Culture of Death
Vol: 88 Issue: 23 Friday, January 23, 2009
Every year on the anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, Washington DC is home to a “March For Life” protest by anti-abortion groups and this year was no exception.
It was a kind of a weird protest this year. There were a lot more pro-life protestors than in previous years. On the other hand, many pro-death groups decided to sit this one out.
In Florida, prominent right to kill groups decided their time would be better spent lobbying the new pro-death administration than arguing about their right to kill the unborn.
You’ll notice that instead of using politically correct language, I’m using accurate and descriptive language to characterize the two positions.
Abortion isn’t about a woman’s right to choose. By definition, she has already exercised her right of choice — that’s how she became pregnant in the first place.
But what about victims of rape and incest? Does ANYBODY believe there have been 65 million American rapes since 1973 that resulted in pregnancies?
To listen to the pro-death forces, anybody who opposes the murder of unborn babies in the womb is heartless and unfeeling or misogynistic or some other nasty adjective.
And those who support abortion are caring, progressive individuals that are making hard choices based on what is best for them and their babies.
They call themselves pro-choice. But there is but one choice they support and they fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from offering an alternative choice.
They call those who support an actual, genuine choice between two alternatives “anti-abortion activists.” Opposing Roe v. Wade does’t make one an ‘anti abortion activist’ — it makes one a supporter of the American democratic system.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would take the question away from the federal government and the federal courts and return it to the control of the individual states. That is ONLY constitutional issue involved — there is NOT a Constitutional right to kill one’s children. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion, any more than it defines marriage.
It probably never occurred to them that anybody would ever be dumb enough to advocate same-sex relationships as ‘marriage’ or infanticide as “choice”.
The closest one can come to finding abortion in America’s founding documents is in the Declaration of Independence which, in its preamble, clearly forbids abortion, saying Americans have a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It does not differentiate between the born and the unborn, since they understood that the unborn will, without any help or interference from the government, be born with those rights intact.
Out of those documents, a group of judicial activists on the Supreme Court in 1973 found a ‘right’ to deny unwanted babies the right to life, not to mention the liberty and pursuit of happiness stolen from them at the same instant.
Activists like to call the Constitution a ‘living document’ arguing that it was designed to change as the times change. What they really mean is that, as a living document, it can be tortured until it says whatever its torturer wants it to.
Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion. Instead, it struck down every existing state law forbidding abortion. It was done without consulting with the states, by judicial fiat, without any national debate, referendum or input from those who disagree.
For thirty-six years, there has been discord on the issue of abortion, because consensus is irrelevant.
The devisiveness will continue until the issue has been returned to the democratic process, something that can only take place if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
As I said earlier, overturning Roe v. Wade won’t immediately outlaw abortion. Instead, the question will be returned to the jurisdiction of the individual states for resolution.
That is the way America was set up from the beginning. It is implicitly recognized that each state is unique, has its own values and its own priorities. By allowing the states to regulate this issue — as intended — we achieve the impossible: an equally divided nation in which most people live under the law of their choice. People who live in a state where they disagree with its laws can move to a state where the laws are more in keeping with their consciences.
In a vote in which one side loses, it will know that it lost because most people disagreed, not because a handful of elite disenfranchised everyone.
But abortion is big business for the elitists who fear losing a billion dollar a year business. Planned Parenthood reported that in 2002, 227,375 abortions were performed at their clinics.
That figure represents only 17% of all abortions performed in America that year, giving some sense of the size of the abortion ‘industry’.
Far from being ‘pro-choice’ only 6.5% of clients seeking pregnancy related services from Planned Parenthood in 2002 actually received prenatal care. The rest got abortions. They issued only 1,963 adoption referrals in 2002 and not a single actual adoption.
So for every adoption ‘referral’ made by Planned Parenthood, there were 116 babies aborted. But the liberal mainstream call Planned Parenthood a ‘pro-choice’ group. Those who oppose it are ‘anti-abortion.’
A look at Planned Parenthood’s origins makes the love affair it enjoys with liberal groups even more bizarre.
Planned Parenthood itself was founded by a eugenisist named Margaret Sanger, who strongly believed in the superiority of the white race and started the organization with the expressed aim of doing to American blacks what Hitler was attempting to do with German Jews.
Sanger proposed, in a paper defending Planned Parenthood’s ‘Negro Project’ , that;
[the] “most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the [religious] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
One third of Planned Parenthood’s income ($750 MILLION dollars) comes from GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
The Boy Scouts can’t have federal funds because they oppose gay rights and advance a belief in God, but a group formed for the express purpose of wiping out the black race in the womb got $254 million in federal tax dollars in 2002.
Now, we have a black president in office who supports the genocide because, as he says, “women don’t come to this choice easily.” A black president who by the definition of Planned Parenthood, should have been aborted in the womb.
Barack Obama was a mixed-race baby, conceived out of wedlock to a teenaged mother. By every conceivable pro-abortion argument, Barack Hussein Obama should have been dismembered by an abortionist.
The pro-life argument against his abortion is that every life has worth and the circumstances of our birth should not disqualify us from life.
If Obama’s mama had shared the view her son now advances, America would still be waiting to elect its first black president — because the one that DID get elected wouldn’t have existed.