Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Wake-Up People! Abortion is Murder!

*******
*******
Obama Schmoozes his Pro-Life PreyBy Ellen Makkai
May 21, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Makkai/ellen111.htm
Give the guy credit; he knows how to knead an audience.
This past Sunday, Mr. Obama sashayed though a brilliant speech with customary grace at Notre Dame University’s graduation. It belied the big stink surrounding his visit to a severely compromised academic institution.
Pro-life legions were stunned when Catholic Notre Dame invited the abortion-on-demand president to deliver the commencement address. The Fifth Commandment of the Catholic catechism reads, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”
Adding fuel to the inferno, unprincipled administrators bestowed on Obama an honorary law degree. Not one of moral law, I suppose. Catholic champions routinely condemn the bloody procedure that suctions, scrapes and dismembers unborn children.
But forgive me, Mr. Obama, you requested that we excise explicit abortion vocabulary in favor of civility. Instead you prefer “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words.”
So what fair-minded words should we substitute when describing mutilated legs, arms, skulls and torsos? Perhaps, “components disconnected from the central processing unit” would suit you more, Sir. Better yet, Planned Parenthood’s phraseology is more palatable to your homogenized preferences.
“Empty the uterus” replaces the blunt-force “abortion.”
Our grandiloquent president suggests that the abortion dispute “discover at least the possibility of common ground.” Common ground implies agreement, an absurdity when faced with the slaughter of innocents.
But for argument’s sake and in keeping with Notre Dame’s mission statement (“The University is dedicated to the pursuit and sharing of truth for its own sake.”), let’s ground-zero with truth.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, National Right to Life, Alan Guttmacher Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Parent.com provide data for our righteous quest.
Truth: The single-cell zygote, formed at conception, is a living organism containing all human chromosomes that determines sex, skin and hair color, etc. Agreed?
Truth: By day-22, the heart beats in our living organism. The backbone, nervous system, liver and kidneys are forming. By week-five, eyes, legs and hands begin developing and during week-six the mouth, lips, eyelids and nose are seen. Brain waves are detectable. Agreed?
By week-nine most internal organs are in place. Fingerprints appear and the fetus (Latin: “young one”) begins to hear. Truth: In week-nine 61.3% of all abortions occur.
By 17 weeks this life form can urinate, grasp objects, experience pain, dream and suck its thumb. Its heart already pumps 25 quarts of blood a day. By week-20, when partial birth abortions are first performed (a procedure Obama voted twice to protect), our “young one” recognizes its mother’s voice.
Obama said we must “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.” Just days after inauguration, he removed conscience clause protections for health care providers, potentially forcing abortion participation or job termination.
“Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another to understand that we all seek…the same fulfillment of a life well lived,” he said.
Talk is cheap and thousands cheered Obama’s dazzling oratory.
Meanwhile, a small, noble coterie shunned Notre Dame’s disgrace. In protest, Harvard Law professor, Mary Ann Glendon, declined Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, which honors an exemplary Catholic layperson. Several principled graduates and parents held a mini-commencement elsewhere.
I doubt we are still in agreement, Mr. President; abortion truth bursts the perimeter of your hypothetical “common ground.” You, Sir, seduce with the same “fair-minded words” and deceptive rhetoric that in 1973 effectively dehumanized our children and allowed the slaughter of over 50 million.
Either you are ignorant of the truth, or would conceal it. In which case you are no better than a stylishly handsome, silver-tongued devil.
*******
Waterboarding, Abortion & Liberal's Appalling Inconsistency
By Marsha West
May 20, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha182.htm
Some Americans feel that interrogative waterboarding is “torture” and are quite worried that our enemies are subjected to this sort of practice. I find it appallingly inconsistent that they wring their hands over the alleged mistreatment of suspected terrorists and yet they fully support what goes on behind closed doors in abortion mills like Planned Parenthood.
If you’re pro-abortion, consider this: A fetus at 10 weeks bends, stretches, opens and closes her hands, can make a fist, lifts her head, squints, swallows and wrinkles her forehead. Now imagine a noisy suction device entering her peaceful world—to rip her fragile limbs from her body.
Liberals do not consider abortion torture. Waterboarding is torture.
Here’s what our pro-abort president had to say about waterboarding:
"I am absolutely convinced [banning waterboarding] was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are."
Barack Obama thinks waterboarding is inconsistent with our values. On the other hand, he thinks killing babies is consistent with who we are.
It’s not surprising that many Americans believe abortion should be legal. After all, the high court determined in Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion in the U.S., that the fetus is not a person under the 14th Amendment and created a new constitutional right for a pregnant woman to have an abortion. The fact that a large number of people holds that a woman’s “reproductive rights” or her “reproductive health” takes precedence over the life of the preborn speaks volumes about who we are.
The number of people who support abortion is dwindling. The latest Gallup survey, conducted May 7-10, reports that 51% of Americans call themselves pro-life and just 42 percent say they are pro-choice and support legal abortions. The survey indicates the public has taken a more conservative (sane) view of abortion.
Perhaps the turn around is a result of ultrasounds performed during the second-trimester. Pregnant women are shown the image of a new life forming inside their womb—and it’s not a blobb of tissue! People now recognize that women who choose to have an abortion are signing a baby’s death warrant! In spite to the fact that pro-aborts have tried to keep some of the barbaric abortion practices under wraps the public has learned the truth. One such practice is partial-birth abortion (PBA). A couple of years ago I wrote a piece on the horrors of PBA. Following is a graphic description of the procedure:
“To “save the life of the mother,” a living, breathing, baby is partially delivered, then scissors are jammed into its skull to make a hole large enough for a suction tube. The tube is inserted into the hole and the baby’s brains are sucked out causing the skull to collapse. Sounds like something right out of a Hollywood horror flick, doesn’t it? I doubt that even Hollywood would go this far to shock their audience.”
So now you know the inconvenient truth about a procedure once employed by abortion doctors to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy.
Several years ago I gave a liberal friend the gory details of PBA hoping to change her mind about abortion. I still recall her indignant response: “No doctor would do that! That’s just right-wing propaganda and you’ll never convince me otherwise.”
She was wrong, of course. PBA was practiced in America until the pro-life movement brought it to light. Pro-lifers joined forces to put a stop to it. It took the pro-life movement 8 years but they succeeded in banning PBA. In 2003 President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Most conservatives view PBA as much, much worse than waterboarding! That’s because baby killing is inconsistent with conservative values. Not so with most liberals. To them waterboarding is much, much worse than abortion. That’s because killing preborn babies is consistent with liberal values. For liberals a woman’s “reproductive rights” trumps the life of the unborn. Roe gave them a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason they choose, up to the last month. Many on the far Left, including, President Obama, do not object to PBA or even to late term abortions. (Read about the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would nullify every legal limit on abortion and strike down all state pro-life laws.
And speaking of the far Left, the Hollywood elites drone on and on about how we “torture” Al-Qaeda detainees and in their next breath they verbally assault pro-lifers! Remember their outrage over what happened to a few detainees at Abu Ghraib? Thankfully the soldiers involved in that inexcusable behavior were prosecuted. Entertainers drew attention to what happened at Abu Ghraib yet only a small number of them are willing to raise their voices to stop the torture of the preborn! Why?
For the first time in 8 years America has a pro-abortion president. But even now a large number of Americans are unaware of Obama’s radical views on abortion. The public is still unaware that he has publicly stated that if a baby survives a botched abortion it should not receive medical attention and should be left alone to die. I’m not making this up! I wrote about his diabolical views in October ’08 and exposed then Sen. Barack Obama’s aggressive anti-family agenda:
“While in the Illinois legislature Sen. Obama voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The bill stated that all born-alive babies will be legally protected persons upon birth, no matter what gestational age -- even if they accidentally survive an abortion.”
“’Obama ultimately voted in 2003 against a version of the bill identical to a Congressional anti-infanticide bill the Senate approved on a 98-0 margin and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL took no position.’”
Barack Obama voted against BAIPA twice. Only 15 members of the House opposed BAIPA. It passed the U.S. Senate unanimously on a voice vote. President Bush happily signed the bill.
Let’s stop right here and think about this. Obama portrays himself as a thoughtful person who carefully weighs both sides of the abortion issue. But don’t let him fool you! His radical pro-abortion view puts him further left than NARAL Pro-Choice America, the well-funded lobbying group for increased abortion rights that took no position on BAIPA.
In the above referenced article I also revealed:
“Back in 2001 Obama described a baby born-alive after a botched abortion as ‘previable.’ Here is an excerpt of his statement on the Illinois Senate floor:
"’Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it would essentially bar aborttions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.’
“Excuse me? A baby outside the mother’s womb that shows signs of life is not a fetus! Merriam-Webster.com defines ‘previable’ thus: ‘Not sufficiently developed to survive outside the uterus.’ The question all people must ask themselves is this: What if an abortion survivor is sufficiently developed to live outside the womb? Should an abortionist be permitted to snuff out his or her life? Obama says yes ? and without a second opinionn!”
I realize many of his supporters may find his abortion views hard to believe, but try. It is a fact that as a state senator, Barack Obama let politics be a factor in deciding whether or not a baby born alive is a child.
President Obama recently made a statement on waterboarding indicating that he was worried that it undermines our moral authority and does not make us safer:
“Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.”
What if President Obama were asked if PBA should be viewed as torture? Pro-lifers would be jubilant if he replied something like this:
“Enlisting our values in the protection of our unborn makes us stronger and more compassionate. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between a woman’s reproductive rights and the life of her unborn child. And that is why all forms of abortion are already a thing of the past.”
But don’t count on Obama worrying about the unborn.
What he does worry about is alleged torture, even though using prescribed rules to waterboard 3 terrorism suspects who tried to kill Americans produced valuable information without endangering their lives. And by the way, waterboarding is used to train our own troops! We do not torture our own people! Let me be clear that I do not condone torturing our enemies. I simply disagree with how President Obama and the Left define torture. (For more on the “torture” controversy watch MSNBC’s Norah O'Donnell interview Liz Cheney.)
Returning to my argument that aborting an innocent preborn baby is much, much worse than waterboarding a terror suspect, if you still haven’t formed an opinion I invite you to look at the following information:
Abortion video:
Patial-birth abortion diagram:
Waterboarding:
Fetal development 20 weeks (If you’re thinking about having an abortion, please view this site first.):
One last thing. Over 4,000 babies are tortured by abortion doctors in America every day. Let me repeat, abortion is much, much worse than waterboarding and must become a thing of the past! According to the latest polls Americans are finally starting to come to their senses.
“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven.” -- Matthew 18:10
*******
Gallup Shows More Americans Pro-Life51 percent of Americans identify as "pro-life"By Christian Newswire - Friday, May 15, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11136
A new Gallup poll shows that 51 percent of Americans identify as “pro-life” and 42 percent “pro-choice.” This is a significant increase from last year when 50 percent considered themselves “pro-choice” and 44 percent “pro-life.”
"This dramatic shift of more people becoming pro-life did not happen in a vacuum,” states Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. “In the last two decades, ultrasounds have made people aware that abortion kills a baby, and women have been vocal about regretting their abortion. But the most significant development in the last year is that America has the most pro-abortion president in our history. Barack Obama has revealed what ‘pro-choice’ means—taxpayer funded abortions, eliminating common-sense regulations, rescinding protections for doctors and medical providers who decline to participate in abortion. ‘Pro-choice’ means taking away people’s choices—a baby’s right to live, a woman’s right to know the harms of abortion before she undergoes one, taxpayers’ right not to be forced to pay for other people’s abortions, medical providers freedom not to participate in abortions.”
“Ironically, Obama’s radical abortion policies and nominees may have helped make America more pro- life.”
Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.
*******
Pro-Life Notre Dame Students Refuse to Attend Graduation in Protest of Obama Visit
Opt for Prayer in University's GrottoBy Christian Newswire
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11047
Notre Dame University seniors who have decided not to attend their commencement ceremony in protest of the university’s decision to grant President Barack Obama an honorary law degree will instead hold a meditation in the university’s Grotto of Our Lady Lourdes at 2 p.m. on May 17, to coincide with the official commencement.
ND Response, the student-led coalition that is planning the meditation, says Notre Dame should not be honoring a political figure who supports abortion and stem cell research.
View a video of student reactions to the university’s decision:
“It’s not a political issue; this is an issue of human dignity, and it’s a Catholic issue,” said Greer Hannan, a Notre Dame graduating senior. “As a Catholic university, we need to stand up for it.”
The meditation, which will be led by Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, is part of a two-day rally that has been officially sanctioned by the university.
The evening of May 16, bishop of the Fort Wayne- South Bend diocese, Rev. John D’Arcy, will lead a candlelight prayer vigil for graduating seniors and their families to pray for an end to abortion and embryo research.
On May 17, Commencement Day, in addition to the meditation ceremony, a large rally will be held on the South Quad of the university, the campus’ main quad, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. Speakers at the rally will include Elizabeth Naquin Border, Notre Dame graduate and former chairman of the board for the Women’s Care Centers in South Bend; Rev. Joseph Raphael, Notre Dame graduate and principal of St. Augustine’s High School in New Orleans; William Solomon, director of the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture; and Chris Godfrey, a Notre Dame law school graduate and former offensive guard for the Super Bowl XXI champion New York Giants.
View what’s happening on the South Quad in real time via Webcam:
ND Response is an ad hoc coalition of Notre Dame- sponsored student groups that has been organized to lead student reactions to the university’s decision to award an honorary law degree to President Barack Obama. These groups include Notre Dame Right to Life, Jus Vitae (Notre Dame Law School Right to Life), Notre Dame Knights of Columbus Council 1477, the Irish Rover independent student newspaper, Notre Dame College Republicans, The University of Notre Dame Anscombe Society, The Identity Project of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Knights of the Immaculata, Notre Dame Children of Mary, the Orestes Brownson Council, and the Notre Dame Law St. Thomas More Society. More information about ND Response and the demonstration can be found on the coalition’s Web site, http://www.NDResponse.com.
*******
Obama Brownshirts Demonize Pro-LifersThe Obama Administration is once again tarring his political enemies as terrorists and thugs.By Timothy Birdnow Tuesday, May 12, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11018
Once again, the New Messiah is seeking to smite his enemies, this time with a “Domestic Extremism Lexicon”-a dictionary calling pro-life people violent and racist.
According to an article in Lifenews:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — More details are emerging about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack Obama put together in March. The newly-revealed document comes on the heels of a report the Department of Homeland Security sent out saying pro-life advocates were right-wing extremists.
The latest report to cause national outrage is a document known as the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” essentially a terrorism and political extremism dictionary for the Obama administration’s internal use.
The March 26, 2009 document features numerous definitions and the headline “antiabortion extremism,” appears on page two of the eleven-page manual.
The Obama administration calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions.
The definition reads: “A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.”
A Washington Times report indicates the terrorism dictionary was recalled within hours after the Obama administration released it.
Amy Kudwa, Homeland Security spokeswoman, told the newspaper the dictionary “was not an authorized I&A product, and it was recalled as soon as management discovered it had been released without authorization.”
Although she said the dictionary “is not, nor was it ever, in operational use,” Kudwa did not appear to dispute its existence or that the Obama administration compiled it.” end excerpt
Now, abortion is itself violent and inherently racist. What could be more violent than to reach into a woman`s womb with forceps and tear a sleeping baby apart, removing the poor child`s body piece by piece? A serial killer who would do something similar to a child would be considered the most monstrous of villains, yet if a doctor does it to a consenting 13 year old girl`s child it is a “proceedure”. And racist?
Margaret Sanger and her accessories at Planned Parenthood wanted legalized abortion for the purposes of Eugenics-to eliminate the “mud races” who, in Sanger`s twisted little mind, were befouling her pristine gene pool. The solution of racists like Sanger was forced sterilization, quarantine of “degenerates” and forced abortion, and the ultimate goal was to eliminate minorities such as African Americans, Native Americans, and Jews.
In the United States, black women make up 12.3% of the female population but account for 35% of all abortions, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. Hispanic women make up 12.5% of the female population but account for 22% of abortions. White women, with 62.6% of the population, account for just 34% of abortions. Doesn`t this disproportionality suggest an inherently racist institution? Imagine if, instead of abortions, we were talking about mortality rates from, say, influenza; the outcry from Liberals would be deafening! In point of fact, we hear such an outcry about the percentages of whites to blacks in the prison population, and this after criminals have had a trial by a jury of their peers (and, of course, the prisoners will eventually be released and can be released). Consider the outcry about the inequity of the death penalty. Yet there is a deafening silence in regards to the inherent racism of abortion.
Martin Luther King`s daughter Alveda has become a staunch opponent of abortion, and had this to say about the matter:
“[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream: survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.”
There never was a slave as powerless as an unborn child, it should be duly noted.
Yet according to Mr. Obama`s Administration, it is the opponent of what is an utterly abhorrent practice who is the violent one, the racist.
This is illustrative of a utilitarian mindset toward human beings, and suggests that Mr. Obama holds common cause with radical atheists who view human beings as mere animals, subject to the intellectual whims of the intelligentsia.
Anyone who thinks these practices are acceptable does not see inherent dignity and worth in a human being but rather sees them as meat animated by neurochemical processes only. A result of carelessness on the part of the parents and blind biological processes which deliver a creature enslaved to its genetic, neurological, and cultural heritage, it holds no worth outside of that which society bestows upon it. Since it was not preplanned or poses some inconvenience, it has no inherent right to exist, hence can be killed as easily as one would slap a mosquito buzzing in one`s ear.
This is also illustrative of a hatred for conservatives of all stripes, and a desire to impose Mr. Obama`s will through force.
How many more examples are needed for the American public to understand? This administration has followed a path more fitting to Benito Mussolini (who, interestingly enough, called himself Il-Duce, or number one, much like Obama called himself and his cadre “the ones we have been waiting for”-he clearly sees himself as Il-Duce.)
Consider the Department of Homeland Security report suggesting that Second Amendment advocates, Christians, Ron Paul supporters, Pro-Lifers, and other such conservative types were potential terrorists to be treated with extreme caution. Consider Obama`s call for an internal secret police (to be under his direct control and funded as heavily as the U.S. Army or Navy). Consider his expansion of Americorp, and his expressed desire to make it a required “volunteerism” much like Adolph Hitler had his Youths “volunteer” to serve Nazism. Consider his seizing control of the U.S. Census, placing it in the hands of the corrupt vote-stealing ACORN to cement himself in power. Consider his takeover of the banks and auto industry, and his refusal to allow the banks to pay back the TARP money so he can maintain control. Consider his plan to convert the stock ceded to the government by the banks into common stock, thus giving control of the nation`s wealth to the U.S. government. Consider his Cosa Nostra-esque scheme to convert the government`s minority shares in the auto industry into majority control, and to give a large percentage to his loyal brownshirts in the UAW. Consider the national DNA database that he`s building without the consent of parents (see national DNA base), something that could be used for Eugenics. Consider the use of our satellite systems to spy on Americans as part of the Census Bureau`s efforts to “count every American (see Big Brother GPS Doorway Census). This guy skipped the hockey pokey at his wedding in favor of the goose step!
But that is a natural consequence of a worldview that sees human beings as mere objects. Obama and the materialist Liberals talk a good game about caring for the poor and disenfranchised, but that care is only a means to an end, that end being the imposition of state power over all aspects of the human condition. It is more a compassion of control, a desire to remake Mankind in much the same manner as Obama means to do “the work of remaking America”. Man to the Left is perfectible, given the right stimuli. Human beings are ultimately enslaved by conditions around them, lacking any free will except in the most illusory sense. But Humanity as a collective-and the intellectuals who have seen beyond the chains imposed by evolution and history-can perhaps mold an all-too malleable reality, thus reshaping the perceptual reality to create the “new Man” dreamed of by Karl Marx and other Leftist Utopians. Obama is just the latest sucker to buy into this pipe dream.
In short, this is a vision of Man as god, the shaper of all things. Having done their best to murder the Most High, the materialists have happily placed themselves on the throne. The One, the New Messiah, may be pejorative terms imposed by the Right, but they aren`t far from the mark in terms of what he and his friends ultimately believe.
I wrote about this very thing at the American Thinker when the Terri Schiavo case was raging, and my point is still germaine; the power of death is the key to equality with God to the Left. Man cannot give life, but he can surely mete out death, and a Barack Obama will fight to the end to keep abortion “safe and legal” to thus ensure that right, or rather, that usurpation. It should come as no surprise that the Obama Administration would call people fighting to save lives violent and racist.
If that is what they really believe, isn`t it incumbent upon them to utilize whatever power they possess to destroy these violent racists? Not only is it not inconceivable, it is in fact a moral imperative that they do so.
That is how Hitler thought. That was how Mussolini thought, Joseph Stalin thought, Mao Tse-Tung thought, Pol Pot thought. To believe what this Administration believes, action is necessary, or these are the BIGGEST hypocrites in history. That action will come, perhaps not with stormtroopers in the night, but certainly with laws and novel interpretations. There has to be action taken at some point.
The Administration has the power of the state behind them. Obama`s position on abortion is illustrative of a mentality that sees people as matters of convenience; you do the math!
Oh, and don`t forget; he called us “bitter Americans clinging to our guns and religion”. There are some who would say “you`ll take my guns from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.” Perhaps that could be arranged?
One could not hold, as does Obama, that partial birth abortion (where the baby is delivered except for the head, and a forceps is jammed into the base of the baby`s skull) is a legitimate practice, or that, when an abortion is botched and a baby is born alive, it can be tossed onto a table and allowed to die of exposure-as Obama seems to have little problem with also.
*******

*******
Why the Pro-Life Movement is Growing
Is there a Rightward turn in American Values
By Dr. Tony Magana
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11017
Americans are embracing Pro-Life! What caused the rightward turn in American values reported by a liberal research group despite overwhelming liberal media bias and political activism? This shift is due to the underestimated and continuing influence of organized religion in America. An understanding of the impact of community churches on American values and American life is essential to rebuilding conservative coalitions in America.
The Pew Research Center recently announced that despite the election of a pro-abortion President the public attitude toward abortion is moving in a conservative direction. In one year the percentage of Americans who affirm that abortion should be legal in all cases has decreased from a majority at 54% to just 46% while 44% declare that abortion should be illegal in at least some cases.
The main subgroup of the populace which seems to be changing their mind are independents. Evangelical protestants and Hispanic Catholics have always opposed abortion in high percentages but other more moderate religious groups are joining their ranks. Non-evangelical protestant support has dropping by 15% to 54% in one year and only 42% of non-Hispanic Catholics now favor abortion.
Although only about one in three Americans identify themselves as Republicans this clearly confirms that perhaps half of America has conservative values about abortion. Most of the change was realized in the group aged over 50 but even among young adults there was a decline to below 50% in those who believe that abortion should be legal in all cases.
The Pew Research Center did not offer any explanation for the shift but an analysis of this finding is intriguing. The Pro-Life movement is clearly not popular with mainstream media save perhaps the few conservative outlets like Fox News and the Washington Times. I do not think the influence of the conservative media ,which in reality has not spent much time on the issue, specifically is the cause.
This reversal of opinion by the American public I believe shows a chink in the armor of the left in their organization. For the most part, liberal ideas are generated by political entities and media in association with the Democratic party. These are entities that exist solely to achieve political ends. This democratic base consists of organizations like N.O.W., Planned Parenthood, and etc., that although they may be devoted to their cause do not in themselves possess any moral authority or sense of community. They are basically fund raising organizations staffed by professionals but are not “community organizations”.
On the other hand lets look at a group of Americans who consistently vote conservatively, which usually when appropriate, means Republican and are pro-life. The one group of voters that the Democratic Party and the liberal cause has been unable to gain momentum with in votes is those that attend church regularly. People who go to church services at least once a week and are Protestant or Catholic consistently vote conservatively and oppose abortion.
Ever wonder why MSNBC, Bill Maher, and other liberals trash religion so much? Strong religious affiliation with a church is the highest predictor that a voter will be conservative.
It used to be that Catholics were the exception to the rule but now that is changing for two reasons? About 42% of Americans attend religious services at least once week and that has been stable for some time. But within those numbers there is a dynamic change going on. Hundreds of thousands of former Catholics are becoming Protestant. This includes Hispanics where there has been a literal explosion of evangelical protestant membership not only in the United States but also in Latin America. The liberal press recently reported that Catholic numbers were being sustained by Hispanic immigrants but what is not well known is that among American born Hispanics now more are Protestant than Catholic.
Even among Catholics, the American Catholic Church has been under major pressure from within itself and the Vatican to make clearer the belief that life begins at conception. Obama has been back tracking as of late saying there is a legitimate moral argument on the issue of abortion hoping to salvage Catholic support but unless he becomes pro-life this will not be enough.
What this abortion shift is showing us is that are strong community institutions involved with the everyday life of Americans that continue to be a foundation for American values. The power of religious affiliation and involvement with a community church to hold American values steady remains. In this culture war between liberalism and conservatism the church has another asset beside strong community involvement and that is that they run excellent private schools. The most recent U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2008) show that more than 10% of American children are going to private school . Most of these schools are parochial which teach religious values against abortion.
There is also a now a rapid growth in religious based media. In every city of America there there are conservative religious radio stations in English and Spanish , conservative religious television, as well as on the internet. Churches are beginning to see themselves as being in media and community service so that they are maximizing their ability to touch their surrounding communities.
The Democratic party has shown a recent anti-religious fervor intent on attacking this growth. Not only have they tried to block public funding of poor students at private religious school which has now been shown to be cheaper and better than the public system, but they have tried to remove the non-profit status of religious institutions and drop the ability of everyday Americans to deduct donations on their income tax for religious contribution. Democrats are talking about blocking religious broadcasts on cable and public airways unless equal time is given to atheists.
Although the liberal left would like to predict the demise of organized religion in the United States this is not the case. Most young people in their teens and twenties often do not attend church regularly, after marriage and starting a family, however, the chance that a family will attend church starts to increase as they age. Many elderly American’s spend considerable time socializing with and through their community church. In addition to providing spiritual nourishment, America’s churches offer services like day-care, private school education, and group activities for the elderly in a community setting.
On the other hand, liberal groups want everything to be done by government. They really do not have sense of community. The American church has consistently over time proven to be a part of the foundation of American society. Ask Americans who they trust more their church or the Federal government?
In retrospect, President Obama made a political mistake when he sold out so fast on Reverend Wright. I am not defending Rev. Wright but over the years his church had single handled accomplished much in bettering the living for the poor in Chicago. Obama gave in to political expediency when he abandoned the man who married him, baptized his children, and helped build his political career. Combine this sell out with his pro-gay stand (less than 40% of black church goers favor gay marriage) and attacks on funding of religious institutions and one may easily see how friction will develop.
Unfortunately, excessive zeal on the part of some in the conservative movement to label Rev. Wright as representative of the American Black church movement may have damaged the Republican party. Black churches were the vanguard for the civil rights movement and even today remain the best organized community institutions in their neighborhoods. There are significant movements in black churches to stem the tide of abortion, promote individual responsibility, and strengthen the black family.
Additionally many black community leaders feel that Obama has not paid enough attention to fixing problems in America over spending money overseas. Politically this group favors that the U.S. pullout of foreign conflicts and investments so that the money can be spent in America’s urban neighborhoods. Obama’s programs are doing more to help Wall Street and the banks than they are the streets of Detroit, Washington DC, Watts, or Chicago. This is not to say they are ready to vote Republican. To reach this important group Republicans will need to reach out and open up frank dialogues.
The Republican party would be well advised to open up dialogue with Black church groups and Hispanic church groups. These constituencies share many of the same social conservative values and are concerned about the direction of the liberal left. The defeat of the Gay Marriage proposal in California was largely due to the minority religious vote.
A conservative movement to development enterprise zones in inner cities with an “Invest in America” initiative as envisioned by the late Jack Kemp would be very timely. President Bush’s faith based initiatives concept should be further developed in consultation with Jewish groups, Black churches, and Hispanics.
The Republican party and conservatives would be wise to approach the issue of immigration with the Hispanic community without labels and rhetoric and understand that this group could easily be aligned with the conservative movement in shared moral values because Hispanics remain the most religious group in America. No one stands to gain more from controlling immigration then lowly skilled and educated legal residents and citizens of the United States who happen to be Hispanic. Ceasar Chavez gained better working conditions for farm workers by cutting off the hiring of illegal aliens on the farms that now supply McDonalds and other food chains.
Similarly, Jewish groups are rightfully concerned about the new Obama foreign policy which seems to be retreating from the long held tenet that Israel has a right to defend her interests to one of Israel surrounding her sovereignty on security issue to the U.S.
I have never liked the term “Religious Right” because the reality of America is that folks who regularly attend church are in fact conservative there is no real “religious left” otherwise the Democrats would not be in so much haste to kill religion.
The Republican party should stay strongly conservative and strictly pro-life. Strong beliefs in traditional Judeo-Christian values must remain the moral foundation and can serve as a bridge to build relationships with Hispanic and African-American constituencies. Obama was wrong when he recently characterized America as not being a Christian nation and frankly I was not surprised that he chose on the most important Christian day of the year, Easter, not to attend worship, but I was disappointed that he has fallen into the Democratic mantra not to let his children learn about religion on that day either.
*******
Poll: Canadians Unaware of Unlimited Abortion, Want Women Given Risk Infoby Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor
January 12, 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/int1044.html
Ottawa, Canada (LifeNews.com) -- Polls routinely show Canadians are more pro-abortion than their American counterparts, but a new survey helps explain why. Canadians may become more aware of caducity of human life if they understood that abortion is allowed nationwide for any reason throughout pregnancy.
A new poll by the Angus Reid polling firm has found that a vast majority of Canadians do not know, under the country's current legal situation, that abortion is permitted at any time from conception up to the moment of birth.
The poll found 92 percent of the respondents did not know that is the case.
The Angus Ried poll also found virtually everyone polled wanted information about abortion's risks and dangers to be readily available to women contemplating abortion.
It found 95 percent said information should be given about the psychological fallout women face from abortions and 96 percent want information distributed about the physical and medical complications abortions produce.
Yvonne Douma, the director of the group Signal Hill, a human rights organization that educates about bioethics issues like abortion, talked about the results of the poll it sponsored.
"Canadian women have a right to know," she said about the potential risks and dangers. "Informed consent is vital to making good choices, and we do not see women getting all the information they need when making these life-changing decisions."
The poll also found that an overwhelming number of respondents did notsupport a woman's right to an abortion for a sex-selection abortion -- a practice Douma says is legal in Canada. Only six percent supported allowing women to have an abortion in such cases.
"Society recognizes that choice is not an absolute," said Douma. "Somechoices cannot be supported as is evident with gender selection abortions."
Canada followed the United States by 15 years in allowing abortions to be done across the nation without any major restrictions when, in January 1988, Canada's Supreme Court ruled Canada's abortion law was unconstitutional and allowed them to be done with even fewer limits than in the U.S.
Despite pleas from pro-life advocates, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he doesn't want to re-open the abortion debate in parliament.
Canada experienced fewer abortions in 2005 according to its most recent national figures. Overall, Statistics Canada indicates abortions lowered to 96,815 during that year, a decline of 3.2 percent from the 100,039 in 2004.
In 2002, there were 105,154 abortions in Canada compared with a figure of 106,270 in 2001. The number of abortions in Canada peaked in 1997 at 112,000.
*******
Ad With Late-Term Abortion Survivor Bashes Barack Obama on Infanticide
by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor
September 16, 2008
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4313.html
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new pro-life group that features a late-term abortion survivor is running a national television advertisement against presidential candidate Barack Obama. The ad takes Obama to task for his votes against a bill to care for survivors of such abortions when he was in the Illinois legislature.
The new group, BornAliveTruth.org is a joint effort between Gianna Jessen, who survived a saline abortion decades ago, and pro-life blogger Jill Stanek.
Stanek is the former Chicago-area nurse who exposed the practice of live-birth abortions, where doctors purposefully cause the premature birth of an unborn child for the sole purpose of letting her die.
Her exposure of the practice led to the Illinois bills Obama opposed and a national law President Bush signed requiring medical centers and personnel to provide such babies with adequate medical care after birth.
"I'm a survivor, as are many others...but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here," Jessen says in the ad.
"Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after a failed abortion.
Senator Obama, please support born alive infant protections. I'm living proof these babies have a right to live," Jessen adds.
Stanek tells LifeNews.com that Obama's campaign is not officially responding to the ads.
"We're hearing from the media Obama's people are telling them they have no comment on the Gianna ad, that Obama didn't vote for Born Alive because it would undermine Roe," she said.
"Even if that were true, which it is not, am I hearing Obama admit he supports infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with legalized abortion?" Stanek added.
The $350,000 ads are airing currently in New Mexico and Ohio, two key tossup states that could determine the outcome of the election between Obama and Senator John McCain, who opposes abortion.
Obama has said he voted against the Born Alive bill in Illinois because it would have undermined Roe v. Wade and the so-called right to abortion, but documents from the Illinois legislature show he voted for an amendment to rectify that issue and still voted against the bill.
The ads are run by the new group, a 527 organization known as BornAliveTruth.org and the ads are financed by Raymond Ruddy, a Mississippi pro-life activist who was a supporter of Mitt Romney during the Republican primaries.
The group says its mission "is to educate the public on the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Senator Obama's record opposing this act."
*******
Obama's abortion stance is chillingLetter to the EditorThursday, September 04, 2008
Shauna Occhipinti, Martinez
Augusta Chronicle
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/090408/let_471895.shtml
Recently I ran across an article in the National Catholic Register that highlighted Barack Obama's lack of support in the past for "born-alive" bills in Illinois. These bills would have guaranteed medical care for babies who were born alive after induced-labor abortions.
During debate over the 2001 legislation, Obama said he opposed it because it might undermine abortion rights: And that is what sent shivers down my spine: Obama's very own words. Although he was speaking in reference to the born-alive legislation, his words shine a light on his thought process on life in general.
Anyone watching the Democratic National Convention last week couldn't have missed all the talk about guaranteed health coverage for all Americans under an Obama presidency. But I'm going to venture a guess that this coverage would only be for those Americans whom they deem entitled. And I do believe that Obama's own words indicate that my children -- and the thousands of Americans like them who are born premature each year -- may not be entitled to this protection, because they are not 9-month-old, full-term children.
My sons were born at just 27 weeks gestation. They were not 9-month-old, full-term children; they weren't 8-month-old children; they weren't even 7-month-old children -- but I guarantee that they were fully-formed people with a God-given right to life!

"Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month-old -- child that was delivered to term," Obama said on the floor of the state Senate.

*******

*******
Obama faces new criticism on abortion
Associated Press
August 19, 2008
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080819.woabortion0819/BNStory/usElection2008 SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Painted during the Democratic primary as weak on abortion rights, Barack Obama is now being portrayed as an extremist who literally supports killing babies.
Both portraits are based on his handling of a related issue in the Illinois Senate, and Mr. Obama insists they distort his position.
The Democratic presidential candidate says he firmly supports a woman's right to choose but can accept some restrictions — including a requirement that medical care be provided for any fetus that survives an abortion.“For people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favour of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous,” he recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network. “It defies common sense and it defies imagination.”
But as a state senator, Mr. Obama repeatedly voted against that requirement and other restrictions on what opponents label “born alive” abortions. Mr. Obama says he opposed it because of technical language that might have interfered with a woman's right to choose and because Illinois law already required medical care in such situations.
Hillary Rodham Clinton argued during the primary that Mr. Obama hadn't been vocal enough in his opposition to this and other abortion legislation, and questioned his commitment to protecting women's access to abortion. “Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide,” Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse and anti-abortion activist, wrote on her website.
“Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling,” former senator Rick Santorum wrote in a column early this year.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor called such statements “distortions and lies.”
“The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting,” Mr. Vietor said in a statement Tuesday.
The dispute revolves around what happens in rare circumstances when a fetus survives an abortion.
Illinois abortion opponents repeatedly tried to pass laws defining any fetus that survives an abortion as a person with full rights, requiring a second doctor be present to provide medical care and creating a right to sue on behalf of the infant.
They argued the U.S. Senate had voted 98-0 for a federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that defined such a fetus as a person, so Illinois lawmakers should have no trouble doing the same thing. U.S. President George W. Bush signed the legislation in 2002.
Abortion rights supporters, led by Mr. Obama, opposed the Illinois legislation, arguing that it was designed to interfere with abortion. They said doctors were already required to care for any fetus that might survive an abortion; abortion opponents dispute that.
Over the years,Mr. Obama repeatedly has said the Illinois measure was different from the federal version in a key way — it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the Illinois legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it.
Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Mr. Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a “neutrality clause.” The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Mr. Obama chaired.
“He needs to explain misleading people. He needs to explain why he apparently covered that up,” Ms. Stanek said.
The Obama campaign's explanation is that even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences.
The federal government doesn't have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a “born alive” measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights, the campaign says.
Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, backs Mr. Obama's position. The federal law essentially does nothing, she said, but the same language in Illinois would complicate state abortion laws.
Ms. Sutherland noted that Illinois eventually adopted a version of the “born alive” law but only after including a section that specifically states abortion rules would not be affected.
“They're being very dishonest about their depiction of what happened with that bill — or just clueless,” she said of abortion opponents.
Ms. Sutherland also scoffed at the idea that opposing the legislation is the equivalent of supporting infanticide. “It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous,” she said.
Now focused on the general election, Mr. Obama wants to show that he may disagree with abortion opponents, but understands and respects their views.
The Democratic Party platform is being revised to bolster the section on reducing the need for abortion. The version awaiting approval at the Democratic convention in Denver says the party supports efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies and understands the need to help women who choose to have children.

Abortion opponents say Mr. Obama's position amounts to an endorsement of killing babies, and that he has lied about it.

*******
Hang 'Em HighBy Marsha West
June 30, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha7.htm
"[It's] so gruesome that its use can be traumatic even for the physicians and medical staff who perform it ... partial birth abortion so closely borders on infanticide that 30 States have attempted to ban it."- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (dissenting opinion)
The procedure known as partial-birth abortion (PBA) is immoral. Every American should be outraged that this procedure was ever allowed in a civilized country such as ours. If you’ve been in a coma and haven’t heard about this grizzly procedure allow me explain. To “save the life of the mother,” a living, breathing, baby is partially delivered, then scissors are jammed into its skull to make a hole large enough for a suction tube. The tube is inserted into the hole and the baby’s brains are sucked out causing the skull to collapse. Sounds like something right out of a Hollywood horror flick, doesn’t it? I doubt that even Hollywood would go this far to shock their audience.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute -- an affiliate of Planned Parenthood -- published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 partial-birth abortions were performed in the year 2000?. In America.&nbssp; Why would a woman intentionally allow a doctor to do a procedure as unspeakable as PBA to her own flesh, bone and blood? Ignorance? Desperation? Selfishness? What? The sad reality is, a pregnant woman who agrees to a live birth abortion has lost her sense of right and wrong.
In 2003 opponents of the procedure succeeded in getting the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act signed into law; both the House and the Senate passed it and President George W. Bush signed it into law on November 5.
In early 2004, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, and a group of abortion doctors in Nebraska challenged the ban in United States District Courts in Nebraska, California and New York. All three District Courts ruled the ban unconstitutional. Their respective appellate courts declared the ban unconstitutional as well. The U.S. Department of Justice requested that the Supreme Court review the lower court's decision. The high court will consider the cases out of Nebraska and California in the Fall of 2006. The issue of partial-birth abortion will now be put in the spotlight. “The high court not only will determine whether Congress acted appropriately in enacting the ban, but the high court also has a critical opportunity to bring to an end -- once and for all -- the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
"There is no justification for taking a baby's life just because the head has not come out of the womb,” said former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. “Any decent, sensible person can understand that, and the court should too. There is no way to say that life begins when the head comes out. That baby is alive, and to say that partial-birth abortion prohibition is unconstitutional is simply to dispute logic and reason."
Ever heard of the term “bite the bullet”? During the Civil War when a soldier’s mangled limb had to be amputated and the painkillers and whiskey had run out, medics placed a soft-lead bullet between the patient's teeth. It made amputation a little easier to “bite the bullet” instead of lying on the table screaming bloody murder. Today if a combat medic in Iraq used that gruesome procedure on an ‘enemy combatant’ and succeeded in saving his life, the liberal media would insist the jihadist was tortured and call for an investigation. The media’s indignation would echo around the world! (No doubt liberals would demand that the medic go through sensitivity training. And, of course, it would be all George Bush’s fault.)
How does the liberal media react when a Federal court judge strikes down the Constitutional ban on the uncivilized partial-birth abortion procedure? They praise the gods, clink their glasses together and celebrate another victory.
In the old west if a baby had been partially delivered then clobbered with a mallet, the killer would have been given a speedy trial and taken to the nearest tree and promptly hanged. And the punishment would have fit the crime. Back then folks knew right from wrong. They also knew a thing or two about justice. When someone decided to commit a heinous crime, they could expect to pay dearly for it. “Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has injured someone, so shall it be done to him” (Leviticus 24:20).
Today in our frivolous throwaway culture an abortion doctor will spend his day killing babies without one speck of guilt. At 6:00 PM the doc will hop in his BMW and head to Starbucks for a Grande non-fat Caffè Latte, extra foam, and a biscotti. What a life!
*******