The foundation of the pro-life position is that, from the moment of fertilization, a new human being exists and has the same right to life as a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems plaguing the pro-life movement today is that so many of our people don't appear to actually believe that.  For me, this was reinforced at a speech I gave recently.  In the “meet and greet” session beforehand, someone came up to me and mentioned that he was a long-time pro-lifer but was working for one of the pro-choice candidates in the presidential race.  His rationale was that there are "other issues" we also need to be concerned about, issues like the economy and the war on terrorism.  He lamented that this had created a nasty and growing rift between himself and some of his fellow pro-lifers, not the least of which was his own wife.  His argument was that he was as pro-life as any of them and was being unfairly attacked despite having worked for years in the movement.   

I asked him if he truly understood what being pro-life means.  He acknowledged that it is the belief that the unborn has the same right to life as the born. So I asked him to imagine that, instead of the unborn, it was his life, or the lives of people he knew, or the lives of anonymous 5-year-olds that his candidate was saying it should be legal to snuff out.  If that were the case, would he still be saying that there are "other issues" we need to consider or does that standard only apply to the unborn?

Recognizing the trap he had set for himself, he never responded.  After making it clear that his mind had not changed, he angrily walked away.  Somehow, this man had convinced himself that helping to put a politician in office that would slaughter unborn children by the millions did not conflict with his claim to be pro-life.

I have often observed that the human brain is the only organism on earth that has the ability to deceive itself.  This guy is a living testament to that phenomenon.  The sad part is, I am seeing more and more evidence that he is not alone.  The problem seems to be that a significant number of the people in this country who claim to be pro-life are only pro-life in the theoretical sense.  As a practical matter, when economic agendas and self-interests collide with their pro-life principle, it's the pro-life principle they will abandon.

Each of us knows that there have always been internal disagreements within the pro-life movement and there always will be.  It is human nature.  Some of these conflicts have been petty and others have centered around matters of legitimate substance.  In either case, however, I think we would all like to see even those pro-lifers with whom we have differences as people of integrity and character.  But when someone says they are pro-life but could support a baby-killer for political office that person can no longer be viewed in that light.  What they have said is that, when push comes to shove, for the right 30 pieces of silver they will drop the unborn in the grease.

By definition, that makes them the same as the people they claim to oppose.  The abortion lobby is willing to butcher the unborn for personal, political and financial reasons, and the faux-lifers are willing to look the other way for personal, political and financial reasons.  It is a distinction without a difference.     

The bottom line is, for those of us who are committed to the pro-life cause, the fate of the unborn will never be merely “an” issue.  It is always “the” issue.  For that reason, a candidate's position on abortion is all we need to know and all that matters.  If a politician is wrong on that, he or she cannot be right enough on anything else to make up for it.  It also makes no difference whether or not the office being sought has any direct impact on abortion.  Those people who contend that it should be legal to execute helpless children are not morally qualified to serve in any public office.  And those who help put them there have no right to call themselves pro-life.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I recently heard an animal rights activist who called herself pro-choice on abortion say that we pro-lifers are hypocritical because we don’t show the same level of concern for dogs and cats that we do for the unborn child.  Of course, like almost every other pro-choice argument, this one is firmly rooted in mindless stupidity. 

When someone suggests that the lives of human beings and the lives of animals are morally equivalent, what they are saying is that if they ran over someone’s five-year-old child with their car it would be no bigger deal than if they had run over a squirrel.  By this standard, if a family doctor told a husband and wife that their child has an incurable and fatal disease, that would be no greater tragedy than if their vet told them their pet hamster was dying.

Clearly, this whole line of “reasoning” is nonsense. 

The reality is, having known thousands of pro-lifers, I can state with no fear of being inaccurate that the overwhelming majority do indeed care about animals.  In my own case, our family includes a cat, two dogs, two rabbits, and five fish.  We demonstrate our affection for them in many ways, not the least of which is in vet bills that often appear higher than the debt of some third-world counties.

I also feel confident that most pro-lifers probably share my opinion that people who abuse or neglect animals are cowards who deserve to spend a significant amount of their lives sitting in small, cold, dimly-lit prison cells. 

However, anyone who suggests that the lives of animals are morally equivalent to those of human beings is in need of psychiatric help.  But if these animal rights wackos honestly believe that they are, I have a legitimate question for them. 

If animals have rights in the sense that humans have rights, how do we protect those rights?  I’m not talking about protecting animals from having their rights violated by humans.  That’s relatively easy.  What I’m asking is how we protect animals from having their rights violated by other animals.  After all, most of the abuse done to animals is not committed by people but by other animals.  Moreover, it is illogical to say that we will only protect the rights of animals when those rights are being violated by humans. 

So how do we fix the long-standing problem of animal-on-animal abuse?  Should we assign police officers to patrol the nation’s fields and forests?  And what do we do when the authorities catch some furry or feathered miscreant?  For example, if a hawk has been apprehended for swooping down and eating a chipmunk, does the arresting officer have to read the hawk his Miranda rights?  And how do we make sure that the hawk understands his rights if the cop isn’t fluent in hawk?  Also, if the hawk can’t afford an attorney, do we appoint one to represent him at trial? 

Another question is whether we should create an animal DNA database so that when one mouse steals another mouse’s cheese we can identify and prosecute the right mouse.  After all, as an enlightened and civilized people, surely we would not want to incarcerate an innocent mouse.

As we contemplate these weighty matters, let’s not forget that over 3000 innocent human beings will be sent to the gallows today with no trial, no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution.  And this holocaust will be repeated tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so forth.  Meanwhile, not one animal rights organization takes a position against it. 

Now that’s hypocrisy.

14-Year-Old Given Three Abortions in Six Months!

On Monday, a New London man was indicted in the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.  Now, a police investigation has uncovered that the child was taken for abortions to the Planned Parenthood clinic Norwich in April, July and September of 2006.  

Mark Crutcher, the president of Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas, says that this is part of a nationwide pedophile protection scandal involving facilities associated with Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.    

During a two-year undercover investigation, Life Dynamics recorded over 800 calls to such facilities across America in which a female actress portrayed a 13-year-old girl pregnant by her adult boyfriend and seeking 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 percent of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it.  In fact, 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 or 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

The Planned Parenthood facility in Norwich was a target of this investigation and gave a response that perfectly matches this pattern.  Tapes of the calls made to other facilities in Connecticut show the same results.  Crutcher stated, “Our investigation proved that rapists who target underage girls have no better ally than Planned Parenthood.  If these people in Norwich had any sense of decency, or any concern for this child, they would have reported this situation to the authorities the first time they saw her.  Of course, that would have cost them the profit from the next two abortions.”


For additional information visit Childpredators.com