Stuck on Stupid

Back when the Soviet Union still existed, jokes were often circulated that ridiculed their government-controlled media. One of them went something like this:

Athletes from the United States and the U.S.S.R. were pitted against each other in a track meet that was eventually won by the Yanks. The next day, headlines across Russia screamed, "Soviets Take Second in International Competition; Americans Finish Next to Last!"

In those days, jokes like this worked because America still claimed the moral superiority of having a "free press." And whether that claim reflected reality or not, we believed it was true and that is all that mattered.

Of course, the bloom is now off the rose. Only a complete idiot could witness what's going on in modern American journalism and not see that it has become a joke in and of itself. The fact is that the same godless / Marxist ideology that once controlled the Soviet media now controls the American media. It could also be that the American system is the worst of the two. After all, the Soviet press may have pushed the socialist manifesto because they were ordered to do so by humorless people wearing hobnailed boots. But the American press has no such defense; they knowingly manipulate the reporting of world events in order to advance this political agenda because they are its true believers.

However, while there is ample evidence to support this cynical analysis, my experience has been that it does not really explain most of the rabid pro-abortion bias we have seen from the media over the last 40 years. Instead, what I have noticed is that, as it regards this specific issue, contemporary journalists are not driven by ideology as much as they are by their own stupidity and laziness. This may sound overly simplistic but, after many years of interacting with these people, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that, with almost no exceptions, they are simply not very bright. It is also clear that they have now devolved into a collection of people who dismiss traditional concepts of morality as arcane, quaint and irrelevant. Moreover, that doesn't change much whether they work for the Frognot Texas Weekly Gazette or the New York Times or ABC News.

It was in the mid 1980s that I first began to understand how profoundly these things impact the media's abortion coverage. At the time, I was traveling almost every weekend conducting 8-hour training seminars designed to teach people how to articulate the pro-life position. I eventually did about 150 of these seminars across the U.S. and Canada and had more than 15,000 people attend.

One day, it dawned on me that if I were doing a parallel seminar for the pro-choice side my task would be much easier. In my Life Activist Seminar, I had to address complex issues related to the law, philosophy, biology, medicine, theology, logic, marketing,etcetera. These are the areas that, I knew, attendees had to understand in order to be effective defenders of the unborn. But if I were training the other side, my seminar would need to last no more than five minutes and I would not have to touch on any complicated issues. All I would have to do is make sure that every attendee left the room knowing how to mindlessly recite the following mantra:

"I am not in favor of abortion, I would never be involved in an abortion and I would do anything I could to discourage anyone I know from having one. But ultimately, I don't think the government has a right to make this decision."

That's it! If you can just memorize that, you don't need to know anything else. In effect, that simple rhetoric keeps you from ever having to defend a practice that you intuitively know is indefensible. At the same time, however, those who defend the rights of the unborn will never escape the requirement that they have at least a basic understanding of the things I mentioned above: law, philosophy, biology, medicine, theology, logic, marketing, etcetera. In short, it is an unavoidable aspect of this battle that the pro-choice position will always be exponentially easier to defend than the pro-life position.

Of course, once you combine that with the fundamental nature of the modern press, it becomes obvious why the pro-choice position has become the default position of the contemporary media. It requires no effort, no thought and no morality, all of which make it custom made for these people.

Today, the media advances this agenda through the use of two mechanisms. To illustrate the first, I ask you to imagine that you work for a corporation that has just fired a long-time employee. The next morning the company sends the following memo to the remaining staff:

"Yesterday, we were forced to terminate the employment of Chief Financial Officer, John Smith. It has always been company policy that employees who are found to be embezzling money from our accounts are immediately dismissed."

So why was John Smith fired? The obvious assumption would be that he was stealing money. But notice that, technically, the memo didn't say that; it simply made two true statements that encouraged such an assumption. It's a real-world variation of the, "Soviets Take Second, Americans Finish Next to Last!" joke.

This is a slimy little trick the media has learned to use when dealing with the abortion issue. There are thousands of examples of this but I'll cite just one of the more outrageous. Years ago, Operation Rescue went to Buffalo, New York, to peacefully blockade an abortion clinic. On CNN News that night, the voice-over for the lead story was something along the lines of, "Violence Erupts as Operation Rescue Invades Buffalo." Meanwhile, on the screen they show a group of enraged protestors literally punching police officers and having to be wrestled to the ground.

The message was unambiguous and perfectly delivered: pro-lifers are violent. The only problem was that the protestors who were shown fighting with the police were not part of Operation Rescue but were, instead, a group of pro-choice thugs. These people had physically accosted the pro-lifers and when the authorities intervened they were attacked as well. And make no mistake about it, CNN knew exactly what was going on because they were right there on the spot. But they are also aware that in a nation where video cameras are everywhere, they can't take the risk of telling an outright lie. So like the corporation I cited in the earlier fictional story, CNN carefully assembled two true statements in a way that would encourage the audience to believe a lie.

This sort of strategy is now almost universally employed by the media when reporting on abortion and illustrates the abysmal dishonesty that has become endemic within contemporary journalism.

A second phenomenon exemplifies the laziness of these people.

When covering a story in which those on opposite sides of an issue make contradictory statements, legitimate journalism dictates that the journalist investigate and expose who is lying and who is telling the truth. Today, however, that is not what happens. Modern journalist have adopted the "equal time" doctrine. They are too inept and too lazy to investigate, so they just regurgitate whatever the two sides say and declare that they have been fair to both. The problem is, if statement "A" and statement "Z" cannot both be true, publishing both without exposing who's lying does nothing more than give as much weight to the lie as it does to the truth.

Those of us in the pro-life movement see this almost every day but I will just cite one common example. In a story about late-term abortions, it is almost inevitable that the pro-life spokesperson will say that, in 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy. This, of course, is something the other side has been hiding from the American people since day one and they realize that it would be a public relations nightmare for them to find out about it now. So they say something along the lines of:

"Roe was a compromise decision that allows unrestricted abortion in the first trimester, allows it for the health and safety of the mother in the second trimester and does not permit it at all in the third trimester except to save the mother's life."

Now obviously, somebody's lying. But the media does not investigate because they are either too lazy to do so or because they are afraid to find out who's lying. On many occasions, I have confronted reporters over this very issue and told them precisely how they could discover for themselves what the truth is. But with not one exception to date, the response has been that their responsibility is to let each side have their say. In their world, this perverted sense of "fairness" trumps the truth every time.

In the final analysis, we live at a moment in history that is often called the age of information. Yet it is a constant source of aggravation for the pro-life movement that, even after all these years, so many Americans know so little about abortion. But let's also remember that we live in a society that is obsessed with the meaningless and the trivial. I am reminded of this every time I think about a particular article that was published several years ago. It gave the results of a series of man-on-the-street interviews in which randomly selected people were asked questions pertaining to current events and the United States government.

One question asked them if they could name the only woman who was on the United States Supreme Court at that time. The number one answer was ... Judge Judy.

Why the Hurry?

January 20, 2009, began with every American living under a system of government that was birthed in the blood of patriots.  But by the following morning, duly elected political anarchists had already begun the process of dismantling this 230 year-old form of government.  The world’s Marxists had always bragged that they would eventually conquer us without firing a shot and now it was happening. 


Today, it is not only the nature of this coup that stuns traditional Americans but the blinding speed at which it is occurring.  The American people are not just seeing things take place that they could not have imagined 50 years ago; they are seeing things take place that they could not have imagined one year ago.


The question is, what’s the rush?  Why is the Obama administration pushing this agenda at a rate that defies all political logic–even to the point of strong-arming their fellow Democrats into supporting wildly unpopular policies that could destroy their political futures?     


My suspicion is that the Obamanista’s scorched-earth approach is being driven by a dirty little secret they know about the coalition that gave them victory in 2008.  In a nutshell, I think they are deeply concerned about one of its key members. 


The conventional thinking is that this coalition was made up of African-Americans, white liberals and anti-Bush independents.  Another big-time player, of course, was the “Kool-Aid-drinkers” who were swept up in the feeding frenzy created by the media. 


When it comes to 2012, the Democrats are not worried about the African-American vote or the support of white liberals.  They are also confident that the mindless cult-like mentailty shown by the “Kool-Aid-drinkers” is not likely to be cured.  The one fly in the punchbowl is that, as the image of George Bush shrinks in the rearview mirror, Obama is losing the ability to use him as a bogyman.  This could cause Obama’s appeal among independents to plummet and, in fact, there is some evidence this is already happening. 


It is the responsibility of high-priced consultants and political gurus to keep all these factions on the reservation and maybe they can.  But even if they are able to do so, my theory is that the Obamanistas are aware that there is another member of their 2008 coalition which may not be onboard in 2012.  This group is what I call “Purgers.”


These are white voters who supported Barack Obama in order to rid the country of the stain of racism.  For this particular group, voting for Obama was not about politics; it was about purging themselves of the guilt of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and every other vestige of racial intolerance.  They thought that by electing a black man president, we could show that the days of racism were behind us.  It didn’t matter whether this was reality or not; what mattered was the perception that it was true.  I’m not convinced that these people really cared whether Obama won or not.  As long as they voted for him, they proved–at least to themselves–that they weren’t racist.  In effect, they replaced the old, “I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black” mantra with, “I’m not a racist, I voted for Obama.”  Besides, Obama represented a “safe” vote because he was not perceived as some sort of “race-pimp” like a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton.   


In any event, an Obama sticker on the back bumper of a car was irrefutable proof that the driver was not a racist.  That may explain why even here in North Texas, which is not exactly a hotspot of Obama mania, you see far more Obama stickers still on cars than McCain stickers.


The irony is, at the moment these “Purgers” pulled the lever for Obama, they no longer needed him.  In their minds, whatever degree of personal guilt they felt evaporated.  However, the point they were trying to make by voting for Obama, does not require them to vote for him twice.  This means that in 2012, the Democrats will have to keep these voters in the coalition through policy.  The problem is, Obama has already been fully exposed as a hard-line leftist which is a position shared by very few Americans, including Purgers.  The other problem is that, since most modern presidential elections are won and lost on razor sharp margins, even a relatively small defection in Purgers could decimate Obama’s re-election chances. 


This phenomenon is probably keeping the Democrats awake at night.  It is also causing the Obamanistas to operate on the assumption that they will only have four years to implement their Marxist agenda.  This means that, given the scale of their plans, they’ve got to act fast and often.  To use a football analogy, they don’t have time to establish a running game; they’ve got to throw the ball deep on every play.  And that is exactly what they are doing.

Will it be Good For the Gander?

On Friday, 63-year-old pro-life protestor, Jim Pouillon, was gunned down on a sidewalk in Owosso, Michigan.  Immediately, speculation was that he was killed for his pro-life activities.

My initial response was to urge my fellow pro-lifers not to jump to conclusions regardless of how obvious they might appear.  I took this approach because I remember the situation in 1993 when Florida abortionist, George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama.  Immediately, both the local and national abortion lobby launched into a hysterical public tirade against the pro-life movement demanding that the streets be swept clean of “these violent anti-choice and anti-women religious fanatics.”

The problem was, authorities eventually concluded that Patterson's shooting was unrelated to his baby-killing racket.  In reality, he was shot for failing to pay off on a bet he had made with a mob bookie.  Somehow, abortionist Patterson had reached adulthood without becoming aware that organized crime takes an unforgiving position on such oversights.  It's also interesting that the murder occurred as Patterson was leaving some sleazy Triple-X porn shop and pole-dancing bar.  Further investigation would also reveal that this noble champion of women was a "regular" at this wholesome establishment and on a first-name basis with the proprietors. 

Of course, the fact that the pro-choice crowd had made complete asses of themselves by hurling unfounded charges at the pro-life movement, was quietly swept under the rug by their fellow degenerates in the media. 

Then came Friday.  And the reason I urged caution in our reaction was because I knew, as we all know, that if we were to jump to a conclusion that eventually proved false, the magnanimous treatment shown our enemies in 1993 would not be shown to us today. Instead, the media would make sure we were soon rotating over a low flame.

But that concern is now gone.  Prosecutors in Michigan have confirmed that, according to the suspect in custody, Jim was indeed targeted because of his pro-life activism.  In a nutshell, an elderly man wearing leg braces and breathing through an oxygen tank was brutally murdered for protesting abortion on a public sidewalk.

That leaves us with a very simple question.  Simply put, will the responses to this killing match the responses we’ve seen in the past when some abortionist was shot.  For example…

1. Will the FBI launch an investigation to find links between the suspect and other pro-choice individuals or organizations?

2. Will the United States Department of Justice try to establish that these killings were part of a larger pro-choice conspiracy?

3. Will pro-choice organizations have their phones illegally tapped and their mail illegally opened by federal authorities?

4. Will U.S. Marshals now be assigned to protect peaceful non-violent pro-lifers while they are exercising their First Amendment rights?

5. Will Congress rush to pass new legislation that would protect people who exercise their Constitutional right to protest abortion?

6. Will pro-life protestors be given protective zones around themselves into which pro-choice activists may not legally enter?

7. Will media pundits be suggesting that the heated rhetoric of the pro-choice movement is what led to these killings?

8. Will any rabidly pro-choice media commentator be accused of creating the atmosphere that made such a killing inevitable?

9. Will the Democratic Party’s unwavering advocacy of abortion-on-demand be cited as a motivating factor for the shooter? 

10. Will those who call themselves pro-choice now be forever labeled, “One of those fanatics who murder people they don’t agree with?”

Of course, we all know what the answer to each of these questions will be.  We all know that the most likely response will be that the pro-life movement and the victim himself created the environment in which this killing occurred.
You can count on it.

Now That’s What I Call Art !

One of the pro-choice gang’s standard regurgitations is that women never take abortion lightly and only have them for the most agonizing and legitimate of reasons.  With pro-choice people it is not always easy to distinguish when they are lying from when they are simply misinformed.  But such is not the case here.  They are lying and several of their fellow travelers have admitted as much.     

In an interview published in the March 9, 1989, edition of the communist publication, Revolutionary Worker, Marilyn Buckham, who was the director of Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic, was asked about the reasons women have abortions.  In her answer, she stated, “Women don’t do this lightly.  I’m sick and tired of hearing this.  Ninety-eight percent of women do do it lightly in here…they think of abortion like brushing their dime teeth and that’s OK with me.”

The reality is, if you go to any abortion clinic waiting room in America you will certainly find women who are there for what they perceive to be difficult circumstances.  But make no mistake, you will also find many who are having their second, third or fourth abortion as well as those who are there for reasons that could never be legitimately described as serious.            

But going beyond that, a recent episode at one of our nation’s “most prestigious” universities has raised the question of whether women ever have abortions after getting pregnant on purpose.  In early April, a pro-choice student at Yale, Aliza Shvarts, claims that she artificially inseminated herself repeatedly during the previous year and then self-aborted using various chemicals and herbs.  This was all done as part of a school art project.  It seems that she had video taped herself sitting in a bathtub doing these abortions on herself, and her plan was to project this video onto a cube that had been covered with blood she had saved from these abortions. 

I will concede that my knowledge of art is not very sophisticated.  My main experience in this field was in junior high school when I drew my own state inspection sticker for my Cushman scooter.  Evidently, it was not very good as a local police officer picked up on the forgery right away.  Needless to say, I was lucky to escape with only a ticket. 

But even though my credentials in this area are suspect, I still have to say that Aliza’s art sounds like it would make those Elvis on velvet things you see sold at abandoned gas stations seem like the Mona Lisa.  I’m also more than a little concerned that we will one day discover that this fiasco was paid for with tax dollars through a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

In any event, the university tried to extricate itself from this public relations nightmare by informing Shvarts that she would have to publicly state that her story was a hoax before they would allow it to be displayed.  They wanted her to say that the blood was not from abortions but from her menstrual flow.  Apparently, menstrual blood paintings are an approved form of artistic expression at Yale.  (Wouldn’t you love to read the minutes of the meeting where this conclusion was reached.)

Naturally, like any other proud but misunderstood artist, Shvarts refused to compromise and stuck to her story.  She did, however, enter something different in the art show so she would not fail the class.  I don’t know what form the replacement “art” took and I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to know.  Let’s just say that Aliza and I probably have different tastes.  

Surprisingly, the idea that women would abort intentional pregnancies is not a new one.  In the August 18, 1991, edition of the Austin American Statesman, rock singer Sinead O’Connor said she wrote the song My Special Child just two weeks after having an abortion.  She also said that, “It was a planned pregnancy, which I was very happy about.  I was completely in love with the father of the child ... But things didn’t work out between us, and we were both unhappy.  It was too much for him to be able to handle.  He was young and I was on tour, and I was feeling ill all the time because I was pregnant, and I was feeling so awful and I made the decision that it would be better for everybody if I had the abortion.’

About the same time, Oprah Winfrey had a show about women who get pregnant as a ploy to trap men into marriage.  One of the guests stated, with no hesitancy or sense of remorse, that when her attempt at this did not work as planned, she had an abortion. 

There were also revelations about the Olympic committee that oversees enforcement of drug policies discovering a trick some female athletes were using to circumvent the organization’s prohibition against blood doping.  These women were found to be intentionally getting pregnant prior to competition to increase the amount of oxygen in their bodies in order to heighten their performance.  After the competition was over, they would abort.  Olympic officials eventually determined that not only was this happening, it was not an uncommon practice among teams from certain countries.

So how common is it for women to abort an intended pregnancy?  Obviously, no one knows.  But we do know that it is common for women to abort intentional pregnancies when their baby turns out to be handicapped.  For example, in America today, over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are executed before birth and it would be illogical to think that those were all unplanned pregnancies.  On a personal level, through the Life Dynamics abortion malpractice campaign, I have spoken with many abortion-injured women over the years who told me that they had intentionally become pregnant but aborted when something changed in their lives.  One case I remember involved a woman who was forced to have a hysterectomy because of her injury.  She said that she had been trying to get pregnant for two years but aborted after being offered a promotion at work.

From a pro-life perspective, I think we need to keep all of this in context.  In a certain sense, the fact that a woman would have an abortion for frivolous reasons or to end a pregnancy she intentionally sought, is irrelevant.  Some justifications might make us more angry than others, but for the child that’s killed the reasons don’t matter.  The Down Syndrome child carried by a forty-year-old welfare recipient who got pregnant on purpose by a man whose name she doesn’t even remember, is no less valuable than any other child.      

In the final analysis, if the excuses for abortion don’t matter to the children being killed, they shouldn’t matter to us.  Our job is to protect every child in every circumstance.  And that must always be our focus.  

The Truth that Deceives

On the surface, it seems illogical that truth can be manipulated to achieve deception.  But the reality is that it happens all the time.  In fact, it is now the fundamental operating principle of the American media.  Of course, it is also a stunt that politicians are not above calling upon when the need arises.  No one, however, is more skilled at it than the abortion lobby.  It is a clever little game these people play in order to keep uncomfortable and indefensible realities hidden from the American public.

An example of their expertise in this field is evidenced every time they are confronted by the issue of late-term elective abortion.  At the moment it becomes clear that they cannot defend the practice, you will hear something along the lines of, “This is a non-issue.   The overwhelming majority of abortions take place before the end of the first trimester.” 

Of course, it is true that, as a percentage of all abortions, only about 10% are late term procedures.  What this truth is intended to obscure is that, because the sheer numbers of abortions done are so large, 10% translates into more than 300 second and third trimester babies butchered every day in the U.S.  Further, virtually all of these abortions are carried out for no medically indicated reason and involve healthy babies being carried by healthy moms.  And that is a fact.  The bottom line is, the sole reason these babies are killed is because someone wants them dead and someone else is willing to kill them.

On April 2nd through the 4th, 1995, George Tiller, the notorious late-term abortionist in Wichita, Kansas, was speaking at the National Abortion Federation’s 19th Annual Meeting, in New Orleans, Louisiana.  The subject was late term abortion and Tiller made the following statement: “We have some experience with late terminations, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past five years.”

Listen to what this man is saying.  He is admitting to killing 10,000 babies between 24 and 36 weeks in a five year period and over 90% of the babies had no fetal anomalies.  Moreover, it is illogical to assume that the remaining 9,200 abortions were performed to protect the lives of the mothers involved since, (a) with today’s medical technology it is extraordinarily rare for pregnancy to be life-threatening, and (b) abortions done to protect the lives or health of the mothers are done far earlier in the pregnancies. 

The point is, Tiller is admitting that the vast majority of the late-term abortions he does are strictly elective.  To understand how sickening this is, consider that a 36-week baby is almost full term and that it is not uncommon even for babies born at 24 weeks to survive without major health problems.

The next year, the 20th Annual Meeting of the National Abortion Federation was held from March 31 to April 2, 1996, in San Francisco, California.  At this event, Martin Haskell, the Ohio abortionist who invented the D&X (Partial-Birth) abortion procedure made the following statement: “Two of the criticisms that I've been hearing lately about how our side is structuring its debate is that, one, we seem to be taking a position that—in the case of the D&X—that the fetuses are dead at the beginning of the procedure, which is generally not the case.  The second criticism has been that we are really skewing the debate to a very small percentage of women that have fetal anomalies or some other problem that really need the procedure verses the 90% who it’s elected, at least through the 20 to 24 week time period, and then as you get on towards 28 weeks it becomes closer to a hundred percent.  But these seem to be very uncomfortable issues for people on our side of the debate to deal with.”

Haskell is openly criticizing his pro-choice colleagues for lying about, (a) the babies targeted by late term abortions being dead before the procedures start and, (b) the women having these procedures needing them for any kind of health reason.  Amazingly, he even admitted that as the abortions got later, the percentage that was “elective” went up, with 28-week and later abortions being virtually 100% elective. 

This is exactly opposite of what the abortion lobby says when publicly confronted about late abortion.  To this day, they still claim that late abortions are never done except when something is wrong with the baby or the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy. They are lying and these quotes from two well-known late-term abortionists prove it. (The actual recordings of these statements are on file at Life Dynamics.)

I realize that, for people who defend legalized abortion, 300 dead late-term babies per day is no big deal.  They lack the basic moral foundations necessary for this to matter.  But they are smart enough to realize that, for people with even a minimal amount of morality or human decency, it is a big deal.  That’s why they always direct the debate toward percentages and away from numbers.

It is time for the pro-life movement to introduce some perspective into this discussion.  Our enemies say that late-term abortion is a non-issue but, from a numbers standpoint, 300 dead babies is equivalent to a fully loaded jetliner crashing somewhere in America every single day.  That is the sort of thing the abortion lobby does not want the public thinking about.

Our job is to make sure they do.  Our job is to show them that 300 babies a day having their legs torn off, their arms ripped from the sockets, their chests crushed, their skulls collapsed, and their pathetic remains ground-up in abortion clinic garbage disposals, is more than just a “choice.” 

It’s a disgrace to the human race.        

How Many People Do You See?

I have often observed that, when it comes to defending legalized abortion, the pro-choice mob has more tricks than a monkey on a hundred yards of grapevine.  Of course, this is probably a natural response given that the task they have chosen is to defend the indefensible. 

In any event, among their catalogue of rhetorical gymnastics, one of the most amazing is their contention that the unborn child is simply a part of the mother’s body.  They make this argument hoping that the public will conclude that, since society would never interfere with a woman’s decision to have her appendix out, it likewise has no place interfering with her decision to have an abortion.

The problem is, the underlying assumption supporting this argument is asinine even by the abortion lobby’s standards.  To assert that the unborn is part of the woman’s body is the same as saying that when a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 hearts, 2 brains, etc.   It also suggests that, if her child is a boy, for nine months of her life she has a penis.

Having said all that, for those of you who truly believe in this “baby as part of the woman” philosophy, I want to raise a serious issue.  I ask you to imagine a photo of conjoined (Siamese) twins and answer this simple question: Is that a picture of one person or two? 

Before you answer, understand that, from a biological standpoint, conjoined twins are far closer to being one person than is a mother and her unborn child.  Conjoined twins are always the same sex, always have the same DNA, are always the same blood type, always share at least one external body structure and often share several internal organs.  And as long as they are joined, if one dies they both die. 

But none of that is true about a mom and her unborn baby.  They are the same sex only about half the time, often don’t have the same blood type, never have the same DNA and do not share any external body parts or internal organs.  Moreover, it is not only possible for one to survive when the other one dies, it is common.

The point is, while it would be biologically incorrect to claim that conjoined twins are not two distinct individuals, even that argument would be more grounded in scientific reality than the claim that a mother and her unborn child are not two distinct individuals.  

The subject of conjoined twins also creates another analogy to the pro-life issue.  It is now common for doctors to perform surgery to separate conjoined twins.  In many of these cases, it is understood that the chances for both surviving is low.  However, no ethical surgeon would agree to intentionally kill one of the twins to increase the chances that the other one would survive.  In every case, the intent is to save both lives and every effort will be made to achieve that result.  It may be true that, prior to the surgery, it is accepted – even anticipated – that only one will survive.  But under no conditions would separation surgery be performed with that as its intended outcome. 

This is the principle that must be applied when the issue is whether abortion is acceptable in those extraordinarily rare instances in which pregnancy poses an immediate threat to the physical life of the mother.  From an ethical standpoint, we cannot say that it is ever acceptable to intentionally kill the baby to save the mother.  Instead, her physician should be required to do everything possible to save both mother and child.  If, as an unintended consequence of that effort, one or both fail to survive, that would be considered an unavoidable – thus permissible – outcome.  However, it is as morally indefensible to say that we will intentionally kill the baby to save the mother as it would be to say that we will intentionally kill the mother to save the baby. 

In the final analysis, the pure “no-exceptions” pro-life position is exactly the same as saying that operating on conjoined twins is never acceptable if the intent is to kill one of them.  In both cases, there are two distinct individuals involved and we must never cross the moral line where we argue that one innocent human being’s life can be snuffed-out for the benefit of another.

Oops, I forgot.  We already did that.  It’s called Roe vs. Wade. 

Ending the World’s Longest Engagement

If the last 35 years have proven nothing else, they have at least shown that, in the American political arena, the pro-life movement is the cheapest date in town.  

The system works something like this.  Along about election time, we can always expect a call from the nation's political hacks - mostly Republicans.  They don't really like being seen in public with us, but if they want to get elected they don't have a choice.  So they kiss us on the ear and whisper how much they love us.  But, they promise nothing and we demand nothing because we know our place.  So once our election-cycle dream date is over, we go back and dutifully wait by the phone until they want us again.  And as this pathetic act is repeated every couple of years, the killing continues.

I think the time has come for the pro-life movement to set some new ground rules.  We can start by making it clear that the days are over when politicians can finesse the abortion issue by giving us their philosophical position.  Our new instruction to these people should be that we have no interest in what they “feel” or “think” or “believe” about abortion.  None.  All we want to know is (a) do they believe that an unborn child is a “person” from the moment of fertilization and, thus, entitled to have his or her life protected by the Constitution and (b) if so, what is their plan to return legal protection to every one of these children?”

That’s it!  That’s all we want to hear.  Anyone who answers the first question with anything other than an unapologetic and unqualified “Yes” is not pro-life.  As for the second question, we instantly dismiss any response that mentions “reducing the need for abortion” or “lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate” or “creating a culture of life,” etcetera.  We bought that sort of mealy-mouthed political gibberish in the past, but no more. 

If you think I am off base for saying that a politician's “position” on abortion is meaningless, consider this.  If you went into a state penitentiary and interviewed every serial rapists incarcerated there, you would find that a significant number would tell you that rape is wrong and that they understood so when they did it.  We also know that a certain percentage of these same people would rape again if released.  So obviously, what they “believe” about rape does not affect their actions and, in the end, that’s all that matters to the victims.        

That same dynamic applies here.  What politicians “believe” about abortion doesn't help the unborn until it becomes action.  Look at it this way, if the economy was in the tank, we would not allow a politician to simply tell us that he “believes” in a sound economy.  We'd demand to know what his plan is for fixing it.  It’s time we insisted on at least that much for the unborn. 

The next thing we need to do is inform these politicians that we are going to be single issue voters.  Simply put, when a candidate is wrong on the slaughter of helpless children, his or her position on other issues is irrelevant.  For too long, the pro-life movement has bought the lie that we should not have litmus tests.  That is nonsense.  There are many perfectly legitimate litmus tests and anyone who claims not to have any is either lying or is devoid of personal convictions.      

Think about it.  A politician could be attractive, intelligent, experienced and have all the right answers to the important issues of the day, but if he was found to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that would certainly be a litmus test.  If it were discovered that a fully qualified politician had written a law review article saying women should not be allowed to vote, that too would be a litmus test.  You can also bet that if a politician said that the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center had legitimate reasons for doing so, his or her position on other issues would be irrelevant.  Actually, if you really want to understand about litmus tests and single-issue voting, imagine that a politician admitted that his primary reason for seeking office was to raise taxes on every voter?  Do you honestly think this person could be “right enough” on every other issue to make up for that?      

The point is, if we are serious about protecting the unborn, this is the standard we must start demanding for the politicians we support.  And that is true even when the political office being sought is unrelated to abortion.  If we truly believe that abortion is the intentional execution of helpless children, we must also acknowledge that any politician who is pro-choice is not morally qualified to be dogcatcher.

No Men? Think Again.

I write this to America’s pro-choice community. 

It seems that a shop-worn old theme you people regurgitate from time to time is back making the rounds once more.  On several radio talk shows I’ve done recently, I have been admonished that I have no right to be involved in the abortion issue because I am male.  Some of you have even gone so far as to advocate that only female elected officials be allowed to vote on legislation that might impact abortion.

Even if we ignore your blatant sexism, I advise you to be careful what you ask for.  After all, when polls are broken down by gender, they consistently find that women oppose abortion at a higher rate than men, are more opposed to government funding of abortion, are more active in the pro-life movement, and are more likely to favor banning abortion outright.  In other words, if you exclude men, support for legal abortion plummets.   

The reality is, the most numerous proponents of legalized abortion are men.  Of course, that makes perfect sense given that men are the ones who most profit from it.  That is why, with almost no exceptions, pioneers of the women’s movement like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were outspoken opponents of legalized abortion.  It is also true that suffragist newspapers such as Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, had editorial policies which openly attacked both abortion and abortionists.  Even Alice Paul, the woman who wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment, considered legalized abortion to be the ultimate exploitation of women. 

These early feminists saw that abortion is patronizing and paternalistic and that it doesn’t free women, it devalues them.  They understood that, as a practical matter, legalized abortion is nothing more than a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men.  And if the last 35 years have proven nothing else, they have proven that these women hit that nail on the head.  It is now clear that the legalization of abortion, and the willingness of women to submit to it, are the two greatest gifts these kind of men have ever received. 

If you want to see that played out in the real world, stand in front of an abortion clinic on a day when pro-lifers are there trying to offer women alternatives to having their babies killed.  What you will quickly discover is that the most vicious and violent reactions they get are not from these women, but from the men who are dragging them in by the elbows.  The fact is, regardless of what you think about the abortion issue, you would have to be a certifiable idiot to think that women are the ones who profit from putting their feet in the abortion industry’s stirrups.  On the other hand, you can be certain that every man who ever put a woman in that position was fully aware of whose interests were being served.             

Now if your point is that men should be excluded simply because we can’t get pregnant, let me ask you about women who can’t get pregnant.  Is it your view that the only women who should be allowed to have an opinion about abortion are those who are (a) fertile and still in their child-bearing years, (b) sexually active with males, and (c) not practicing birth control?  If so, that is going to thin your herd even further.   

I have also noticed that those of you who take this “no men allowed” approach, always seem to have an exception for pro-choice men.  For example, I have never heard one of you tell that paragon of respect for women, Bill Clinton, to keep out of the abortion issue.  Neither do you ever argue that the 1973 Supreme Court had no right to be involved in the Roe vs. Wade decision, despite the fact every member was male.  You don’t even seem to mind that the overwhelming majority of abortionists who make their fortunes off women are men, and you never say anything about the male “escorts” who work at the abortion mills.  You don’t even say anything about men who force women to have abortions.  Evidently, the only men for whom you have contempt, and the only men you want censored, are those who think women deserve better than abortion.

My final point is one that I do not expect you to understand, but I’m going to make it anyway.  Men do not merely have a right to speak out against abortion, we have a responsibility to do so.  Real men do not just stand around with their hands in their pockets while people like you slaughter helpless children by the millions.  So you may as well get used to the fact that, as long as your death camps are churning out dead bodies, many of the people fighting you will be men.      

Of Pro-Lifers and Faux-Lifers

The foundation of the pro-life position is that, from the moment of fertilization, a new human being exists and has the same right to life as a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems plaguing the pro-life movement today is that so many of our people don't appear to actually believe that.  For me, this was reinforced at a speech I gave recently.  In the “meet and greet” session beforehand, someone came up to me and mentioned that he was a long-time pro-lifer but was working for one of the pro-choice candidates in the presidential race.  His rationale was that there are "other issues" we also need to be concerned about, issues like the economy and the war on terrorism.  He lamented that this had created a nasty and growing rift between himself and some of his fellow pro-lifers, not the least of which was his own wife.  His argument was that he was as pro-life as any of them and was being unfairly attacked despite having worked for years in the movement.   

I asked him if he truly understood what being pro-life means.  He acknowledged that it is the belief that the unborn has the same right to life as the born. So I asked him to imagine that, instead of the unborn, it was his life, or the lives of people he knew, or the lives of anonymous 5-year-olds that his candidate was saying it should be legal to snuff out.  If that were the case, would he still be saying that there are "other issues" we need to consider or does that standard only apply to the unborn?

Recognizing the trap he had set for himself, he never responded.  After making it clear that his mind had not changed, he angrily walked away.  Somehow, this man had convinced himself that helping to put a politician in office that would slaughter unborn children by the millions did not conflict with his claim to be pro-life.

I have often observed that the human brain is the only organism on earth that has the ability to deceive itself.  This guy is a living testament to that phenomenon.  The sad part is, I am seeing more and more evidence that he is not alone.  The problem seems to be that a significant number of the people in this country who claim to be pro-life are only pro-life in the theoretical sense.  As a practical matter, when economic agendas and self-interests collide with their pro-life principle, it's the pro-life principle they will abandon.

Each of us knows that there have always been internal disagreements within the pro-life movement and there always will be.  It is human nature.  Some of these conflicts have been petty and others have centered around matters of legitimate substance.  In either case, however, I think we would all like to see even those pro-lifers with whom we have differences as people of integrity and character.  But when someone says they are pro-life but could support a baby-killer for political office that person can no longer be viewed in that light.  What they have said is that, when push comes to shove, for the right 30 pieces of silver they will drop the unborn in the grease.

By definition, that makes them the same as the people they claim to oppose.  The abortion lobby is willing to butcher the unborn for personal, political and financial reasons, and the faux-lifers are willing to look the other way for personal, political and financial reasons.  It is a distinction without a difference.     

The bottom line is, for those of us who are committed to the pro-life cause, the fate of the unborn will never be merely “an” issue.  It is always “the” issue.  For that reason, a candidate's position on abortion is all we need to know and all that matters.  If a politician is wrong on that, he or she cannot be right enough on anything else to make up for it.  It also makes no difference whether or not the office being sought has any direct impact on abortion.  Those people who contend that it should be legal to execute helpless children are not morally qualified to serve in any public office.  And those who help put them there have no right to call themselves pro-life.

And the Beat Goes On

In Kansas, the political landscape continues to get more bizarre.  To bring you up to date, a few years back Attorney General, Phill Kline, announced an investigation into whether abortion clinics are in violation of the state’s child sexual abuse reporting laws and the state’s regulations involving late-term abortion.  In response, Kansas filled up with high-dollar legal talent from out-of-state pro-abortion groups and they brought with them the knowledge that whatever money is needed, is available.  Despite that, however, as the legal machinations ebbed to and fro, it was clear that things could go badly for them.                 

When Kline indicted notorious late-term abortionist, George “The Killer” Tiller, on 30 criminal charges, the district attorney in Sedgewick County, Nola Foulston, was able to pull a legal maneuver to get the charges dismissed.  As an outspoken proponent of legalized abortion and a personal friend of Tiller’s, Foulston was simply doing what any other corrupt political puppet of the abortion lobby would be expected to do.  But everyone knew that this “fix” was only temporary.  The charges could be refiled at any time and in a way that would be insulated from Foulston.  This meant that Tiller, not to mention his competitors at Planned Parenthood, were still in trouble.     

Cue Paul Morrison, the district attorney in Johnson County.  Bankrolled with hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from his good friend, George Tiller, Morrison ran against and defeated Klein for re-election.  Then, to no one’s surprise, he immediately fired the special prosecutor Kline had appointed to pursue the investigation of Tiller and Planned Parenthood. 

The message was clear: when the Kansas abortion mafia buys a politician, they expect results.  And the Foulston/Morrison gang did not disappoint.  But unfortunately for them, the matter did not end there.  Currently, a citizen-led grand jury has been seated to investigate the charges and that panel operates outside the influences of people like Nola  Foulston and Paul Morrison.  

Meanwhile, the story takes a new twist.  It seems that Morrison has been, shall we say, fishing off the company pier.  He has now been charged with sexual harassment stemming from an extramarital affair he admitted he had with one of his employees in the Johnson County district attorney’s office.  Linda Carter, the office’s director of administration, revealed extensive details about their two-year relationship that, as might be expected, are juicy enough to fire-up a Jerry Springer audience.  She also says that the affair continued after Morrison was elected Attorney General and that he pressured her to use her position in the D.A.’s office to influence pending litigation involving Phill Kline.  She refused.  Apparently, despite whatever personal warts she may have, Linda Carter is no Nola Foulston.

Like most Americans, I have some profound reservations about the broad definitions of sexual harassment used in our society today.  Many of them have been so preposterous that they cause people to see the entire issue of sexual harassment as nonsensical.  The effect of that has been to diminish the validity of claims made by people who truly are victims. 

Having said that, it appears that Ms. Carter may have initially resisted Morrison’s advances and only succumbed after repeated pressure.  If it turns out that she finally gave in simply because she thought a little roll in the hay might be fun, she has no claim to victim status.  However, if she gave in because she had a legitimate reason to believe that not doing so would affect her employment, then the relationship was less an affair than it was a capitulation.  Time will tell if that was the situation but, if it was, then Morrison is in over his head.  

It is also coming out that Morrison has a history of this sort of thing.  That, coupled with Carter’s claim that Morrison leaned on her to influence litigation involving Kline, raises two interesting issues.

First, this case puts those leftist groups who inevitably take the side of any woman who raises sexual harassment claims between a rock and a hard place.  Although this story has exploded across Kansas, these groups have remained uncharacteristically silent.  They have apparently figured out that it would be dicey for them to assert that Ms. Carter is telling the truth about the sexual harassment but lying when she says that her pro-choice harasser committed a crime to protect the abortion industry.  So their response has been to just punt and let Ms. Carter take her chances under the bus.   

Second, I have always speculated that the abortion industry keeps files on its high-profile customers–especially politicians–that could be used to “keep them in line” in the future.  If a customer is a publicly known woman, or says she is pregnant by a publicly known man, or is the daughter/wife/granddaughter of a public family, etcetera, evidence of an abortion would be good leverage to keep on hand.  Bill Clinton could be a perfect example of what I am talking about.  During his presidency, even his admirers complained that he was not always loyal to the people and special interest groups who helped put him in office.  The sole exception to this is the abortion lobby.  For eight years, this was the only constituency he never once double-crossed. 

Consider that fact within the context of Clinton’s history.  Gennifer Flowers always maintained that, in 1977, Clinton gave her $200 to have an abortion.  Clinton denied that the abortion occurred and, in fact, denied that he even had an affair with Flowers.  When that turned out to be a lie, it is certainly no stretch to then conclude that his denial of the abortion was also untrue.  Given what we now know about this guy, it is also no stretch to speculate that Flowers’ abortion was not the only one.  To the contrary, the smart money would be that his political career was salvaged more than once when one of his babies was snuffed-out at some abortion clinic. 

It is also perfectly reasonable to assume that (a) the files associated with whatever abortions Clinton may have been responsible for are sitting in the desk of a Washington, DC, abortion-industry lobbyist and (b) Slick Willy understood that any betrayal of their agenda by him could result in these files ending up on some reporter’s desk.

This same phenomenon may explain the abysmal level of corruption we’ve seen when it comes to George Tiller, Planned Parenthood and anyone else involved with the Kansas abortion lobby.  Simply put, their influence is far more broad and deep than could be reasonably expected in a middle-America state.  I guess you could say that when it comes to Kansas politicians, the abortion cartel knows where the skeletons are buried.  After all, they helped to bury them. 

Pro-Life: What Does it Mean?

Today, there seems to be a lot of debate about what it means when someone says they are pro-life.  This is especially true for politicians.  For clarity’s sake, let’s define the term.  The pro-life position is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.

Given that, some abortion positions are pretty cut and dried.  For example, someone who supports a universal human life amendment to the constitution is pro-life, while someone who supports the Roe vs. Wade decision is not. 

Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality.  As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.

In reality, this is the most insidious and despicable of all positions on abortion.  After all, there is no reason to oppose abortion other than the belief that it takes the life of a living human being.  So what the “personally opposed” crowd is saying is, "I agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a baby, but if other people want to do it I support their legal right to do so and it’s not my place to interfere."  That is not a pro-life position.  It’s like someone in 1860 saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery and I would never own one, but if someone else wants to own a few that’s their business.”   

Another stance often mischaracterized as pro-life is the “pro-life with exceptions” position.  You’ll hear people say things like, “I am pro-life, but I think there should be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest” or “I am pro-life, but abortion should be legal when the baby is handicapped.”

It is a complete abandonment of the pro-life principle to say it should be permissible to kill selected categories of children.  When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, the question is whether they would support killing a five-year-old in those same circumstances.  If not, then it is clear that they don’t see born and unborn children as morally equal.  In other words, they do not subscribe to the most fundamental tenet of the pro-life position.

In the grimy world of politics, a new position is emerging to test the boundaries of what it means to be pro-life.  We are now hearing presidential candidates say that they are pro-life but that each individual state should be allowed to set its own policies regarding abortion.  Of course, the problem with that thinking is that the right to life is specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution.  The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of his or her life without due process of law.  Even Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe vs. Wade, said that if the personhood of the unborn was ever established the right to abortion evaporated. 

When a politician claims to be pro-life, he or she is asserting that the born and the unborn are both persons.  So the question becomes, how can they logically claim that only the born have a constitutional right to life?  And the answer is, they can’t. 

To understand how preposterous this is, imagine that a state legislature passed a law allowing parents of newborn children to take a few days to decide whether they are really prepared to start a family.  Under this new statute, if they decided they were not ready for this responsibility, they would be legally allowed to have a physician slit their child’s throat.  In that situation, how many of these “pro-life” politicians who are now saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, would say that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of these born children?  Of course, the universal consensus would be that they not only have that right, they have the duty to do so.

The point is, when someone claims to be pro-life but says that abortion is a state matter, that is an unmistakable indicator that either (a) they do not truly believe that the born and unborn are both persons or (b) they are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution. 

It may also be indicative of something the pro-life movement has done.  For 35 years we have hammered away at legalized abortion when, technically speaking, abortion is not the root problem.  In reality, it is only a symptom.  The disease is the absence of legal protection for the unborn. 

After all, if a woman who is not pregnant wanted to submit to abortion, we might find it bizarre and we would probably question her sanity, but in the final analysis it would probably not concern us any more than it would if she were getting a tattoo or body piercing.

So the problem is not that women have abortions, but that children die.  And that only occurs because our nation took away their right to life.  So maybe we need to talk a little less about stopping abortion and a little more about returning legal protection to the unborn.  Perhaps then, all these people claiming to be pro-life would know what being pro-life actually means.

More Entries

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics