Envisioning a World Without Legal Abortion

The theme for Students for Life of America this year  is “Envision a World Without Abortion.” As I was reading an article in the National Life Review with Kristan Hawkins, the group’s president, and her answers really caused me to reflect on this dream that all pro-lifers share: a world where the killing of unborn children is no longer legal.

When Kristan was asked how one begins to envision this world, she replied: “I think one of the problems our movement faces is that so many know abortion is wrong- polls prove it- yet they are uncomfortable with the idea of making abortion illegal. They fear the unknown: back-alley abortions, hundreds of thousands of women dying in the streets, or, my favorite line I hear on often on campuses, ‘unwanted children being abandoned and starving on the streets.’ For many of us, legal abortion, in all nine months of pregnancy, on demand, is all that we’ve ever known.”

Since abortion became legal almost 40 years ago, that is true for the most Americans: the death of 53 million children has become our tragic legacy. We have difficulty picturing a world where it does not exist. And, like children who live in abusive households, sometimes we cling to the familiar, as bad as it is,  instead of choosing to wander, even mentally, out into the world of the unknown.

I share Ms. Hawkins vision for our world without abortion: “Think about a society in which all life is treated as a precious gift. Where women and families in crisis can turn to community, and government-supported, pregnancy help centers and their church family for support. Where our political leaders respect life, and political parties try to prove who is more pro-life. Where adoption is tagged as a positive and brave option, and birth mothers are celebrated. Where Hollywood and the music industry promote life. Where no woman ever feels forced to choose abortion for the sake of her education, career, or family.”

Unfortunately, the world she paints is an idealistic world which does not exist at this present time. As believers we will need to make lots of changes in order to be prepared for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. Sadly, we have become dependant upon the government to take care of the poor and needy, when that is actually the God-given responsibility of the Church. Will we be prepared to step up and sacrifice in order to address the needs of women who find themselves in an unexpected pregnancy?

Working at the AAA Center for Pregnancy Counseling, we have our eyes wide open to the heart-breaking situations that confront women and families right here in Omaha. Standing firm on our rock-solid commitment that problems are never solved by taking the life of an unborn child, we are shaken to the core on a daily basis with the overwhelming burdens that some people carry. Often these are the result of poor choices, but the needs are still very real and too heavy to carry on their own.

We look at it as our role to help them to be able to choose life for their child. We educate each women on the benefits and joys of adoption. Sadly, very few are willing to make such a sacrificial choice. Therefore, we provide referrals for the community resources that they desperately need. At the Center, we also provide an 8-week basic parenting class, in which they earn points to “purchase” essential baby and maternity items. We strive to keep in touch throughout the entire pregnancy, making sure that they are cared for and have all they need for themselves and their child.

We receive a lot of support from individuals in the community, but, support from local churches is sadly lacking. Of all the congregations in the city, only a handful provide us with any help whatsoever. We see over 200 women at the Center every month for various services, but this is nothing compared with what will happen if Roe vs. Wade is overturned!

As Kristan hinted at in her comments, the entire climate of our society would have to change for abortion to actually end.  Our society has been brainwashed to believe that life is the womb is second-class, at best. The medical community is saturated with physicians who believe that all unborn children with any type of diagnosed or suspected handicap should be aborted. Often it is presented to grieving parents as the best thing they can do, both for themselves and their child, as if death could ever be in anyone’s self-interest.  It has become so warped that pro-life doctors who encourage life are considered unethical.

And, of course, it is all going to continue to be one big nightmare if we do not stem the raging tide of uncontrolled and irresponsible sex. The fruits of the sexual revolution (started by my generation in the ’60′s!) are destroying our nation and, yet, the entertainment industry keeps spiraling downward with a drumbeat encouraging more and ever-increasing debauchery.  The victims continue to be women and innocent unborn children; the children die and the women  bear the brunt of their pregnancy for the rest of their lives, especially if they abort.

Ms. Hawkins is right in encouraging pro-lifers to begin to envision a world without legal abortion. The Church of Jesus Christ needs to prepare itself to meet the needs of families who will be desperate for help. Pastors need to begin to speak to their youth about purity and the dangers of sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage. Congregations also need to be re-educated that caring for the poor is their responsibility, not of the state.

When Roe vs. Wade is reversed, the battle will return to the states to decide for themselves if abortion should be allowed or not, and under what conditions. It will then be up to us to fight that battle where we live. We should begin now by educating our representatives on abortion and the damage it does to women as well as unborn children. They will need to know the facts in order to make a decision to keep abortion illegal in your state.

I strongly believe that the death of unborn children is something we will all be held accountable for on the day of judgment, right along with feeding the poor and caring for widows and orphans. What is your role in the battle? What have you done to fulfil it? Today is the day to find out!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Family Convicted of Killing Three Teenage Daughters: The Shame of Denigrating Any Human Life!

Yesterday, a Canadian court found an Afghan father, mother and their son guilty of killing the family’s three daughters, along with the father’s first wife (to whom he was still married.) Their crime? The girls, aged 19, 17, and 13 had “dishonored” the family by defying their father’s rules on dress, dating, socializing and using the internet.  If the father’s marriage to the first wife had been discovered, the family could have been deported for polygamy.

It appears that all four females were systematically drowned. The bodies were then placed in a car which was dumped into a canal near Kingston, Ontario. It was all staged to appear as an accident. All three of the defendants still proclaim their innocence, but the evidence makes it clear that a cruel crime was committed.

This morning there was an article on FoxNews.com regarding an Afghan woman who had been strangled by her husband for giving birth to a second daughter instead of a son. The child was fortunate not to have been killed as well, as sometimes happens in that part of the world. As in India and China, daughters are considered a curse.  They are also considered as little more than possessions, and if they compromise the family honor in any way whatsoever, their lives can be in jeopardy.

It is estimated that about 5,000 brides are either killed by their husband’s family or forced into suicide every year in India due to what their husband’s family considers as “insufficient dowry.” On the other end of the spectrum, this is why female babies are killed off at such high rates in the womb. Indian families cannot afford to pay the exorbitant price considered necessary to sell their daughters into marriage.

It is estimated that another 5,000 women are killed world-wide in honor killings every year. Of course, these are just the ones that are reported. Some groups estimate that it is actually four times that amount. As with the Canadian family, women are killed by their fathers, brothers, and even sons, for doing something which casts an embarrassing shadow on the family. This can include innocent victims of rape or incest, should that crime become public. Rather than punish the man, the woman is blamed for “seducing” him into his actions.

More and more cases of honor killings have been springing up in the United States, Britain, and Canada.  Families who have emigrated from the Middle East take action against daughters who become assimilated into the culture. Fortunately, these men do not find the same leniency that they would in their homeland.  Hopefully, these murders will continue to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Why am I writing about this subject? I think many similarities can be drawn between the mentality involved with honor killings and the taking of life in the womb. In both cases, the lives being taken are seen as less worthy and ascribed a sub-human value that can be eliminated once it becomes an embarrassment or inconvenient. Women and the unborn are both sometimes killed to cover-up sexual sin.  If a person is of less worth, then they are expendable.

There was a story that came out last year concerning young girls in India who had been allowed to survive the womb, but had been given the name “Nakusa,” which means “unwanted.” How horrible to be cursed with such a name. Everywhere you go people would know that you meant nothing to your family! Most of these girls had been abandoned or sent to live in orphanages.

However, in one region in central India, a ceremony has been held to allow these girls to rename themselves. Two hundred and eighty-five young women in the Satara district were allowed to pick a new name. Some chose to follow their Bollywood idols or Hindu goddesses. Others picked names which would hopefully give their lives a happier meaning, like “Vashali” which translates to “prosperous, beautiful, and good.”

A lot of feminists attack Christianity, but history shows that wherever the good news of Christ went, women were lifted from their subhuman level and given back their personhood and dignity. Nations which are predominantly Christian do not tolerate such things as honor killings. And, in general, those who proclaim the name of Christ are the biggest opponents to the destruction of life in the womb.

The Bible tells us that we are all God’s creatures, made in His image. In this regard, there is no difference between male and female, born and unborn. All life is to be honored and respected. We must continue to bring Jesus to this dying world so that the dignity of those who are so shamelessly abused can be returned!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Deliberately Distorting the Debate: Pro-lifers Care About Life, NOT Taking Away Women’s Rights!

Planned Parenthood’s Chairman, Richard Solomon, recently made the statement that pro-lifers (or “anti-choice activists”) were trying to “control the sexuality of poor women.” That is his way of explaining why conservative members of Congress were attempting to block government funds from going to his organization.

In my blog on Monday of this week, I pointed out that his associate at Planned Parenthood, organization President, Cecile Richards,  described the effort to cut off tax-payer support for their funds with the following phrases: “attacks on women’s health” and “cutting women off from access to birth control  and life saving cancer screenings.”

No, we’re not. In the first place, Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of abortions in the nation. Secondly, the battle is not to shut them down (although I think that is a great idea!) but to stop the use of our taxpayer money in funding this corrupt organization! Thirdly…. well actually, the list is too long to place here of all the things that are faulty in their statements. However, the bottom line is that Pro-lifers want to stop abortion because innocent human life is being destroyed- PERIOD! We are NOT the ones with an underlying agenda.

I was not planning on writing about this today, since I have touched on the deception of words in recent blogs. However, this morning as I was scrolling through the internet, I stumbled upon an article entitled, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough,” written by Bennett L. Gershman, who is a Professor of Law. I knew immediately that this was a line which had been used in the infamous 1927 court decision of Buck vs. Bell, which legalized forced sterilization.

Mr. Gershman proceeded to explain how this terrible legislation release a massive wave of  women, “deemed socially inadequate to bear children,” to be sterilized against their will to make certain that they would not continue to unleash “undesirables” upon our society. He accurately described this program as “this evil experiment in social engineering” which was “intended to purify the white race.” He also correctly points out that this was a “model for the Nazi racial laws” and Hitler’s “final solution” for exterminating the Jews.

What Mr. Gershman fails to point out was that one of the primary movers and shakers for the eugenics movement in America was Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.  In fact,  Planned Parenthood was originally known as the American Eugenics Society. Not only does this law professor ignore this fact, but he tries to establish a link between the eugenics movement and what he calls “the anti-choice movement.” What in the world?

Here are the Professors own words: “Forcing a woman to give birth, which the anti-choice movement effectively requires (wow, we must be powerful!) really is not that different conceptually from preventing her from giving birth (huh?) Moreover, in both movements there is little interest in protecting the well-being of children by ensuring adequate prenatal and post-natal care of infants, and supporting other child-nurturing policies.”

I would say that this man was delusional if I did not know that all of these terms are being carefully constructed by the pro-abortion movement to paint pro-lifers as callous individuals who really don’t care about life but, for whatever lunatic reason, want to not only deprive women of their “rights” but also make sure they don’t get good medical care either before or after birth.  Why in the world would we do that?!!!

Those who are fighting to keep abortion not only legal, but funded by our tax money, know they cannot win the battle if the focus is upon unborn human life. They see the statistics and know that the majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life. Ultrasound is a powerful weapon which they cannot fight against. The humanity of the unborn can no longer be kept hidden away and denied.

Therefore, they have realized that in order to have a chance in swaying the public to their side, what they need to do is to paint the defenders of the unborn with a really black brush. They do it with terms such as: “anti-choice“, “religious bigots“, “forcing women to give birth against their will“, and ”controllers of female sexuality“. They will use any slurs they can to keep the eyes of the public off of the image of a fully formed, beautiful little unborn child, even if they have to get utterly ridiculous to do it.

Let’s take a look at historical fact. First, there is the legacy of Planned Parenthood. As I stated earlier, Planned Parenthood was birthed out of the eugenics movement. Their early efforts resulted in the forced sterilization of over 63,000 Americans. One of their goals was to restrict the black population through their infamous ”Negro Project.” However, Ms. Sanger went further than that. In her autobiography, she gives seven conditions which “mandated” the use of birth control and sterilization. These included, “when parents, though normal, had abnormal children,” and “when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate.” In fact, her exact words were, “There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things.”

What are the modern-day fruits of organizations like Planned Parenthood? Since abortion became legal in 1973, over 53 million children have died. That is 17%, or close to one-fifth of our population. For African-Americans it is even worse: they have lost an estimated 40% of their children. Margaret Sanger’s stated goal was to decrease the black population. Has she succeeded?

So, how about the population which calls itself pro-life? What is our historical record? The facts show that the biggest opponent to the eugenics movement was the Christian Church. Christians are also the ones responsible for the development of hospitals and orphanages around the world. They also led the movements to eradicate things like slavery and child labor laws.

At the AAA Center for Pregnancy Counseling, we provide life-giving alternatives to pregnant women. We make sure they find quality medical care for themselves and their unborn child. If they are homeless, we find them shelter. If they are hungry, we make sure they get fed. Even if they choose to abort, we always welcome them back in. We never turn anyone away.

That is the caring and compassionate nature of the pro-life movement.  If such programs exist at Planned Parenthood, I am not aware of them. In fact, women who come to us after having been at an abortion facility, often make claims of how rudely and coldly they were treated.

We cannot allow the pro-abortion movement to define us or to shape the debate. We are concerned about the rights of all human beings, born and unborn, the mother as well as the child. Yes, there are many heartbreaking situations out there which can seem much worse with another child on the way. We see them everyday, and we weep along with those who weep. But the solution is never to take the life of an innocent child!  Put simply: We are defenders of the defenseless, and we will never give up until abortion on demand ends in our nation!

Keeping it true!  Barb

What About Abortion and Rape and Incest?

The woman pictured at the left is a family law attorney. She is a wife and the mother of five children, two adopted and three biological. She was also conceived during a rape, and is one of the rare survivors of that violent act.

Rebecca Kiessling’s mother was raped at knife-point by a serial rapist. Since she was adopted at birth, she did not discover this truth until she was 18-years-old.  Almost immediately she realized that she was very fortunate to be alive. However, as she tells it: “Be sure that my survival has nothing to do with luck. The fact that I am alive today has nothing to do with choices that were made by our society at large, but by people who fought to ensure abortion was illegal at Michigan at the time, even in cases of rape, people who argued to protect my life, and people who voted pro-life. I wasn’t lucky. I was protected.”

Rebecca was fortunate that she was conceived in the late 60′s, several years before Roe vs. Wade eradicated state laws, such as those in Michigan, and made abortion legal in the entire nation. At the advice of a rape counselor, her mother actually did seek out an illegal abortion, but the conditions were too abhorrent for her to follow through. If there had been a legal option available, Rebecca would not have survived.

This knowledge has made Rebecca an outspoken advocate for children conceived in rape. She is also a strong proponent for personhood amendments, which declare that a child is a legal person from the moment of conception, no matter how the pregnancy took place. Again she states: “One of the greatest things I’ve learned is that the rapist is NOT my creator, as some people would have me believe. My value and identity are not established as a ‘product of rape,’ but as a child of God.” Amen!

Republican Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, has come under fire recently for stating that raped women should not abort, but should “make the best out of a bad situation.” Actually, that comment came off much harsher than the totality of his statement (which you can find here.) Why does that not surprise me? Of course, the mainstream media want this defender of the unborn, and man of faith, to come off as callous as they can make him appear.

As you watch the interview, you can see that Santorum was asked by CNN’s Pierce Morgan what he would do if one of his daughter’s came to him after having been raped and asked him if he would help her get an abortion. It is a question the press love to ask because it can make a candidate seem very callous. He responded that he would reach out to his daughter with love, and support her in any way he could through the difficult time.

He stated: “You can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that too could ruin her life…. And whether she has that child or she doesn’t, it will always be her child, and she will always know that.” Of course, to those in favor of abortion, who see the unborn child as a “clump of tissue” and consider abortion as nothing more than a woman’s right, this type of reasoning is callous and ridiculous. They deny that there is such a thing as “post-abortion syndrome,” so aborting a baby conceived in rape is the only sensible thing for a rape victim to do to move on with her life.

In reality, Rick Santorum is correct. Dr. David Reardon has probably done more research than anyone on the struggles women face after an abortion. In his article, “Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths,” he points out that the pro-abortion movement is constantly bringing up the tough cases of rape and incest, but very few have actually asked those women what they think. In fact, he only knew of one study which had been done which interviewed the victims themselves. In it, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that at least 75% of all abortion victims did not end up aborting. And, many of those who did felt that it was not their decision, but, rather, as a result of others pressuring them to do so.

When asked why they had not aborted, many of the rape victims believed that abortion would just be a further “act of violence perpetrated against their body and their children.”  With the act of rape, they were the victims of violence. With abortion, they would be the ones perpetrating violence against an innocent child, which they stated would be much harder for them to live with.  After all, abortion could not “turn back the clock and make them un-pregnant.” Instead, there was now a baby whose life or death was in their hands.

The same is true for victims of the horrendous crime of incest. However, in these cases there is a whole new dimension that is rarely taken into account. In most cases where incest ends in abortion, it is the perpetrator that takes the girl in to have the evidence of his guilt removed. The birth of a baby would signal to the world that something was very wrong.

A few years ago a case surfaced in which three sisters in Baltimore were all systematically raped by their father over the course of many years. In that period of time, the abuse was covered up by at least ten abortions. If any one of those pregnancies had been allowed to continue, the abuse would have been brought into the light and, hopefully, stopped. As I have mentioned in the past, Planned Parenthood has gone on trial several times for allowing a father or brother to bring a young girl in for an abortion and never reported it to the authorities.

The bottom line with this whole debate, however, is the fact that an unborn child is either a person deserving of the same rights as anyone else or they are not, no matter how they were conceived. I believe that every person is created by God in the womb and receives their value from Him alone! For me to make exceptions for rape or incest would make me a hypocrite. We cannot continue to let those who believe in abortion shape the debate. It is not about women and their rights, it is all about defending the life of innocent children who cannot speak for themselves.

Julie Makinaa is another woman who was conceived in rape. After years of struggle, she has finally concluded: “It doesn’t matter how I began. What matters is who I become.” I agree, but I would take it one step further. It doesn’t matter how a person begins or how they end, God gives them their life, and with it, He gives them purpose.  And, no one but Him has the right to take it away.

Keeping it true!  Barb

Does the Abortion Industry Lie to Women?

A report was just released which gave the bold conclusion that abortion is much safer than child-birth. The reason for this assertion? Statistics from several sources, including the very pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, report that between 1998 and 2005 there were 8.8 deaths per 100,000 for those who had a full-term pregnancy and delivery compared to 0.6 deaths per 100,000 for those who had abortions.

What was interesting to me was the reasons that were given for doing this study. One was the impact that medical abortions, with drugs such as RU-486, are having upon the landscape of abortion in this nation. Another was that this team of physicians was “concerned” about the information which several states were now mandating be given to women before having the procedure. Apparently, some people are actually deterred from having an abortion after reading the list of possible side effects, which the doctors conducting this research call “misleading.” (Hmmm…. I wonder how many of them perform abortions themselves?)

Also of interest is the fact that the focus of this report is upon death alone and not upon any of the other risk factors. To start with, the number of abortion related deaths comes from the Guttmacher Institute. That is sort of like counting on Joseph Goebbels to give an accurate count of the Jewish dead in Nazi Germany. Plus, abortion statistics are highly unreliable. Some states, such as California, do not have any type of required reporting system as far as abortion is concerned. Abortion deaths are often mislabeled or unreported altogether.

As far as the information that women now must receive in several states, Dr. Donna Harrison, director of research and public policy at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists states: “Abortion carries significant risk to the mother in addition to death, and women need to have good and accurate information. Since we don’t have an objective academic format yet, the information provided should be left up to the state medical boards and agreed to by the state legislatures.“

A complaint was made in this report that women are often “scared by the rhetoric.” Well, maybe they should be frightened, especially when the facts are so disturbing. Plus, have you seen the ads for any type of medication or other medical treatment? The possible risks and side effects take longer to list than the benefits! If the drug companies are required to spell these out in detail for even such benign things as aspirin, why should a radical procedure like abortion be treated any different?

I did a blog just last week dispelling the myth that abortion is safe. (“New Study States Unsafe Abortions are on the Rise: What Qualifies as a Safe Abortion?” Jan. 19, 2012) Countless studies throughout the years have demonstrated that having an abortion can cause a future increase in ectopic pregnancies, premature and low weight births, pelvic inflammatory disease (especially if the woman had an STD), infertility, and emotional/psychological trauma.

Post abortion syndrome and the link between breast cancer and abortion have both been dismissed out of hand by the abortion industry, in spite of many studies, here and abroad, proving them both. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that those who perform abortions don’t really care about the physical and emotional consequences to women. They don’t even care about making the procedure “rare,” as they so often claim.

In the last couple of years, several women have come out of the abortion movement with some extremely disturbing reports. Former employees and directors of Planned Parenthood have made the statement that “Planned Parenthood’s mission is to pressure as many women into having an abortion as it can.” This was done with a systematic pattern of misinformation, lack of counseling and coercion.

Catherine Anthony Adair, a former employee of a Planned Parenthood in Boston, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Washington Examiner: “My time there was not spent providing prenatal care to pregnant women, providing counseling or basic health care services or educating women about reproductive health. Instead, I spent my days urging women to terminate their pregnancies. My superiors constantly reminded me of our abortion-centered business model: abortions first, everything else came second.”

Jewels Green, another former worker from PP states that they weren’t trained to help women explore other options to abortion. Abby Johnson, a former director in the organization, says the same in her book, Unplanned. Abby was very idealistic when she started her work, determined that she would help women. She became more and more disturbed upon being reprimanded for not performing enough abortions and being pressed into doing them later and later into the pregnancy.

The Medical Science Monitor did a survey which reported that 64% of those reporting felt pressured by others to abort. Seventy-nine percent said they not given any information about abortion alternatives, and 67% stated that they received no counseling before aborting their child. And yet, those who reported that abortion is safer than childbirth, also made the statement that “an induced abortion, like any other medical procedure, requires getting informed consent from the women. That means women understand and acknowledge the risks of their different options.” That will obviously come as a surprise to many of those who were surveyed and felt they were left in ignorance and aborted against their will or wishes.

I am baffled that an industry that is supposed to be so concerned about women continues to battle against legislation which would improve sanitary conditions and mandate a full disclosure of truth. They are always accusing pro-lifers of not respecting women, but keeping people in ignorance is about as disrespectful as you can get. However, I get the feeling it is far more about the money and safeguarding abortion than it is about helping the women involved.

Keeping it true!  Barb

“Women Are Watching”- A Pro-Life Twist on Planned Parenthood’s New Campaign!

Abortion on demand in America turned 39 years old yesterday. In remembrance, our President released a celebratory statement, rejoicing in his continuing commitment to “protecting a woman’s right to choose” this “fundamental constitutional right.” Cecile Richards marked the day by announcing Planned Parenthood’s new campaign for 2012, called Women are Watching, declaring that “on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, women are watching and they are angry at what they see.”

I will always remember the first time I took part in the March for Life in Washington, DC. I think it was 1986, and I can honestly say I had never seen so many people in one place before!  We turned to go down Pennsylvania Avenue and the sight took my breath away: the entire street was jammed full of pro-lifers as far as the eyes could see. It was like a little taste of heaven!

And, I hate to shock Ms. Richards (who, by the way, is the President of Planned Parenthood) too much, but that massive crowd was primarily made up of women. They are also angry, but not at the fact that they are watching “women’s reproductive rights erode away.” Rather, they are determined that the real fundamental right of all Americans, female or male, has been denied for too long: the right to life!

Pro-abortion diatribes, like the one which Cecile Richards published on January 22, are sort of like real-estate advertisements: one has to know how to translate the terms to find out what is really being said. Just like “a handyman’s dream” actually means that a lot of repairs need to be done, phrases such as “attacks on women’s health” and “cutting women off from access to birth control and lifesaving cancer screenings” require interpretation. (In terms you might better understand, those two phrases actually translate to “stopping abortion” and “cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood.”)

Just for the fun of it, and because it provides a great outline for me to present you with some good things to be watching for this year, I am going to take you through Ms. Richards article point by point. (You can find it in its entirety here.) She begins by pointing out that in 2011, state legislatures passed a historic amount of pro-life legislation. When all was said and done, twenty-four states enacted 92 laws restricting abortion. That completely obliterated the old record of 34 passed in 2005.

Ms. Richards, of course, feels that this is a huge attack upon the women of this nation.  She points out that some individuals will have to travel many miles in order to receive “safe, legal abortion care.” What she denies to mention are the women of Pennsylvania and Maryland who will, because of the concern of their state legislatures, be able to remain safe from the filthy, unsanitary conditions that left several women dead or maimed in the supposedly safe care of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Or, the young girls who will be protected from being forced into an abortion by their pedophile coach or teacher as the result parental notification or consent laws.  The list goes on and on of how women are protected by newly enacted laws which keep them from being coerced or deceived into destroying the life of their unborn child.

Ms. Richards goes on to point out the findings of a recent study which supposedly showed that the abortion rate is highest in countries where abortion is illegal. My blog of last Thursday (New Study States Unsafe Abortions are on the Rise) blows several large holes in that conclusion, which is not even substantiated by the report itself. Unfortunately, many people all too readily devour false conclusions that are handed to them without actually seeking the facts to back them up.

And then there is the old, obvious line that “the best way to reduce the need for abortion is to reduce unintended pregnancy.” To which Planned Parenthood only has one solution: more contraception. And with this comes the new accusation that the state legislatures, as well as the Republican nominees, are big, bad ogres trying to cut women off planning their own families, or even (gasp!) getting screened for breast or cervical cancer. How ridiculous! As I’ve already stated, this is her way of stating that various states and politicians are attempting to cut off government funding for her beloved organization.  No one has any intention of keeping women from getting screened for cancer! In fact, I can name you several organizations in Omaha that will provide all the care a woman needs for much less than Planned Parenthood would charge!

After all these ridiculous, distorted claims comes the big news of the piece: the introduction of “Women are Watching,” Planned Parenthood’s campaign for 2012.  Ms. Richards tells women that they are the ones who can turn the tide in this election! She warns: “With November in their sights, the crop of GOP presidential candidates have zeroed in on women’s health and rights.“  In fact, “it’s become a national race to the bottom to see who can be the worst possible president for women.”

Don’t you just love how she just clumps us all together, like women are all of one mind on this crucial issue? Someone should tell Ms. Richards that in the most recent Gallup poll, 49% of all women called themselves “pro-life,” while only 44% defined themselves as “pro-choice.” She might just want to be careful before she calls on American women to “watch” what is happening with the upcoming election and, then, to vote their convictions.

There was one statement that Ms. Richards made with which I am in full agreement. She states “As Roe heads into its 40th year…. women are standing by and taking note of who is supporting their best interests and who is playing politics with their health and lives.” Cecile, there are millions of us that are doing just that. However, we are looking out for the most helpless females (and males!) among us, as well as for their poor, victimized mothers.

We too will “continue to raise those voices and keep the pressure on.” Just like you: “every day, from now through November, we need to remind politicians that women (pro-life women!) are watching. We see what they are doing. We hear what they are saying. And we vote” However, watch out, Cecile, because we, the pro-life women of America, vote in bigger numbers than you!

Keeping it true!  Barb

New Study States Unsafe Abortions Are on the Rise: What Qualifies as a “Safe” Abortion?

A report just surfaced from the combined forces of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Guttmacher Institute (a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood) which states that the abortion rate worldwide has “stalled out” and the number of “unsafe” abortions are on the rise. Both of these groups are known for their extreme pro-abortion stands. Their report is also extremely ambiguous in its findings.

Of course, their conclusion is what it always is: there are not enough contraceptives in the world. They say this no matter what the reports indicate. And, their conclusion that the abortion rate has “stalled out” doesn’t really fit with their data. Their report states that between 1995 and 2003 the abortion rate per 1,000 women of childbearing age dropped from 35 to 29. A new study in 2008 found that it was now at 28. Okay, in my opinion that is a continuation on the downward trend. If it had been 29, it might be defined as “stalling,” but since 28 is actually less than 29, and represents thousands of women, I stand on the side of basic math in emphatically stating that the rate has dropped!

The report also makes a point of stating that the abortion rate is highest in those nations who have the tightest restrictions on abortion. It particularly focuses on South America and Africa, with rates of 32 and 29 women per 1,000 having the deadly procedure. Some of these nations restrict abortion, but some also do not. However, when one compares these regions to the Eastern European countries, where abortions are not only easy to obtain but are paid by the government, the rate of abortion skyrockets to 43 per 1,000. Even here in the United States, the rate on the whole may by under 20, but, according to an article in USA Today dated May 23, 2011, the rate among African-Americans it is 40.2 and among unmarried women who co-habit it reaches 52 per 1,000!

Putting all these inconsistencies aside, the section of the report I want to focus upon is the emphasis which was placed upon “unsafe” abortions around the world. Apparently, the number of these dangerous procedures has risen from 44 percent in 1995 to 49 percent in 2008. The definition given for “unsafe abortion” is “a procedure for terminating a pregnancy carried out by someone who does not have the necessary skills, or in an environment that does not meet minimal medical standards or both.”

It is amazing to me that the same organizations who put up such a hue and cry about “unsafe abortions” are also the ones who are fighting against the passage of regulations that would require abortion clinics in the United States to meet the same standards of cleanliness and care as other health facilities. They are also the ones who bullied the government into not carrying out proper inspections on clinics that perform abortions, proclaiming that such actions restricted a woman’s “free and easy access to terminate her pregnancy.” What could be any more dangerous for women than the filthy and blatant disregard for safety that was found in Gosnell’s House of Horrors in Pennsylvania? (See my blog “Good News for Unborn Children” from January 25, 2011.)

During the course of this year, several cases of severe ethics and safety violations on the part of abortionists have surfaced. As I pointed out last week, two of them are on trial for murder in Maryland. Four women have died from the use of RU-486, and thousands more have suffered greatly under its effects. This is not even to touch on the multiple cases of unreported child abuse, human trafficking and coercion that have been uncovered at Planned Parenthoods all across the nation.

So, what does it take to make an abortion unsafe? How about the disregarded and scorned link between breast cancer and abortion? Even if the hundreds of studies demonstrating a definite connection between the two are denied, that does not protect women from the reality that her abortion makes her more at risk for contracting a medical condition which could threaten her life. Or how about the disregarded data which proves abortion increases future chances for miscarriage or premature birth? Or that it can prevent women from ever being able to have another child? Shouldn’t these be counted in the safety factor?

Or, let’s say that a woman is really fortunate and comes out of her abortion physically unscathed, what about the condition of her heart? Will she be like some who will spiral into a pattern of alcohol and drug abuse? Or will she become more promiscuous, increasing her chances of disease and further unwanted pregnancies and abortions? Or will she just become clinically depressed? I think a lot of these reactions, (which, by the way, are very common after an abortion,) definitely fall into the category of “unsafe.”

And, of course, there is that huge, overlooked fact that in each abortion at least one person dies.  I realize that this fact does not trouble the ones making this report, but it is true nevertheless. In my opinion, “abortion” and “safe” never fit together in the same sentence. There is no such thing as a “safe abortion!”

The report stated that in underdeveloped nations between 95 and 97 percent of all abortions are considered unsafe. I could argue that this is true for all healthcare in those nations. For instance, which of us want to go into a third world country for major surgery? I don’t like to hear of anyone falling under the care of an untrained physician, no matter what the case. However, that does not justify reports such as this one which blow things out of context and rework the facts to sustain their pre-drawn conclusions.

Pro-lifers are always being accused of distorting the facts. However, I don’t think we hold a candle to those who support abortion. Being in favor of destroying life in the womb requires a huge denial of fact, scientific as well as psychological. And it certainly calls for a total denial of what is truly good for women!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Should Handicapped Individuals Be Denied Life-Saving Medical Care Like Transplants?

Amelia Rivera is three-years-old. She is a happy, friendly little girl who has made big strides in her young life. Amelia was born with a condition called Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which causes a distinctive look to the face, as well as mild to severe physical and mental disabilities.

Amelia’s parents have known for quite some time that she would need to have a kidney transplant in order in continue her life. In fact, the chances are likely that she will need to have them periodically over the years and to remain on drugs to maintain those transplant for most of her life. However, recently the Rivera’s were informed by Amelia’s doctors that she will not be placed on the kidney transplant list. According to a blog written by Chrissy Rivera, Amelia’s mother, the reason they were given for the decision was that Amelia was “mentally retarded.”

Again, according to the blog, the Rivera’s replied that they were not seeking to add Amelia to the list, but would pursue finding a donor for her among their family members. She states that the doctor refused this option as well, stating that the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia would not be performing any type of kidney transplant for Amelia.

The hospital responded with the following statement: “The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia does not disqualify potential transplant candidates on the basis of intellectual abilities. We have transplanted enough children with a wide range of disabilities, including physical and intellectual disabilities. We at CHOP are deeply committed to providing the best possible medial care to all children, including those with any form of disability.”

Arthur Caplan, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, told Fox News that the supply of transplant organs for children are “extremely limited.” As far as the family finding a donor of their own, “most adults can’t donate an organ, because it won’t fit” a child. Plus, he feels that there are ethical problems with families finding their own donors.

I don’t really feel comfortable diving into the whole debate between this family and the hospital. If the reason that the surgery is not being done is because of Amelia’s mental disability, then this is very disturbing. However, I am certain that every hospital has a set of criteria that they have to follow since the demand for organs is so much greater than those that are available. I don’t know enough about this specific case to make a judgment.

However, this whole situation was a reminder to me of the dangers which are intrinsic with the new HealthCare plan. If countries like England are any indicator, as the government is allowed to take greater control of our health care regulations, life-saving surgeries for children like Amelia will become even more rare. It will not be so much a matter of a lack of organs (although that could very well happen!) as a matter of expense to the tax-payer. Criteria will be set in place to decide which individuals will be allowed to continue to live and which will not.

In our society, children like Amelia are lucky that they are even allowed to survive until birth. With increasingly sophisticated fetal testing, babies with conditions such as Down-syndrome or Wolf-Hirschhorn are targeted for death. Even parents like the Rivera’s, who want their baby and would provide great care after birth, are placed under enormous pressure to abort. Worse case scenarios are played out, along with pleas not to let their innocent child suffer. Without strong pro-life convictions, statistics show that most parents give in. As a result, every year less  and less of these children are even allowed a chance at life.

It is my fear that if there is not a change in Washington, and the attitude doesn’t turn in a pro-life direction, that more and more children like Amelia will find themselves under deadly medical discrimination.  As we grow in our disdain for handicapped life in the womb,we will find it increasingly difficult to take heroic measures to save that same life after birth. I strongly believe that if it were not for some radical advocacy groups for the handicapped, as well as committed and determined parents like the Rivera’s, our nation’s hospitals would already be a very dangerous place for those considered “less worthy.”

Please join me for praying for the Rivera’s and little Amelia. She deserves as much of a chance for a long life as any other person.  Quality of life is a very dangerous term. God has created every one of us, and we are all perfect in His eyes. He also calls on us to protect the innocent. Let’s do our job!

Keeping it true!  Barb

Disturbing Report about Effect of Internet Porn on Children: How Can You Safeguard Your Home?

 Technology changes rapidly in our culture, bringing with it the good and the bad. For instance, I have developed a real love relationship with the Kindle Fire my children gave me for Christmas! I have a hard time forcing myself to leave it at home when I come to work (but enough about my issues!)

As much as I love computers and its easy access to information on just about anything, as well as its 24/7 entertainment value, I am well aware of its dangerous pitfalls. Today’s parents have serious issues they must face that I didn’t have when my children were little (although we did have to confront some things when they were teens!) One of the most dangerous pitfalls is the issue of internet porn.

A report surfaced from Melbourne, Australia (in Victoria State) recently pointing out that children’s aid and sex abuse organizations in that region are dealing with an increase in the number of cases in which children are sexually abusing other children. That brought to mind the case here in Omaha where two pre-teen boys molested a young brother and sister in their neighborhood.  In the Australian report, they drew a direct link between early sexual abuse and the easy availability of porn on computers and other portable devices.

Carolyn Worth, the statewide convener of Victoria’s Centres Against Sexual Assault (CASA) stated that sexually abusive behavior among children as young as five is “exploding!” The referrals seeking help presently far out number the resources that are available. Some even had to be given over to the criminal authorities.  (To read this article, click here.)

This is not the only study to point out the link between pornography and kids acting out sexually towards other children. It has long been known that early sexual activity is linked to two possible things: either the child has been molested or they have been exposed to graphic, sexual images.  In most cases the two are combined with sexual molesters using pornography to break down the defenses of their young victims.

Of course, it only takes common sense to realize that the earlier a child starts sexual activity, the greater at risk they are for sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancy. This is not to mention the emotional trauma for a child being forced into a sexual world years before they are ready. Even if no one physically forces a child or pre-teen into a sexual act, statistics show that without abuse of some type young people just don’t make those kinds of decisions.

Whenever we see a young girl of 13 or 14 come through the doors of the AAA Center for Pregnancy Counseling, thinking that she is pregnant, especially when she has already had several sexual partners, we immediately suspect sexual abuse. Oftentimes her partner is several years older, making it a case of statutory rape (which we promptly report to Child Protective Services.) However, it is almost as disturbing when the person with whom she is having sex is also in his early teens, an event which is becoming more and more common.

I don’t blame these trends completely on internet porn. In fact, I think the blatant sexual nature of the entertainment industry has to at least share the blame. In some ways it may be worse. Whereas many kids will be repelled at a graphic object popping up on their computer screen, television programs are designed to gradually break down their defenses to things they would otherwise reject. (For more about this see my blog “What is the Big Deal about a Show Like Glee?” from November 9, 2011)

So, what can you as a parent do to protect your children? First and foremost, you must be aware of what your kids are watching. Computers and televisions in a child’s room are a recipe for disaster. We have always kept our computer in our family room, in full sight of everyone passing by. Plus, I never hesitated to review the sites that my children had been on. Secrecy is the best breeding ground for danger to occur.

There are many software programs which can be used to restrict your child’s access to sites you don’t want them to see. The same thing can be done through your satellite or cable television provider. Of course, it is always best if you watch the things your children are viewing. I have been appalled at some of the programs which are billed as family fare and run in the earliest time slots.

I visited two websites which appear to be great sites to find resources and checklists for parents concerned with protecting their children. One is WWW.GetNetWise.com, and the other is WWW.Enough.org. As with all aspects of teenage sexuality, parental involvement is key!

Keeping it true!  Barb

What Did Martin Luther King, Jr. Think About Abortion?

Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, pro-life? This is a very difficult question to answer. Dr. King died before the Supreme Court case of Roe vs. Wade was handed down, legalizing abortion on demand throughout a woman’s pregnancy. Even though he died just a few years before the decision, he probably never imagined (because very few did!) that the highest court in our land would actually institute such a deadly law, creating “rights” which do not appear in our constitution.

So why would I write such a blog? Well, for one thing, I was interested to know if this great man had written anything on the subject at all. His words have been so pivotal in breaking down racial barriers, that I hoped he had some encouraging words concerning the rights of the unborn as well. Also, I have a great admiration for his niece, Dr. Alveda King, and she speaks passionately of her uncle’s pro-life convictions, comments for which she has been soundly condemned by some. I wanted to discover the truth for myself (as well as for you!)

I was not too surprised to discover that the facts go one way or the other based on whether the source is pro-life or pro-abortion in their convictions. Actually, that it is the case on any aspect of this explosive topic. It is an area where there is very little middle ground.

Dr. King made some statements which greatly encouraged me. In a Christmas sermon from 1967, he made the following comment: “The next thing we must be concerned about if we are to have peace on earth and good will toward men is the nonviolent affirmation of the sacredness of all human life. …. Man is a child of God, made in His image, and therefore must be respected as such. …. And when we truly believe in the sacredness of human personality, we won’t exploit people, we won’t trample over people with the iron feet of oppression, we won’t kill anyone.”

Those are beautiful words. Unfortunately, however, the unborn are not always counted among “God’s creation” or accorded with the status of human beings. Sadly, I have heard people make comments much like those above who have no qualms about abortion. Dr. King’s niece, Alveda, is convinced that her uncle included the unborn in his intent. Together with a few other family members, she has made a statement to that effect. I hope she is correct.

I was surprised to learn that Dr. King was awarded with one of the first Margaret Sanger Awards from Planned Parenthood. He was given the award for “his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity.” He did not attend the awards ceremony himself, but sent his wife, Coretta, in his place.

A speech, supposedly written by Dr. King and read by his wife, included the following statement: “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.” These are disturbing words, considering the racist statements which can be directly attributed to Ms. Sanger, such as the following: “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 their more rebellious members.” (Words which I’m certain Planned Parenthood wishes Ms. Sanger had never actually placed in print.)

Dr. Alveda King believes that her uncle never wrote the Planned Parenthood speech. Instead, she thinks it was authored by her aunt, who was an active abortion rights supporter. And even if it was, Ms. King points out that much of Ms. Sanger’s writings have not surfaced until recently. In 1966, when the speech was given, the full extent of her goal to eradicate the black population was not known except to a few committed supporters (along with the leadership of Planned Parenthood!)

Because of Dr. King’s tragic death, we will probably never know where he stood as far as rights for unborn children is concerned. Sadly, we do have another legacy: that of his co-worker, Rev. Jessie Jackson.  In a 1977 article for the National Right to Life News, Rev. Jackson made the following defense for the unborn: “What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of person, and what kind of society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?”

To answer his question, all we have to do is look at today’s appalling statistics. African-American women only make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but accounted for 36.4% of all abortions in 2006! In 2004, the black population of this country was roughly 36 million. However, between the years 1973 and 2004, just about 15 million black children had been aborted, or over 40% of the total!

And yet, in spite of all this, Jessie Jackson no longer believes in defending the unborn of his race or any other. In 1984, he made his first attempt to become the presidential candidate for the Democratic party. Suddenly his pro-life convictions fell away and he was transformed into a strong advocate for abortion. Did he change so he could find success with his party? I can’t say for sure but, if not, it does seem like an unbelievable coincidence.

Whenever this day to honor Dr. King comes around, I can’t help but think about the horrible plight of African-Americans and abortion. Facts tell us that abortion clinics spring up most frequently in neighborhoods with the highest minority populations and that unborn black and hispanic children are dying at an ever-increasing rate. I heard someone mention once that even if there was not an organized plan in place to wipe out African-Americans, it is still being accomplished with amazing success. Personally, I’m choosing to believe that a great man like Dr. King would feel compelled to do what he could to save the lives of all God’s children, black and white, born and unborn!

Keeping it true!  Barb