On April 3, 2008, state authorities carried-out an armed raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) facility in Eldorado, Texas.  They were acting on suspicions that some members of this religious sect were sexually exploiting children and others were concealing it. 

Before long, the State of Texas had taken custody of more than 400 children and isolated them from their parents.  Now, even the most ardent defenders of this action are conceding that the evidence being acted upon may turn out to be a little flimsy and the roundup overly broad.  Time will be the judge of that.  My suspicion is that unless mass indictments are eventually returned, the State of Texas is going to have a lot of explaining to do.    

Obviously, any decent person understands that society has an obligation to protect children against sexual predators.  They also have an obligation to act against adults who fail to protect children against sexual predators.  In fact, that is the most common justification given for separating the children in the Eldorado raid from their parents. 

If this all turns out to be legitimate, I say drop the parents in jail right along side the perps.  They deserve each other.  But I also want to know why everyone suspected of being involved in the cover-up of child sexual abuse are not the targets of such investigations.  

As you may recall, we conducted a three-month undercover investigation in which we recorded over 800 calls to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities across America – including Texas.  Our female caller portrayed a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant by an adult and wanted an abortion in order to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities.  On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state.  However, even after acknowledging this, 91% of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it.  Representatives of these organizations—often operating on tax dollars—routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:

• lie about or conceal her age

• lie about or conceal the age of the man who impregnated her

• participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law

• use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility

• keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility

• be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom

Many clinic representatives told the caller that they deal with this situation “all the time” and that the advice they were giving her is the way they normally handle it.  Any way you cut it, we caught these people red-handed.  The tapes from our investigation prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation are running a nationwide pedophile protection racket.  To read our complete report on this issue, take your blood pressure medicine and go to ChildPredators.com.

The reality is, we have an epidemic of child sexual abuse in this country.  The most reliable studies show that among girls 15 and younger who get pregnant in the United States, 60% to 80% are impregnated by adults.  We also know that 15 to 19 year old girls have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the country and that the majority were contracted from adult men.  The evidence goes on and on but it always leads to the same conclusion.  Underage girls are being sexually abused at a rate that is unprecedented in American history.         

I would also point out that facilities which offer pregnancy tests, STD treatments, birth control and abortions are, by far, the most common places these girls are going to show up.  So while the situation in Eldorado affects only a tiny fraction of the potential child sexual abuse victims in America, Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities see them by the tens-of-thousands every year.  Yet we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting law enforcement to investigate the undeniable fact that these two organizations are openly flaunting every state’s mandatory reporting laws.  As amazing as it sounds, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, when pro-lifers bring this up to the authorities – they threaten the pro-lifers!  What we have discovered is that most law enforcement agencies in this country are simply afraid of the abortion lobby. 

The bottom line is, America’s epidemic of child sexual abuse is a national disgrace and the response of law enforcement to it is a scandal.  I challenge anyone to show me the difference between an adult who chooses to ignore the sexual abuse of children in the FLDS facility, and the law enforcement official who chooses not to enforce laws designed to protect children who end up at Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation.  Like I said, it’s a national scandal.

After the media declared John McCain the Republican nominee, two very revealing things happened.  First, Mike Huckabee gave a concession speech that was not only gracious but inspiring.  About midway through, he began to talk about the issues he considered to be the most important ones facing our country.  The first one he mentioned was protecting the right to life of the unborn.  Later in the evening, Senator McCain took to the air to acknowledge his victory.  Like Huckabee, he also gave a laundry list of what he considers the important issues of the day.  But unlike Huckabee, he never once mentioned the plight of the unborn.    

McCain’s cold indifference should serve as a reminder to the pro-life movement of why it is so abysmally foolish for us to put any faith in the Republican Party.  To begin with, the gated-community, limousine liberals who control the GOP have no interest in the abortion issue. These people are motivated by money and self-interest, and there is simply no money or self-interest in saving babies.  Over the years, their attitude toward the pro-life movement is roughly the same as it would be toward a cockroach they might step on during a 3am trip to the bathroom.

Additionally, even if they were interested in the abortion battle, they are totally unsuited for it.  Since the day this struggle began, it has never been an ivory-tower debate by people in plaid smoking jackets with elbow patches.  And it never will be.  Instead, it is the political equivalent of a brawl in a waterfront bar.  The problem is, while McCain is indeed a war hero, the Republican Party as a whole is made up of a bunch of guys whose mammas used to dress them for college.  On a fraternity dare, they might go into a waterfront bar, but when the first punch is thrown the only thing you can be certain of is that you’re about to hear the unmistakable pitter-patter of fine leather wingtips stampeding toward the door.

On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of fight their opponents relish.  It is hardly a secret that, since the 1960s, the Democrat Party has devolved into a political sanctuary for every brand of godless pervert, social misfit and moral degenerate in America.  Naturally, this is reflected in the kind of candidates they run for office.  In a political bar fight, they are completely amoral people who will lie, cheat, steal, or wallow in the filthiest cesspool if that’s what it takes to win.  In a nutshell, they are the kind of scorched-earth activists who scare the Republicans to death.   

The point is, the Democrats are almost always wrong on social issues and will fight to the death for them, while the Republicans are generally right on the issues but don’t care enough to fight.  Of course, in both cases, the results for the unborn are the same.     

If my fellow pro-lifers want to support McCain as some sort of lesser-of-evils salvage operation, so be it.  But right now, the pro-life movement needs to be real clear about one thing.  Whoever wins in November, it won’t be us.  We’ve already lost.  My suggestion is that we not wait around until after the election to acknowledge that fact.  This is not the time to put the pro-life effort on hold; it is the time to decide how we are going to proceed.  Over 3000 babies are dying every day and they can’t afford for us to be patient.  At this moment, our job is to figure out how to stop the killing without any help from the Republican Party.  The good news is, for the last 35 years we’ve been proving that we can do just that.  We just didn’t realize it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.   

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.

The South Carolina legislature is considering a bill to require that every woman seeking an abortion be shown a sonogram of her unborn baby before the abortion is performed.  Naturally, the choice mafia is fighting this legislation viciously, having long ago recognized that it’s better to keep their customers in the dark until the money is in the bank. 

One important benefit of this legislation is its ability to reduce emotional trauma in women.  Today, all across America, post-aborted women are coming forward to say how much they regret their decision to have an abortion.  In fact, there is a rapidly growing organization of these women called Silent No More Awareness.  Many of the women involved with this group say that if they had seen an ultrasound image of their baby before the abortion, they would have made a different decision.   

The abortion lobby responds by claiming that most women don't regret their abortions.  Of course, they offer no proof of this, but even if it is true it is irrelevant.  Lack of regret relates to the morality and the conscience of the person acting not to the rightness of the act.  If some pervert sexually assaults his neighbor's five-year-old daughter, whether he regrets it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is indefensible for grown men to have sex with five-year-old girls. 

Now, if we really want to see the role that regret plays in the abortion issue, I suggest we survey women who have dealt with unplanned pregnancies in their past.  Let's ask those who aborted if they now wish that they had given birth, and ask those who gave birth if they now wish they had aborted.  In fact, let's challenge the abortion lobby to start publicly identifying women who allowed their children to be born but now say they wish they had killed them through abortion.  The result will be that for every such woman they trot out, we could produce an avalanche of women who are living with debilitating guilt and regret over their abortions.    

Needless to say, abortion defenders are never going to accept this challenge, but that doesn't really matter.  My point is proven by the fact that there are literally thousands of support groups in the United States to help women overcome the emotional train wreck of abortion, but no one has found it necessary to start even one support group to help women deal with the emotional trauma of letting their children live. 

That's because there is no psychological trauma associated with not killing your child.  After more than 30 years of legalized abortion, the one thing we know for certain is that regrets about abortion are only experienced by women who have them, not by those who don't.

When women come forward to express their anguish over abortion, many reveal that they have needed years of counseling in order to deal with the guilt and regret of their decision.  In other cases, it is obvious that these women are still traumatized by their abortions and may be so for the rest of their lives.  In a breathtaking display of gall, some abortion defenders say that the pro-life movement is responsible for these emotional problems.  Their argument is that these women would be fine if it were not for us constantly harping about abortion being the murder of a baby and showing pictures of the corpses.  Apparently, these people not only prefer their customers to be in the dark before their abortions they would also like them to be kept there afterwards.  They probably figure that having a bunch of women running around the country crying about their abortions could be bad for business.    

For those abortion defenders who do not promote this “ignorance is bliss / the pro-lifers are to blame” philosophy, the normal reaction to women who say they were emotionally injured by abortion is to simply dismiss them.   Some claim these women had emotional problems before their abortions, while others assert that they developed their problems afterwards for reasons that had nothing to do with abortion.  To date, no one has explained how these people know all this.  Evidently, the rest of us are supposed to just blindly accept that the more enlightened members of our society (ie: those who are pro-choice) intuitively understand that emotional trauma following abortion is some sort of cosmic coincidence that only befalls women who were already a little loopy to begin with.

Meanwhile, the hidden irony in all this is that women who regret their abortions may actually be more mentally healthy than those who don't.  Think about it this way.  In modern America it would be all but impossible for any sane and intelligent person to be unaware of the biological fact that abortion causes the death of a child.  Given that, it is certainly reasonable to speculate that any woman who could submit to abortion and not be emotionally traumatized by the experience is either abysmally stupid, a psychopath, or someone with profound psychological problems.

This also applies to those people who have encouraged, arranged for, referred for, facilitated or forced women to have abortions.  Just because they may not express – or even feel – regret over the children they helped to execute, they are as responsible for their deaths as the women who climbed onto the tables and put their feet in the stirrups.  In fact, in some cases they are even more responsible.  The woman may have been tricked or forced; the same defense cannot be made for the enablers. 

In the final analysis, the question is whether America has degenerated into the kind of place in which adults can hire serial killers to butcher helpless children, have no remorse about it, and still claim to be both morally and mentally healthy.  If that is where we are, then ours is truly a nation without hope.  Only God knows – and only time will tell – if that is the situation.  Until then, the pro-life movement will continue to fight this holocaust with all the resolution and commitment necessary for victory. 

As for the significance of regret or lack thereof, we should remember that Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows saying he had no regrets about his role in the Nazi holocaust.  However, his cold-blooded lack of remorse did not justify the slaughter of millions who perished in Germany's death camps.  Nor will anyone's cold-blooded lack of remorse over abortion justify the slaughter that continues to claim millions in America's death camps.

Today, the American holocaust is 34-years-old and, so far, it has claimed about 50 million victims.  These children had committed no crime, they were given no trial, there was no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution.  They were simply carried into an American death camp and killed.  

It is easy to expose the incoherent logic used by the Supreme Court to justify its Roe vs. Wade decision.  We can also make a perfect case that the justices responsible for it – and those who have reaffirmed it since – were not just wrong, but willfully evil.

However, what is often overlooked about Roe vs. Wade its implied suggestion that a nation can execute millions of innocent human beings without consequence.  That assumption is a testament to the unfettered stupidity of man.  There is always a price to pay for tolerating evil. 

Think about this.  Those of us who are baby boomers didn't give America legalized abortion.  The 1973 Supreme Court was made up exclusively of people from the World War Two generation.  However, it has been baby boomers who have had the most abortions. 

Now shortly, we'll be reaching retirement age in numbers that are going to financially overwhelm the Social Security and healthcare systems.  And so the question becomes: in a nation that morally bankrupted itself by using child sacrifice to address social problems, why would any solution to the social problems created by the elderly be unthinkable? 

After all, if we believe God was serious when he said that man reaps what he sows, we cannot ignore the fact that a generation which killed one quarter of its own children because it saw them as inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive, is about to become inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive itself.

Like I said, evil always has a cost.