Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

"IT'S A FETUS!" - Focus on the Family's one minute spot ad

This is terrific!

Jim Daly, head of Focus on the Family, commented:

"Even the Mayo Clinic's website, in an article taking prospective parents through the weekly development of their child, uses ‘baby’ to describe that child 37 times, from the moment of fertilization. Our country's most heralded medical institution knows it's a baby. We want more Americans to realize that truth, too," Daly said.

"We're hoping to reach people who will be struck by the truth the spot depicts that it is, indeed, a baby," Daly said, per an email sent to Fox News Digital. "We're always looking for compelling ways, even unexpected ways, to get the country talking about life. And with the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs being June 24, this was the perfect moment to add this important perspective to the national conversation."

He argued that culture has gotten "too comfortable" using "antiseptic scientific terms" to "dehumanize a child in the womb."

"We wanted to challenge that by plainly and simply showing – in situations we're all familiar with – that it's a baby. And to call it anything else just doesn't make sense."

KANYE WEST - THE MOST COMPELLING PRO-LIFE ADVOCATE ON THE WORLD STAGE

Note:  A transcript can be found below the video.

From Breitbart.com:

CARLSON: At this moment, the most compelling voice against abortion and Planned Parenthood is not a Republican. The most widely heard Christian evangelist in America is not ordained.

Instead, he is a rapper married to a Kardashian, who by the way, everyone says is crazy. Kanye West is running for President. But that’s not really the headline. The headline is that on core conservative issues, not political issues like legislation before the Congress, but on foundational questions about life and children, and what happens when you die. No one with a national platform has been more honest or sincere or effective than Kanye West has been, maybe in generations.

It’s all pretty shocking, really, talk about an unlikely messenger. But it’s real.

Check out West’s Twitter feed if you haven’t seen it. Not everything he says is conservative, far from it. Not everything he says is even intelligible.

But when West talks about his faith and about the gift of human life, you start to ask yourself, why aren’t there any elected Republicans who sound like that? They say they believe the same things. But if they actually do, why don’t they talk like Kanye West does? And the answer, of course, is because they’re afraid to.

But West is not afraid. He doesn’t have to be. He is too famous. He has made too much money. He sold something like 150 million albums over the past 20 years. And really, it’s hard to cancel a guy like that.

SHOULD AMAZON TRIBES BE ALLOWED TO KILL THEIR OWN CHILDREN?

Short version -- Deadly Cultural Relativism: Leftists Oppose Laws Protecting Indigenous Children From Being Murdered

Full version below:

(Right:  photo of Marcia and Edson Suzuki with their adopted daughter Hakani.  See story below)

John Daniel Davidson writes in The Federalist: [my bolding]

A post at Get Religion caught my eye yesterday with the title, “Should Amazon tribes be allowed to kill their young? Foreign Policy editors aren’t sure.” It linked to a story in Foreign Policy magazine from April 9 about a handful of indigenous tribes in Brazil that engage in the ritual killing of infants and children—namely, those with a disability, twins, and the children of single mothers, all of whom are considered to be a bad omen—and the legal efforts underway to end the practice.

One would think that the answer to the question posed by the subtitle to the Foreign Policy article—“Should Brazil keep its Amazon tribes from taking the lives of their children?”—would be a resounding, “Yes.” Surely no one would argue these tribes have a right to kill unwanted children. Surely even the most committed multiculturalist would not condone such barbarity. Right?

But to assume that would be to underestimate the force of cultural relativism on the Left. If our friends on the Left encountered, in the present day and in real life, the ritual human sacrifices of the Aztecs or the fires of the Canaanite god Moloch, more than a few would insist that we not pass judgement on these indigenous cultural practices, and would probably denounce those who tried to do so as racists and imperialists.

ABBEY JOHNSON - 7 Things I learned at the Women's Convention About Feminists and Abortion

Abbey Johnson (former Planned Parenthood manager) offers 7 observations:

First observations:  "The abortion industry is more brazen than ever." 

In one panel we attended, a post-abortive woman (times six) and clinic worker at the Houston Women’s Center named Kenya Martin stated that “Abortion should be no different than having a tooth pulled.” She even said women should throw “abortion parties” the day they have an abortion and rent “party buses” to celebrate their “decision.” Yes, she really said that."   . . . .

 2nd observation: "These women are still really hung up on their privates."

The vulgarity all around this conference was enough to make even this former secular feminist blush. . . .  

Abbey Johnson offers more details on these two observationss as well as five more.  I urge you to read the whole thing to see what has become of "feminism" today.     

Note:  Abby Johnson is a former Planned Parenthood manager who now runs And Then There Were None, which helps abortion workers leave their jobs. She is also the author of “Unplanned.”

MAN WITH DOWN SYNDROME TELLS CONGRESS "MY LIFE IS WORTH LIVING"

I know a young man with Down syndrome, who (much like the man testifying before Congress below), lives every day with verve, relish and love, and who is admired and loved by all who know him.  That the world should be deprived of such men and women is beyond despicable and quite horrific.   And yet it's happening... it's happening... 

It's true what one person commented:

"Eliminate the good, the evil grows stronger.

First the weak, then the helpless, then all who disagree.

Once a society engages in the murder of its own... its only a matter of time until our number is up."

TUCKER CARLSON QUIZZES PLANNED PARENTHOOD SPOKESPERSON

Witness the multiple contortions encountered in the refusal to answer the question,  "If you can feel a heartbeat, what is that thing tht's being aborted?  Is it a piece of tissue?  Is it a separate human being?"

 

CONTRARY TO CLAIMS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES NOT OFFER PRE-NATAL CARE TO PREGNANT WOMEN, ONLY "TERMINATIONS"

The video below is MUST-VIEWING.  PP is one of the slimiest organizations imagineable. The leaders constantly talk about "pre-natal care," but when contacted, 92 out of 97 "clinics" said they only do abortions.  

Live Action, the group responsible for the investigation, issued the following report to accompany the video:

Washington, D.C. (January 24, 2017) – Today, Live Action released a new investigative video debunking Planned Parenthood’s claim that it provides critical prenatal care to pregnant women. The abortion giant has insisted that prenatal care is one of its core services that women will lose if its taxpayer funding is cut off. But Live Action’s investigation proves those services are virtually nonexistent at the abortion chain.

“The Prenatal Care Deception” is the first in Live Action’s “Abortion Corporation” series of investigative videos highlighting Planned Parenthood’s own employees saying its focus is providing abortions, not women’s health care. Live Action is releasing the investigative series as Congress plans to redirect Medicaid dollars away from Planned Parenthood to local health clinics and also vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

QUICK TAKES

-- Good idea of the day - relocate a number of federal bureaucracies out of D.C. and to the Midwest

-- Free speech is not a Dutch value: Geert Wilders convicted of hate speech.   Charlie Cooke: "Cherish the First Amendment, Americans.  It's exceptional."

-- French government votes to criminalize prolife websites

-- A major reason for Trump's victory - the progressives went too far in denying religious liberty and created a backlash.

DEMOCRATS TARGET "HYDE AMENDMENT" WHICH FORBIDS TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR ABORTIONS (VIDEO)

From Family Research Council:

This week marks the 40^th Anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. This bi-partisan measure has saved two million babies and even President Obama has signed it every year in office.

But there is a new effort to repeal it. We can't let this happen!

This is just one of the many reasons our Get Out The Vote efforts are so critical this year. We must support candidates who will protect the Hyde Amendment and stand up for the unborn.

 

 

THEY SUPPORTED ABORTION UNTIL THEY SAW THIS VIDEO

Erika Andersen writes:

When faced with the reality of the abortion procedure, many people who are pro-choice change their minds instantly. A video put out by Live Action shows former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levantino describing and showing the process of a second-trimester (13-24 weeks of pregnancy) surgical abortion procedure. Dr. Levantino has preformed over 1,200 abortions and explains in detail how babies are ripped apart limb by limb in these procedures. 

Live Action approached people on the street and asked them if they were pro-choice. To those that said yes, even up to the point of birth, they showed Dr. Levantino’s video of the procedure. After watching the video, the people who claimed to be pro-choice changed their minds on the spot. They admitted they were unaware of how developed babies are at this point in pregnancy and described the video as “inhumane.” 

Watch the reactions here: 

 

America’s views on life are changing for the better as science and technology reveal the fascinating stages of life babies progress through from the moment of conception. Videos like this one are helping to change the debate and show uninformed individuals what it is they actually profess to believe in when they say they support pro-choice policies. 

Seeing the reality of abortion on it’s face makes people — like those in this video — oppose it outright. Exposing the brutal inhumanity of the abortion procedure may be the most powerful way to change minds and stop this tragic holocaust of children. 

Here’s the abortion-procedure video the participants in the film were shown that changed their minds on the spot: 

 

'GOD WILL FORGIVE': USING GRACE TO DEFEND ABORTION - ANATOMY OF A 'CHRISTIAN' MURDER

 Rolley Haggard writes:

 

Ask any sidewalk counselor. Odds are he or she has heard some version of this from those heading into the abortion clinic: “I know it's wrong. But I'm a Christian and I've prayed about it and I know God will forgive. His grace is greater than all my sin.”

What's wrong with this picture? (Other than the fact that a baby is about to be deliberately put to death.) Most Christians instinctively sense something's desperately out of whack here. But what?

Sadly, few seem able to put their finger on it. Sadder still is that after they sift through their own thoughts on the matter, nine times out of 10 they wind up less sure that, from a biblical standpoint, there really is anything substantially wrong with such statements. They know murder is wrong, but they also know the Bible teaches that God can forgive any sin.* Their reasoning often runs along these lines:

“It is true God can forgive any sin. And it's true Christ died for all sins, past, present, and future. And it's true God will forgive anyone who truly repents and asks for forgiveness. And this person really does seem to be a Christian who's in a difficult situation. So, even though it's terribly tragic that they feel the need to abort their child, technically they are correct: God will forgive them.”

Armed with such considerations, believers often succumb to the notion that since grace is waiting on the other side, even though God very plainly says “thou shalt not murder,” His commandments must be optional. Why else would He indirectly embolden sin with guarantees of subsequent forgiveness?

But does He? Can grace really be used this way, seemingly to magnify God, but actually to defend abortion? Is the above reasoning complete and sound?

What the Question Is Not

Just so we're clear: The question is not whether God will forgive the post-abortiveparent who turns to him in genuine repentance and faith. He most assuredly will. There is no sin, including abortion, that God cannot or will not forgive. God is more eager to forgive than we are to seek forgiveness. That's true regardless of whether we've sinned little or greatly.

Recall, for example, that King David committed both adultery and murder. Yet after the fact, when the prophet Nathan confronted him, David repented and God forgave him. As if to underscore His grace, God even had Nathan call David's second son by Bathsheba “Jedidiah,” which means “beloved of God.” Other examples could be multiplied.

The question is not, will the Father lavish grace upon all who turn to Him in true repentance and faith? Unequivocally, yes, He will.

What the Question Is

The question is, does God give to pre-abortive parents assurance He will forgive the murder of their child if, despite many dire warnings, they go through with it? More to the point, can they who are willing to deliberately ignore the clear moral commands of God be assured their heart will not be hardened to a degree where they will never even want to truly repent?

I submit that neither conscience (God's law written on the heart) nor Scripture gives any such assurance, and that to suppose otherwise is to confuse faith with presumption and grace with license. It is not “faith” that assumes one can deliberately sin without dire consequence; it is presumption. And it is not “grace” that holds forth the promise of consequence-free sin; it is license.

Sinning to the Glory of God?

Those who believe God's grace effectively means “obedience is optional” are likely not true Christians at all. Their thinking is desperately, diabolically wrongheaded. The theological import of it could be paraphrased thus: “Our yet-to-be-committed sins aren't that big a deal to God. Christ died for our sins, so we don't have to break a sweat to avoid them. When tempted to do something wrong, even something as serious as aborting a child, we just need to remember God's grace takes the worry out of sinning. No matter what we do, God will forgive. His grace is greater than our sin. Indeed, because our sin magnifies His grace, when we sin we do so to the glory of God.”

Reaping What We Sow

“Christians” holding to such ideas have far more in common with those who “turn the grace of God into licentiousness,” “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” and “do evil that good may come.” They have no Scriptural basis to expect things will end well for them. They run the very real risk of being given up to a hardened heart. Indeed, their saying such things gives strong evidence that hardening has already begun. We reap what we sow.

Think about it: If I am so sure that, after I kill one of my children, I absolutely will repent to receive God's forgiveness, then why won't I repent before I kill the child? I have apparently already deceived myself into thinking I can order up my own repentance “on demand.” Yet if that were the case, wouldn't I be repenting now, before I kill my child, rather than after? No one is physically forcing me to kill my child.** If I refuse to repent now before the act, what makes me so sure I will truly repent later? What will have changed? And if I have another child, what assurance do I have I won't do it again? And if I do, did I ever truly repent after the first time?

Unless one is under the delusion that “repentance” is something done only when it's easy to obey God's commands, one can never be sure one ever did truly repent. Anyone can “repent” when there's no great cost involved. It's when the price of turning from sin is high that we discover whether our repentance is real.

It is a dangerous thing to presume upon the grace of God and say, before deliberately sinning, “God will forgive." Even if I am a genuine Christian, I am almost certainly going to be plagued, perhaps for the rest of my life, with unshakable feelings of guilt and doubt as to whether my repentance and faith was real and whether I am, indeed, a genuine Christian.

Grace never assures us beforehand that if we deliberately sin we will be forgiven. Grace only assures us that there is no sin, sincerely repented of, that God cannot or will not forgive through Christ. It is a crucial distinction.

God's willingness to forgive is never in doubt. But His forgiveness is always predicated upon the genuineness of our repentance. And the genuineness of our repentance is severely suspect if, before we go through with it, we can say in our heart, “I know it's wrong, but since God is going to forgive me anyway, I'm going to go ahead and do it.”

Those who say such things aren't looking for grace, but for permission to sin. They assuredly will not receive the latter, and it is fearfully doubtful they will receive the former, either. Not because God is unwilling to give it, but because they clearly aren't seeking it.

---

* A discussion of Matthew 12:31 and the “unforgivable sin” is outside the scope of this article.

** I recognize there is often tremendous pressure to abort, but few in this country are literally forced.

Image copyright David Castillo Dominici.

Rolley Haggard is a feature writer for BreakPoint.

---

Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BreakPoint. Outside links are for informational purposes and do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content.

COMMENTS:

Abortion and God's forgiveness

I have heard this and counseled others in the post abortive healing ministry I facilitate, who have said and thought it! True repentance does not include justifying sin. Though one can be forgiven for this sin of abortion, there must also be a broken repentance and not just an "I'm sorry I got caught in my sin" mentality and state of heart. Broken repentance means you turn away from sin, not enter into it! True repentance sees the ugliness of sin and is repulsed by it. God is not ever ok with us doing something that is clearly marked out as sin in the Scriptures, when it goes directly against God's character. Justification is not the same thing as permission. God would not give us permission to abort children just because we didn't want them for one reason or another. And just because true Christians have the Grace of God does NOT mean we are free from sin's consequences, or permitted to do as we so please. If you call yourself a true Christian, and are desiring to commit murder, and follow through with it, you might need to reevaluate if you are truly saved...because sin such as abortion, is repulsive and unthinkable to a true Christian when you realize what abortion really is and does!! I know this all, FIRSTHAND from my own life story which includes abortion, the "I'm sorry" mentality, repentance and God's Grace. Abortion is NEVER ok, I know this now after years of consequences!

Posted By: Paula Ellefson on June 10, 2015 1:32 PM

MEDIA CORRUPTION ON ABORTION COVERAGE

  **  Mollie Hemingway - Media Censors Forensic Analysis Showing Planned Parenthood Videos Not Deceptively Edited  - Important article!

 

  **  Susan Michelle - Women will have more healthcare access if Planned Parenthood is defunded    - See the visuals proving the point!

 

  **  Watch the viral video exposing Planned Parenthood false mammogram claims

Quotes of the Day

Rich Lowry recounts a couple of Carly Fiorina zingers on abortion:

A woman accosted Fiorina to ask, “How can you as a woman not support our health care?” In a firm and frank exchange, Fiorina probably left the woman determined never to try that again. “Oh, I support your health care,” the candidate shot back. “I don’t support butchering babies.”

... “Liberals and progressives will spend inordinate amounts of time and money protecting fish, frogs, and flies,” she said last week after a visit to a pro-life pregnancy center. “They do not think a 17-week-old, a 20-week-old, a 24-week-old is worth saving.”

FOR THOSE WHO FIND IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO WATCH THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD VIDEOS

Here is a written summary of each video with salient Planned Parenthood quotes noted - 

http://www.cwfa.org/summary-of-the-center-for-medical-progress-videos/

HAVE YOU LISTENED TO SEN. MIKE LEE ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

 

DEBUNKING PRO-ABORTION ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Eric Metaxas:  Planned Parenthood supporters paint a scary picture of what will happen if the organization is defunded. But one New York Times columnist isn’t buying it. Nor should we.

Click to Metaxas' introduction to Ross Douthart's excellent New York Times rebuttal.

WHEN "LIFE" AND "PREGNANCY" BEGIN ARE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS

Wesley J. Smith clarifies for those confused:

The anti-science liberals are denying again that human life begins with the completion of fertilization (without getting into an arcane debate of the exact moment that process is completed).

Thomas Edsall uses his NYT column to mock that embryology truth. From, “The Republican Conception of Conception:”

Fifteen percent of the Republican presidential candidates, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Carla Fiorina contend life begins at conception.

So do embryology text books. As I have written here and elsewhere before, the science notes that once conception is complete, a new human individual organism has come into existence, with its own distinct genetic makeup, a determined sex, etc. Here’s just one quote from such a text:

Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a male. (p. 2); … but the embryo begins to develop as soon as the oocyte is fertilized. (p. 2); …

Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

That’s the science. And if we are to be “pro-science,” accuracy in biology must inform our policy positions. When “life” begins is a different question from when “pregnancy” begins. Edsall notes that the government and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (as ideological as scientific) claim pregnancy begins on implantation.   [more . . .]

Ramesh Ponnuru offers additional commentary:

QUICK TAKES

**  Dr. Ben Carson - "the 'Black Lives Matter' Misfire"  

I grew up in neighborhoods most Americans were told to never drive through. I saw bullets, drugs and death in the same places I played tag and ball with my friends. Both of my older cousins died on the streets where I lived. I thought that was my destiny.

But my mother didn't. She changed all of that. She saved my brother and me from being killed on those streets with nothing but a library card.

My mother knew what the problems were and she shielded me and my brother from them. I can tell you she wasn't worried about Socialist senators from tiny rural states. "BlackLivesmatter" could learn from her to focus on the real sources of our hopelessness.

This is where we should march:  [more. . .]

** Jay Nordlinger:

The maker, or makers, of those Planned Parenthood videos? I think they should win every award under the conservative sun. Under the human sun, actually. They’ve done a tremendous service. Harriet Beecher Stowe, with a novel, rocked the conscience of America. These videos should do something similar, if the American conscience is open to rocking.

** Koch blasts Obama-

Charles Koch hit back at criticism of “the Koch brothers” during President Barack Obama’s energy speech in Las Vegas earlier this week, saying he was “flabbergasted” by the attack and charging that Obama made the dig as a favor to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who appeared with him.

“It’s beneath the president, the dignity of the president, to be doing that,” Koch said during a phone interview Tuesday.

**  M.B. Dougherty - The kids are not all right: The bleak future of the millennial generation

Millennials marry much later. Just 26 percent of younger millennials (18-29) are married. At that same age, 36 percent of Gen Xers, 48 percent of Baby Boomers, and 65 percent of the Silent Generation had married. And that's if millennials get married at all. Pew's research suggests that about 25 percent of those between the ages of 25 and 34 will remain unmarried. That's higher than previous generations.

MAIN STREAM MEDIA IGNORES PLANNED PARENTHOOD VIDEOS; GIVES OUT MARGARET SANGER AWARDS

From CBN News:

 

CBN News reports:

The mainstream network media ignored the latest video released on Planned Parenthood's practice of harvesting the body parts of aborted babies.

The latest one detailing how one technician told another worker, "Want to see something cool?" referring to a baby's heart beating while harvesting its brain.
 
Ex-StemExpress employee Holly O'Donnell saying a Planned Parenthood worker called to her: "'Hey Holly come over here I want to see something kinda cool, this is kinda neat.'

"So, I'm over here. And, the moment I see it I'm just flabbergasted," O'Donnell said. "This is the most gestated fetus and the closest thing to a baby I've seen. And, she's, 'Okay, I want to show you something.' And she has one of her instruments and she just taps the heart and it starts beating. And, I'm sitting here and I'm looking at this fetus and its heart is beating and I don't know what to think."

It's a disturbing video, yet not reported on major national news outlets..

                              * * * 

Kathryn Jean Lopez suggests the following reading:

**  Half of Americans Haven’t Seen the Planned Parenthood Videos. Here’s What They Need to Know.

**  If Planned Parenthood Goes, Where Do Women Go?

**  If Planned Parenthood Loses Government Funding, Here’s a Map of Health Clinics That Could Take Its

**  Abortion Hurts

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SCURRYING LIKE BUGS UNDER A LIFTED ROCK

-- Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist - "The 4 Most Embarrassing Things Cecile Richards Said In Defense Of Planned Parenthood" (video and may links)

-- Ramesh Ponnuru - Planned Parenthood defenders are upset that the critics keep saying that the organization was haggling over “baby parts.” That’s not accurate terminology, they complain.  Fine: Let’s call them “parts of children” instead.

-- Ramesh Ponnuru again - On the ignorance of the populace concerning Planned Parenthood [my bolding]- Pollster Kellyanne Conway corroborated my second point below in a poll she conducted in 2013 for the National Right to Life Committee. A full 88 percent of respondents said they were familiar with Planned Parenthood, but only 45 percent said that they thought its affiliates perform abortions. When respondents were asked how many abortions they thought Planned Parenthood affiliates perform each year, 55 percent guessed that it was fewer than 100,000, and 71 percent guessed fewer than the actual number (more than 327,000).

- - Kathryn Jean Lopez interview with an Ex-Planned Parenthood worker

-- Ross Douthat in the NY Times - . . . And the problem these videos create for Planned Parenthood isn’t just a generalized queasiness at surgery and blood.

It’s a very specific disgust, informed by reason and experience — the reasoning that notes that it’s precisely a fetus’s humanity that makes its organs valuable, and the experience of recognizing one’s own children, on the ultrasound monitor and after, as something more than just “products of conception” or tissue for the knife.

CARLY FIORINA SPEAKS OUT ON ABORTION WITH CLARITY AND PASSION

As others have noted, Carly Fiorina will not be cowed by the liberal press into a defensive corner.  She's a Tiger!

 

Transcript:

JAKE TAPPER: Let's turn to the question of abortions. I know you want to talk about it. One of your opponents, Scott Walker, signed a law in Wisconsin this week which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of a pregnancy. On Twitter, HIllary Clinton said:

"Governor Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in Wisconsin — without exceptions for rape and incest. Extreme and unacceptable."

Walker retweeted her, and called her "out of touch with most Americans."

What's your position on this legislation, which does not allow exceptions for rape and incest?

FIORINA: Well, let's talk about the legislation that's sitting on the Senate floor right now, which does allow for those exceptions —

TAPPER: So you —

FIORINA: Let's also talk about, let's also talk about Hillary Clinton's position. Let’s also talk about Hillary Clinton’s position. Let’s talk about what extreme is. It’s not a life until it leaves the hospital. That’s Hillary Clinton’s position. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position that a 13-year-old girl needs her mother’s permission to go to a tanning salon or a tattoo, but not to get an abortion.

It's Hillary Clinton's position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion, and yet people who are trying to harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure that those body parts are preserved so they can be sold. That, Jake, is extreme.

TAPPER: Just to clarify — you think there should be an exception for rape and incest?

FIORINA: I would really be delighted if for once the media would ask Hillary Clinton about the extremism of her position.

TAPPER: Well, let's —

FIORINA: It’s not a life, it's not a life until it leaves the hospital.

My position is very clear. It's been very clear and consistent ever since I ran for the Senate in 2010. Anyone can look it up. (Subtext: "You know the answer to the question, Jake, so why are you wasting everyone's time on the house fire while the city is ablaze?" — Ed.) Yes, I support exceptions.

But the majority of the American people now believe that abortion for any reason at all to be paid for by taxpayers after five months is an abomination. And this videotape, whether you're a pro-choice woman or a pro-life woman, this videotape is depraved. The casual nature with which these people are talking about fetuses, and tissue and apecimens. I tell you what, if a woman was looking at the ultrasound at the same stage of pregnancy, the doctor would not be talking about fetuses, or specimens or tissues. They would be saying, "Look at your baby's heartbeat. Look at your baby's eyes. Look at your baby's organs."

TAPPER: Carly Fiorina, thank you so much. Thank you for taking our questions.

Tom Blumer at Newsbusters correctly observes:

Fiorina answered Tapper's question, but she made the larger points, and forcefully.

If Fiorina doesn't get the 2016 presidential or vice-presidential nomination — and those who haven't been taking her seriously need to start doing so — she should be hired immediately by whoever does so she can train them to face the hostile media. It's been many years since I've seen a GOP candidate handle the press in such a consistently deft and poised manner. 

Rush Limbaugh likewise waxes enthusiastic over Carly Fiorina's skill at handling the press.

. . .  Start your focus of attack on Hillary Clinton.  She's the enemy.  The Democrat Party's the opponent.  You know she's gonna be the nominee.  Hit her.  Start now.  It's a great way to explain who you are, in fact, by contrasting yourself. 

This is my advice, okay?  And one person either took the advice or instinctively knew to do it on her own, and that's Carly Fiorina, who, by the way, she's just, I think, kicking butt all over the country, folks.  Every stop never gets off message. She handles the media with aplomb and skill and it's obvious she enjoys doing it, and she's schooling people.  She's showing how it's done.  Latest example, Tuesday night, CNN, The Lead with Jake Tapper. 

Update:  See Warren Cole Smith's interview with Scott Klusendorf, "A Lesson in pro-life apologetics."  

TENNESSEE ADOPTS ABORTION WAITING PERIOD

Family Research Council reports:

. . . Under the new law, moms-to-be would have to visit the office for in-person counseling before returning two days later for the procedure. As part of that consultation, a doctor is required to tell them the age of their baby, the alternatives to abortion, and the risks of it. They'll also learn that if their infant survives the procedure, the medical staff will do everything they can to care for the child. Any doctor who fails to comply could face criminal charges and/or lose his license. For pro-lifers, Tennessee's move puts it just behind Oklahoma's new 72-hour waiting period -- with Florida and North Carolina next in line to enact similar laws.

As popular as the idea was in the legislature, it was even more so with locals. In a poll by Vanderbilt University, only 28% opposed the 48-hour waiting period. Planned Parenthood must have made up a good bit of that percent, since its spokesmen were out in full force blasting the bill as "embarrassing." Calling it a "sad day" for Tennessee, the group's Steven Emmert argued that postponing abortions two days was somehow an "emotional hardship" for women.

OBAMA ADMIN: STOPPING ABORTION OF BABIES WHO CAN FEEL PAIN IS 'DISGRACEFUL'

What is disgraceful is that we have a "leader" with ginormous moral turpitude living in the White house.   (See the The Family Research Council report below which also rips Planned Parenthood.)  Meanwhile, CBN News offers the following coverage:  "Pain Capable Bill Passes First Legislative Hurdle"

 

WASHINGTON -- A bill to protect unborn babies older than 20 weeks has passed its first hurdle.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Wednesday evening, 242 to 184. Almost every Republican voted for it and almost every Democrat against it.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, trumpeted the act as being quite consequential.

"H.R. 36 is the most pro-life legislation ever to come before this body," the top Republican said of the bill.

During heated debate before the vote, Democrats and Republicans took up familiar positions.

Many Democrats said they had to protect America's women and those women's right to make their own medical decisions. Republicans said they had to protect the most unprotected of classes: America's unborn children.

"We have no higher obligation than to speak out for those who can't speak for themselves, to defend the defenseless," Boehner stated on the House floor. "And that's what this bill does."

Bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said, "We have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act."

Democrats avoided talking about the babies, but concentrated on women who get abortions.

2014 - THE NIGHT ABORTION LOST

David French cogently observes:

In a purple state, the Democrats try to hold on to a Senate seat by talking about nothing but reproductive rights. They lose.

The Democrats try to turn Texas red by running the the progressive abortion advocate of the Huffington Post’s dreams. They’re routed.

In Tennessee, the Left tries to preserve its judicially created southern abortion supermarketby out-spending pro-life advocates by an almost three-to-one margin and deluging voters with misinformation. Yet with the vast majority of the votes in, Tennessee’s pro-life Amendment 1 holds a strong lead.

It’s likely we’ll look back at the “war on women” rhetoric from 2012 to 2014 as a truly bizarre phase in American politics, when one odd politician’s odd remark (Todd Akin’s, of course) was transformed by an opportunistic Democratic party and complicit media into two years of fake outrage. This year, with the middle class still hurting economically and jihadists advancing across the Middle East, focusing on protecting the “right” to late-term abortion and free IUDs struck many voters as frankly strange. By the end of his sad, single-issue campaign, Senator Udall was being heckled even by his own supporters.

Let’s remember this night in two years, when the pundits will declare, with absolute authority, that Republicans should run away from social issues, leaving the field to the Democrats. Remember 2014, the night abortion lost.

MISSOURI LENGTHENS WAITING PERIOD FOR ABORTION TO 72 HOURS

From Family Research Council:

 A majority of states require that a woman seeking an abortion wait a specified amount of time before she can have the abortion. Typically the state mandated waiting period is for 24 hours. Missouri, however, took additional steps yesterday to lengthen their mandatory abortion waiting period to 72 hours, overriding Governor Nixon's veto with a 2/3rds majority vote in both Chambers of the legislature.

Mandatory waiting periods are important for a variety of reasons, but they provide women with time to learn their options, research alternatives to abortion and save lives of unborn children. The action taken by the courageous lawmakers in Missouri to override Governor Nixon's veto will undoubtedly save countless lives. Missouri now ranks second in the nation in terms of the length of mandatory waiting periods before a woman can have an abortion. South Dakota ranks first in the nation with a 72 hour-waiting period, which includes weekends or holidays. A Missouri woman who regrets her abortion and supports the Missouri law recently said, "A 72-hour timeframe is compassionate for women."

Pro-abortion advocates categorize measures such as mandatory waiting periods as "extreme," unnecessary, and anti-woman. However, these desperate claims ignore the growing pro-life consensus in this country and the fact that states have been passing measures such as mandatory waiting periods at record rates. States that do not have laws requiring mandatory waiting periods for women seeking abortions should follow the example of Missouri. Mandatory waiting periods are a reasonable common-sense approach to ensuring true informed consent, which helps women and ultimately will save lives.

Me:  I'm impressed that Missouri legislators were unified enough to override the governor's veto.  The pro-life movement in the United States is becoming more and more robust.

THE NEW YORK TIMES CALLS ABORTION "THE EVIL OF THE AGE" -- BACK IN 1871

Eric Metaxas reports:

Listen Now | Download

It’s time for another BreakPoint pop quiz: name the major American newspaper that ran an expose on what goes on in abortion mills entitled “The Evil of the Age.”

Give up? The answer is the New York Times.

No, you haven’t missed anything: the expose ran in the paper’s August 23, 1871 edition.

The story, which is recounted in Cait Murphy’s book about New York in the Gilded Age, “Scoundrels in Law,” is, to use the old sixties phrase, mind-blowing.

As Murphy tells us, while all abortions had been illegal in New York since 1869, not only were both abortifacients and surgical abortions readily available, abortionists openly advertised their services.

One notorious abortionist, an English immigrant who went by the name of “Madame Restell,” made so much money that she built a mansion on Fifth Avenue!  And not just any mansion, but one of the grandest of them all: even the servants’ quarters were “lined with mahogany” and furnished with Imported carpets.

Continue reading...

SPEAKING UP FOR THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

March for Life in Washington, D.C. today - Twitter

Excellent website - How to Speak Up for Life

Abominable pro-abortion message from President Obama. 

MUST WATCH - Brit Hume commentary -

Massive pro-life march in Paris, France.

IS THIS AMERICA?

The Supreme Court considers a Massachusetts law against speech outside abortion clinics.

Charles C. W. Cooke reports:

This morning, in America’s frigid and fractious capital city, a soft-spoken 77-year-old grandmother named Eleanor McCullen stood up to the machine.

At stake was a Massachusetts law that makes it illegal for any citizen to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of the entrance or exit to an abortion clinic — unless, that is, that citizen either works in the clinic or is in agreement with what goes on inside. This has severely restricted the ability of McCullen, a regular fixture outside the Planned Parenthoods of Boston, to hand out anti-abortion literature and to offer would-be patients financial support — both of which she has been doing pro bono for decades. The state law, she contends, is flatly illegal, violating her sacred right to free speech, depriving her of equal protection under the law, and effectively establishing speech codes on public land.

Apologists for the measure claim rather anemically that the law is necessary to prevent “harassment,” and they promise that it strikes a reasonable “balance” between respect for free expression and the need to protect visitors from being hassled. McCullen and her lawyers disagree, holding that because the law’s applicability is contingent not on one’s behavior but on one’s speech per se, it is unconstitutional. They are right.

CHINA STUDY CONFIRMS LINK BETWEEN ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER

From FRC:

There's no shortage of skeptics on the possible link between abortion and breast cancer, but a massive study out of China is turning some critics into believers. The debate, which has been as explosive as any in the abortion community, has worn on for years about the possible side effects of the procedure on women. Now, say experts, the Chinese have produced some of the strongest evidence yet that a connection between the two does exist -- and powerfully so.

The meta-analysis, which was just published in a credible peer-reviewed journal called Cancer Causes and Controls, found that the breast cancer risk for women after a single abortion jumped 44%. After subsequent abortions, the risks are even higher -- 76% after two, and 89% after three. Professor Joel Brind, an endocrinology expert at Baruch College, called the results "a real game-changer." The Left, which is desperate to discredit any study that jeopardizes its rosy abortion narrative, will have their hands full with these findings, which spanned 36 studies in 14 provinces. Of course, the real tragedy of the study is the breadth of the sample size in China, where the barbaric one-child policy has paved the way to more than eight million abortions every year.

(CNSNews.com) – A new study pointing to a link between breast cancer and abortion among Chinese women may breathe new life into a debate over a long-contentious issue which both sides have accused the other of exploiting to promote its cause.

The meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Causes and Control, found a 44 percent increased breast cancer risk after an abortion. It also found that the risk grew significantly with subsequent abortions – a 76 percent increase after two abortions, 89 percent after three.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.pGpJSNY8.dpuf

A new study pointing to a link between breast cancer and abortion among Chinese women may breathe new life into a debate over a long-contentious issue which both sides have accused the other of exploiting to promote its cause. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.pGpJSNY8.dpuf

 

A new study pointing to a link between breast cancer and abortion among Chinese women may breathe new life into a debate over a long-contentious issue which both sides have accused the other of exploiting to promote its cause. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.pGpJSNY8.dpuf

A new study pointing to a link between breast cancer and abortion among Chinese women may breathe new life into a debate over a long-contentious issue which both sides have accused the other of exploiting to promote its cause.

The meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Causes and Control, found a 44 percent increased breast cancer risk after an abortion. It also found that the risk grew significantly with subsequent abortions – a 76 percent increase after two abortions, 89 percent after three.

“In summary, the most important implication of this study is that IA [induced abortion] was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases,” said the authors, from the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital’s epidemiology and biostatistics department.

Just a month ago, Chinese media were reporting on a global breast cancer study which noted a 20-30 percent increase in breast cancer incidence among middle-aged urban Chinese women over the past decade.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.pGpJSNY8.dpuf

A new study pointing to a link between breast cancer and abortion among Chinese women may breathe new life into a debate over a long-contentious issue which both sides have accused the other of exploiting to promote its cause.

The meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Causes and Control, found a 44 percent increased breast cancer risk after an abortion. It also found that the risk grew significantly with subsequent abortions – a 76 percent increase after two abortions, 89 percent after three.

“In summary, the most important implication of this study is that IA [induced abortion] was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases,” said the authors, from the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital’s epidemiology and biostatistics department.

Just a month ago, Chinese media were reporting on a global breast cancer study which noted a 20-30 percent increase in breast cancer incidence among middle-aged urban Chinese women over the past decade.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.pGpJSNY8.dpuf

A new study pointing to a link between breast cancer and abortion among Chinese women may breathe new life into a debate over a long-contentious issue which both sides have accused the other of exploiting to promote its cause.

The meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Causes and Control, found a 44 percent increased breast cancer risk after an abortion. It also found that the risk grew significantly with subsequent abortions – a 76 percent increase after two abortions, 89 percent after three.

“In summary, the most important implication of this study is that IA [induced abortion] was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases,” said the authors, from the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital’s epidemiology and biostatistics department.

Just a month ago, Chinese media were reporting on a global breast cancer study which noted a 20-30 percent increase in breast cancer incidence among middle-aged urban Chinese women over the past decade.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/new-study-puts-abortion-breast-cancer-link-back-spotlight#sthash.pGpJSNY8.dpuf

WILLIAM PETER BLATTY ON THE DEMONIC TODAY

Robert Morrison writes on "What's Really Demonic?" -[my emphases]

The Washington Post’s Dan Zak offered a column yesterday on his interview with William Peter Blatty, author of The Exorcist. Blatty’s novel rocketed to the top of the bestseller lists forty years ago and the movie shocked audiences everywhere with its stunning special effects. The devil never seemed so real. Certainly not to this writer.

Blatty is asking the Vatican to strip Georgetown University — America’s oldest Catholic institution of higher learning — of its designation as Catholic. His reason is that Georgetown invited pro-abortion HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius to be its commencement speaker last year. Zak tells us that Blatty spoke of “a particular abortion procedure in graphic detail.” Of course, the Post writer leaves out of his column the graphic detail and won’t even name that particular abortion procedure.

Recall how slavery’s defenders called it their “peculiar institution.” They sought to avoid mentioning manacles, slave ships, or human misery. They didn’t want to tell people at their Georgetown lunches what happened when a slave ship is in danger of being overtaken by a British man-of-war intent on hanging slave traders. The “cargo” of men, women, children, chained together, were thrown overboard. The weight of the first few would pull the hundreds of others in after them. That’s demonic. 

              [Me: How awful!  What's even worse is that as the reality  of gruesome abortion procedures became more and more widely known (see below), modern, enlightened "moral" people said  "I'm okay with it."  That would include, of course, Kathleen Sebelius, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama himself]

The Soviet Union called its slave-labor system the Gulag — an acronym for the State Administration for Camps. The bland name concealed what really went on in those camps. Author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn survived imprisonment to document the truth for the world in his comprehensive, three-volume study, The Gulag Archipelago. Nikolai Getman was also a zek, from the Russian word for locked-up ones. The artist painted a series of pictures to convey the horror of camp life and death. “Waiting to be Shot” shows starving zeks huddling in the snow in a frigid Siberian night. That was surely demonic.

Blatty is angry because Sebelius is forcing all of us to pay for abortions, for what Ronald Reagan called “the slaughter of innocents.” He was so moved by what he learned that his voice shook with emotion as he described what Sebelius approves. When she was governor of Kansas, she made a point of inviting partial-birth abortionists to dinner at Cedar Crest, the official residence.

In the forty years since Roe v. Wade, America has never had a governor more zealous in promoting abortion than Kathleen Sebelius. That’s why President Obama, who attends abortion conventions and tells them to “keep it up, God bless you,” chose Sebelius to run his health-care operation.

Here’s what William Peter Blatty doubtless described for Dan Zak. This is that “particular abortion procedure” that Dan Zak was too decorous to share with readers of the Post’s “Style” section. Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer gave her testimony to Congress under oath:

I stood at the doctor’s side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.

This is what Obama wants God to bless. The people who do these things are the ones Sebelius invites to dinner.

Is William Peter Blatty right? Is this demonic? We report. You decide.

         — Robert Morrison is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.

 

Me - I was struck (again) with what lengths the pro-abortion crowd

HUNDREDS OF COUPLES PLEA FOR CHANCE TO ADOPT A DOWN SYNDROME BABY

Ed Morrissey writes:

Allahpundit mentioned this story in his post last night, but it’s worth a post of its own.  In a world where the dominant culture divides children into the wanted and undesired for the convenience of others, it’s worth noting when a news story demonstrates the power of hope, love, and life:

A Virginia church says it has received hundreds of calls from people around the world offering to adopt an unborn child with Down syndrome who otherwise would have been aborted.

After the unborn child came to the attention of Rev. Thomas Vander Woude of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Gainesville, Va., an urgent plea was posted Monday on the church’s Facebook page. …

An adoption agency has narrowed down the hundreds of families to three, Drennan said, and is working with the birth parents to determine the best home for the child.

“Our culture says some babies aren’t wanted and that is not true. This proves there are hundreds of families,” Drennan said. “It was so fast and from all over. It’s a beautiful use of social media that something like this could spread all over the US.”

The mother had less than a week before she would no longer have been able to have an abortion, but allowed the church time to find an adoptive couple if it could.   [Morrissey  continues...]

A commenter helpfully  provided two memorable quotes from Mother Teresa:

“Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.”

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

MODERN SCIENCE AND THE PAIN OF ABORTED BABIES

Yesterday the House of Represenatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797)  Good for them! This would stop the inhumane painful abortion of unborn children 20 weeks and older.  But now it goes to the Senate.  President Obama has said he will veto it.   Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote in response to the House passage:

I applaud the House vote on a bill that is truly informed by modern science, which shows unborn children are fully capable of experiencing pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. Unborn children in their sixth month of pregnancy or later are routinely given anesthesia during prenatal surgery, so this legislation conforms federal abortion law to modern science.

"It's disappointing that the president is stuck in the Roe v. Wade science of the '70s and has threatened to veto the bill. Ignoring modern science is harmful to both unborn children and mothers, as we know babies can survive as early as 22 weeks after gestation. The horrific pain of being ripped apart limb by limb must be stopped.

"Dr. Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors shows we must stop late abortion. He was convicted of murdering babies born alive but also of 21 counts of illegal late abortions after 24 weeks in violation of state law. Yet many states continue to allow these brutal late abortions through the ninth month.

"The only difference between killing a baby born alive and aborting them just prior to birth is location. Human dignity is not dependent upon location.

"We call on the Senate to update legal protection for pain-capable children and pass this legislation to stop future Gosnells. Americans overwhelmingly support restrictions to late abortion and we urge the Senate to ignore the president's advisors and pass the House bill," concluded Perkins.

Update:  FRC reports on the heated House floor debate:

SHAMEFUL NEWS ORG BLACKOUT OF HOUSE OF HORRORS

Kirsten Powers accuses national media: "We've forgotten what belongs on page one."

The Family Research Council  covers the case:

Trial and the Media's Error

Anyone who looked over at the rows of empty seats would have thought the trial hadn't begun. The media section of the courtroom, a full four benches of reserved space, was vacant. To most pro-lifers, it's a picture worth a thousand words--words, unfortunately, that the press refuses to use to tell the gruesome tale of accused mass murderer Kermit Gosnell. JD Mullane, one of the few reporters on hand to watch the abortionist's trial, still can't shake off the eerie feelings of what he heard there. "Sat through a full day of testimony at the Kermit Gosnell trial today," he tweeted. "It is beyond the most morbid Hollywood horror. It will change you."

One thing it hasn't changed, unfortunately, is the media's indifference to the real war on women. The same networks that devoted around-the-clock coverage to the fictional girlfriend of a college linebacker can't be bothered to report on one of the greatest human rights tragedies of our time. Gosnell, who took so much delight in snipping the necks of newborns that he kept a virtual trophy wall of their severed feet, is accused of killing at least one woman and seven children. Witnesses say his victims numbered many more--at least a hundred living, breathing newborns whose chests, as his teenage employee described, were "going up and down real fast." For the survivors, Gosnell's torture chamber is the nightmare they can never wake up from. There, he "perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, and left women sterile"--all in a blood-splattered, animal-infested war zone, where women's cries were the common soundtrack.

While the horror hasn't drawn reporters, it has drawn outrage. Social media is exploding in the vacuum of the networks' silence, as #Gosnell trends across the internet. The drumbeat continued yesterday, when the anger of 10 U.S. Representatives boiled over in a special order of Congress. With a sign "The National Media Cover-up" as their backdrop, almost a dozen Republicans took to the floor to expose the press's hypocrisy. "If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15," said Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.), "it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing." This is a man, fumed Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) who "had a simple solution for unwanted babies--he killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it, 'ensuring fetal demise.' He called it 'snipping.' Over the years there were literally hundreds of 'snippings.' This we find from the grand jury's report. Snipping? This is not a medical procedure. This is murder, and we should call it what it is."

Others, like Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), the father of two daughters, took aim at the President. "Are you so blind," he asked, "are you so intractable, are you so extreme that you yourself can't even call this out for what it is, something that is reprehensible? Pro-life or pro-choice, this is reprehensible. [You are the father] as I am, of two little girls. It is worthy of your attention, it is worthy of your leadership, it is worthy of your direction." This is not, as some have called it, "after-birth abortion." It's murder. How thin, mused Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) is the line between abortion and homicide in this country? Dr. John Fleming (R-La.) pointed out the tragedy that Americans care more about the humane treatment of animals than they do about humans. Think back to the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal and the millions of angry Americans who clamored for his punishment. Where are those same people today, when children are literally screaming out in pain? It's simple,writes Kirsten Powers. "We've forgotten what belongs on Page 1." The loss of these lives, said an emotional Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) should "sear the conscience of civilized people everywhere."

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood--the same organization who lobbied on behalf of brutality like Gosnell's--appears to have more in common with the Philadelphia abortionist than people realize. At its Delaware branch, at least two nurses have resigned over the disgusting conditions of the clinic. "It was just unsafe," said Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich. "I couldn't tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was." The doctors "didn't wear gloves," she said, while her co-worker, Joyce Vasikonis, told Action News, "They were using instruments on patients that were not sterile." In a rush to get patients in and out, the women say the operating table was "not washed down, it's not even cleaned off. It has bloody drainage on it." After their resignations, which were prompted by a series of botched abortions, the clinic waved off the nurses' concerns. In a revealing interview with the state Department of Health, Mary Peterson was candid about the number of women at risk over unregulated clinics like this one. "I am not going to lie to you, we don't have the manpower to do routine inspections." Then perhaps it's time our government takes the half-trillion dollars it sends to Planned Parenthood and starts investing it in women's safety instead!

ABORTION DOCTOR ON TRIAL, BUT MEDIA NOT INTERESTED

The liberal/leftist media, aka the  "mainstream media," refuses to cover the sensational trial of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion doctor accused of killing seven live babies outside the womb.  Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times reports:    (HT: Drudge)

The trial details are nothing short of sensational: A doctor accused of killing seven newborns and a young woman at a filthy Philadelphia clinic strewn with body parts and described as a “slaughterhouse.”

It’s big news in Philadelphia, but nationally, not so much. The lack of coverage is a problem for a growing chorus of conservative and media critics, who allege that the scant national media attention can be attributed not to the courtroom drama but the politics of abortion.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortionist, meaning that any coverage of the trial risks painting the pro-choice movement in an unflattering light. In a statement issued last week, 20 conservative leaders called for an end to what they described as a “media blackout” and “censoring” of the trial for political reasons.

“The horrific excesses of the abortion industry exemplified by Gosnell and Planned Parenthood are major, national news stories any way you look at them. But the pro-abortion liberal media are determined to hide them from the public,” said the April 4 statement led by the conservative Media Research Center and signed by former Republican presidential candidateGary Bauer, columnist Kellyanne Conway and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

“The media have a solemn duty to the American people to report the news, not just news that helps the positions they support. It’s unprofessional, it’s disgusting, and it’s inhuman,” the statement said.

MRC also reports that there has been no network coverage on ABC, CBS,NBC, MSNBC, NPR or PBS, and just one brief mention on CNN.    [more . . . ]

TODAY'S WASHINGTON UPDATE FROM THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

FRC reports:

Going DUMB on DOMA

 

Today was the second historic hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the future of marriage in America. Today, they heard a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA is not new to FRC because we helped lead the efforts for it in the 90s. The Defense of Marriage Act specified that states would not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states and defined marriage for all federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. Only the latter provision has been challenged in court, but advocates for redefining marriage have been simultaneously trying to repeal the entire law in Congress.

The legal arguments today were complicated by the fact that President Obama and his Justice Department have chosen to abdicate their responsibility to defend federal laws in court, and have instead joined in declaring DOMA unconstitutional. This forced the House of Representatives, in the form of its "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" (BLAG), to intervene to defend the law. FRC's Senior Fellows Chris Gacek and Ken Klukowski, both attorneys, were at the Supreme Court for the oral arguments, and Chris said not to believe media spin that DOMA took a total beating. He reported that Paul Clement, the former U.S. Solicitor General hired by the House BLAG to defend DOMA, gave the strongest performance of any attorney in the two days of arguments.

No amount of legal footwork by those seeking redefinition of marriage can change the fact that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. It's not just about love between adults, it's about civilization. That's a compelling reason for both California and the federal government to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for the Supreme Court to uphold both Proposition 8 and DOMA.

There is Life Beyond DC!

Conservatives are rightly dismayed by many of the actions of the current Administration, but this week we can celebrate some true victories in North Dakota--victories achieved in large part due to the leadership and energy of two of FRC's top pro-life advocates coming alongside state leaders.

After testifying multiple times, over a period of several weeks, before various committees of the North Dakota legislature, Dr. David Prentice and Anna Higgins, JD, effectively educated that state's lawmakers who ultimately voted to "ban abortions performed solely for the purpose of gender selection and genetic abnormalities" and to "ban abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat." Legislators approved another measure that "requires admitting and staff privileges at a nearby hospital for any physician who performs abortions in North Dakota" so that the courts can decide what kind of "precise restriction" there is on doctors who perform abortions. These precedent-setting bills have been signed into law by Governor Jack Dalrymple (R-N.D.).

Dr. Prentice, the world's leading expert on adult stem cell research, and Anna, who directs FRC's Center for Human Dignity, convincingly and persuasively spoke for the sanctity of unborn life and the well-being of mothers. I'm honored to lead a team of passionate and articulate professionals like David and Anna, who are helping change America, one state at a time.

Florida Atlantic University in Hot Water over "Jesus Stomping" Case

These days it can be difficult to live out your Christian faith on college campuses. On one Florida University campus, it is especially difficult for students whose grade point average depends on their willingness to stomp on Jesus. Ask Florida Atlantic University Junior Ryan Rotela. When Rotela refused to participate in a classroom assignment that would involve jumping on a sheet of paper bearing Jesus' name, as a way to "discuss the importance of symbols in culture," he was immediately suspended from class and brought up on academic charges after reporting this activity to university officials. Rotela did not want to participate in the exercise, as it violated his religious beliefs.

The University finally backed down yesterday but only after Liberty Institute threatened legal action and Fox News reporter Todd Starnes brought this latest incident of religious persecution to the attention of millions. Liberty Institute, which represented Rotela, declared victory in this case, as officials from Florida Atlantic University apologized and removed the academic charges from his record. Hiram Sasser, Director of Litigation, at Liberty Institute, was thankful. Sasser said, "Decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not leave their First Amendment rights at the school house gate: That is still true today."

In addition to that victory, Florida Governor Rick Scott has asked the state's university system to look into this incident and to ensure that this type of lesson will not take place again. Scott said, in a letter to the chancellor, "The professor's lesson was offensive, and even intolerant, to Christians and those of all faiths who deserve to be respected as Americans entitled to religious freedom." Bravo to Ryan for standing firm in his faith even in the face of harassment and threats. You have inspired millions to keep standing firm for their biblical beliefs and First Amendment rights.

** FRC has been at the forefront of the recent Supreme Court oral arguments. Don't miss my appearance on Fox News' "America Live with Megyn Kelly," as I debated why the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold natural marriage. You can watch the clip below. Also, don't miss my appearance on Fox Business' "Lou Dobbs Tonight," at 7:00 p.m. (ET), as well as Ken Klukowski's appearance on PBS' "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," at 6:15 p.m. (ET).

ABORTION HORRORS IN PHILADELPHIA BEYOND HUMAN LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE

The FRC Reports:

It was a scene that Philadelphia's District Attorney Seth Williams says "comprehension of the English language doesn't and cannot adequately describe." From its 15-year-old "anesthetists" to blood-stained walls, Kermit Gosnell's Pennsylvania abortion facility was the site of 261 pages of abortion horrors--horrors for which he is finally on trial. Yesterday, a jury sat in shocked silence as Gosnell's medical assistant recounted the pattern of cold-blooded killing. At Gosnell's request, Adrienne Morton admitted that she had "cut the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered." Weeping, she told the courtroom about a picture she had taken of a baby on her cell phone because he was bigger than any victim she had ever seen. "Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop."

Prosecutors tried to recreate the third-world conditions of the "clinic" in court with old and dirty equipment--one of the many nightmares in an office where 15-year-old high school students "perform intravenous anesthesia on patients" and "fetuses frequently clogged the toilet." Gosnell, who faces the death penalty, insists that he's the victim of racial profiling--instead of what he actually is: a monster whose inner-city torture chamber is the real face of "choice" in America.

Update 3/22/13  - Important link:  Assistant to Kermit Gosnell admits to killing 10 born-alive babies.  Gruesome, gruesome, gruesome!  As someone wrote, "Shouldn’t this be front page news, and worthy of extended series a la Casey Anthony? "  Indeed!

WHAT DO LEGAL SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT ROE V. WADE AS CONSTITUTION INTERPRETATION?

Rob Schwarzwalder of the Family Research Council writes:

As is widely known, this week marks the 40^th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which made unrestricted access to abortion-on-demand the law of the land. Its sister ruling, Doe v. Bolton, authorized abortion for women after the unborn child became "viable" for reasons of a woman's "health" - a term so broadly defined that it makes abortion accessible at any time throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

This week also marks 40 years during which people of conscience have striven to correct this ruling, because 55 million children have been aborted and tens of millions of women victimized and permanently scarred.

In addition to the lives lost and families damaged by Roe, the ruling was, as constitutional interpretation, without basis. As Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon writes:

Among legal scholars, what attracted the most attention about Roe and Doe were the separation of powers and federalism issues. Leading constitutional lawyers such as Paul Freund and Archibald Cox were critical of the Court majority for striking down the statutes of all fifty states with so little warrant in constitutional text or precedent. Even Court watchers who favored legislative liberalization of abortion law were inclined to agree with dissenting Justice Byron White that the case represented an extraordinary judicial power grab.

And in his elegant dissent to Doe, Justice White wrote this scathing evaluation of his colleagues' handiwork in these two anvil-striking cases:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

For three decades, Family Research Council has been at the forefront of protecting unborn life and seeking to provide practical aid to women in crisis pregnancies. From helping state legislators draft pro-life legislation to partnering with pregnancy care centers nationwide, FRC has been a leader in advancing a "culture of life" for all Americans, born and unborn.

To access some of our most compelling resources (all of which can be downloaded at no charge), visit our website, One Life. There you will find user-friendly research papers, op-eds and videos that not only will encourage you but which also will challenge you to act.

Our newest publication, "40 Years after Roe v. Wade - Six women Reflect on Tragedy and Hope," contains the stories of six women pro-life leaders who represent the next generation in the battle for life. It will encourage and inspire you as you pray and work for the little ones and their mothers.

In words familiar to pro-lifers but which never lose their power, the Psalmist prays, "You formed my inward parts, You wove me in my mother's womb" (139:13). Life is precious to God. May we work to sustain it for the unborn and the born, now and always.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THESE PRO-LIFE MARCHING ORDERS

HT: Justin Taylor

 

MARGARET SANGER AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD - from JONAH GOLDBERG'S "LIBERAL FASCISM"

This material is subtitled: "Contraception, abortion, and the eugenics movement."  It was Kathryn Lopez who linked to the following excerpt from Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism.

Margaret Sanger, whose American Birth Control League became Planned Parenthood, was the founding mother of the birth-control movement. She is today considered a liberal saint, a founder of modern feminism, and one of the leading lights of the Progressive pantheon. Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood proclaims, “I stand by Margaret Sanger’s side,” leading “the organization that carries on Sanger’s legacy.” Planned Parenthood’s first black president, Faye Wattleton — Ms. magazine’s “Woman of the Year” in 1989 — said that she was “proud” to be “walking in the footsteps of Margaret Sanger.” Planned Parenthood gives out annual Maggie Awards to individuals and organizations who advance Sanger’s cause. Recipients are a Who’s Who of liberal icons, from the novelist John Irving to the producers of NBC’s West Wing. What Sanger’s liberal admirers are eager to downplay is that she was a thoroughgoing racist who subscribed completely to the views of E. A. Ross and other “raceologists.” Indeed, she made many of them seem tame.

QUOTE (TWEET) OF THE DAY

MATT DRUDGE @DRUDGE There will be over 3,500 killed in USA today from abortion. No flags lowered, no presidents crying. No media hyperventilating. Normal day.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

RT @toddstarnes: The President said we are not doing enough to keep children safe. Does that mean he's going to defund Planned Parenthood?

A LETTER FROM HOBBY LOBBY CEO

This letter explains how Obama's dictatorial enforcement of abortion practices on private businesses is so unjust and unconstitituional:

Via Red Tracy:

By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God’s word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running it’s business according to it’s beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that’s a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, pass this on to all your contacts.

Sincerely,

David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

U.N. AMBASSADOR SUSAN RICE A SHAMELESS ADVOCATE FOR EXPORTING ABORTION ON DEMAND

President Obama will likely choose Susan Rice as his next Secretary of State.  FRC reports:

[...]  As a member of both the Clinton and Obama administrations, Rice has been a shameless advocate for exporting abortion-on-demand--even to countries with moral objections. "Reproductive rights are human rights," she tweeted on World Population Day. "They are essential, which is why the U.S. works tirelessly to protect them."

Like Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice has several liberal cheerleaders, including Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women, and Emily's List. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about global diplomacy under Susan Rice, take this statement from Planned Parenthood chief Cecile Richards: "Susan Rice has consistently affirmed... [and] understands the important role the United Nations plays in promoting and protecting women's health around the world, especially in developing countries. We expect that she will work effectively with other countries to fulfill the UN's development agenda, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on maternal health," whose goal is to "achieve universal access to reproductive health care" [read: abortion]. For more on Susan Rice's record--and the red flags her nomination to State would raise--check out FRC's new backgrounder.

ABORTION COVERAGE AT THE NEW YORK TIMES - MENDACIUS

Jon A. Shields contends that mainstream abortion coverage, superficial in the past, appears to be getting worse.  He writes:

Just consider the mendacious, slash-and-burn "New York Times Magazine" story by Emily Bazelon on Charmaine Yoest, the director of Americans United for Life.

I learned quite a lot from Shields' article, including that

American abortions laws [are]  far more permissive than any other western democracy, with the possible exception of Sweden and the Netherlands. The vast majority of western democracies limit abortion access to the first trimester and many impose more onerous regulations."  [my bolding]

Further,

In anti-Catholic France, for instance, abortion is legal only in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, and only after counseling and a one-week waiting period. Waiting periods range from 7 days in Italy, 6 days in Belgium, 5 days in the Netherlands, and 3 days in Germany. By way of contrast, waiting period are generally 24 hours in the twenty-six American states that impose them. Given the relative conservatism of abortion laws in Europe, the New York Times might consider redirecting its concern abroad.

Shields says a whole lot more.

The first paragraph of

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media

Trevin Wax writes:

Debate moderators and reporters love to ask pro-life candidates hard questions about abortion. Curiously, they don’t do the same for pro-choice candidates.

Here are 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:

I'M BARACK OBAMA, AND I APPROVE THIS ABORTION

From the Family Research Council:

While the media would like to portray conservative politicians as obsessed with abortion, the Democratic Convention last week told a different story. President Obama had over two dozen prime time speakers, including the heads of the largest pro-abortion organizations, praising unrestricted abortions at taxpayer expense.

Abortion giant Planned Parenthood, which gets at least one million dollars a day from taxpayers, is repaying the President's gratitude by launching a $3.2 million television ad buy in Ohio and Virginia on Monday as part of its biggest-ever campaign effort. The newest ad, called "Turn Back the Clock," is set to run on cable television in Northern Virginia for the next five weeks. The ad highlights Mitt Romney's opposition to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision and his opposition to federal funding for Planned Parenthood. There is a reason that the President's abortion allies are attacking Governor Romney.

Gov. Romney reiterated his desire to overturn the poorly decided decision, known as the Dred Scott decision of the 20^th century. He also said he would overturn President Obama's actions that have resulted in taxpayers subsidizing and paying for abortions both internationally and at home.

President Obama has done a fundraising video from the White House for Planned Parenthood's PAC. According to their highly paid leader, who tweeted her excitement, President Obama called them yesterday to thank them for all their support of taxpayer funding of unrestricted abortion. To see the differences between the two party platforms on life and other issues check out our comparison here.

PRO-LIFE VICTORIES IN THE STATES

The Family Research Council reports:

Washington may defy our values, but the march of pro-life, pro-family revolutionaries goes on. There's no more powerful illustration of this than the states, where thousands of local leaders are building the kind of government voters can be proud of. Earlier this week in New Hampshire, a legislature that flipped to Republican control in 2010, proved once again how important elections can be. Despite Gov. John Lynch's (D) opposition, lawmakers hit the two-thirds majority it needed to overturn his veto and enact a stricter law barring partial-birth abortion. Although the procedure is illegal under federal law, New Hampshire doesn't trust the government to prosecute it. (And given Eric Holder's record, who can blame them?)

The state's House and Senate also overrode a veto to a school choice measure that will help more public school students switch to private schools. To round out the day, House and Senate leaders shot down a third veto on the state's voter ID law. Anyone who doubts the significance of local elections needs only to look toward New Hampshire for proof. While the Supreme Court was dominating headlines, another court took center stage in the battle over pregnancy resource centers (PRCs).

MAJOR PRO-LIFE SWING REVEALED IN GALLUP'S LATEST POLLING DATA

Gallup this week reported that 41 percent of Americans identify themselves as “pro-choice,” down seven points since last July.  This is good news indeed.  National Review Online has published a number of observations from a variety of pro-life "experts" to explain this latest polling data. 

SURPRISE TO ME: CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUSUS REMAINS SHOCKINGLY PRO-ABORTION EVEN GIVEN ABORTION'S DECIMATION OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY

I found Jill Stanek's report, "Congressional Black Caucus Holds Meeting to Blast Pro-Lifers," utterly shocking.   With "leaders" like this, the black community is in very deep trouble indeed.  (HT: Weasel Zippers)

Congressional Black Caucus members strongly object to the following billboards:

Stanek reported on a number of presentations, including Nancy Belden's.  Belden is a  partner at Beldon Russonello Strategists.   Stanek wrote,

Beldon handed out  “five key points” to oppose billboard campaigns, how to respond to pro-life messaging. . . .

Belden, pictured left,  said it will be necessary to make sure polling generates the answers they need. She bragged she can make polls say what she wants them to say, that it’s all about asking the right questions, in the right sequence, with certain phrasing.

Belden said it is critical to keep the subject on healthcare, not babies.

She said abortion proponents must also accept the fact that many blacks believe there should be some restrictions on abortion. So, “you move them off the circumstances, which you know are going to lose,” she said. She said to move the conversation to reminding people we can’t possibly know all the health reasons and issues going into a decision to abort. . ..

The four-part generalized message to defend abortion:

• Frame the issue as the need for quality healthcare and education in the black community.
• Site disparities with healthcare and education between the cultures.
• Call for an end to the disparities.
• Express the value of self-determination.

To specifically battle “genocide awareness” billboard campaigns:

• Turn “genocide” around: The killing and endangering of our people is really happening by way of substandard healthcare and lack of good education. That’s really the problem.
• Site historical disparities.
• Call for an end to the disparities.
• Try to switch topics to violence in communities – Trayvon Martin – lack of food, etc. (“What are you doing to help the children already here?”)

To that Jill Stanek wrote:

Takeaways:

1. The pro-life community needs to more heavily invest in billboard campaigns in black communities. Donate today to one or more of the organizations listed on the dossier above, or to the NBPLU.

2. Focusing on the babies, that abortion is calculated genocide of the black community, and that most abortions are committed for reasons of convenience are winning issues.

3. Encourage black pastors to preach more strongly against abortion.

4. A fitting verse comes to mind: “The arrogant godless try to throw me off track,” Psalm 119:85. But we won’t let them.

 Read the whole thing.

HOLDER SUFFERS EMBARRASSING SMACK DOWN AS CASE AGAINST PRO-LIFE COUNSELOR IS THROWN OUT

The vicious, one-sideness of this Administration in its promotion of abortion got slapped down today by a  U.S. district judge who called out the DOJ in no uncertain terms.  J. Matt Barber reports (HT: Tina Korbe):

For several months now the Obama administration has been abusing our judicial system through a concerted political intimidation campaign via the federal courts. Obama has instructed the Justice Department to sue a number of pro-life counselors and volunteers for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act.

You won’t hear it from the mainstream media, but the Justice Department has just faced an embarrassing smack down on the highest profile of these cases. It has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

Mr. Holder unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Ms. Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (PWC) abortion mill (or any other “reproductive services” clinic).

After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised in a scathing ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp for filing a case with no evidence.