http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm Unique Perspectives on the Battle for Life en-us Thu, 17 May 2012 16:26:23-0500 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:00:00-0500 BlogCFC http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss mark@prolifeamerica.com mark@prolifeamerica.com http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/3/1/Abortion-and-the-Kilby-Effect On the seventh of April in 1947, a stunned nation learned that Henry Ford had died at his home in Dearborn, Michigan. As his body laid in state at Lovett Hall, throngs of ordinary people came to pay their final respects. Five thousand of them walked past his open casket every hour until officials were forced to close the doors. Outside the Hall, the lines to get in were growing longer and could not be accommodated. Two days later, thousands more came to his funeral knowing that there was little chance that they would be able to go inside the church. They came because they were willing to settle for simply being close by. The American people recognized that Henry Ford was a man of enormous and meaningful accomplishments who had touched each of their lives and changed their world forever. Then, on the twentieth of June in 2005, another elderly man passed away in Dallas. And like Mr. Ford, he too had changed the world. In 1958, he had gone to work for an obscure electronics company called Texas Instruments and what he did there made it possible for us to go to the moon in 1969 and carry cellphones in our pockets today. His name was Jack St. Clair Kilby and he invented the computer chip. By any reasonable measure, it is no exaggeration to say that Jack Kilby shaped our modern world every bit as much as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers or anyone else. Interestingly, however, his death came without causing so much as a blip on America's radar screen. Today, the average person could not imagine their lives without the legacy of Mr. Kilby, and yet I have no doubt that not one in ten thousand of them could tell you his name or what he did. So what happened between 1947 and 2005? The answer is that we stopped being a people who revered men and women of real accomplishment. Instead, we became a people who worship our court jesters  those who amuse us. The reality is that, in contemporary America, everyone who is not an actor, or a rock star, or an athlete is invisible. It's also true that the more drug-addled, self-absorbed and self-destructive these people are, the more irresistible we find them. As evidence, I submit the recent death of Whitney Houston. When this happened, the media immediately went into an "All-Whitney-all-the-time" feeding frenzy. For days, this coverage swamped every other story even on the so-called "hard news" shows. It was soon clear that all of this was going to eventually lead to her funeral being on national television. Of course, just because that phase is now behind us, we should not conclude that the spectacle is over. You can bet the family farm that additional "specials" are in production and that next year's "Anniversary Show" is already being scripted. Another example of this was seen when Princess Diana died and the entire world fell into a near-catatonic state. I am not dismissing the tragedy of how she died, but let's not overlook that this woman's primary claim to fame was that she married well. Had she not done so, it is unlikely that she would have become one of the "beautiful people" and would have probably spent her life in a world of mac & cheese, mortgages and minivans. The irony is that, just a few days after her death, Mother Teresa also passed away. Yet the response by the media and the public was breathtakingly different. As amazing as it sounds, it was not at all unusual for news of Mother Teresa's death to be told in a matter-of-fact manner as part of a follow-up story about Diana. The fundamental problem is that we have become a culture dominated by asinine priorities in which the superficial is king. With that, we come to the issue of abortion. In the last few days, there have started to be rumblings within the Republican primary campaign from people saying that candidates are spending too much time on "social issues" like abortion. Some of them are saying that such subjects should be left out altogether in favor of what they have decided are more important issues  primarily those related to the economy. Now I realize that some of the people making such statements are not Christians but, for those who are, I want to issue a warning. Scripture talks about people who choke on gnats while swallowing camels. Make no mistake, this "drop-the-social-issues" chant is a textbook example of that phenomenon. What we must never forget is that God is not going to judge America over unemployment rates, regressive tax policies, immigration laws or any of the other issues we deceive ourselves into thinking are so crucial. But if we continue to behave as if we can avoid His judgment over the slaughter of the unborn, we are presiding over the collapse of this nation. It may not be politically correct to say this, but the truth is that if we continue down this path, we have no hope left. Not only is our destruction assured, it is well deserved. Abortion, social issues, primary elections Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:00:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/3/1/Abortion-and-the-Kilby-Effect http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/8/Obamas-Newest-Shell-Game The Obamanistas are saying that the new mandate requiring all employers  including Catholic institutions  to provide free birth control insurance to every employee does not violate the religious freedom of those institutions. They claim this is so because an exemption is granted to those religious-based organizations that primarily minister to members of their own faith. According to this standard, the only way a Catholic hospital would qualify for this exemption would be to fire all of its non-Catholic employees and replace them with Catholics. The problem is, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, RELIGION, sex, or national origin. If we assume that the Obama administration is aware of the 1964 Civil Right Act, the only rational conclusion is that they intentionally designed a scheme in which any institution that attempted to qualify for their exemption would be in violation of federal law. To carry it one step further, it could be argued that the only way a Catholic hospital would ever be eligible for this exemption is if they also had an admissions policy that only accepted Catholic patients. I also suspect that even Catholic patients would have to be turned away if they were brought into the emergency room by non-Catholic ambulance drivers. All I can say it that you have to hand it to the Obamanistas. They may be thoroughly evil, but they are crafty. Abortion, Obama, Mandate, insurance Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:28:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/8/Obamas-Newest-Shell-Game http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/7/Time-to-Exhale By now, most people probably know about the Susan G.Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco. To recap, Komen announced that it would no longer give money to Planned Parenthood; the baby-killing lobby immediately went into an apoplectic rage; right on cue, the mainstream media piled on Komen with an attack so vicious it could almost make you feel sorry for them. Finally, wearing their best "deer-in-the-headlights" look, Komen's leadership rescinded the funding prohibition, rolled over onto their back and started begging Planned Parenthood not to hurt them anymore. And with that, the curtain came down. Planned Parenthood had taught Komen that when you ride on the back of a shark, trying to dismount is dangerous. After the smoke had cleared, a truly laughable moment was provided by godless-left gadfly, Anna Quindlen. She told a gathering of Planned Parenthood degenerates in Fort Worth that the lesson to be learned from this episode is that, "When you poke us women, we poke back." Given that, by this point, Komen and Planned Parenthood had already kissed and made up, this warning was clearly directed at anyone who might, in the future, be tempted to challenge Komen or Planned Parenthood  most notably, the pro-life movement. Apparently, Quindlen had convinced herself that she could rattle her little pink saber and we would all go screaming into the night and cower under our beds. But all I could think about was, "What the hell is this nitwit talking about?" I mean, this was basically a cat-fight within the pro-choice camp in which the pro-life movement was little more than a spectator. But somehow, these people are strutting around like it was us who ended up groveling at the feet of Planned Parenthood. The reality is, from the perspective of the pro-life movement, everything ended up at the same place it started. In the beginning, an organization comprised of morally bankrupt pro-aborts was giving money to the country's number one abortion profiteer. In the end, that was still the case. However, even though the journey ended where it started, that doesn't mean nothing good was accomplished along the way. It was. First, the aura of credibility and prestige that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had cultivated was finally exposed as a fraud. They have long been tied to the abortion lobby and, now, everyone knows it. Second, the stench of being associated with abortion was reinforced one more time. Once again, the public saw that abortion is a 220-volt wire that even its most ardent advocates do not want to touch. Third, for this thing to unravel in just three days is a testament to Komen's pathetically weak leadership. Furthermore, it is now going to give an untold amount of its donor's money to a New York public relations agency in an attempt to repair the damage. Fourth, the public saw Planned Parenthood turn on one of its own donors like a pack of rabid hyenas. It was a savage and low-class response that is completely within the character of Planned Parenthood. Hopefully, that fact won't be lost on potential donors in the future. Fifth, the media's shameless bias and incompetence was again put on public display. When Komen said that they were discontinuing their funding to Planned Parenthood, the media instantly portrayed it as a result of pressure brought by "anti-abortion bullies and terrorists." They did this despite there being no evidence to support this assertion and despite Komen's assurances that it was not true. It should also be noted that, when Komen flopped, none of these people attributed it to bullying or terrorism by Planned Parenthood fanatics. Now, in an effort to justify Komen's decision to restore Planned Parenthood funding, its defenders are resorting to some of their stale old arguments. For example, they are saying that Planned Parenthood is the only source of healthcare for many poor women. This ignores the fact that every dollar given to Planned Parenthood can be just as easily given to a legitimate healthcare provider. It is a scandal and an obscenity that we relegate the poor to getting their healthcare from abortionists. Be assured that, among the wealthy, the political power structure, the media elite, and all the others who are so quick to tout Planned Parenthood's virtues for the poor, none of them would be caught dead getting their own healthcare from these people. Another tactic Komen defenders are using is to claim that the money it gives to Planned Parenthood does not promote or pay for abortions. This is nonsense. Once a dollar is put into an organization's account, it is indistinguishable from any other dollar put into the account. It's like pouring water from several sources into a bucket. Once it's poured in, there is no way to restrict which water can be taken out and used for a particular purpose. The fact is, as long as Planned Parenthood is doing abortions, it cannot be honestly stated that money given to them is insulated from abortion. Komen's people are also defending their actions by contending that abortion is only a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. There are, of course, several flaws with this claim  not the least of which is the fact that it is a lie. Simply analyze Planned Parenthood's own financial data and it becomes clear that abortion is, in fact, a major part of their business. It should also be noted that the pro-life movement has never claimed that killing babies is all that Planned Parenthood does. We have merely pointed out that they kill more babies than any one else. And that is undeniable. But even if it were true that abortion is only a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, it's irrelevant. It's no different than some apologist for Adolph Hitler saying that killing Jews was only a small part of what the Nazis did, or someone defending the Klan by claiming that lynching was only a small part of what they did. Or imagine some guy convicted for bank robbery whining that his trial was unfair because he wasn't given credit for all the banks he didn't rob. Another excuse offered by Komen's defenders is that many of Planned Parenthood's facilities don't even do abortions. And once more, this is completely irrelevant. The fact is, there is not one Planned Parenthood facility in America that does not either do abortions or refer for abortions. And whether the people associated with the Susan G. Komen Foundation or Planned Parenthood want to own up to it or not, the blood of any child snuffed out by abortion is on the hands of every person who played a role in making that abortion happen. To put it bluntly, they don't have to actually hold the knife in order to be responsible for the killing. Komen, Planned Parenthood, abortion Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:59:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/2/7/Time-to-Exhale http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/1/2/All-That-Glitters Some time ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), began allowing the "Morning-After Pill" (MAP) to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription. At the time, I pointed out that this was a tremendous victory for perverts who prey on underage girls for sex. After all, these guys understand that pregnant 13-year-olds can result in a couple of men with badges, guns and no sense of humor walking up their sidewalk. But thanks to the Obama administration, that little problem can be headed-off with a quick trip to the neighborhood drug store. One little pill and the child is cleaned-out and back in service. Of course, the most important thing is that those pesky cops aren't knocking on the front door. Then in December, HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, announced that MAP sales would not be permitted to children under seventeen. The next day, Barack Obama leaped on board telling the media that he fully supported her decision. Meanwhile, some pro-life and pro-family groups even joined the chorus characterizing Sebelious' action as a crucial first-step in protecting young girls. This is unadulterated nonsense. Let's get one thing perfectly straight. The problem never was that over-the-counter MAP sales allows statutory rape victims to buy these pills anonymously. The problem was that over-the-counter MAP sales allows statutory rape perpetrators to buy them anonymously. And that is still the case. For years, the American abortion and contraception cartel has been operating a pedophile protection racket and this decision does not alter that in any way. Moreover, Obama and Sebelius are fully aware of this and are simply grandstanding for the nation's Catholic bishops. In fact, even some Democrat Party operatives are conceding this point. Remember, in order to be re-elected, Obama has to receive a significant percentage of the Catholic vote. Working against that is a growing awareness among Catholics that ObamaCare is going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, take away the "conscious clauses" that protect Catholic healthcare workers and require Catholic pharmacists to fill birth-control prescriptions. It is also pretty clear that these are things that, contrary to their public pronouncements, the Obamanistas are not willing to give up. They understand that when medical professionals have the option to either participate in abortion or not, they choose the latter. This means that the only long-term hope the abortion industry has for survival is in forced abortion provision. That is the driving force behind the sudden decision to limit MAP sales. It is a no-expense / low-risk way to sand away the rough edges of issues that are irritating a crucial group of voters. The cold reality is, the Over-the-Counter-Morning-After-Pill controversy was yesterday's wound and, if this were not an election year, Obama and Sebilious would not have picked the scab off of it. abortion, ObamaCare, Catholic voters Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:02:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2012/1/2/All-That-Glitters http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/11/6/Herman-Cain-Meet-Samuel-Yette In January of this year, an African-American man living out his life in a Maryland nursing home succumbed to Alzheimer's disease. Because he was not a sports hero or a member of America's brain-dead entertainment industry, the nation barely noted either his life or his passing. His name was Samuel Frederick Yette. Born into the segregated South in 1929, Mr. Yette earned a bachelor's degree from Tennessee State University and a master's from Indiana University. Then, following his U.S. Air Force service in the Korean War, he became an award-winning journalist who worked for several newspapers and magazines. In 1964, he was appointed Executive Secretary of the Peace Corp after which he became Special Assistant for Civil Rights to the Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. He later became a civil-rights commentator for both BET and PBS and he finished his working life as a lecturer and a professor at Howard University. Among Yette's many other achievements, in 1968, he had become the first African-American reporter hired by Newsweek magazine where he soon rose to the position of Washington D.C. Bureau Correspondent. But three years later, he wrote a book that exposed high-level plans within the United States to use birth control and abortion as instruments of Black genocide. Yette's book was called The Choice and, immediately after it was published, he was summoned to his supervisor's office and fired. During that meeting, he was told that his termination was caused by pressure from the Nixon White House to get him out of Washington. Next, despite the fact that his book was selling well, had won at least two national awards and was being used as a textbook in colleges across the country, Yette's publisher mysteriously dropped him and took the book off the market. It is important to understand that, by this point in history, population control  especially Black population control  had become a virtual religion for America's power structure. And that remains true to this day. Whether it's liberal social engineers, or wealthy elitists, or the media establishment, or the academic community, these people have created a "Population-Control / Family-Planning Cartel" that does not tolerate dissent. If you cross them, or if you appear to be a threat to their agenda, they will chop you off at the knees. It is also true that they have been especially ruthless about this when it comes to African-Americans. Early on, the leaders of the eugenics movement had figured out that it was best for them to keep their racial intentions hidden. They also understood that it would be hard to pull this off if a lot of "uppity" Black opinion molders started challenging their actions and questioning their motives. That knowledge drove the assault on Samuel Yette. The Cartel  of which Richard Nixon was a card-carrying member  was sending a message to civil-rights activists, politicians, journalists, writers, college professors or anyone else who might have influence within the Black community. They were being warned that, when it came to population control, they only had two options; they could either get on the plantation or they could keep their mouths shut. Yette described the situation perfectly in January of 1972 when he told a reporter for Jet Magazine, "I do not mean to be pejorative or vindictive, when I say this, but had I been a nigger instead of Black, a spy instead of a reporter, a tool instead of a man, I could have stayed at Newsweek indefinitely." Samuel Yette may have told the Cartel where to shove their options but, regrettably, time would show that most influential Blacks did not have his kind of courage. Thus, they chose between the two options offered to them. In just one example of this, the politically ambitious Jesse Jackson instantly went from describing abortion as "genocide" and calling for a constitutional amendment to ban it, to being one of its most shameless apologists. In Jackson's world, the word "genocide" had morphed into the word "choice" virtually overnight. He, and others like him, were creating a model for how to suck-up to America's power-elite. It is a model that is still in use as you read this. Now comes Republican presidential candidate, Herman Cain. In the last few weeks, Cain began pointing out that the Cartel is still alive and well in the form of organizations like Planned Parenthood. He also reminded the public that this particular organization was founded as an instrument of eugenics while being politically and financially backed by ultra-wealthy racists and eugenicists. He then correctly pointed out that Planned Parenthood, as well as other eugenics organizations, have disproportionately placed their facilities in minority communities with results that have been both disastrous and predictable. Finally, he called for Planned Parenthood to be stripped of its one-million-dollars-a-day in taxpayer funding. (You heard correctly ... $1,000,000.00 a day.) The fascinating thing is that, within hours, anonymous people started dropping out of the trees to claim that Herman Cain sexually harassed them. As we have seen in the past, this is a very convenient charge because it is one that is virtually impossible to refute. In the minds of many, the mere accusation itself is evidence of guilt and, once the allegation is made, the target has to prove a negative which, for all practical purposes, cannot be done. This is especially problematic for Republicans since the standard for using it against them is different than it is for Democrats. For whatever reason, it appears that our society has reached a point where it simply accepts that Democrat politicians will have significantly lower moral standards than Republican politicians. The perfect example of this is, of course, Bill Clinton. I mean, here is a man that even the most ardent Democrats would not leave alone in a room with their 15-year-old daughter, but they would enthusiastically elect him President of the United States. Back to the Cain situation, let me make it clear that I have no personal knowledge of whether the allegations against him are legitimate or not. On one hand, there are men who sexually harass women and, on the other hand, there are women who fabricate such charges. In the end, it seems that only the accusers and the accused ever really know the truth. So while I have no way of drawing conclusions regarding the merit of these accusations, their timing is undeniably suspicious. From the beginning, it seemed too coincidental to actually be coincidental that Cain's attack on the Population-Control / Family-Planning Cartel was immediately followed by sexual harassment charges against him. I may be baying at the moon here, but the whole episode gives off a very Nixonian odor. Perhaps Herman Cain is being warned to either take one of the Cartel's options or suffer the fate of Samuel Yette. Whether that is the case or not, the reality is that if Herman Cain was "pro-choice" on abortion and the leading candidate in the Republican race for the White House, there would be no sexual harassment accusations hanging over his head and it wouldn't matter how true or untrue they may be. If you doubt that, again I refer to Bill Clinton. When far more serious and far more numerous allegations were made against him, including some that would have been felonies if prosecuted, the leaders of America's eugenics and population-control groups tied themselves in knots trying to defend him. Many even publicly admitted that the reason they were willing to look the other way was because of Clinton's unwavering support for abortion. In an article written about this situation by feminist gadfly, Gloria Steinam, it was even suggested that Slick Willy was to be admired because it appeared that, when he went after a woman, he backed down if she rejected him. His willingness to accept "No" for an answer was, according to her, proof that he was the kind of man feminists want all men to become. In short, every man gets one free grope. Of course, to no one's surprise, this newly embraced "boys-will-be-boys" attitude even extended to the media. Former Time magazine reporter, Nina Burleigh, wrote an article heaping praise on Clinton in which she volunteered that, "I'd be happy to give him a b*** j** [street term for oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Others made similarly charming statements. The message in all this was unmistakable and unambiguous. The population-control lobby has come to just accept that, by definition, pro-choice men are going to be of lower moral character than other men and should not be expected to meet the same standards of behavior. And sure 'nuff, they never are. I want to offer one last observation for Mr. Cain and all those others who might one day find themselves being ground under the Cartel's hobnailed boot. Samuel Yette left this world as a decent and courageous man and that is a feeling sell-outs like Jesse Jackson will never experience. The interesting thing is that Shakespeare defined the lives of these two men centuries before either of them was born: "Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once." Herman Cain, Samuel Yette, genocide, abortion Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:12:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/11/6/Herman-Cain-Meet-Samuel-Yette http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/7/Setting-the-Record-Straight Contrary to what some of his supporters contend, not everyone who criticizes Barack Obama is a racist. The fact is, unless these Obama apologists are complete morons, they know that this is nonsense  even while they are in the midst of making the charge. It's a shabby little game in which the "race card" is deployed as a way to cut off any criticism of Obama. There is a parallel phenomenon in the Christian community and, in recent days, I have seen it first hand as a result of my defense of Father Pavone. Because I have helped to expose the contemptible actions taken against him by his bishop, the "anti-Catholic" card is now being played against me. Let me be perfectly clear about this. While the people doing this are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, they are not entitled to their own facts. Here is just a tiny part of what they are conveniently leaving out of the equation. Since I started Life Dynamics, well over half my employees have been Catholic, including three of my personal assistants. The attorney who represents us is Catholic. The majority of our donors are Catholic, and the only person I have ever given authority to make major decisions for Life Dynamics other than me is Catholic. In addition to Priests for Life, I also work hand in hand with groups like Human Life International (HLI), American Life League, Pro-Life Action League and numerous other Catholic organizations. I was very close to HLI founder, Father Paul Marx, and remained in regular contact with him until his death. It may also surprise some to know that Father Marx was a faithful and long-time donor to Life Dynamics. In 2002, I received the first annual Cardinal Von Galen Award from HLI and, in 2004, I was given the Cardinal O'Connor Pro-Life Hall of Fame Award by Legatus. I was also given the 2009 Blogger of the Year award by American Life League. Moreover, I have consistently made it clear that the Catholic Church and its associated organizations were on the frontlines of the pro-life battle when the vast majority of my fellow Southern Baptists were perfectly comfortable looking the other way. I have also shown no reluctance to publicly defend the Catholic Church or state that, without its commitment to this cause, there would have never even been a pro-life movement. I could go much further down this track, but the point is that these efforts to portray me as "anti-Catholic" are absurd and despicable. The people doing this are motivated by the fact that I do not ascribe to the view that the Catholic hierarchy, or any other church's hierarchy, is to be installed upon a pedestal and given authority that is absolute and beyond scrutiny. In their minds, that makes me "anti-Catholic" in the same way that criticizing Obama's stimulus plan makes someone a racist in the minds of some hardcore Obamanistas. In fairness, it should be noted that self-pious bigotry is not a disease that only infects Catholics. Over the years, many non-Catholics have felt the need to call my office and warn me that if I continue to associate with Catholics  or as they describe them, "that cult of cloven-hoofed heretics"  I will eventually find myself with a window seat on the Hell Bound Express. Regrettably, a couple of these nitwits have checked in with me in the last couple of days. It seems they are quite amused that a bunch of Catholics would like to see me rotating over a low flame because of my aggressive defense of a Catholic priest. The irony about this is that none of these people would now be attacking me if I had simply abandoned Father Frank when Bishop Zurek dropped him in the grease. Of course, it may not be ironic at all. It could be that it reflects the simple reality that these people are just opposite sides of the same coin  though both would become enraged at such a suggestion. Before closing, I want to bring up a couple of other issues. First, notice how quiet the pro-choice mob is being. Obviously, these people understand the concept that when your enemy is in self-destruct mode, the smartest thing to do is keep your mouth shut. My prediction is that, once all of this is resolved, they will have plenty to say. Second, I can assure you that if the things that are going on behind the scenes of this regrettable situation are ever made public, the people who are now blindly defending Bishop Zurek are going to be stunned at what they learn. I can also assure you that these revelations will not be coming from me. Finally, I want to make you aware of an interesting phone call I received yesterday. It was from Dr. Levon Yuille who is an African-American pastor in Michigan and unwavering defender of the unborn. He told me that, a couple of years ago, he was giving a speech at a pro-life banquet and that, afterward, he was milling around chatting with a small group of attendees. He said that he can't remember why but, for some reason, Father Frank's name came up. At some point in the conversation, he said this well-dressed woman standing nearby suddenly blurted out that, "Father Pavone is getting too big for his britches and we're going to take him down." Dr. Yuille said he found this incident bizarre but that he had forgotten about it until he heard what Bishop Zurek was doing. After some discussion, we both concluded that it is a long shot to assume that her statement and this situation are related. But who knows? Fr. Frank Pavone, Bishop Zurek Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:36:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/7/Setting-the-Record-Straight http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/3/Who-Do-You-Trust Recently, the Ohio legislature was debating a piece of abortion legislation when State Representative, Connie Pillich became unhinged and began shrieking that attempts to restrict abortion indicate that we don't trust women. First off, this seems to be an odd assertion given that most of the people in the pro-life movement are women and, yes, that includes most of its leaders. Apparently, Ms. Pillich is hoping that the public is simple-minded enough to just accept at face value her charge that a predominately female entity does not trust women and seeks to squash them underfoot. Beyond that, however, saying we shouldn't have laws against abortion and should, instead, trust women to make their own decisions, is no different than saying we shouldn't have laws against rape because men should be trusted to make their own decisions. It's also no different than opposing laws against armed robbery on the basis that we should just trust each person to make his or her own decisions about whether stealing is right or wrong. In fact, this philosophy can be just as easily applied to any subject. As for this particular issue, the abortion lobby's basic argument is that since women are the ones who get pregnant, they are the only ones qualified to make the decisions that are right for them. Using that concept, imagine the following hypothetical, but quite realistic, scenario. A pregnant woman has an abortion scheduled for tomorrow, but goes into premature labor today and gives birth. Also imagine that the baby survives. (And yes, abortions are done on babies who have reached the point of viability. For proof, all you have to do is check out abortion clinic advertising in the Yellow Pages.) The question is: under these circumstances, should it be legal for her to kill that baby? Remember, she already decided that she doesn't want it and arrangements were in place to have it killed the next day anyway. So why should she lose her "right to choose" because of circumstances that were beyond her control? Is she not still the one best qualified to make the decisions that are right for her? Otherwise, what we're saying is that we trust women to make good decisions while they're pregnant, but at the moment they're no longer pregnant we no longer trust them. It should also be pointed out that, from the baby's perspective, there is no distinction between being butchered inside the womb or outside. Naturally, the mental images created by the latter might cause the rest of us to feel a little queasy, but we could comfort ourselves by just looking the other way and referring to it by some high-sounding sanitized term like "reproductive choice ex-utero." Since Roe vs. Wade, our society has developed a real talent for inventing that sort of self-deluding rhetoric. So again, do we still trust this woman to make the right decision or not? Look, the cold hard reality is that every statute enacted denies someone the legal ability to make certain decisions. In fact, that is what they are intended to do. The law is a response to the realization that all human beings--men and women--are capable of making decisions that are dangerous, immoral, destructive, etcetera. And the law exists to keep those decisions from being inflicted upon other innocent human beings. Now, to Ms. Pillich and her fellow travelers who are out there chanting this mindless "we trust women" mantra, I have a challenge for you. If you do indeed trust women, prove it. Start promoting an overhaul of the American legal system so that it exempts women from all legislation. By doing this, you would be making sure that women have the legal right to make their own decisions about everything  driving drunk, embezzling money from their employers, writing bad checks, using cocaine or selling their bodies in prostitution. Female business owners would even be allowed to decide for themselves whether to discriminate against minorities. The list goes on and on, but the common element is that every law enforceable against women is, by definition, a statement that we don't trust them. Clearly, that makes such laws irreconcilable with your philosophy and demands that they be eliminated. If you are "pro-choice," you simply cannot tolerate the fact that women are being denied these choices. Either you trust women or you don't. Of course, we both know that you are not going to accept my challenge and we both know why. You know that doing so would expose your "trust women" rhetoric as pure undiluted nonsense. To put it succinctly, this line of argument is nothing more than a diversionary scam you people dreamed up to keep from having to defend a barbaric practice that you know cannot be defended. As for my fellow pro-lifers, it is important to understand that when your enemies are reduced to making idiotic and irrational arguments like this, what they are telling you is that you are winning and they are out of ideas. Today, death merchants like Connie Pillich are seeing a tidal wave of pro-life sentiment rolling across America and they know there is nothing they can do to hold it back. So be encouraged, ratchet up the pressure, and savor the beautiful sounds of pro-aborts squealing like pigs stuck under a fence. Abortion, trust women, St. Rep. Pillich Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:11:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/3/Who-Do-You-Trust http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/1/Free-Father-Frank As many of you probably know, our friend Father Pavone has been literally exiled by his bishop and barred from doing the pro-life work God clearly put him here to do. Moreover, the justifications being given for this are devoid of even the slightest merit. What is being done to Father Frank is both unprincipled and indefensible, but the much larger problem is what this is doing to the cause you and I serve. With every day that Father Frank is kept off the battlefield, the pro-life effort suffers a major setback. Not only do we lose his indispensable contributions, but those of us who are his friends are forced to use up resources in his defense that would be better directed at the abortion lobby. The fact is, this petty nonsense is taking the lives of unborn children and it has to stop ... NOW! We must all be willing to give this bishop the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not acting out of malice but, instead, simply doesn't understand the irreparable harm he is doing. In that spirit, I am asking you to contact him today and ask him to correct this injustice. Be respectful but resolute. Make it clear that there is no defense for what is being done here and that Father Frank should be immediately freed to return to his calling. Contact: Most Reverend Patrick J. Zurek Roman Catholic Diocese of Amarillo Post Office Box 5644 Amarillo, Texas 79117 Phone: 806-383-2243 Email: pzurek@dioama.org Fr. Frank Pavone, Bishop Zurek, Priests for Life Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:41:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/10/1/Free-Father-Frank http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/9/6/Apparently-Seeing-Aint-Believing Harry Blackmun once stated that the death penalty cheapens the country's respect for human life. You may remember him as the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand and launching the American holocaust. In a pathetic attempt to rationalize this decision, Blackmun contended that, while the unborn may indeed be human, they are not persons and are therefore not entitled to have their lives protected by the law. He did this despite the fact there is not one word in the English language for a human being who is not a person. In fairness, it must be pointed out that Blackmun did not invent this "human-but-not-persons" concept; he simply ripped it off the 1857 Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision authorizing slavery. In that case, it was decided that blacks had roughly the same rights as mules since they are "human-but-not-citizens." In any event, Blackmun's personal crime against humanity has, so far, snuffed-out the lives of more than 50 million helpless children. But for the time being, I want you to set aside that breathtaking thought and consider a specific comparison between abortion and capital punishment. In a death penalty case, the legal requirement is that a state cannot execute someone if a jury determines that there is any reasonable doubt of their guilt. In addition to that, the defendant is assumed innocent and doesn't have to create this reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies solely with the state. But Blackmun's argument was that we should take an opposite approach when it comes to executing the unborn. And ever since then, the pro-choice lobby has relied on this "no-one-knows-when-life-begins" lie as a rationalization for their baby-killing enterprise. The point is, if we were to apply the same logic to capital punishment that America's death merchants apply to abortion, our position would be that when a man is charged with a crime, the state has no obligation to prove that he is guilty, it is his responsibility to prove he is innocent. So at the end of a trial, a judge could say to the defendant, "Since the court has been unable to determine whether you did or did not commit the crime, we're just going to go ahead and execute you." As outrageous as this sounds, it is exactly what the pro-choice lobby is saying every time they defend abortion by claiming that there is some question about whether the unborn is or is not a living human being. Of course, the fact is that modern science settled that question when it gave us the first sonogram images of life in the womb. At that moment, the humanity of the unborn could no longer be called a theory; it had become an observable fact. The only problem is, gaining that knowledge didn't change our behavior. And so every 24 hours, this Christian nation of ours casually tosses another 3000 or so corpses onto the pile. In 1770, John Adams wrote that, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Apparently, what Blackmun understood and Adams didn't, is that facts may indeed be stubborn things, but they are also things that can be ignored. Death penalty, abortion, Dred Scott, sonogram Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:34:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/9/6/Apparently-Seeing-Aint-Believing http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/8/2/Stay-on-Message We've all been there. You say something to someone who reacts in a way that was completely unexpected and, perhaps, even hostile. Then a discussion follows during which it becomes clear that the recipient's perception of what you said was different than what you intended to say and thought you had said. In fact, you may be truly mystified as to how someone could hear the words you spoke and so thoroughly misconstrue them. This is an exasperating aspect of human communication that each of us will likely encounter many times over the course of our lives. It is also something that infects socio-political movements. In the battle against abortion, we often see it in pro-life people who unknowingly use rhetoric that actually reinforces pro-abortion positions. There is no shortage of examples of this but I will only deal with three of them here. First, when we devote an inordinate amount of attention to the horrific and indefensible nature of late term abortion, we risk implying that earlier abortions are less horrific and, thus, more defensible. This has the potential to make it appear that we agree with the pro-choice mob that human beings can be valued differently based on age, development and size. At that point, the only functional difference between the pro-life movement and the abortion lobby is where this arbitrary line gets drawn. This is not to say that we should not hold the abortion lobby's feet to the fire over their slaughtering of late-term babies. In doing so, however, we must always make it clear that there is no moral distinction between killing an unborn child at six-weeks after fertilization, or 24-weeks, or any other point. Never forget that the core principle under-girding the pro-life effort is that, at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is created that immediately has the same right to life as a five-year-old. If we expect to be taken seriously, we must never say anything that could be interpreted as being inconsistent with that position. A second example of how we fall into this trap is by arguing that we may have aborted the next Beethoven, or Mother Teresa, or the doctor who would have discovered a cure for cancer. While many pro-lifers find this to be a seductive argument, what they are overlooking is that it is basically a defense for eugenics. After all, it suggests that it is a bigger tragedy to kill Baby A than Baby B if Baby A is destined to be more talented, or more productive, or make a greater contribution to society. Again, that is not a pro-life position. Remember, the right-to-life is not earned; it is inherent. That simple and unassailable fact eradicates any moral distinction between killing the unborn child who might grow up to cure cancer and killing an unborn child who might spend his life on welfare and living under bridges. Another way we support our enemy's position is in the language we use to talk about teen pregnancy. For years, one of the abortion lobby's favorite sales pitches has been that when a teenage girl has a baby, any chance she had for a meaningful life is over. To hear them tell the story, she is doomed to be perpetually single, destitute, uneducated and on welfare. The problem is, many pro-life people tend to characterize this issue in the same foreboding manner. What's getting lost in all of this is that 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 situations where their chances for what our materialistic society considers to be a successful life are limited  whether they have babies or not. For these girls, their options are determined more by their environment than by their babies. Now, let me make it clear that I'm not saying it's a good idea for unmarried teenage girls to be getting pregnant. What I am saying, however, is that when they do get pregnant it is not the end of the world. In fact, when an unmarried girl or woman is pregnant, the real problem is that, from a Christian perspective, she and her partner were engaged in a sinful sexual relationship. But in our modern Christian-averse culture, we dismiss that and, instead, zero in on the pregnancy. In other words, sin isn't the problem; the baby is the problem. This is a rationalization for abortion that the abortion lobby wants the public to hear and, regrettably, we often play along with it. There are many other examples of counterproductive pro-life rhetoric, but in each case they point out the need for us to always keep one crucial warning in mind. Simply put, whenever we fire off a pro-life argument, let's try to make sure that we're not aiming at our own foot. abortion, communication, teen pregnancy Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:11:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/8/2/Stay-on-Message http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/7/1/Someone-Please-Pass-the-Logic A reporter in New York recently published an article about the fact that 56 percent of the abortions done in the state are on women who have already had at least one prior abortion. In researching the article, she claimed to have even found a 40-year-old woman who admitted that she has had 15 abortions. Revelations about repeat abortions are becoming more and more common and they are forcing abortion apologists into "damage control" mode. After all, they have always claimed that abortion is not being used as birth control and is, instead, always used "responsibly" and only in the "rarest of difficult circumstances." First off, let's make it clear that these people are about as troubled by repeat abortions as General Motors is troubled by repeat car buyers. In reality, the only concern the abortion lobby has about this issue is how it affects their public relations. They understand that there are a lot of people in the country who might have some degree of sympathy for women who end up with unplanned pregnancies and are, in their minds, just seeking a one-time fix. However, for a lot of these people, that sympathy evaporates when repeat abortions make it clear that this is less about bailing people out of a one-time mistake than it is about supporting an ongoing pattern of immoral or irresponsible behavior. Because of this, abortion apologists know that for them to even give the appearance of defending repeat abortions would expose their "responsible abortions" lie and become a public relations nightmare. So, their strategy is to create the illusion that even they don't approve of women having multiple abortions. However, this forces them to take a position that is demonstrably illogical. Here's the problem. Imagine five women sitting in an abortion clinic waiting room each of whom is about to have her first abortion. Meanwhile, across the room, another woman is there to have her fifth abortion. Now, according to the abortion lobby's newly concocted damage control scheme, what the five women are doing is okay but the sixth woman's behavior is unacceptable. Apparently, we're supposed to just gloss-over the fact that, in both cases, the same number of abortions will have taken place. The new paradigm is to be that it is okay for five women to kill five children but wrong for one woman to kill five children. Obviously, this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It's the sort of trap that amoral people inevitably get themselves into whenever they attempt to feign a moral position. The fact is, abortion is either right or it's not and how often it happens has no bearing on that issue. Further, it is naked hypocrisy for these people to define abortion as a constitutional right that protects women and then throw women under the bus for exercising that right  even if they do so repeatedly. It's like defending the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion while simultaneously saying that people who go to church every Sunday are doing something shameful. Now, for those of you in the pro-choice mob who think I'm off base here, I have a very simple challenge for you. You have always said that elective abortion is not the intentional murder of an innocent child. You also claim that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. If those things are true, explain to us why it is unacceptable for a woman to have 10 or 20 or even a hundred abortions. Just search your tortured little minds and tell us the rationale behind this argument that one abortion is right but 15 abortions is wrong. And while you're at it, tell us when this moral metamorphosis takes place. Is it at two abortions, or three, or five, or... abortion hypocracy, birth control Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:03:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/7/1/Someone-Please-Pass-the-Logic http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/6/3/Is-the-Gravy-Train-Derailing Currently, Planned Parenthood gorges at the public trough to the tune of about one million dollars a day in federal funding. On top of that is the untold amount of money it extorts from state and local governments. We also know that a significant amount of this money is used to fund activities that are illegal, not the least of which is the nationwide pedophile protection ring being run out of clinics associated with both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. Pouring tax dollars into this corrupt organization is a scandal that has been going on for decades. But now, legislators all across the country are looking at the possibility of taking this money away. In response, Planned Parenthood, working in concert with its legion of toadies in the media, is squealing like pigs stuck under a fence. As we see every time this issue comes up, the very people who shriek the loudest that abortion is none of the public's business, are always the first ones to demand that the public be forced to pay for them. Beyond that breathtaking example of hypocrisy, they are also trying to sell the idea that the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood is part of some "War on Women" being conducted by the pro-life movement. Apparently, they are counting on the American people being simple-minded enough to blindly accept that a socio-political movement  mostly comprised of women and, yes, mostly led by women  devised a plot to rain death and destruction down on the female population. Now, so far, the only explanation they've come up with for why we would do such a thing is that we are holding the lives of poverty stricken women hostage to our political agenda. They say that abortion is only three percent of what they do and that, rather than compromise in this one insignificant area, we are willing to let these women go without the other services Planned Parenthood claims to offer. In reality, however, Planned Parenthood is the only one taking hostages. Remember, these people can save their taxpayer funding at any time they choose to do so by simply agreeing to no longer be associated with abortion. But instead, their position is that they would rather shutter their facilities and let their customers go without healthcare than give up the abortion business. The fact is, baby-butchering is far more than three percent of their business and they know it. This "three-percent argument" is simply confirmation of the old axiom that figures don't lie but liars do figure. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's concede the point and stipulate that abortion really is just a small part of what they do. The question is, so what? It's like saying that lynching is only a small part of what the Klan does or that contract killings are less than three percent of what the Mafia does. Does that make lynching and contract-killing irrelevant and does it upgrade the image of these two organizations? Or imagine that some deranged serial killer is able to prove in court that he devotes less than 20 hours a month stalking and dismembering his victims. Since that's less than three percent of his time, do we apologize to this guy for inconveniencing him, cut him a government check and send him down the road? If not, then why would we give credibility to that same loony reasoning just because Planned Parenthood is the one using it? Returning to the real world, whenever this subject comes up there are two things we need to be pointing out. First, contrary to what Planned Parenthood would like us all to believe, they are not indispensable. The fact is, any taxpayer funding taken away from them would then be available to fund legitimate healthcare providers. Second, among the legislators who are so quick to fund Planned Parenthood and tout its virtues for the poor, not one of them would be caught dead getting their own healthcare from these people. abortion funding, Planned Parenthood, gravy-train Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:43:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/6/3/Is-the-Gravy-Train-Derailing http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/5/2/A-Difference-Without-a-Distinction I recently heard a guest on a political talk-show trying to defend taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood by saying that we should worry less about abortion and concentrate on helping people who are "already here." For those of us in the pro-life movement, it's an argument we've heard regurgitated a million times before. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's complete nonsense. The biological reality is that the unborn are already here. If that's not the case, I guess the unborn child that appears on a sonogram screen is just a hallucination. Or maybe the womb is some sort of alternative reality/parallel universe that we can look inside of and see these mysterious humanoids moving around who aren't actually there. You know, when you hear the loopy arguments the abortion lobby routinely trots out, you really have to wonder how many psychotropic drugs these people are taking. Later in this talk-show, this same guy became outraged when a caller referred to him as "pro-abortion." He instantly shot back that he was not pro-abortion but pro-choice and that the two are not the same. Once again, this is an argument we hear daily. The interesting thing is, when people advocate other causes, you don't hear them desperately trying to distance themselves from the activity under discussion. People who support capital punishment don't bristle at being called pro-death penalty. People who work for the protection of animals don't become infuriated if you refer to them as pro-animal. Those who support the Second Amendment don't attack you for calling them pro-gun, and the list goes on and on. The only exception to this is people who support abortion. On one hand they will viciously defend its legality while, on the other hand, doing everything humanly possible to deny any association with it. The message in this is clear. Simply put, even these people realize that abortion is indefensible. But beyond that, here's the issue I want to raise. Today, about 3500 American babies are going to have their legs torn off, their arms ripped out of the sockets, their chests crushed and their skulls split open. And when the day is over, most of their corpses will either be ground up in garbage disposals and flushed down the sewer system or tossed into dumpsters to be eaten by rats. Then tomorrow, another 3500 victims will be teed up, and the day after that another 3500, and the day after that another 3500, and so on. What I want to know is this: for those defenseless babies, what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice? abortion, political talk-show, language Mon, 02 May 2011 15:06:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/5/2/A-Difference-Without-a-Distinction http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/4/11/What-Just-Happened Among the many strange creatures found in Australia is one called the Frilled-Necked Lizard. When threatened, he has this umbrella-like structure around his neck which he splays out in an effort to look larger. Then, as his skin grows darker in color, he opens his mouth widely and emits a loud hissing sound while rocking back and forth on his hind legs. It's a pretty spectacular site and it does make him appear reasonably menacing. The problem is, it's only a show. To put it bluntly, this guy is not exactly the terror of the Outback. His diet consists mainly of beetles, ants, termites, butterflies and moths. He is also known to be an extremely fast runner whenever his little act fails to impress a potential foe. The fact is, despite appearances, this Aussie lizard is more of a song-and-dance-man than a warrior. That is why I have always felt that he would be the perfect symbol of the Republican Party. After all, the current symbol  the elephant  is a noble animal that will take on a lion if need be. However, no one can remotely make such a claim about the GOP. During the recently completed budget battle, the Republicans behaved in a way that reinforced their reptilian tendencies. In the last few weeks, they had strutted around telling the world that they would shut down the government before agreeing to continue funding for Planned Parenthood. At the same time, the Democrats made it clear that they would shut down the government before giving up Planned Parenthood's funding. What we now know is that one side was lying. And late on Friday night, they ate a moth. What happened was simple and transparent. As many of us suspected, the Republicans had been using the Planned Parenthood funding issue as a bargaining chip all along. When the negotiations entered their final hour, GOP leaders figured that they had squeezed all they could out of the Dems and the only thing left to do was cut-and-run. To characterize this betrayal as "predictable" is an understatement. In 2008, I wrote the following, "The first thing to understand about the Republican Party is that it is totally unsuited for the abortion battle. Since the day this struggle began, it has always been clear that it is the political equivalent of a brawl in a waterfront bar. Unfortunately, the GOP is made up of a bunch of guys whose mammas used to dress them for college. On a fraternity dare, they might find the courage to 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. A second problem is that the gated-community limousine liberals who control the GOP are about as interested in abortion as a fish is in a bicycle. Like it or not, these people are motivated by the bottom line and the bottom line is that there is no money to be made in saving babies." Let me make another point that I've brought up before. The power-elites in the Republican Party keep trying to separate what they call "moral issues conservatives" from "fiscal conservatives." But this sort of compartmentalizing ignores the fact that virtually every decision a politician makes has a moral component. In this case, when the government spends money it does not have or borrows money it knows it can never repay, that is called "theft" and doing it cannot be seen as simply an economic decision. It must also be seen as a moral decision. The point is, it is certainly possible for good moral decisions to be financially unsound. In fact, Americans do it millions of times every day. But no decision, regardless of how financially sound it might be, can be justified if it is immoral. And you will never find a better example of that than the scandal that culminated on Friday night. abortion funding, Frilled-Necked Lizard, politics Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:19:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/4/11/What-Just-Happened http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/4/4/They-Know-a-Good-Lie-When-They-Tell-One In a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that morning-after pills, emergency contraceptives and most birth control pills are actually early-term abortions, the abortion lobby is now attempting to redefine pregnancy. On one hand, they will concede that these drugs do indeed act after fertilization. However, they argue that since these chemicals are designed to work before implantation, the woman is not really pregnant and, therefore, there can be no pregnancy termination. In other words, according to their line of reasoning, it is not technically possible for these drugs to constitute an abortion. This is classic abortion industry doubletalk. Even if we accept this somewhat murky claim that a woman is not pregnant during that interval between fertilization and implantation, it's an irrelevant argument. The biological fact is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and that does not change whether implantation occurs instantly, five minutes later, two days later or never. So if these pill pushers want to take this arcane position that these chemical agents do not abort a pregnancy, that's fine. But what they can't deny is that they abort a human life. At its core, this particular excuse for legalized abortion is like almost every other one. In order for it to work, the listener must be oblivious to the fact that a rhetorical fraud is being perpetrated. In this case, the fraud is that the term "pregnancy termination" is synonymous with the word "abortion." That is, of course, nonsense and these people know it. I have made this point many times in the past and I'll make it again. The pro-life movement is not now, has never been, and will never be, opposed to pregnancy terminations. We are fully aware that all pregnancies terminate. When a woman is pregnant, the only question is whether her pregnancy will terminate with a live baby or a dead baby. And that is a biological fact our enemies will never be able to change. Actually, this little rhetorical mind-game illustrates just how easy it is to understand the respective positions in the battle over abortion. The pro-life contention is that all pregnancies should terminate with living babies. Meanwhile, the pro-choice forces find it acceptable for their tiny corpses to rot in dumpsters or be eaten by rats in the sewer system. It may not sound pretty and it's certainly not politically correct, but that is the bright line that will always separate the two sides. abortion, birth control, pregnancy termination Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:42:00-0500 http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2011/4/4/They-Know-a-Good-Lie-When-They-Tell-One