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.

Whenever the Communists targeted a country for takeover, they would always recruit “fellow travelers” from inside the country to help pave the way.  Often they would be members of the existing government, or the press, or academia, but it was possible for them to come from any disaffected or dissatisfied segment of the society. 

The interesting thing is, once the Communists came to power, they would inevitably have these people executed or, at least, thrown in prison.  Since they had already proven that they were willing to overthrow an established government, they were considered a threat to the new regime.  Besides, they had already served their purpose. 

Although this pattern was repeated over and over, it seemed that there was never a shortage of new fellow travelers willing to help out when the Reds came a calling.  Evidently, these new believers convinced themselves that this phenomenon would not repeat itself in their case.  This sort of thinking earned them the title, “useful idiots.”

Now, it seems that the GOP has decided that this strategy might be right for the 2008 presidential campaign.  In the past, they have relied on the Doctrine of Lesser Evils to entice pro-lifers to vote for those Republicans who were, to say the least, mushy on abortion.  The sales pitch went something like, “Our guy might not be exactly what you want, but he is better than the complete moral degenerate put up by the Democrats.”

The Republican Party hierarchy seemed willing to stay with this strategy for the 2008 campaign as long as their hand-picked boy, Rudy Giuliani, was perceived as a lock for the nomination.  But two things happened they didn’t count on.  First, even though the Democrats are poised to nominate someone who could probably make Charles Manson seem like the lesser of two evils, a significant part of the Republican base does not see the Giuliani as any better.  The second complicating factor is that, to the chagrin of the GOP’s power structure, the polls are showing that Mike Huckabee has turned into a legitimate threat. 

To counter these two problems, it seems that the GOP has decided to field its own team of useful idiots.  In just the last few days, several Republicans who claim to be pro-life have scurried from under the baseboards to urge the GOP’s Christian and pro-life base to rally behind the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Second Amendment, thrice-married, Rudy Giuliani.  Not only that, but they are doing this in the primary when several pro-life / pro-family candidates are still in the race.

The most high-profile turncoats so far are Christian Coalition founder, Pat Robertson, and Texas governor, Rick Perry, both of whom have lavished praise on their new best-buddy, Rudy.  Making this situation even more preposterous is the excuse they are using to justify their treachery.  Their claim is that Giuliani has assured them that he will only appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. 

The problem is, Giuliani has repeatedly stated that he supports Roe v. Wade.  Obviously, the only way a self-described  “strict constructionist” could take that position is for him to believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion.  But somehow, we are expected to conclude that such a person is going to help return legal protection to the unborn.  Apparently, the GOP Illuminati is designing their 2008 strategy around the theory that those of us in the great unwashed masses are really stupid.

When the Rick Perry and Pat Robertson types are placed in a position where they cannot logically reconcile their pro-life claims with their gushing support for a pro-abort, they inevitably counter that there are other issues besides abortion.  They talk about economics, border security and other issues, but the most common justification they give is that Giuliani would be better than Clinton in the war on terrorism.  While that may or may not be true, let’s assume that it is.  When someone says that they will support a pro-abort for that reason, what they are really saying is, “I’m willing to let unborn babies be dropped in the grease by the millions if that’s what it takes to save my own skin.”

The point is, it is obscene for someone to claim to be pro-life while saying that a candidate’s position on abortion is just “one of the many issues we have to look at.”  For the true pro-lifer, if a candidate is wrong about the wholesale slaughter of children, they cannot be right enough on any other issue to make up for it.  And when people like Rick Perry and Pat Robertson actually endorse them, it only proves that either they were frauds all along or that they never understood the pro-life principle to begin with.

So let’s cut to the chase here.  It has always been known that there are a lot of people within the pro-life movement who are more Republican than pro-life.  What’s happening right now is that the GOP’s useful idiot campaign is smoking them out.  Fortunately for them, when the campaign is over they will not be executed or put in prison.  Instead, they will be exiled into irrelevance until they become useful again.  My suspicion is that this process will take four years.

In the mean time, the unanswered question is whether we will follow the Robertsons and Perrys into the abyss of abandoned principles and auctioned souls.  In short, will we let them play us the way Giuliani and the Republican Party is playing them?    

If we do, I guess we are the real idiots.

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.

Have you noticed how often pro-lifers, unknowingly, use rhetoric that reinforces pro-abortion positions.  For example, when we focus on the horrible and indefensible nature of late term abortion, we are suggesting that earlier abortions are less horrible and more defensible.  This creates an artificial distinction between one human being and another human being based on how old it is, how developed it is or how large it is.  That is not far from the pro-abortion position.  

Another example of this relates to the revelations that some hospitals are doing what are called “live birth abortions.”  This is where they induce a pregnant woman to give birth and then put the baby in a closet and let it die.  Horrified pro-lifers have responded by talking about the fact that these hospitals are “killing living babies!”

As understandable as this outrage is, such language undermines the pro-life position.  It suggests that there is a difference between killing someone inside the womb or outside.  The reality is, whether they are put in closets to die or ripped apart in the womb, all abortions happen on living babies and we must be careful not to ever say or do anything which suggests otherwise.

We also get tricked into supporting the abortion lobby’s agenda by the way we talk about teen pregnancy.  The abortion industry wants people to believe that when a teenage girl has a baby her life is over.  She is doomed to be single forever, poor as a church mouse, uneducated, and on welfare for the rest of her life.  Their goal is to convince people that abortion is her only hope.        

While it is true that no one believes 13-year-old children should be getting pregnant, it is not the end of the world.  In fact, many unmarried teenage girls have babies and go on to lead happy lives.  Moreover, among those who don’t, a significant number come from socio-economic environments where, by abortion industry standards, their chances for a “successful and productive” life are limited whether they have babies or not.  For these girls, the problem is not their baby but their environment.  When we ignore that and focus instead on the pregnancy, what we are really saying is that the baby is the problem.  Again, that’s the pro-abortion position.

It is also common for pro-lifers to attack abortion by saying we may have aborted the next Beethoven, or Mother Teresa, or the doctor who would have discovered a cure for cancer.  While this sentiment is understandable, it is inconsistent with the pro-life position.  The unborn child who might grow up to cure cancer has no more right to life than the unborn child who will spend his life on welfare and living under bridges.  The “aborted Beethoven” argument suggests that it is a bigger tragedy to kill Baby A than Baby B because Baby A is more valuable to society.  Clearly, that is not what the pro-lifer meant to say, but that is certainly what the listener might conclude.

The point is, always be aware that what you say may not be what your audience hears. 

Now that the political season is back at our throats, we are again hearing the abortion lobby trot out its usual collection of distortions, half-truths and outright lies.  Of course, one of their favorites is the old line that since women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, we have to protect them against dangerous back-alley abortions.

This assumes that the legal abortions women are getting right now are safe, but we'll let that fairy tail slide for the moment.  We'll also ignore the fact that, if abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-choice.  In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice.  That means the obvious solution to the back-alley abortion problem is for the pro-choice mob not to do them.  But like I said, we'll ignore that for now. 

What I'm wondering about is this.  If the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why aren't the people who make that argument also calling for the repeal of laws against rape?  After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist so she can't identify him to the authorities.  Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away the rapists' motivation for killing them. 

Legalization could also result in the establishment of rape clinics where rapists could take their victims instead of dragging them into dangerous back-allies.  These facilities could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim.  We could also issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo monthly testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. 

Remember, the pro-choice argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment.  Well, those dynamics also apply to rape.  We know that keeping rape illegal has not stopped women from being raped, so why not try to create a more “enlightened” nation where rape is safe, legal and rare?

And by the way, as ridiculous as this suggestion is, if our goal is saving women's lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.

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.

Have you ever noticed that every time the Godless Left promotes any of the moral depravities that they hold so dear, a predictable pattern develops. 

Whatever their “vice du jour” might be, their initial sales pitch will be that it is morally acceptable.  Of course, this inevitably fails because whatever they are pushing is generally so ghastly that it is impossible to sell it on its own merits.  So their fall-back strategy is to play the old “you can’t legislate morality” card.  They will even wrap it around some absurd interpretation of American history in which our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and treasure so we could all live in a nation where laws are made free of any moral considerations.  Then, for good measure, they will toss in something about the constitutional separation of church and state, despite the fact that such a concept is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. 

Sadly, this scam often works.  America is in such a state of moral and intellectual decay that otherwise decent intelligent people actually suck-up this loopy philosophy.  It is part of the culture of “situational ethics” in which genuine ethics are seen as abnormal and perhaps even unpatriotic.  In our brave new world of unfettered tolerance and moral-relativism, it is not enough to believe that some things are not black and white but shades of gray; you must now believe that everything is a shade of gray and that black and white do not exist.  This philosophy thrives because the American people have become so open-minded that their brains fell out.     

Here are the facts:  No governmental body can pass laws that will make an immoral person moral.  So they don’t try.  Legislation is not about regulating beliefs, it’s about controlling behavior.  When a legislature passes laws against racial discrimination, it does not concern itself with the personal moral beliefs of people who sincerely think racial discrimination is okay.  The legislature has determined that discrimination is not morally acceptable and, therefore, it will not be legally permitted regardless of what some racist might think.  In other words, society imposes its belief system on someone who has a completely different belief system.  Any way you look at it, that is legislating morality.   

So don’t let the Godless Left fool you.  The law is nothing more or less than society’s collective moral values, and it legislates that morality by regulating behavior.  At the moment we abandon that principal, our legislative bodies will be left with no legitimate foundation upon which any law can be justified.  If that happens, our country will be doomed to collapse into a state of bedlam and anarchy.

A woman recently came onto the ProLifeAmerica.com Forum to talk about the grief she was experiencing over the miscarriage of her unborn child.  The response she received was very revealing.  Immediately, she was verbally savaged by two of the pro-choice hyenas who routinely patrol the forum.  One of them ridiculed her and called her a “drama queen” saying, “you have lost nothing.”  Shortly, the other one joined the feeding frenzy and informed the woman that she should just get on with her life since an unborn child is nothing more than a “bump in the belly” 

Now you can be assured that both of these people have seen sonogram images and know exactly what the unborn child is and is not.  So not only were they coldly indifferent to this woman’s suffering, they knew that they were lying about the nature of her loss.  But in their small minds, any discussion that acknowledges the humanity of the unborn is a threat to the pro-choice political agenda.  If protecting that agenda means that a grief-stricken mom has to be demeaned and attacked, so be it.

Of course, more sophisticated pro-choice types would have known better than to go into the public and make such moronic and heartless statements.  It’s not that they don’t feel that way, it’s just not good public relations to admit it.  But the fact is, this attack was a perfect reflection of the pro-choice mentality.

However, in a world where the reality of the unborn is becoming harder to deny, many in the pro-choice mob will now concede that the unborn child is indeed a living human being.  But they still contend that it is okay to butcher them.  In their war to advance their demented worldviews and political agendas, they consider the humanity of the unborn as inconsequential and their deaths as collateral damage.   And that is quickly becoming the core operating principle of the pro-choice movement. 

It also defines the nature of our enemies.  Although some pro-lifers would prefer to see them as just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement, that is simply not the case.  With almost no exceptions, those who most vehemently defend legalized abortion are morally bankrupt, self-absorbed people who dismiss concepts like “right and wrong” as quaint and irrelevant. 

At the moment we accept that reality, we gain a much better understanding of what it takes to beat these people.   In short, if we want to stop the killing we must not be naïve about the killers.

How would you like to ask the pro-choice mob a question that is guaranteed to have them jumping around like worms on a hot rock?  Well, read on.  

Three facts are important to know.  First, though there are certainly members of the gay community who are pro-life, go to any large public event put on by the pro-choice gang, or read any edition of the NOW Times or MS Magazine, and you will see that the “mainstream” homosexual lobby and the “mainstream” abortion lobby are joined at the hip.

Second, the current “enlightened” and “politically correct” view is that homosexuality is not a choice but a function of genetics.  While I am not convinced this is true, if it is then it is only a matter of time before scientists identify the genetic marker for homosexuality.
 
Third, the abortion lobby has made it clear that they will never back away from their fundamental assertion that the reasons for abortion are no ones business except the women who have them. 

In light of these three facts, let’s ask our enemies one simple and completely appropriate question:  Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay? 

When you ask that question, their only options are to either abandon their basic position or risk alienating one of their most loyal support groups.  We should also keep in mind that these people have failed this sort of test before.  You may recall that standing-up for the disabled was, at one point, sold as an integral part of the liberal agenda.  But the first time that effort conflicted with the abortion license, the Godless Left did not hesitate for one moment to throw the disabled under the bus. 

The result is that, for example, in America today over 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are killed in the womb.  In fact, legalized abortion has so decayed American society that abortion is now the default position for women carrying a child with even the most insignificant abnormalities.  In our brave new world, if a new mom delivers a handicapped baby she better be prepared to routinely answer the question, “Didn’t your doctor tell you about this while you were still pregnant?” 

That sorry question and all it implies is part of the “better-dead-than-disabled” mentality that now infects our country.  And make no mistake about it, that mindset is the sole responsibility of the pro-choice mob and it has helped them sell lots of abortions.  To one degree or another, it has also created a rift between them and those who truly care about the disabled.

Whatever the consequences, it is pretty clear that the Choice Mafia is not going to turn off this path.  They have apparently decided that they cannot afford to say that any woman should be denied her “right to choose” for any reason.  If a “homosexual gene” is ever identified, the bloodbath they are currently prosecuting against Down syndrome and other “imperfect” children will be expanded to include those who might turn out to be gay.  In fact, we may discover that parents are actually more likely to have a potentially gay child killed than one with Down syndrome. 

If the homosexual lobby has not yet thought about this issue, it’s time they did.  We need to show them that when the American holocaust turns its attention in their direction, it will be their pro-choice buddies who not only defend it but carry it out.     

We should also introduce the reality that this phenomenon is not going to be limited to homosexuality.  Some scientists are now speculating that genetics may influence people to embrace certain political ideologies.  So imagine that someday a conservative, but otherwise pro-choice, organization launches a campaign to encourage – not force or require but simply encourage – pregnant women to kill any fetus they are carrying who is identified as having a politically liberal genetic marker.  Would these pro-choice death-merchants have any problem with that? 

If you analyze what genetic scientists are now suggesting, the possibilities for this line of dialog are endless.  If it is true that virtually every person born into the world is a potential member of a group that could be genetically identified, that means they could be targeted for extinction through abortion. 

The bizarre part of this is that, if we press this issue to its logical conclusion, the abortion lobby may be forced to adopt a completely different “abortion-justification” argument.  Instead of saying that women should be allowed to abort for any reason whatsoever, they may have to say that the only women who should be allowed to abort are those who are doing so for no reason whatsoever.

Abortion enthusiast, Anna Quindlen, recently wrote an article for Newsweek Magazine in which she raised the issue of what the punishment should be for women who have abortions once they are again illegal.  Her claim was that this is a question for which the pro-life movement has no answer.  Of course, she is lying since most of the pro-life movement’s leaders have addressed this issue many times, over many years.  The only problem is that, like the rest of our enemies, she just doesn’t like the answer. 

Having said that, however, I will agree to take the bait and go down this dusty trail one more time.  So here it goes.   

While some of my fellow pro-lifers feel that jailing women who submit to illegal abortions is necessary to be consistent with the pro-life principle, most seem to agree with me that there is no practical incentive for doing so.  Our view is that, for several pragmatic reasons, future laws against abortion should concentrate on the abortionist just as they did before Roe v. Wade.

To begin with, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction would be virtually impossible to obtain.  In addition, the woman is the best source of information and evidence needed to convict the abortionist.  If she faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion.  That would make it almost impossible for the state to get the evidence needed to convict the abortionist and leave him free to kill again. 

This doesn’t excuse the woman for having participated in an illegal act.  It simply recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society, and that legal sanctions against the woman would reduce the chances of that happening.  It’s no different than the authorities granting immunity to a small-time drug user in exchange for information on a big-time drug dealer.  Remember, the goal of the pro-life movement is to stop abortion.  Imprisoning a woman who had an illegal abortion would prevent nothing since her child is already dead, but imprisoning the abortionist might save thousands of babies in the future.  If giving women a pass on prosecution is the best way to make that happen, that is a deal worth making. 
 
We should also consider that, given the shortage and expense of jail space in America, it makes no sense to incarcerate a woman who had one abortion when that same cell could hold an abortionist who might do them by the thousands.  And let there be no mistake about it, jail is precisely where abortionists deserve to be.  Their customers may or may not be fully aware of what they are doing, but no such defense can be made for them.  When they pull those tiny arms and legs and heads out of women, they know for a fact that they are committing the most brutal of murders.  I offer no apology for saying that there is not one person sitting in a prison cell anywhere in the world who committed an act worse than performing abortions.  Furthermore, not one of those people victimized someone as helpless as an unborn baby.  So not only are abortionists contract killers with the morals of sewer rats, they are cowards as well.

When discussing this punishment issue, something very curious inevitably creeps into the conversation.  Although some pro-lifers argue for imprisoning women who submit to abortion, the people most adamant that this is the only rational policy are those who call themselves pro-choice.  Like many other things they do, this exposes their cynicism and hypocrisy.  On one hand, they try to frighten women with the suggestion that pro-lifers are going to have them tossed into jail.  When we make it clear that we have no such intention, their response is to say that if we don’t call for women to be jailed the only conclusion is that even we are not really convinced of our position.  It is classic abortion industry double-talk.   

Now, I have a suggestion for the Anna Quindlens of the world that will resolve this whole issue.  If these people think it’s unfair for only abortionists to be targeted, let them be the ones to lobby for legislation to put the women in jail.  If instead of helping women facing unplanned pregnancies find alternatives to illegal abortions, the Choice Mafia would prefer to seek legislation to put them in prison, my gut feeling is that they will find little legislative support for it.  But we’ll see.  In the mean time, while they look for the best way to put all their customers in jail, those of us in the pro-life movement will focus on finding the fastest way to stop the killing.   

America’s Godless Left continually derides Christianity by talking about all the harm its followers have done over the centuries.  Whenever the subject comes up, we are regaled with stories about the Crusades, the war in Ireland, the pilgrims, and a cornucopia of other Christian crimes that are meant to shame us into contrite silence. 

The fact that most of what these people say is at best inaccurate and at worst fabrication, is of no consequence.  Most of them are not bright enough to know that what they are saying is nonsense and the ones that do know don’t care.  As card-carrying members of the Godless Left, they have the comfort of knowing that their lies will never be exposed by their stooges and fellow travelers in the media.  So they can even talk about atrocities carried out by Muslims and cite them as examples of what people do “in the name of God.”  In this convoluted world, every “believer” is the same regardless of what they believe so it is only natural that Christians would be held accountable for what Muslims do.  The fact that much of the violence committed by Muslims over the centuries was actually committed against Christians is inconvenient and, therefore, ignored.  After all, they will never allow truth to compromise their political agenda.        

When they mention recent Christianity-induced violence, the name that most often pops into the conversation is that of Adolf Hitler.  The Left loves to hold him up and talk about how a Catholic envisioned and then carried out the Nazi holocaust.  The major flaw in that argument is that Hitler was not a Catholic.  He was simply born to parents who were Catholic.  Read any legitimate biography about him and you will see that he was virtually devoid of any sort of spirituality and that the closest thing to religion in his life was a disturbing fascination with occultism.  The bitter irony is, if Hitler had indeed been a Catholic it is highly unlikely that World War II would have ever occurred.  

Let’s cut to the chase here.  Uncovering the real motivation behind this Christian-bashing phenomenon begins by understanding that the world just went through the most violent time in its history.  In World War II alone, while Hitler’s thugs were terrorizing western Europe, Joe Stalin and his buddy Lenin were carrying out a genocide – often against their own countrymen – that made Uncle Adolf look like a bumbling amateur.  Meanwhile, the Japanese had jumped into bed with Hitler and Stalin and were piling up Chinese, Indonesian, Korean, Filipino, and Indochinese corpses by the millions.  Then came despots like, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Chiang Kai-chek, Tito, Kim Il-sung, and others who carried on this tradition of using mass executions as a political tool.

In the end, the best estimates are that government sanctioned genocide during the 20th century stole the lives of about 175 million people.  What the Godless Left does not want the public to think about is the fact that almost all the perpetrators of these atrocities were self-admitted atheists and/or non-Christians.  In other words, the overwhelming majority of the butchery that occurred during the most violent century in world history, was done by people with the same world view and belief system as the American Left.  Their Christian-bashing campaign is simply a scheme to divert attention away from that uncomfortable reality.  In short, they are the embodiment of the “guilty dog barks first” philosophy and, unfortunately, to a large measure it has worked.     

The unvarnished truth is that the Godless Left has always embraced genocide as a means to an end.  One such atrocity is going on right here in the United States as over 3000 helpless human beings are being executed by abortion every single day. 

Of course, there are those who will contend that this holocaust is not associated with atheism since many of the people who call themselves pro-choice, and many of the people actually having abortions, claim to be Christians.  That ignores the fact that just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they are one.  In reality, when someone says they are both pro-choice and Christian they are either heretics, outright frauds, or painfully ignorant about what it means to be a Christian. 

Two non-negotiable foundations of Christian doctrine are that (1) God is the author of life, and (2) He is incapable of making mistakes.  The only logical conclusion one can draw from those beliefs is that when life exists in the womb, it is God’s will that it be there.  On the other hand, support for legal abortion always denies at least one, and generally both, of those two fundamental concepts.  By definition, that makes the “pro-choice” position incompatible with Christianity.

When someone claims to be both pro-choice and Christian, he or she is basically asserting three principles.  The first is that life is not a right inherited from God but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so.  The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb.  Finally, they are saying that it is possible to reject the innocent new lives that God creates without rejecting God Himself.  From a Christian perspective, all three of these positions are absurd.
 
The bottom line is, there can be no such thing as a “pro-choice Christian” when abortion is the choice.  A Christian cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.

In the final analysis, those who participate in or defend the abortion holocaust are as godless as those who have participated in or defended most of the world’s other holocausts.  To be certain, Christians have a lot to answer for and answer for it they will.  But to suggest that they are even in the same league with these people is preposterous.