Sherley v. Sebelius case pending, a possible appeal on the horizon, and congressmen introducing legislation to override Dickey before the November elections, the existence of a ban on the use of federal funds for destructive ESCR appears to hang upon a thread.  However, the solid legal reasoning behind Judge Lamberth’s preliminary injunction, the overall public opposition to taxpayer funded ESCR, and other factors may indicate the opposite. Continue reading here. . .

Dr. Rapin Osathanondh Sentenced in Abortion Patient Case (09-14-10)

BARNSTABLE, MA — The doctor who performed an abortion on Laura Hope Smith and admitted that his actions led to her death while she was under his care was led out of Barnstable Superior Court in handcuffs this afternoon. In addition to receiving a jail sentence for pleading guilty to the criminal…

www.ajc.com

More than six weeks after her feeding tube was removed, Trisha Duguay continues to hold onto life. While her health continues to decline, Trisha, in a coma since late May, sometimes blinks her eyes or moves her fingers.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, catholic, chimera, cloning, euthanasia, personhood, planned parenthood, Pregnancy, pro-choice, Sanctity of Life, sex selection, stem cell research, transhumanism, violence