We Told You that Babies are to Blame

On Sunday, January 25th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the ABC News program, This Week, that the government’s economic stimulus package should include a healthy increase in spending for what she called “family planning.”  (If you didn’t already know, “family planning” is code for abortion.) 


Pelosi said that this would save state and federal governments the cost of having to pay for the health care and education of poor children.  Of course, it’s pretty hard to argue with that sort of logic.  After all, dead children are indeed less expensive than live children.  


In any event, Pelosi’s remarks came on the heels of Barak Obama signing an executive order allowing money taken out of the paychecks of American workers to be used for abortions – in foreign countries!  In other words, at the same time we’re being told that America doesn’t have enough money to take care of its own children, we’re also being told that we have enough to pay for the executions of other people’s children.  Meanwhile, as the economy spirals toward the ground, Planned Parenthood – America’s number one abortion profiteer – is getting about a million dollars a day in taxpayer funding and there are calls for that to be doubled. 


So let’s recap.  In last year’s presidential campaign, Obama labels babies a “punishment” and, now, one of his co-degenerates follows that up by saying that they contribute to our financial woes.  Isn’t it interesting that these people who claim overpopulation is the cause of economic ruin – and every other social problem known to man – never volunteer to give their own lives to address these issues?  No sir.  They only insist that others be killed for the greater good and the group they “choose” is the only one that can’t fight back.


How strange. 



Sex, Condoms and Motorcycle Helmets

The Godless Left continues its relentless attacks on abstinence-based sex-ed programs, calling them unrealistic since, “teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do.”

To understand the fallacy in this fatalistic claim, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her.  The question is, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent?  Should they tell her that she will have to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls? 

Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter.  They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable.  That exposes the “kids-are-going-to-have-sex-no-matter-what-we-do” argument as a lie.  After all, if it is realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex, then it is equally realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. 

Today, people are starting to pick up on the fact that, after public schools began introducing contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, America’s relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.  They are also noticing that children are now having sex at much younger ages.  Whereas forty years ago it would have been front-page news for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant, today it is not even unusual.

This has caught many liberal social engineers between a rock and a hard place.   They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck.  In this environment, the pill-pushers have decided to advocate what they call “Abstinence Plus” or “Comprehensive Sex Education.”  Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs.  Some even grudgingly, though insincerely, agree that abstinence should be primary. 

This is a scam.  These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message.  It’s no different than parents telling their teenagers,  “Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, don’t spill anything on the seats” or “Don’t smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes” or “Don’t take a gun to school, but if you do, don’t point it at anyone” or “Don’t use heroin, but if you do, don’t leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them” or “Don’t drive my new Corvette while I’m out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use.”

The fact is, America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around.  The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.

A good analogy can be drawn between contraception-based sex-ed and motorcycle helmets.  As someone who has been riding, building and/or racing motorcycles for 47 of my 59 years, I can assure you that someone is better off wearing a helmet than not wearing one.  However, helmets do not make riding motorcycles safe and I have never heard one helmet or motorcycle manufacturer contend otherwise.

Let’s say, however, that we decided to let our school systems make motorcycle helmets available to every teenager in the country for free and without their parents’ knowledge.  Let’s also say that these kids were “educated” that wearing helmets made them seem mature and responsible because it meant that they were practicing “safe motorcycle.” 

In that environment, it would be pure idiocy to think that the number of children willing to ride motorcycles is not going to dramatically increase or that the number killed on motorcycles is not going to skyrocket.

So, if the question is whether helmets offer some degree of protection to people who ride motorcycles, the answer is yes.  If the question is whether they should be pushed to children as part of a “motorcycle abstinence” or “safe motorcycle” message, the answer is absolutely not.  In fact, it would be criminal to do so.  But that is precisely how the condom/contraception message has been packaged to address teen sexuality, and the results have been as horrifying as they were predictable.

Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don’t remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion.  To some degree, that is a valid argument.  However, that doesn’t mean abstinence-only programs shouldn’t be adopted.

When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats.  For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can’t get them out of their car seats.  Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat.  In some crashes, children who might have a better chance for survival if they were thrown from the cars in which they were riding, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.

The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks.  But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, “We’re willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat.”  Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take.  In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don’t live in such a world so they made decisions that they believed would save the most lives possible.  

That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education.  No reasonable person could believe that it will save every child or that some children might not actually be harmed by it.  Although the pill-pushers’ argument that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie, we cannot deny that some kids will have sex no matter what we do.  But we have to also accept the harsh reality that there is never going to be a perfect or painless solution to the massive destruction caused by Planned Parenthood’s brand of sex education.  Given that, we must look for the educational approach that will save the most children possible, and that is abstinence-only.  It is the only solution that is 100% effective every time it is used.   

One thing is for certain.  It is the very definition of stupidity and insanity to believe that contraception-based sex education is a solution to the social problems that were created by contraception-based sex education.

On the Trail to Rodham and Gomorrah

We have seen several examples lately that America’s largest abortion profiteer, Planned Parenthood, is opening new facilities across the country and using deception and dishonesty to do so.  In one high-profile example, they recently completed construction on a new 22,000-square-foot state-of-the-art death camp in Aurora, Illinois, that they readily admit was built with it’s true purpose and real owner’s identity intentionally concealed from the public.

While it is understandable that the pro-life movement would be outraged at the naked corruption Planned Parenthood is using in its expansion plans, we must not allow that outrage to blind us to the motivation behind this expansion.  The truth is that, in this case, our enemy’s motives are far more important than their methods.  

It is well known that an ongoing problem for the abortion lobby is their rapidly shrinking number of facilities.  From the peak years of the late 1980s, approximately two-thirds of the abortion clinics in America have closed permanently, primarily because the abortion industry has been unable to hire enough employees to keep them open.

In the 1980s, most of Planned Parenthood’s death camps had all the abortionists they needed including reserves in case one of the “regulars” went on vacation.  Today, the reserves are long gone and most facilities are forced to make do with just one contract killer on the payroll.  As for the support staff, it’s pretty much the same story. 

Of course, the abortion lobby says their recruiting problems are a result of “pro-life violence” when, in fact, the amount of violence directed at the abortion industry over the years has been incredibly low.  When the U.S. Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t even make it into the final reports. 

So before we go further, let’s put this “pro-life violence” myth to rest once and for all.  Even if you focus on the time period during which the most violence was committed against the abortion industry, it is clear that all of this arm-flapping and hand-wringing about pro-life violence is nonsense.  Of the seven murders that have occurred at American abortion mills in the last 34 years, five occurred in 1993 and 1994 alone.  However, according to statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, during those same two years there were 2,154 other people killed in work-related homicides in the United States including seven school teachers, four members of the clergy, 10 lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, seven writers, six realtors, 22 waiters or waitresses, four groundskeepers, five architects, 40 garage or service station attendants, 23 auto mechanics, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers, six farmers and four carpenters. 

In other words, during the period of the greatest violence against abortionists in history, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job than abortion clinic workers and abortionists combined.  This does not even take into account the taxi drivers, convenience store employees, police officers, firefighters, and others who were killed during that same time period.

The fact is, the abortion industry’s inability to recruit and keep employees has nothing to do with violence.  The explanation most often given is the increasing stigma associated with abortion.

The abortion lobby had always counted on legalization to erase the stigma of abortion, but that never happened.  What they refused to accept was that abortion is like pornography and prostitution in that the stigma is related to the act itself and not to its legal status.  That means the stigma is never going to go away.  Today, the abortion industry finally seems resigned to this and has decided that the stench of abortion is something they will just have to live with.

As legitimate an issue as stigma is, however, it is not the only thing that keeps these death camps understaffed.  The abortion industry is also facing a financial crisis that has been brewing since the day this battle began.  And this is a problem they can’t just live with.

In the first few years of legalized abortion, studies were taken to determine the cost of an abortion.  The findings were that, generally speaking, the price was between $300 and $350.  Interestingly, those figures have changed little since then.  That begs the question: with no competition and a seemingly reliable demand, why have they been unable to raise prices in almost 35 years?

The answer is that, contrary to appearances, the demand is not reliable.

In any marketing environment, all decisions fall onto a “marginal / non-marginal” scale.  Decisions based on “want” are considered marginal while those based on “need” are classified as non-marginal.   A major factor in determining where a decision falls on this scale is its degree of price sensitivity.  The more price sensitive something is, the more marginal the buying decision is.  This is true about all purchasing decisions, including the decision about whether to “purchase” an abortion or not.

Since day one, the abortion industry has pushed this idea that when a woman does not want to be pregnant she will crawl through hell on broken glass to get an abortion.  In other words, their contention is that the abortion decision is a non-marginal one.  For that to be true, it would also have to be true that the cost of abortion does not significantly affect the abortion rate.

Contrary to abortion industry claims, the evidence does not support this.  The financial publication, Economic Inquiry, Vol. XXVI, April 1988, produced a study about the relationship between abortion cost and abortion rates and found that, “The significant inverse relationship between the price of abortions and the abortion rate confirms that the fundamental law of demand is applicable to abortions.” In other words, as the cost of abortion goes up, the demand for abortion goes down.  This finding has been confirmed by other independent studies which have also documented that an inverse relationship exists between the price of abortion and the rate of abortion.  

Perhaps even more revealing is a quote from Colorado abortionist, Warren Hern.  During a May, 1997, annual meeting of the National Abortion Federation held in Boston, Massachusetts, the subject was the use of ultrasound in abortion.  Hern complained that paying for the ultrasound machine would increase the cost of an abortion by $25.  In his own words, this would cause the patient load to plummet.  What Hern was saying was that, not only does price affect the abortion rate, even small increases in price have an overpowering impact on it.  This was real-world confirmation—from someone on the inside—that the abortion lobby’s “hell on broken glass” rhetoric is a lie and that the abortion decision is, in most cases, a marginal one.

The obvious solution to the abortion industry’s current financial dilemma would be for them to raise prices to meet their increased costs and simply make more money off fewer killings.  But as fiscally reasonable as that may sound, the abortion lobby knows it is not a viable option.  They have long understood that, in order to maintain abortion’s legality, they need the political and cultural inertia created by a high abortion rate.  This has put them in a kind of “Catch 22” situation.  They need higher abortion prices to solve their financial problems, but the lowered abortion rate produced by these higher prices would threaten their political survivability.

That is why the abortion industry has not raised prices for almost 35 years.  The problem they now face is that the cost of doing business has risen dramatically during that time.  So while a $350 abortion may have been profitable in 1973 dollars, it may not be profitable in today’s dollars. 

That has prevented the abortion industry from being unable to compete for employees with the rest of the medical community.  One result of this has been that the quality of the employees they can hire is abysmally low.  With almost no exceptions, there is no way the typical abortion clinic worker could get a job in any other medical-related field.  Another result has been that, other than the actual abortionists, most abortion industry workers make very little money.  Even for staunchly pro-choice employees who are not bothered by the stigma, this has kept morale low and turnover rates astronomical.

The point of all this is brutally simple.  In order to survive, the abortion industry has to find a way to raise their prices without lowering the abortion rate.

Enter Hillary Clinton. 

Planned Parenthood’s current expansion is their way of betting that Slick Hilly is going to be the next president.  They are also counting on her to install a system of socialized medicine that will include elective abortion.  So even though the Choice Mafia rallies their troops with red-meat rhetoric about Supreme Court appointments who could take away “the right to choose,” what they are most giddy about is the possibility of government-funded abortions.  That is the driving force behind Planned Parenthood’s expansion agenda.  They see Hillary Care getting larger in the rearview mirror and are positioning themselves to be a major player in it.

You may think I’m baying at the moon here, but if there is one thing I know for certain it is this: at the moment national healthcare becomes a reality, the cost to the taxpayer for an abortion that now costs about $350 will, instantly, be many times that amount.  I know this is true because a model for it already exists.  All you have to do is imagine two women sitting in an abortion clinic waiting to have identical first-trimester abortions.  One is paying cash; the second has a health insurance policy to cover her abortion.  The first woman will probably get out the door for the usual $350 or so.  But make no mistake about it, the second woman’s insurance company will be lucky to escape with anything less than a $3000 claim to pay. 

That scenario is repeated at abortion clinics all across America every day.  It is also why the nation’s death merchants see Hillary Care as their salvation.  They are relying on socialized medicine to solve their current financial problems by converting every $350 private-pay abortion into a $3000 government-pay abortion.  The icing on the cake is that, since the customers will be offered these abortions for “free,” the abortion rate is guaranteed to skyrocket.

Like I always say, if you want to understand the abortion business, just follow the money trail.  The signpost ahead reads, Rodham and Gomorrah.

You Made Your Bed, Now Lie In It

As the tide of public opinion continues to turn against legalized abortion, the pitchmen for Planned Parenthood (AKA: The Cosmic Masters of Deception) are frantically trying to distance the organization from abortion.  To accomplish this goal, they have crafted three basic arguments, two of which are true but irrelevant and one that is an outright lie.  

Irrelevant Claim #1: Abortion is only a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. 

In the first place, I have never heard any pro-lifer claim that abortion is the only thing Planned Parenthood does.  We simply say that they do more abortions than anyone else - and that is confirmed by their own documents. 

Second, defending Planned Parenthood on the basis that abortion is only a small part of what they do is like defending the Ku Klux Klan by saying that lynching is only a small part of what they do.  By the way, when people hear me make this sort of analogy, some ask if I am concerned that Planned Parenthood might sue me for comparing them to the Klan.  My response is that I am more concerned that the Klan might sue me for comparing them to Planned Parenthood.     

Irrelevant Claim #2: Many Planned Parenthood facilities don't do abortions at all. 

What they conveniently fail to mention is that every Planned Parenthood facility in the United States that doesn't do abortions refers for abortion.  And make no mistake about it, from a moral standpoint, the person who makes an abortion referral is every bit as responsible for the killing as the person who actually rips the victim to shreds. 

Look at it this way.  No one objects to calling Adolph Hitler a murderer despite the fact that there is no evidence that he ever personally murdered anyone other than himself.  Technically, you could say that his only role in the Nazi holocaust was to refer people to the gas chambers.  In other words, for people who “only” refer for abortion, their relationship to the unborn is exactly the same as Hitler's relationship to the people who ended up in the ovens at Auschwitz. 

The Outright Lie: Planned Parenthood offers free and low-cost medical services that poor women can’t get anywhere else. 

The truth is, Planned Parenthood does not do anything for free.  Someone pays for every service Planned Parenthood provides.  Every “free” abortion, birth control pill, condom, STD treatment, or pregnancy test they dole out is paid for by either their donors or by the American taxpayer.  (In case you were wondering, last year the taxpayer’s “contribution” to this scam was about three-quarters of a million dollars – a day!)

From the recipient's standpoint, the truly sad part of this is that every dollar given to Planned Parenthood is a dollar that can't be given to a legitimate medical provider.  This means that when the government gives public money to Planned Parenthood, the effect is to relegate the poor to getting their healthcare from abortionists.  That is a national disgrace.      

The bottom line to all this is that Planned Parenthood doesn't like being known as the nation's abortionist.  Who would?  The problem is that they don't dislike it enough to get out of the baby-killing business.  They want the money without the reputation. 

Well isn't that just too bad.

Just Show Me the Money

Now that the Democrats are back in control of congress, we can expect the shameless abortion lobby to renew its call for more government funded abortions.

Isn't it interesting that, on one hand, these people say that abortion is a private decision in which the government has no right to be involved.  Then, out of the other side of their mouth, they demand that the government pay for abortions and force even pro-life taxpayers to buy abortions for other people. 

In other words, having an abortion is supposed to be a choice, but paying for an abortion which you didn't even have is not.  And even people who recognize abortion as the cold-blooded murder of a helpless child are not to be exempted.   

Our enemies defend this naked hypocrisy by pointing out that government often requires taxpayers to pay for things with which they disagree.  For example, they will say that people who are opposed to war have to pay taxes which fund the military.  But remember, their argument is that government has no right to even be involved in the abortion issue. 

So the question is, why should government pay for something which the recipients of those funds say is none of the government's business?  After all, if we concluded that national defense was none of the government's business, we would not use tax money to buy jet fighters.

As for their assertion that when a woman can't afford an abortion she is, in effect, denied her constitutional right to abortion, let's not forget that just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean the government has an obligation to pay for it.  Americans have the right to own guns, but the government is not required to provide free pistols to poor people.  We have a right to free speech, but the government doesn't buy newspapers and public address systems for poor people. 

And, of course, if you really want to hear the godless left squeal like pigs caught under a fence, suggest that since every American has a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, the government has an obligation to purchase Bibles for poor churches.

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics