Kanye West On ‘Black Genocide’
The ‘Abortion Culture Teaches People That A Child Isn’t A Real Soul’
'The Birthday Party' is dealing with life and pro-life, because these are kids that are now gonna get a chance to have birthdays,' West said.
Madeline Osburn
The Federalist
On the latest episode of Nick Cannon’s podcast, “Cannon’s Class,” entertainer and now 2020 presidential candidate Kanye West discussed his recent breakdown over abortion at a South Carolina campaign event. Kanye said he believes, “[God] wants me to say this now,” adding that people decided to keep their unborn children after connecting to him. If God didn’t want me to run on stage and say Beyonce had the best video, he wouldn’t have sat me in the front row,” West said jokingly, comparing the most recent backlash to his 2009 controversy with Taylor Swift at the VMAs.
In what is being billed as “Part 1” of their conversation, West and Cannon discussed a range of topics including abortion, his faith, his 2016 hospitalization, fashion design, and his political affiliation called “The Birthday Party.”
When Cannon brought up how media and fans blasted West for his tearful campaign speech in July, West responded that it shows the world is “sick.”
“A world that thinks you shouldn’t cry and be in repentance when you just … you know that is the world that is sick,” he said, before sharing “hard facts that deal with the black genocide.”
West reiterated his previous statements on the racist goals of Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger.
Showing posts with label US Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Abortion. Show all posts
Monday, 7 September 2020
Saturday, 15 August 2020
Democrats and Abortion
The Liberal Voters Biden Doesn’t Want
By Alexandra Desanctis
National Review Online
In the Wall Street Journal, two leaders of political-advocacy group Democrats for Life have an article called “The Democrats Biden Doesn’t Want,” pointing out that, although they’re liberal, their pro-life views have caused the Democratic Party to reject them.
“According to Gallup, roughly 1 in 3 Democrats consider themselves pro-life, but Mr. Biden has made no outreach to us,” write executive director Kristen Day and board member Xavier Bisits. “In fact, top Democrats have gone out of their way to make it clear that we are no longer welcome in the party.”
This is far from the first time that such a complaint has arisen from pro-life Democrats this year alone. At a townhall in late January, Day confronted former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, asking, “Do you want the support of . . . pro-life Democratic voters? There are about 21 million of us. And if so, would you support more-moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the party of diversity, of inclusion, really does include everybody?”
Buttigieg offered a lengthy, equivocating reply, but the gist of his response was, essentially, “Take a hike.”
By Alexandra Desanctis
National Review Online
In the Wall Street Journal, two leaders of political-advocacy group Democrats for Life have an article called “The Democrats Biden Doesn’t Want,” pointing out that, although they’re liberal, their pro-life views have caused the Democratic Party to reject them.
“According to Gallup, roughly 1 in 3 Democrats consider themselves pro-life, but Mr. Biden has made no outreach to us,” write executive director Kristen Day and board member Xavier Bisits. “In fact, top Democrats have gone out of their way to make it clear that we are no longer welcome in the party.”
This is far from the first time that such a complaint has arisen from pro-life Democrats this year alone. At a townhall in late January, Day confronted former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, asking, “Do you want the support of . . . pro-life Democratic voters? There are about 21 million of us. And if so, would you support more-moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the party of diversity, of inclusion, really does include everybody?”
Buttigieg offered a lengthy, equivocating reply, but the gist of his response was, essentially, “Take a hike.”
Wednesday, 5 August 2020
Keeping Up The Pressure
Defunding UN Bodies Over Abortion
U.S. Lawmakers Renew Interest
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. | July 30, 2020
C-Fam
NEW YORK, July 31 (C-Fam)
Funding for foreign aid cannot be used to lobby for or against abortion, according to U.S. law. There is growing interest among U.S. lawmakers in enforcing that standard against the UN and its various agencies.
Last year, the U.S. Department of State cited the Siljander Amendment when it cut funding to two organs of the Organization of American States (OAS) due to their pressuring Latin American countries to liberalize their abortion laws. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the cuts in March 2019, saying, “our reduction equals the estimated U.S. share of possible OAS expenditures on these abortion-related activities.”
This came about through a 2018 letter from a group of U.S. Senators led by James Lankford to Secretary Pompeo outlining OAS abortion lobbying and asking him to enforce the Siljander Amendment.
However, the OAS and its human rights bodies are not alone in lobbying for abortion at the international level and that receive U.S. funding. Multiple UN agencies that receive U.S. funding are engaged in similar activities, and the actions taken by the State Department toward the OAS provide a blueprint for how similar steps could be taken to reprimand pro-abortion overreach at the UN.
There is no internationally agreed human right to abortion, nor a right to abortion in international humanitarian law, and the consensus among UN member countries is that abortion laws are a national matter. Nevertheless, the UN Secretariat, the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the World Health Organization (WHO), UN Women, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and other agencies operating under the UN umbrella routinely pressure countries to decriminalize abortion or legalize it under more circumstances.
The most aggressive pressure comes from the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which includes the independent expert bodies that monitor compliance with the nine core multilateral human rights treaties. All but one of these treaty bodies have directly pressured countries to change their abortion laws, two of which did so for the first time in 2019, despite none of the related treaties mentioning abortion at all. The treaty body monitoring compliance with the treaty on women’s rights (CEDAW) pressured nations in 88 percent of the country reviews it conducted in 2018.
The treaty bodies accounted for 14 percent of OHCHR’s budget in 2017, and the U.S. is among the leading contributors to its operations, giving over $18 million in 2018.
The Secretariat of the UN, led by the Secretary-General, has issued multiple reports characterizing abortion as a right in humanitarian settings, particularly in cases of conflict-related sexual violence. Similarly, other UN agencies including UN Women, UNFPA, and the WHO, have issued manuals promoting abortion.
While the WHO and UNFPA have been defunded by President Trump as an executive action, a future Democratic administration could reverse those cuts. Nevertheless, as Secretary Pompeo pointed out, ensuring that U.S. contributions are not going to support abortion lobbying is a matter of federal law. Applying that standard to the UN, just as it was applied to the OAS, would be the next logical step.
U.S. Lawmakers Renew Interest
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. | July 30, 2020
C-Fam
NEW YORK, July 31 (C-Fam)
Funding for foreign aid cannot be used to lobby for or against abortion, according to U.S. law. There is growing interest among U.S. lawmakers in enforcing that standard against the UN and its various agencies.
Last year, the U.S. Department of State cited the Siljander Amendment when it cut funding to two organs of the Organization of American States (OAS) due to their pressuring Latin American countries to liberalize their abortion laws. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the cuts in March 2019, saying, “our reduction equals the estimated U.S. share of possible OAS expenditures on these abortion-related activities.”
This came about through a 2018 letter from a group of U.S. Senators led by James Lankford to Secretary Pompeo outlining OAS abortion lobbying and asking him to enforce the Siljander Amendment.
However, the OAS and its human rights bodies are not alone in lobbying for abortion at the international level and that receive U.S. funding. Multiple UN agencies that receive U.S. funding are engaged in similar activities, and the actions taken by the State Department toward the OAS provide a blueprint for how similar steps could be taken to reprimand pro-abortion overreach at the UN.
There is no internationally agreed human right to abortion, nor a right to abortion in international humanitarian law, and the consensus among UN member countries is that abortion laws are a national matter. Nevertheless, the UN Secretariat, the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the World Health Organization (WHO), UN Women, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and other agencies operating under the UN umbrella routinely pressure countries to decriminalize abortion or legalize it under more circumstances.
The most aggressive pressure comes from the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which includes the independent expert bodies that monitor compliance with the nine core multilateral human rights treaties. All but one of these treaty bodies have directly pressured countries to change their abortion laws, two of which did so for the first time in 2019, despite none of the related treaties mentioning abortion at all. The treaty body monitoring compliance with the treaty on women’s rights (CEDAW) pressured nations in 88 percent of the country reviews it conducted in 2018.
The treaty bodies accounted for 14 percent of OHCHR’s budget in 2017, and the U.S. is among the leading contributors to its operations, giving over $18 million in 2018.
The Secretariat of the UN, led by the Secretary-General, has issued multiple reports characterizing abortion as a right in humanitarian settings, particularly in cases of conflict-related sexual violence. Similarly, other UN agencies including UN Women, UNFPA, and the WHO, have issued manuals promoting abortion.
While the WHO and UNFPA have been defunded by President Trump as an executive action, a future Democratic administration could reverse those cuts. Nevertheless, as Secretary Pompeo pointed out, ensuring that U.S. contributions are not going to support abortion lobbying is a matter of federal law. Applying that standard to the UN, just as it was applied to the OAS, would be the next logical step.
Friday, 31 July 2020
The Fundamentals Must be Already Fixed and In Place
No More Betrayals
Sen. Josh Hawley Sets The Standard For Conservative Supreme Court Justices
'If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them.'
Christopher Bedford
The Federalist
Social conservatives are done being taken for granted by the GOP: That’s the message Sen. Josh Hawley shot across the party and administration’s bow Sunday, setting a brave and admirable standard for Christian legislators that is sure to pit him against powerful Washington Republicans and Democrats.
“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided.” Hawley told The Washington Post. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”
“I don’t want private assurances from candidates. I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predictions. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”
The junior senator from Missouri is a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, through which any of President Donald Trump’s potential future nominees to the Supreme Court must pass before being brought to the floor for a vote. Conservative judges have been a major point for this administration, beginning during the campaign when, working closely with The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, Trump released a list of who he would nominate, exciting then-skeptical conservatives.
Since then, conservatives have been routinely disappointed by Republican-nominated justices, quietly complaining about the GOP and the powerful, conservative Federalist Society’s tendency to focus on justices who have established records of conservative and libertarian business and government rulings, but no firmly established record of rulings that protect either marriage or the lives of the unborn.
Sen. Josh Hawley Sets The Standard For Conservative Supreme Court Justices
'If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them.'
Christopher Bedford
The Federalist
Social conservatives are done being taken for granted by the GOP: That’s the message Sen. Josh Hawley shot across the party and administration’s bow Sunday, setting a brave and admirable standard for Christian legislators that is sure to pit him against powerful Washington Republicans and Democrats.
“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided.” Hawley told The Washington Post. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”
“I don’t want private assurances from candidates. I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predictions. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”
The junior senator from Missouri is a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, through which any of President Donald Trump’s potential future nominees to the Supreme Court must pass before being brought to the floor for a vote. Conservative judges have been a major point for this administration, beginning during the campaign when, working closely with The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, Trump released a list of who he would nominate, exciting then-skeptical conservatives.
Since then, conservatives have been routinely disappointed by Republican-nominated justices, quietly complaining about the GOP and the powerful, conservative Federalist Society’s tendency to focus on justices who have established records of conservative and libertarian business and government rulings, but no firmly established record of rulings that protect either marriage or the lives of the unborn.
Tuesday, 25 February 2020
Democrat Party Is the House of Death for Unwanted Children
No Room for Pro-Lifers
Bernie Sanders Says Being Pro-Abortion Is ‘Absolutely Essential’ for Democrats
By Tré Goins-Phillips
Editor
faithwire.com
February 10, 2020
Much like Perez has in the past, Sanders made clear over the weekend he sees no place in the Democratic Party for pro-life voters. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat, if you’re asking me,” said Sanders, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
He made the comment during a candidate forum in New Hampshire on Saturday, when the emcee asked him if there is “such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party.”
“I may be wrong on this, I think, in the Senate probably 95% of the Democrats are pro-choice, you have a few who are not,” added Sanders, noting there’s likely an even higher percentage of pro-abortion Democrats in the House.
“That’s kind of what my view is,” he said. “I think by this time in history, I think, when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is essentially, an essential part of that.”
Sanders’ position is hardly surprising. In fact, it’s not even outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party these days. In 2017, Perez said support for abortion among Democrats “is not negotiable.”
Bernie Sanders Says Being Pro-Abortion Is ‘Absolutely Essential’ for Democrats
By Tré Goins-Phillips
Editor
faithwire.com
February 10, 2020
Much like Perez has in the past, Sanders made clear over the weekend he sees no place in the Democratic Party for pro-life voters. “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat, if you’re asking me,” said Sanders, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
He made the comment during a candidate forum in New Hampshire on Saturday, when the emcee asked him if there is “such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party.”
“I may be wrong on this, I think, in the Senate probably 95% of the Democrats are pro-choice, you have a few who are not,” added Sanders, noting there’s likely an even higher percentage of pro-abortion Democrats in the House.
“That’s kind of what my view is,” he said. “I think by this time in history, I think, when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is essentially, an essential part of that.”
Sanders’ position is hardly surprising. In fact, it’s not even outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party these days. In 2017, Perez said support for abortion among Democrats “is not negotiable.”
Wednesday, 5 February 2020
More than Sixty Million Have Perished
The March for Life Is a March for Truth
The Editors
National Review Online
Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any justification in the text, original understanding, or history of the Constitution. Since that time, more than 60 million have perished in abortions.
When the Supreme Court issued its diktat, the New York Times called it a “historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue.” It is to the great credit of pro-lifers that they refused to let the issue be resolved in this unjust and authoritarian way — and instead protested, argued, organized, voted, and litigated to set it right.
Republican presidents and senators, including President Trump and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, have advanced that work a great deal by putting conservative jurists on the bench, and especially on the Supreme Court.
The Editors
National Review Online
Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any justification in the text, original understanding, or history of the Constitution. Since that time, more than 60 million have perished in abortions.
When the Supreme Court issued its diktat, the New York Times called it a “historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue.” It is to the great credit of pro-lifers that they refused to let the issue be resolved in this unjust and authoritarian way — and instead protested, argued, organized, voted, and litigated to set it right.
Republican presidents and senators, including President Trump and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, have advanced that work a great deal by putting conservative jurists on the bench, and especially on the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
Abortion Rates Fall in the US
CDC: U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop
Mairead McArdle
National Review Online
The rate of abortions in the U.S. has continued to decline, according to data published Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC recorded 623,471 abortions in 2016, down over 2 percent from 636,902 in 2015, according to data submitted from 47 states and New York City. California, Maryland, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. did not provide data to the CDC for those years.
In the areas for which data is available, there were 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women from ages 15 to 44, down from a rate of 11.8 abortions the previous year. For every 1,000 live births in 2016 there were 186 abortions, down 18 percent from 226 abortions per 1,000 live births the previous year.
About 91 percent of abortions occurred at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, and only 1.2 percent occurred at or after 21 weeks, the CDC said. The latest known abortion rate from 2016 is down 26 percent from 825,240 abortions in 2007.
The country’s abortion rate increased after the landmark Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide, but has steadily decreased since it peaked at 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1980 and 1981.
Mairead McArdle
National Review Online
The rate of abortions in the U.S. has continued to decline, according to data published Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC recorded 623,471 abortions in 2016, down over 2 percent from 636,902 in 2015, according to data submitted from 47 states and New York City. California, Maryland, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. did not provide data to the CDC for those years.
In the areas for which data is available, there were 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women from ages 15 to 44, down from a rate of 11.8 abortions the previous year. For every 1,000 live births in 2016 there were 186 abortions, down 18 percent from 226 abortions per 1,000 live births the previous year.
About 91 percent of abortions occurred at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, and only 1.2 percent occurred at or after 21 weeks, the CDC said. The latest known abortion rate from 2016 is down 26 percent from 825,240 abortions in 2007.
The country’s abortion rate increased after the landmark Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide, but has steadily decreased since it peaked at 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1980 and 1981.
Thursday, 14 November 2019
More Good News From the US
Mitch McConnell Pulls Funding Bill Containing Shaheen Pro-Abortion Amendment
Dr Susan Berry
Breitbart News
Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) withdrew an overseas spending bill last week that would have provided $665 million for “family planning and reproductive health care” overseas and funds for the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund.
C-Fam and the Eagle Forum reported McConnell withdrew the State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) bill after New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen inserted an amendment into the bill to provide support to groups that promote abortions overseas – a move that would have clearly undermined the Trump administration’s pro-life policies.
A coalition of 44 national pro-life leaders sent a letter in October to McConnell and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) voicing their vehement opposition to the Shaheen amendment. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), chairman of the Senate pro-life caucus, joined with these leaders in asking McConnell to amend the bill before it advanced. “It’s our duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society,” Daines said, according to C-Fam. “I am deeply concerned about how this amendment undermines pro-life policies abroad and I will continue to work to defeat it.”
SFOPs was part of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement reached by Congress and the White House in July. The agreement clearly stipulated, “[T]here will be no poison pills, additional new riders…unless agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the four leaders with the approval of the President.”
C-Fam reported Shaheen’s longstanding attempts to force American taxpayers to fund promoting abortion overseas:
Dr Susan Berry
Breitbart News
Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) withdrew an overseas spending bill last week that would have provided $665 million for “family planning and reproductive health care” overseas and funds for the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund.
C-Fam and the Eagle Forum reported McConnell withdrew the State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) bill after New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen inserted an amendment into the bill to provide support to groups that promote abortions overseas – a move that would have clearly undermined the Trump administration’s pro-life policies.
A coalition of 44 national pro-life leaders sent a letter in October to McConnell and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) voicing their vehement opposition to the Shaheen amendment. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), chairman of the Senate pro-life caucus, joined with these leaders in asking McConnell to amend the bill before it advanced. “It’s our duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society,” Daines said, according to C-Fam. “I am deeply concerned about how this amendment undermines pro-life policies abroad and I will continue to work to defeat it.”
SFOPs was part of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement reached by Congress and the White House in July. The agreement clearly stipulated, “[T]here will be no poison pills, additional new riders…unless agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the four leaders with the approval of the President.”
C-Fam reported Shaheen’s longstanding attempts to force American taxpayers to fund promoting abortion overseas:
Saturday, 9 November 2019
Sodom and Gomorrah Take Shape Once Again
Opinion: The Democratic Party’s abortion fanaticism is demonic
When Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard publicly announced her compromising stance on abortion-on-demand, specifically saying that she favored an approach that kept abortion legal, but also worked to make it rare and “unnecessary,” she was pilloried amongst what has become mainstream liberalism.
Combine that reality with a spate of recent jaw-dropping events, and an extremely unnerving conclusion emerges: the driving ideology behind the Democratic Party in America has evolved from a tacit approval and defense of legalized child killing to a macabre celebration of the ritual.
Start with notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart, a folk hero to pro-abortion activists and a champion to Planned Parenthood apologists. Carhart, who has repulsively compared full-term babies in the womb to “meat in a crockpot,” was photographed celebrating his birthday with a desk placard that read, “Even on my worst days, I’m killing it.”
Saturday, 14 September 2019
Daleiden Hearing
StemExpress CEO Admits Selling Beating Baby Hearts, Intact Baby Heads
SAN FRANCISCO, September 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The CEO of StemExpress essentially admitted in court Thursday that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.
She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be torn away.”
“That is an especially gruesome admission, but it begs the question: how did they get these fully intact human children?” says Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden at the hearing.
“If you have a fetus with an intact head and an intact body, and intact extremities, that is something that would indicate that child was born alive, and then had their organs cut out of them, or that that child was the victim of an illegal partial-birth abortion,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Both of these are gruesome and violent acts.”
SAN FRANCISCO, September 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The CEO of StemExpress essentially admitted in court Thursday that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.
She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be torn away.”
“That is an especially gruesome admission, but it begs the question: how did they get these fully intact human children?” says Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden at the hearing.
“If you have a fetus with an intact head and an intact body, and intact extremities, that is something that would indicate that child was born alive, and then had their organs cut out of them, or that that child was the victim of an illegal partial-birth abortion,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Both of these are gruesome and violent acts.”
Friday, 9 August 2019
Cry The Beloved Country
The Double Murder That Ended Ally Kostial’s Life
An Indictment Of The Abortion Culture
The double murder that killed Ally and her prenatal child is tragically typical example of how abortion rights have so grossly affected our culture.
Charles C. Camosy
The Federalist
Many of us were disturbed by the murder of University of Mississippi undergraduate Ally Kostial last week. By all accounts, she was such a deeply kind and beautiful person. What could have possibly been the motivation to kill someone who radiated such powerful goodness?
This week, based on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail, we learned the answer: Ally was pregnant with the child of the accused killer, a fellow undergraduate at Mississippi. He reportedly pressured her to have an abortion. She refused. So it appears he killed her and their prenatal child, in a reprehensible double murder.
For those who have qualms about using this term to describe his alleged action, recall the famous case in which Scott Peterson was charged with double murder by the state of California when he killed his wife Laci and their prenatal child Connor—who, horrifically, was found to have plastic around his neck and a slash to his body. Indeed, Scott Peterson sits on death row today only because the state of California rightly understands Connor to be a second murder victim.
Despite the high-profile nature of such cases, our culture is still not fully aware of the danger in which pregnant women find themselves—particularly in a patriarchal throwaway culture in which abortion is an expected means of permitting people to live their lives without the “burden” (or, as President Obama once put it, “punishment”) of a child.
Indeed, the double murder that killed Ally and her prenatal child is tragically typical example of how abortion rights have so grossly affected our culture—although you can be forgiven for not realizing this, given how poorly abortion is covered by most major media organizations.
An Indictment Of The Abortion Culture
The double murder that killed Ally and her prenatal child is tragically typical example of how abortion rights have so grossly affected our culture.
Charles C. Camosy
The Federalist
Many of us were disturbed by the murder of University of Mississippi undergraduate Ally Kostial last week. By all accounts, she was such a deeply kind and beautiful person. What could have possibly been the motivation to kill someone who radiated such powerful goodness?
This week, based on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail, we learned the answer: Ally was pregnant with the child of the accused killer, a fellow undergraduate at Mississippi. He reportedly pressured her to have an abortion. She refused. So it appears he killed her and their prenatal child, in a reprehensible double murder.
For those who have qualms about using this term to describe his alleged action, recall the famous case in which Scott Peterson was charged with double murder by the state of California when he killed his wife Laci and their prenatal child Connor—who, horrifically, was found to have plastic around his neck and a slash to his body. Indeed, Scott Peterson sits on death row today only because the state of California rightly understands Connor to be a second murder victim.
Despite the high-profile nature of such cases, our culture is still not fully aware of the danger in which pregnant women find themselves—particularly in a patriarchal throwaway culture in which abortion is an expected means of permitting people to live their lives without the “burden” (or, as President Obama once put it, “punishment”) of a child.
Indeed, the double murder that killed Ally and her prenatal child is tragically typical example of how abortion rights have so grossly affected our culture—although you can be forgiven for not realizing this, given how poorly abortion is covered by most major media organizations.
Monday, 29 July 2019
Creation.Com Weighs In On Canaanitism
US States’ abortion bills reveal culture clash over unborn human life
Published: 25 July 2019 (GMT+10)
States in the US are battling over the value of human life. Georgia’s state law now bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected—around 6 weeks gestation.1 A popular location for filming in the US because of tax breaks, many actors have said they will now boycott the state, while other actors slam the hypocrisy in this largely symbolic stand, as many of the ‘boycotters’ have never actually filmed anything in Georgia.2
Alabama has passed, by an overwhelming majority, the strictest abortion law in the nation, which would make abortion a felony in the state of Alabama, with no exceptions for rape and incest.3 Ohio bans private insurance companies from covering abortion costs.
These laws follow several states which have passed or attempted to pass laws which legalize abortion up to birth. New York’s abortion law goes beyond allowing abortion at any point up to birth, and even removes criminal penalties for harming an unborn child who is wanted by the mother.4 Virginia now allows non-physicians to perform first-trimester abortions.5 At the time of writing, more states are lining up on either side of the conflict to pass laws of their own.
These battles are being played out in state legislatures, because it is widely anticipated that a now conservative Supreme Court could overturn the 1973 decision Roe. v. Wadewhich legalized abortion across the nation, much as the court’s decision on Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage over the laws of various states. If Roe was overturned, the issue would go back to the states. Some states, like New York, would continue to allow almost unlimited abortions, while states with laws on the books limiting or completely criminalizing abortion would be able to enforce those laws.
Unborn babies are human—but are they people?
With the availability of 4D ultrasounds, it is impossible to maintain the old lie that unborn babies are just ‘blobs of tissue’. Science has also disproven the lie that the unborn child ‘recapitulates’ older stages of evolutionary development with gills and a tail at early stages of development. This is scientific fact-- the unborn child is human. Yet, lay people still misled by errors in textbooks and popular media call into radio shows with statements like “We are removing women’s rights just because of a zygote.”6 The encouraging news is that as high-definition ultrasounds become more and more common, young people have grown up seeing the photos of their unborn brothers and sisters on the fridge next to their own, and the celebration of wanted unborn life makes a dramatic impact when we’re discussing whether unwanted children at the same stage of development can be killed.
A culture that knows unborn babies are indeed human but continues to kill them in numbers greater than any holocaust in history is no better than the Caananites, who sacrificed their children by placing them in the bronze statue of Moloch to be burned alive. Pro-abortionists are outraged by what they consider to be the violation of women’s rights. But if the baby is a human, does it not also have rights?
Humanity vs ‘personhood’
But is the unborn human a person? That might seem like a strange question, but ‘ethicists’ are trying to move the goalposts by separating the category of ‘human’ and the category of ‘person’. To someone like Peter Singer, an intelligent creature like a pig could be a ‘person’ but not ‘human’, entitled to the legal protections afforded a ‘person’. However, a child early in development, even for a period after birth, would not qualify as a ‘person’ based on an arbitrary measurement of brain development.
However, we are rightly horrified by past atrocities committed against humans declared ‘nonpersons’. In the early 20thcentury, under eugenics laws, people declared ‘feebleminded’ could be sterilized and institutionalized for life. And the Nazis infamously killed millions of Jews, along with gypsies, disabled people, and other ‘undesirables’, who were also considered nonpersons.
The advances in care of unborn children and extremely premature children are making it harder to maintain the charade that the elective murder of these babies is equivalent to getting an appendectomy. It is possible to repair spina bifida and other problems in utero, and the most premature baby to survive was born at 21 weeks.
Education is the key to open the door to the Gospel
One might draw some analogies to the campaign of the great British abolitionist William Wilberforce in the 1800s. In a country and society that strongly held to slavery, it was just a cultural norm—even amongst Christians. Wilberforce campaigned tirelessly for many years and with great opposition, but he tried to educate society and particularly the lawmakers of the day that these slaves were indeed human beings. He sought to overcome ignorance about the issue. Abortion is the next great slavery debate for our nations as we continue to educate and overcome ignorance about the science of the unborn.
What has worth?
Pro-abortion activists often protest that it is unjust to have legal penalties or restrictions for women and doctors who have or perform abortions. This is usually a strawman argument because few abortion laws target the mothers, but most target the abortionist.
Is it wrong to penalize those who kill unborn children? Consider the penalties for disturbing the unborn of endangered species. Destroying a bald eagle egg can be punished with a jail sentence and/or hefty fine. The eggs of sea turtles are similarly protected. If we can recognize that even animals can be valuable enough for their unborn to be protected with such laws, surely unborn humans in God’s image should be given similar protections.
Changing the laws is only one step
Changing the laws is only one front of the battle. Governments can change and thus reverse the laws, just as is happening now. The Gospel changes hearts and minds, and ultimately that is how one changes a country and its laws. It is important that we protect the most vulnerable in our society with laws, but we have to remember that being pro-life is ultimately a Gospel issue. It’s possible for an unsaved woman to choose life for her child, and both of them eventually go to an eternity away from the Lord. So our pro-life efforts on all levels need to be visibly connected to the Gospel, or they will ultimately be for nothing.
In the light of a seemingly endless erosion of moral laws in our societies, we should be hugely encouraged by these developments. The battle over abortion laws shows us that Roe isn’t settled law, even more than 40 years later. Many other Western nations and their academics have often criticized the US and its citizens because of their strong religious roots and how it still permeates the culture today. One BBC commentator called it a return to the ‘dark ages’.7
Many Americans are not convinced by evolutionism, much to the dismay of academics both in the US and abroad. In part due to the work of creation ministries, and with the support of Bible-believing churches, evangelical Christians are leading the fight against the slaughter of unborn babies. From a biblical foundation, we can show that God has always affirmed what science now proves to be true—that from conception we are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of our Creator, and that’s why it is wrong to murder human beings at any point in their life.
The states who are passing pro-life laws should be applauded for making a stand in the face of the inevitable criticism. We should be encouraged as we fight for the lives and the human rights of the smallest, most vulnerable members of the human family.
Our booklet Is Human Life Special? discusses the abortion debate along with many other topics such as eugenics. It affirms scientifically and theologically the specialness of humanity, and also revisits some of history’s atrocities performed in the name of evolution.
Amazing things are happening in the US. This is a great time for all Christians to revisit this issue and create awareness in your own communities and countries. Discounts are available for bulk orders. Why not give a copy to everyone in your church, particularly your youth who are on the front lines in dealing with these cultural views in their places of education?
Thursday, 6 June 2019
Speaking Truth to Power
A Prayer of Truth and Courage
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A pastor in Illinois who opened the state House of Representatives in prayer on Friday asked Heaven’s court to judge the state for sanctioning the “destruction of the unborn” through the passage of the so-called Reproductive Health Act. Reporter: Heather Clark, Christian News.
Corey Musgrave, who leads New Beginnings Church in Fairfield, began by thanking God for his blessings upon the state, including its natural resources, and noted the responsibility of Illinois’ lawmakers.
“God, we thank you for the ability to choose our own direction, even though those choices have consequences,” he said. “All throughout Your word, it is clear You have given us a choice. God, You even said, ‘Today, I give you the choice between life and death, blessings and curses. Now, I call upon Heaven to witness the choice you make. O that you would choose life so that you and your descendants might live.'”
“So God, I confess here today that I have not always made the right choice, and I thank you for being a merciful God who forgives and restores when we turn back to You,” Musgrave continued. He then lamented that “this state has decided to go its own way apart from You,” and specifically in regard to the murder of the unborn.
“God, none of our evil actions have been hidden from You. You see everything,” Musgrave noted. “Lord, You have told us those things which You hate, and among them are hands that shed innocent blood.”
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A pastor in Illinois who opened the state House of Representatives in prayer on Friday asked Heaven’s court to judge the state for sanctioning the “destruction of the unborn” through the passage of the so-called Reproductive Health Act. Reporter: Heather Clark, Christian News.
Corey Musgrave, who leads New Beginnings Church in Fairfield, began by thanking God for his blessings upon the state, including its natural resources, and noted the responsibility of Illinois’ lawmakers.
“God, we thank you for the ability to choose our own direction, even though those choices have consequences,” he said. “All throughout Your word, it is clear You have given us a choice. God, You even said, ‘Today, I give you the choice between life and death, blessings and curses. Now, I call upon Heaven to witness the choice you make. O that you would choose life so that you and your descendants might live.'”
“So God, I confess here today that I have not always made the right choice, and I thank you for being a merciful God who forgives and restores when we turn back to You,” Musgrave continued. He then lamented that “this state has decided to go its own way apart from You,” and specifically in regard to the murder of the unborn.
“God, none of our evil actions have been hidden from You. You see everything,” Musgrave noted. “Lord, You have told us those things which You hate, and among them are hands that shed innocent blood.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)