Don’t Feed the Hand that Bites You

November 1, 2007 Categories: language, late term, women, abortion

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.

Comments (4)

A Little Perspective, Please

April 23, 2007 Categories: pro-life, partial birth, late term, politics, law, Supreme Court , abortion

As most of you probably know by now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal ban on D&X (partial-birth) abortion is constitutional. The question is: just how significant is this victory for the overall effort to protect the unborn?

From a psychological standpoint, this is clearly an enormous shot in the arm for the pro-life movement. To fully appreciate the significance of this ruling, all you have to do is imagine what the effect would have been on our people had it gone the other way. The fact is, after years of being pummeled in the courts this decision puts a little wind back in our sails.

Equally important, it appears to have truly demoralized our enemies. Some are wringing their ice-cold little hands and wailing that the end of legalized abortion is near. Apparently, the prospect of living in a world in which moms are not allowed to butcher their children by the millions has caused a large percentage of these people to start sleeping with the lights on.

Meanwhile, more optimistic members of the Choice Mafia are threatening to turn this ruling into a rallying cry to re-energize their troops. Only time will tell whether they are able to do this or not. My prediction is that this ruling will not energize anyone other than the most rabid abortion enthusiasts and their numbers are so small as to be inconsequential. But however it plays out, this decision is further proof that the pro-life side has the momentum and our enemies know it.

Beyond its positive psychological impact, the ban on partial-birth abortion is meaningless as it relates to the actual killing of unborn children. That’s because this ban controls the how, not the whether. Remember, even during the time that this procedure was allowed, most late-term abortions were accomplished using other methods – the most common being D&E. Unfortunately, D&E and all of these other procedures are still legal which means that any baby who would have been killed by partial-birth abortion before will now be killed by one of these other methods.

Some pro-lifers argue that the practical benefit of a ban on partial-birth abortion is that it prohibits a procedure that is especially barbaric. Such people are poorly informed. Be assured, anyone who thinks that a D&E is less brutal for the child being killed than a D&X knows nothing about abortion procedures.

In the final analysis, the psychological importance of this victory for the pro-life movement is enormous but its practical implications for the unborn are zero. The real unknown is whether this Supreme Court ruling is a barometer for abortion rulings to come.

Many observers have noted that there was some encouraging language in the majority opinion to indicate a willingness by the Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade. Others counter that it was a 5-4 decision in which one vote (Kennedy’s) cannot be relied upon in the future. In my view, each conclusion is equally valid and equally irrelevant.

I will say this as succinctly as I can. Trying to predict what the United States Supreme Court will or will not do is a fool’s game. The reality is, when the Court abandoned the Constitution as the basis for its rulings – which it did years ago – by definition it became totally unpredictable. Today, if there is one thing we know for certain about Supreme Court decisions it is that anyone with a Ouija Board can predict them as accurately as the most educated legal minds in the country.

So my advice is (a) pause for a moment to celebrate the victory, (b) don’t read more into it than is actually there, and (c) get back to work.

Babies are still dying.

Comments (3)

Tiller Charged, Cover-Up Begins

December 27, 2006 Categories: pro-life, Tiller, late term, politics, law, abortion

In 2002, a Life Dynamics undercover sting produced irrefutable evidence that the American abortion industry is operating a nationwide pedophile protection ring (see: ChildPredators.com).

When this information was made public, the Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, became the first attorney general in the nation with the courage to launch an investigation. Although the abortion lobby carried out a vicious and deceptive campaign to derail Kline's investigation, at a December 22 news conference, lawyers for notorious Kansas abortionist, George Tiller, announced that Kline had filed 30 criminal charges against Tiller, most of which relate to abortions he performed on underage children.

These indictments were based on records subpoenaed from Tiller and show that the overwhelming majority of the abortions were performed on patients who were between 25 and 28 weeks pregnant. However, two of the charges involve patients who were 31 weeks pregnant at the time of their procedures. In what is probably the most troubling incident, Count Three of the indictment is based on an abortion Tiller performed in July of 2003 on a 10-year-old girl who was 28 weeks pregnant.

In addition, not one of the records indicated any physical health problems with either the mom or the baby. In every case, the justification given for killing the baby was either “stress” or “depression.” In short, according to Tiller’s own files, these were purely elective third-trimester abortions performed on healthy moms to destroy healthy babies. And in most cases they were performed on minor children.

When the story about these criminal charges broke, the Kansas abortion lobby immediately began to circle the wagons. Within a few hours, the District Attorney of Sedgewick County, Nola Foulston, filed a motion to have the charges dismissed claiming that she had not been consulted about them before they were filed, as required by Kansas law. For the record, Foulston is well-known in Kansas as an outspoken proponent of legalized abortion and a personal friend of Tiller.

Contrary to Foulston's story, Kline says that he did meet with her in her Wichita office prior to filing the charges and that there were three witnesses to the meeting. He also says that Foulston told him that she had no problem with the charges.

Obviously, somebody is lying. In order to buy Foulston’s version, you have to first believe that it was just some sort of cosmic coincidence that within minutes after this phantom meeting ended, Foulston filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the court of Democrat Judge Paul W. Clark.

The only logical conclusion is that the meeting did take place and that Foulston lied to Kline to keep him from knowing beforehand that she intended to file this motion. She had to know that if Kline was given a chance to fight her motion, he would prevail. Given that, it is no great leap in logic to speculate that she hand-picked a judge she knew would let her keep Kline in the dark until the hearing was over, thereby preventing him from being present and defending his position.

Of course, the best evidence that this was the plan is the fact that, in the end, it is precisely what happened. In a hastily convened legal proceeding in which one of the primary parties was excluded, Clark approved Foulston’s motion and dismissed the charges. For those who may be tempted to challenge the assertion that Clark was hand-picked for this job, it should be noted that the Sedgewick County website lists Clark as a traffic court judge. The fact is, the fix was in and Clark was going to show Foulston and the rest of the Kansas abortion mafia that he was a company man.

Kline’s reaction to this scam was to demand that another hearing be held. The good news was that his request was granted. The bad news was that this new hearing was directed right back into Clark’s traffic court.

When the lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office finished his argument, Clark immediately reissued his initial ruling which he read from a prepared written text. In other words, he walked into the courtroom with his ruling already made. Listening to Kline’s legal argument was nothing more than a politically-necessary formality. It was not going to change anything.

In the days after this sleazy stunt was pulled, legal scholars appearing on national television pointed out that the Kansas law in question clearly shows that Kline has the legal right to bring such charges, despite the claims of Foulston and Clark. These experts had also read the charges Kline brought against Tiller and found that they were correctly filled and fully supported by evidence subpoenaed from Tiller himself. One even went so far as to indicate that he was totally bewildered how Clark could come to his ruling since the law was so clear and unambiguous.

Looking back, it is now clear that Foulston’s and Clark’s actions were nothing more than a stall. They were aware that Kline had lost his bid for re-election and that his successor, Paul Morrison, is a raging pro-abort whose campaign took hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from Tiller. So their strategy was to use this phony legal maneuver to keep Kline at bay until his term ran out. Even if some higher court were to rule that Foulston’s motion was groundless and Clark’s ruling improper, it wouldn’t matter as long as the ruling came after January 8, 2007 – the day Kline has to turn over the attorney general’s office to Tiller’s buddy.

Kline’s reaction was to appoint a special prosecutor, attorney Don McKinney, who can continue the effort to hold George Tiller accountable even after Kline leaves office. The only question is whether he will be given the chance to do so. It is entirely conceivable – perhaps even likely – that the new pro-abortion attorney general will fire McKinney as a political payoff to Tiller.

In the final analysis, this sorry episode is just more proof that the abortion mafia – which in this case includes a godless and corrupt district attorney – is always prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and wallow in even the filthiest cesspool in order to keep America’s death camps churning out victims.

But whatever happens, the good news is that this opera ain’t over. The evidence against Tiller is building and the day is rapidly approaching when even his most loyal media and political flunkeys will be unable to cover his tracks. Whether or not Attorney General Kline is successful in getting the charges reinstated before he leaves office, and whether or not the special prosecutor is fired by his pro-abortion successor, the abortion lobby’s frantic and desperate response to this situation shows that Tiller is surviving on little more than sips of hope.

So stay tuned. The fat lady is warming up.

Comments (0)