I want to sound a word of caution about this "Tea Party" and "Town Hall Meeting" phenomenon taking place around the country.
From some of the rhetoric associated with these events, it would be easy to assume that social issues like abortion are an important factor behind them. Regrettably, however, that assumption is incorrect. Yes, there are many people involved with these events who are staunchly pro-life and it is not uncommon to see a strong pro-life presence at them. But make no mistake about it, the driving force here is money. If these people were to suddenly conclude that Obama's monetary policies are going to make our economy sing, the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meeting would quickly fade into history.
Having said that, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that what these people are doing is either unimportant or wrong. It is neither. The fact is, the America we all grew up in is being destroyed by corrupt politicians in Washington, DC, who are nothing less than traitors. Right before our eyes, our nation is being transformed from a capitalist nation devoted to freedom and equality of opportunity into one that will require us to grovel at the feet of godless Marxism. And while this march toward an amoral collectivist society did not begin with the Obama administration, only an idiot could not have noticed the pace has accelerated exponentially since January.
It is now clear that, unless we reverse course, we could all wake up in two or three years living in an America we no longer recognize. If it comes to that, we will be in a frightening place where the love of our country has become secondary to the fear of our government. And the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings are a needed and appropriate response to this crisis. They provide a venue where these pompous elitists in Congress and the White House can be reminded that we are not their serfs, but that they are our hired hands.
The point is, even as we acknowledge that the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings are a good thing, we should not forget that they were born out of the fear of a financial collapse of our country and not its moral and cultural collapse. The reality is, their leaders never organized similar events to help the unborn and, if the time ever comes that they no longer perceive Obama to be a threat to their wallets, they'll go home, drop the unborn in the grease, and we will never hear from them again.
I want to sound a word of caution about this "Tea Party" and "Town Hall Meeting" phenomenon taking place around the country.
“Let's set aside our differences and look for common ground.
By working together to reduce the need for abortion,
we could lower the number of abortions.”
It sounds so reasonable, so mature, and so appealing. After all, we're human – we want to like and be liked. We want to sit in the stands at a baseball game and enjoy the company of the guy next to us even when he's rooting for the other team. It's an aspect of human nature by which we are all often seduced and seldom harmed.
But when you take up the cause of the unborn, you soon learn that the normal rules of human engagement do not apply. You come to realize that it is a world where the failure to question motives can be disastrous. And nothing is a better example of that than the suggestion that we look for common ground with those who defend abortion.
First, the abortion lobby knows that they do not have to convince the public that their position is morally superior to ours. It doesn't even have to be seen as morally equal. All that's necessary is that it is considered morally defensible. The problem is, when the public sees us working in concert with them to find common ground, we help create that perception. We signal that even we believe their position has some moral validity. It is no different than if the Jewish people would have agreed to look for common ground with the Nazis while the ovens at Auschwitz were burning day and night. That would have simply given credibility to the Nazi position.
Second, it is no secret that the American people are increasingly uncomfortable about abortion. What the offer to search for common ground does for the abortion lobby is to connect them with the public by creating the illusion that even they don't like abortion and are working to reduce its numbers. It's a cynical public relations scheme that only works if we go along with it. It is also based on a lie. To think that the abortion lobby wants to reduce the number of abortions is like saying that McDonalds wants to reduce the number of hamburgers being sold. In short, it's roughly equivalent to believing in the tooth fairy.
Third, our enemies have always understood that their future is far more secure when the public perception is that abortions are done out of “need” rather than the simple desire not to be pregnant. But the truth is that even studies conducted by hardcore abortion advocates prove that almost every abortion in America is done for non-medical reasons and involves a healthy baby who was not conceived by rape or incest and a healthy woman whose pregnancy does not threaten either her life or health. In other words, there are virtually no abortions done in America that the public would conclude are being done out of need.
However, every time we take the common ground bait, we help the abortion lobby conceal that fact from the American people. It is simple deductive reasoning that, by agreeing to join them in this search for ways to reduce the need for abortion, we are, by definition, conceding that there is sometimes a need for abortion. After all, rational people don't go looking for ways to reduce the need for something unless they have concluded that such a need exists. So when we agree to these common ground efforts, we help to cover up the fact that, even if every abortion being done out of need was eliminated, any reduction in the number of abortions would be too small to measure.
Another flaw in the common ground approach is that it always requires us to accept the fundamental premise of the abortion lobby. In all such discussions, the opening statement is something like, “We have all agreed to set aside any discussion about whether abortion should be legal and concentrate on finding ways to reduce the need for abortions.”
But if the real goal of these discussions is to find common ground, it would be equally legitimate to say, “Everyone has agreed that abortion should be made illegal, so our goal today is to look for ways to reduce the incidence of illegal abortions once that happens.” Of course, that statement would never be made because the abortion lobby would never agree to discuss their position on their opponent's terms. We seem to be the only ones who fall for that little trick.
Now, if you think I'm too cynical about all this, I have a suggestion. The next time you are approached about participating in such an event, point out that the most effective way to lower America's astronomical abortion rate would be to concentrate on the areas where big numbers are. That means the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the number of abortions that are being done because the woman just doesn't want to be pregnant or because she is using abortion as back-up birth control. Also propose that the discussion looks for ways to reduce the number of multiple abortions. That’s legitimate since, by abortion industry figures, about 40 percent of all abortions are done on women who have had at least one prior abortion – and often several.
Of course, there are other “big number” areas we could look at, but it really doesn't matter since we all know that such a proposal would be dead on arrival. Common ground discussions simply don't happen unless they are conducted by abortion lobby rules. That's because the actual goal is not to reduce the number of abortions but to neutralize the pro-life movement and divert attention away from the core issue.
Let’s also remember that, when we drink the common ground Kool Aid, we are signaling that we think we have lost this battle. That is particularly obvious in light of the fact that these discussions are always held on our enemy's terms. In most venues, that would be translated as meaning “unconditional surrender.”
But the fact is that we are winning; we just need to act like it. As long as the killing continues, we have no common ground with these people nor should we seek any. Remember, prior to World War II we had long discussions with the Japanese trying to avert the war. But at Pearl Harbor, the talking ended. Our leaders understood that when people are threatening to do evil, discussions with them are a reasonable thing. But once they have begun doing that evil, there is nothing more to talk about. From that moment on, the only goal is to stop them.
That must always be our goal as well. When those who slaughter the unborn – and those who defend it – come to us with big toothy grins and an invitation to some Common Ground Beer Summit, we would be wise to remember that when a wolf shows his teeth, he isn't smiling.
Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for the government's economic stimulus package to include a healthy increase in spending for what she called “family planning.” (If you didn't already know, “family planning” is generally 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 less expensive to care for 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, the Obama administration’s position is that we are running out of money to take care of our own children but we have enough to pay for the executions of other people's children. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood (America's number one abortion profiteer) continues to be given approximately one million dollars a day in taxpayer funding and there are calls within our government for that amount 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 is claiming that babies contribute to our country’s financial woes. In this environment, it is probably no coincidence that the abortion lobby is ratcheting up its rhetoric that the faltering economy is a justification for abortion. The sense of evil is palpable when you hear them almost gleefully predict that the abortion rate is going to increase as women rely on it to compensate for bad economic conditions.
But the question is, are babies really to blame for our economic collapse? And the answer is that they are.
Let me explain. It has long been known that as consumers approach retirement they spend less money. The two areas where this is felt the most is in the sales of cars and houses – the two industries that form the backbone of the American economy. The good news has always been that, as older people began to buy less they were replaced by younger consumers who bought more. It was a cycle that was repeated from one generation to the next. But here’s the problem we face today. The American baby-boomer is the wealthiest generation of people in the history of the world and they spent money like there was no tomorrow. In that process, they created an economy that was (a) the envy of the world and (b) completely dependant on that level of spending in order to survive.
While doing this, however, they aborted more than one-fourth of the next generation of consumers. This guaranteed that, once the baby-boomers started reaching retirement, the spending frenzy of the last forty years would be over. And now, that is precisely what has happened. In 2008, baby-boomers began reaching retirement age, the sales of cars and houses plummeted and that put the entire economy into a tailspin. Further, we are just at the very beginning of this phenomenon. By any realistic measure, there is a financial tsunami rolling toward the United States that will make our current environment seem like “the good ole’ days.” From now until 2026, baby-boomers are going to reach retirement age at the rate of 10,000 a day! And even if we learn how to live with less consumer spending, the effect of that is going to bankrupt our social services infrastructure.
One obvious place you can see this is in the area of Social Security. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore bored us to near suicide with his incessant droning about the need for a "lock box" to protect the funds being held by the Social Security system. Of course, he was lying. He knew good and well that there is no need for such a lock box because Congress was running a Ponzi scheme with Social Security and there is no money left to lock up. Over the years, Congress grabbed it, left an IOU in its place, and then squandered it to buy votes. While Bernie Madoff rightly deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, the only differences between Madoff and Congress are that his crimes were on a far smaller scale and he got caught.
Now we’ve reached the day of reckoning. The money to fulfill the government’s social obligations to the baby-boomers is long-gone. The result is that we will soon be at a point where younger taxpayers will be forced to send in boxcars full of their money to pay for the services that were promised to them. The fact that this money has already been collected once is irrelevant. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to be taxed into oblivion replacing money that was stolen by Congress. What most Americans don’t realize is that this problem has been made exponentially worse by abortion.
The designers of Social Security based it on an assumption of an ever-growing, or at least stabile, workforce. They could not have foreseen that America would one day legalize the wholesale slaughter of its own children. But on January 22, 1973, that’s what happened. The result has been that, over the last 36 years, over 25 percent of the taxpayers needed to replace the money baby-boomers paid into the system were executed. To appreciate the impact of this, consider that since abortion has been legal, birth rates in the United States have often been below replacement levels. In fact, if one removes immigration from the census figures, America's population has been at best flat or, by most reliable estimates, in decline. For the Social Security system, that has been a disaster waiting to happen and the wait ended in 2008. Like nations all over the world, America is beginning to discover why the shrinking populations they wanted are a barometer of economic disaster.
This reality is also going to have a devastating effect on the Medicare and Medicaid systems. I think this is probably the main reason why there is this sudden panic in Congress to implement socialized medicine. They know that the money to take care of the baby-boomers was stolen. After all, they are the ones who stole it. But they certainly can’t afford for the voters to find that out, and a perfect way to make sure they don’t is to dump the boomers into to a government run universal healthcare system.
Another way abortion affects the economy is seen in the immigration issue. Today, there is a vigorous national debate about whether illegal immigrants are only taking jobs American workers don't want anyway. While that may or may not be true, what is undeniable is that illegal immigrants are replacing the millions of workers who were killed through abortion. The problem is, beyond the financial burdens that illegal immigration imposes on the U.S. economy, it also contributes to the diminished demand for American consumer goods – including cars and houses. That’s because a very high percentage of America’s illegal immigrants live in poverty conditions so they can send money back to their families in Mexico. Over the years, this amount has grown to the point that it is now consistently one of the largest sources of income for the entire Mexican economy. And any way you look at it, this is money that, without abortion, would have been earned by Americans and spent in America. But those Americans don’t exist so it ends up being earned by Mexicans and spent in Mexico.
Sadly, this has also eliminated any chance for the Mexican economy to become as strong as it should be. It is time for someone to point out that there is no reason for Mexico to be a poor country. It has a wealth of natural resources, a good climate and a population made up of decent hard-working people. However, it is not possible for any nation to have a vibrant economy while sending millions of its youngest and most productive workers out of the country.
In the final analysis, this is a system that costs the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, threatens the stability of the U.S. economy, keeps Mexico poor, and cynically exploits the illegal immigrant. But it will continue because every member of Congress knows – whether they have the guts to admit it or not – that immigration is the only way to replace the workers who have been aborted.
So yes, babies are indeed the cause of our economic collapse. Not for the reasons the Obamas and Pelosis of the world have you think, but because America has murdered the babies who would have supported our economy and financed our social service obligations. In 1973, our nation bought the lie that we could savagely execute millions of innocent human beings without consequence and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Having said that, however, we should never reduce the abortion debate to one solely based on economics. Even if this holocaust had lined our streets in gold, it could still never be justified. It would serve us well to understand that the fallout from the legalization of abortion will ultimately go far beyond financial considerations. Let's not forget that a generation that killed its own children whenever it found them inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive is now entering a stage of life when it will soon become inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive. The survivors of a generation whose fate was in our hands, will soon have our fate in theirs. Given that sobering reality, maybe our only hope is that God was just kidding when He said that man reaps what he sows. But the early indicators are that He wasn’t.
So now, we are being asked to buy Barack Obama’s loopy explanation that he had no idea his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, sometimes threw racist hate-filled tantrums in the pulpit. Of course, Obama is lying through his teeth and even his most ardent supporters would have to be dumb as a box of rocks not to see it.
But let’s play stupid for a moment and say that what he is claiming is true. That means he is telling us that he is so oblivious to the world around him that he can be a member of a church for 20 years and not know about the bizarre antics of the preacher. But at the same time, he wants us to believe that he is bright enough to run the most complex nation on earth with the world’s largest economy and most powerful military.
This guy needs to pick a lie and stick to it.
Unfortunately, I think these kind of distractions are causing us to miss the most important issue of all. There are many people who are certain that Obama is some sort of undercover Muslim and many more who think that Wright is a racist who hates America. While those things may or may not be true, what is undeniably true is that both claim to be Christians when, in fact, they are both heretics. And that, my friends, it is the real problem.
Congress recently hauled in the leaders of the nation’s largest oil companies to discuss the skyrocketing price of gasoline. You could characterize this hearing as a collection of dimwits who couldn’t run a lemonade stand “investigating” the practices of some of the world’s largest financial institutions.
Interestingly, while these buffoons were grandstanding in front of the cameras about “obscene” profits in the oil industry, nothing was said about the fact that on every gallon of gas sold in the United States, the government makes several times what the oil companies make. In other words, if “Big Oil” agreed to sell gasoline at no profit, that would not save nearly as much money as it would if Congress reduced the “obscene” taxes on gasoline. Of course, we all know that’s not happening. Getting between Congress and a taxpayer’s wallet is like getting between a hog and the slop bucket.
But what I do want to know is this: when is Congress going to hold hearings on why Planned Parenthood – a multi-national non-profit corporation with about a billion dollars in assets – made more that 60 million dollars profit last year and is still getting over 300 million dollars a year in taxpayer money? You can bet the family farm that Planned Parenthood’s return-on-investment percentage is significantly higher than Exxon’s and Mobil’s combined. So why isn’t Congress getting their panties in a wad over those obscene profits?
Former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, is being rotated over a low flame for saying that Barack Obama would not be where he is if he was not black. The interesting thing is, no one came forward to argue whether she was right or not. The statement alone was enough to brand her a racist, set-off the obligatory media floggings, and force her out of Hillary Clinton’s staff.
There is a beautiful irony in this. The intellectual disease of political correctness that currently infects American culture, was invented and unleashed by godless liberals exactly like Ferraro. For years, these people have painted this image of conservatives and the Christian Right as neo-Nazis and the Republican convention as little more than a four-day Klan rally. And now, like Frankenstein’s monster, this political correctness has turned on one of its masters.
Ferraro’s response was to look wounded on national television and moan about being unjustifiably castigated. In the future, perhaps she should remember the saying, “If you’re going to swim with sharks, don’t bleed.” Apparently, that advice is sometimes even appropriate for those who released the sharks in the first place.
As for me, all I can say about the Ferraro incident is, “Ya’ gotta’ love it!”
Hillary (Rambo) Clinton continues to whine that the media is so infatuated with Obama that it is not treating her fairly. For example, she claims that Obama’s “Pastor Disaster” got less media scrutiny than did her preposterous yarn about having to dodge a hail of sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia.
My advice, Rambo, is to get over yourself. No two people in American history have benefited more from the corruption and bias of the media than you and Slick Willy. Sure, the media may be off the reservation right now, but we all know that if you figure out some way to steal the nomination, they’ll come slinking back.
Speaking of Hillary, did you catch her ad against Obama in which she asked voters who they would want answering the White House phone at three in the morning if an international crisis had occurred? It was pretty effective in drawing attention to Obama’s inexperience, but if she gets the nomination I think it could backfire in the general election. First, if experience is the yardstick, wouldn’t McCain blow Hillary out of the water? And second, the American people surely realize that if Hillary’s on the White House phone at 3am, it probably won’t be because of some international meltdown. The most likely scenario will be that she is calling the local topless bars trying to get the name of the pole-dancer who took Bill home with her.
Returning to Obama for a moment, he recently stated that if one of his teenage daughters got pregnant he would not want them to be “punished” with a child. He even equated an unplanned child to a sexually transmitted disease. The pro-life movement’s angry response to this is certainly understandable given that anyone with even a shred of human decency would be outraged at classifying children as “punishment.”
This episode exemplifies the fact that Barack Obama is evil to his core and, as time goes on, the public is going to become increasingly aware of it. However, it also brings up what I have always believed is a dirty little secret of contemporary American society.
We long ago reached the point where science and technology made it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn. So the question becomes, why didn’t that settle the abortion debate once and for all?
There are many explanations for that and one of them is as simple as it is ugly. As we all know, whenever we start calling for a ban on abortion, a significant number of people will immediately want to talk about the need for exceptions in cases like rape, incest, fetal deformity, etcetera. But this is a smokescreen that conceals the real agenda. Sadly, because of the general moral collapse of our country, the most powerful interest in America today is self-interest. And what the public really wants is for any legal prohibitions against abortion to have a “My Daughter” exception. They just don’t have the guts to admit it so they camouflage it with phony compassion.
Has anyone else noticed that (a) many, if not most, of the people being touted as John McCain’s potential running mate are pro-aborts and (b) McCain is saying nothing about what he would do to stop the slaughter of the unborn?
I have said it before and I will say it again. America’s politicians are never going to take the pro-life movement seriously until we set some new ground rules. First, we have to make it clear to these people that we are going to be single-issue voters with a litmus test. Second, they must also be told that we have no interest in what they “feel” or “think” or “believe” about abortion. The only thing we want to know is what they intend to do to stop it. And we are not going to settle for some meaningless political gibberish about “reducing the need for abortion” or “lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate” or “creating a culture of life,” etcetera. That tap-dance has gone on long enough.
The time has come for us to understand that even the noblest rhetoric is no help for the unborn child whose skull is locked in the abortionist’s forceps. That will only stop when we demand that pro-life votes must be earned through pro-life actions. Until the unborn are safe, sending that message is the duty of every pro-lifer.
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.
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.
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.
When those of us who are pro-life object to government funding of abortion, one response we hear from the pro-choice lobby is that it is better to pay $300 for a welfare mom's abortion than pay thousands to raise her kid.
Few arguments demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the pro-choice mind set better than this one. Imagine that the two-year-old daughter of a family on welfare fell into an abandoned well. Authorities calculate that since a funeral is cheaper than a rescue, and since this little girl might be on welfare for the rest of her life, the financially sound thing to do is just flood the well with water. Once the child's dead body floats to the top, the coroner can scoop it up, have it buried, and the taxpayers will have saved a bundle.
That is obviously a monstrous idea, but it is no more monstrous than telling poor women that if they will kill their children in order to save us money, we'll hire the killer.
However, if America really wants to base social policy on the argument that it's cheaper to execute a child than support one, then let's get serious about it. Let's start encouraging welfare moms to not only kill their unborn children, but their born children as well. Remember, the guiding principle behind this particular pro-choice argument is not morality but saving money. So if we are willing to ignore the biological fact that the unborn children of the poor are living human beings, why should we care that their born children are living human beings?
And by the way, have you ever noticed that the very people who say pro-lifers have no right to be involved in the abortion decision, are the same people who say pro-lifers should be forced to pay for them.