Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

This is socialized medicine

original article: Matt Walsh: Courts in Europe have sentenced a baby to death. This is socialized medicine.
June 28, 2017 by Matt Walsh

There’s a horrific case over in the U.K. that hasn’t gotten a ton of attention here, but it should. If we look closely, we may see our future — and our present.

Charlie Gard is a 10-month-old baby who suffers from a rare genetic disorder called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. It’s a horrendous condition that leads to organ malfunction, brain damage, and other symptoms. The hospital that had been treating the boy, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, made the determination that nothing more can be done for him and he must be taken off of life support. He should “die with dignity,” they said. The parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, disagreed.

This is the very crucial thing to understand: they are not insisting that GOSH be forced to keep Charlie on life support. Rather, they want to take him out of the hospital and to America to undergo a form of experimental therapy that a doctor here had already agreed to administer. Chris and Connie raised over $1.6 million to fund this last ditch effort to save their child’s life. All they needed the British hospital to do was release their child into their care, which doesn’t seem like a terribly burdensome request. They would then leave the country and try their luck with treatment here. However slim the chance of success may have been, it was better than just sitting by and watching their baby die.

Here’s where things get truly insane and barbaric. The hospital refused to give Charlie back to his parents. The matter ended up in the courts, and, finally, in the last several hours, the European Court of “Human Rights” ruled that the parents should be barred from taking their son to the United States for treatment. According to the “human rights” court, it is Charlie’s human right that he expire in his hospital bed in London. The parents are not allowed to try and save his life. It is “in his best interest” to simply die, they ruled.

In Europe, “Death with dignity” supersedes all other rights.

In Europe, a mother may kill her baby but she is not allowed to keep him alive.

Again: barbaric.

I have heard many people rationalize this demented decision by saying “the doctors know best.” That may well be relevant and true in situations where family members are trying to force doctors to administer treatments that they, the medical professionals, know will not work. But that is not what’s happening here. The only thing these parents are trying to “force” the doctors to do is relax their grip so the child can be taken to different doctors in a different country. The doctors may be the final authority on what kinds of medical measures they personally should take, but they are not the final authority over life itself. It is one thing for them to say, “I will not do this treatment.” It’s quite another for them to say, “You are not allowed to have this treatment done by anyone. You must die.” The former is reasonable. The latter is euthanasia. This baby is being euthanized. By barbarians.

I’ve seen some on social media calling this case “unimaginable” and “mind boggling.” It is certainly awful, but unfortunately it does not boggle my mind or exceed the limits of my imagination. These sorts of cases are inevitable in Europe, and, unless we make a drastic change of course, they will soon become commonplace here. The stage is already set. Just consider these three factors:

(1) This is what happens with socialized medicine. 

If the State runs the health care system, ultimately they will be the ones who decide whose life is worth saving and whose isn’t. That’s not just a byproduct of socialized medicine — it’s the point. And it is especially risky to cede this sort of power to the government when you live in a culture that doesn’t fundamentally value parental rights or human life, which brings us to the last two points.

(2) This is what happens when parental rights are subordinate to the State. 

This case came down to the question of who should have the final say over a child. Should it be the parents, or should it be a collection of doctors, judges, and bureaucrats? And if the parents don’t take precedence in a life or death situation, can it really be said that they have rights at all? If I have no say when my child’s very life is at stake, when do I have a say?

The way things are headed in Europe, a parent may have some jurisdiction over the minor minutia of daily life, but when it comes to the major issues — how a child is to be educated, how he is to live, what he is to believe, when he is to die — it is increasingly up to the State to determine. As a “medical ethics” expert at Oxford put it, parental rights are “at the heart” of most big medical decisions, however “there are limits.” Chris and Connie apparently reached the “limits” of their parental authority and now must sit back obediently while their son dies in agony. “Limits,” you see. You’re only a parent up to a certain point, and then your relationship to your child doesn’t count for anything anymore. That’s how things are in the U.K. — and the U.S., as always, is close behind.

(3) This is what happens when human life is not considered sacred. 

But what really is the downside of taking the child to the U.S. for treatment? It may not work, OK, but why not try? They raised enough money to pay for everything, including an air ambulance to get the baby to the treatment facility. Nobody is being burdened here. Nobody is being forced to do something they don’t want to do. What is there to lose?

Well, the court answers, it’s just not worth the trouble. They’ve weighed all the variables using their various formulations, and they’ve decided that it makes no sense to go through all this trouble on the slim hope of saving this one measly life. Yes, they’ve used the excuse that the baby is “suffering,” and I’m sure he is suffering, but that doesn’t explain why the parents should be prevented from pursuing every option to ease that suffering. Death is not a treatment plan for suffering. Death is death. Death is the destruction of life. We all must experience it some day, but the inevitability of death does not negate the value and dignity of life.

What this really comes down to is that the Powers That Be don’t see the fundamental value in life. That’s why you’ll hear these people speak more often of the “dignity” of death than the dignity of life. They preach about the “right” to die but not the right to live. And the laws in Europe reflect this emphasis on death instead of life. Over there, they kill children in the womb and euthanize them when they come out. They even euthanize alcoholics and depressives and other people who are by no means terminally ill. Once the right to die has been placed over the right to life, death will continue claiming new ground and eating into life more and more. Death is a destructive force. What else can it do but consume?

It’s not quite as bad here yet, but we’re getting there. We already kill hundreds of thousands of children in the womb, and we often speak with admiration of people who make the “brave” decision to commit suicide. And we already, in many instances, place the authority of the State over the rights of parents. Our education system is built around that philosophy.

So, as I said, the stage is set. Prepare yourself for what’s to come.

And pray for Chris and Connie tonight.

 

babies, bureaucracy, children, civil rights, crisis, elitism, ethics, eugenics, extremism, government, health care, ideology, law, medicine, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, socialism, tragedy, unintended consequences

Advertisements

Filed under: babies, bureaucracy, children, civil rights, crisis, elitism, ethics, eugenics, extremism, government, health care, ideology, law, medicine, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, socialism, tragedy, unintended consequences

MSNBC: This Thing that Might “Turn Into a Human”

original article: MSNBC’s Sick Anti-Science: “This Thing” that Might “Turn Into a Human”
March 27, 2017 by Peter Heck

There was a time when the left pretended to be people of science. Always a vacuous claim, it still stuck to some degree because of the false dichotomy progressives created between religious faith (a trait attributed to the right) and the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, the façade is collapsing because of their rigid, dogmatic obsession with abortion.

Take for example what occurred on MSNBC with contributor Melissa Harris-Perry. Going on a rant about her love of abortion, Perry actually said this:

Look, I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?

Leave aside the incredibly morally repulsive price tag Perry is placing on human life, and concentrate on her reference to unborn life as “this thing.” As though the developing baby in the womb is some grand mystery object that could potentially morph into something other than human.

As much as leftists committed to this death cult want to believe otherwise, this isn’t difficult. The terms adolescent and elderly do not refer to nonhumans, or “potential” humans. They refer to humans at a particular stage of development. In the same way, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, or “potential” humans. They refer to humans at a particular stage, albeit an early stage, of development.

Just because some human functions have slowed, malfunctioned, or ceased due to old age, that does not make a “fully functional” adult more human than the old lady in the nursing home. Similarly, just because some human functions are underdeveloped, developing, or yet to be fully formed due to young age, that does not make a “fully functional” adult more human that the baby girl in the womb.

Again, this isn’t rocket science. It’s just science. Something Melissa Harris-Perry chooses to ignore for the sake of her political agenda, and that MSNBC gives her free air time to do.

Incidentally, for those who didn’t know (given that it is MSNBC, which boasts a nightly viewership slightly below reruns of the Jetsons on Cartoon Network), Harris-Perry recently lost her own program on the network. Why? She accused the “lean forward” organization of racism:

Harris-Perry refused to appear on her program Saturday morning, telling her co-workers in an email that she felt “worthless” to the NBC-owned network. “I will not be used as a tool for their purposes,” wrote Harris-Perry, who is African American. “I am not a token, mammy or little brown bobble head. I am not owned by [NBC executives] or MSNBC. I love our show. I want it back.”

Call me crazy, but given the rest of its regular programming, I think the anti-science ramblings of Harris-Perry that bemoans those “things” in the womb would fit nicely with their apparent organizational standards.

abortion, babies, children, extremism, ideology, indoctrination, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, science

Filed under: abortion, babies, children, extremism, ideology, indoctrination, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, science

PP has a backup plan, incase abortion is made illegal

original article: ‘Miscarriage management’: Planned Parenthood’s shocking backup plan if abortion is ever made illegal
March 27, 2014 by Abby Johnson

Protocols. We had many at Planned Parenthood.  Protocols on billing, customer service, client donations, medical services, counseling…you name it, we had a protocol for it. It was my job as clinic director to know them all. And, I did.

None of the protocols were all that interesting. Well, none of them…but one.

Buried at the back of this daunting folder of protocols, there was one that wasn’t talked about that often. But we needed to have it and know it…just in case.

This protocol was simply called “Miscarriage Management.” It was preparation for when abortion was made illegal. What would all of these women do if they couldn’t walk into a Planned Parenthood for an elective abortion? We had an answer for that written in this three-page protocol.

We would instruct women to take medications and/or vitamins to end their pregnancy. We would give them instructions on how much they needed to ingest in order to terminate their pregnancy.

We would give them warning signs…signs to help them decide if they needed to go directly to the emergency room. If everything went as planned, they would be instructed to come to our facility for an ultrasound to confirm fetal demise and an MVA (Manual Vacuum Aspiration). This would not technically be considered an abortion since the death of the child had happened outside our facility.

Of course, there would also be a fee for this “miscarriage management” service. You certainly didn’t think they would do this out of the kindness of their hearts, did you?

I want you to really mull this over in your mind. Abortion supporters are CONSTANTLY talking about “unsafe abortion.”  They are ALWAYS waving around those ridiculous coat hangers. Yet, they are willing to actually coach women on how to carry out an unsafe abortion on their own?

They could talk to these women about other options. Heck, maybe Planned Parenthood could actually become a center that provided prenatal care and adoption services. They could begin giving out material assistance to women in need. But no. Instead, they will simply help women harm themselves. Why? Because they “care” so much for women? I think not. This is simply a way for them to keep their abortion dollars coming in…even if abortion were to become legally obsolete.

If this is carried out, abortion supporters will be right. Women will be dying from ‘illegal abortions.’ Not because of the pro-life movement, but because of their own so-called “women’s rights” movement in which they’re actually causing women’s death.

“Miscarriage management.” We could also call it “How to help women carry out an illegal abortion.” I’m guessing that with the closing of all of these abortion centers, and so many states with only one abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood is dusting off this protocol.

But women deserve better than abortion…legal or illegal.

abortion, babies, ethics, extremism, pro-life, prolife, scandal

Filed under: abortion, babies, ethics, extremism, pro-life, prolife, scandal

The serial killer the media won’t talk about

original article: The American Serial Killer The Media Won’t Talk About: Kermit Gosnell
January 27, 2017 By The Federalist Staff

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murdering four people, including three babies, and it is suspected that he also killed hundreds, if not thousands of others in his “House of Horrors” abortion clinic. Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer join the Federalist Radio Hour to discuss their book, “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer” and the upcoming film adaptation.

“He’d give the women drugs to make them give birth… the babies were born alive and then he would kill them by stabbing them with scissors,” McAleer said. “He’s in prison because he committed murder… his death toll goes back decades.”

McAleer and McElhinney have made a dramatic film telling the story and drama of Gosnell. “I think we felt a documentary wouldn’t have the same penetration in terms of story, and because the story was ignored by the media, people just don’t know about it,” McElhinney said.

click here to listen to the interview

abortion, babies, bias, censorship, news media, pro-life, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: abortion, babies, bias, censorship, news media, pro-life, scandal, tragedy

Science accidentally shows the preborn child is a distinct individual person

original article: Scientists discover cells of aborted babies living in their mothers’ brains
January 3, 2013 by Jill Stanek

Scientific American termed the research findings another way: “Scientists discover children’s cells living in mothers’ brains.”

But I wanted to drive home a touching point: Mothers who terminate their pregnancies apparently don’t completely rid themselves of their babies. The cells of murdered children live on inside their mothers to help – or perhaps – hurt them:

Cells may migrate through the placenta between the mother and the fetus, taking up residence in many organs of the body including the lung, thyroid muscle, liver, heart, kidney and skin. These may have a broad range of impacts, from tissue repair and cancer prevention to sparking immune disorders.

It is remarkable that it is so common for cells from one individual to integrate into the tissues of another distinct person. We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as singular autonomous individuals, and these foreign cells seem to belie that notion, and suggest that most people carry remnants of other individuals.

I need to stop and note that this politically incorrect article correctly defines preborn babies as “distinct person(s),” “people,” and “individuals.”

Moving on….

As remarkable as this may be, stunning results from a new study show that cells from other individuals are also found in the brain. In this study, male cells were found in the brains of women and had been living there, in some cases, for several decades. What impact they may have had is now only a guess, but this study revealed that these cells were less common in the brains of women who had Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting they may be related to the health of the brain.

We all consider our bodies to be our own unique being, so the notion that we may harbor cells from other people in our bodies seems strange. Even stranger is the thought that, although we certainly consider our actions and decisions as originating in the activity of our own individual brains, cells from other individuals are living and functioning in that complex structure….

They examined the brains of deceased women for the presence of cells containing the male “Y” chromosome. They found such cells in more than 60 percent of the brains and in multiple brain regions. Since Alzheimer’s disease is more common in women who have had multiple pregnancies, they suspected that the number of fetal cells would be greater in women with AD compared to those who had no evidence for neurological disease. The results were precisely the opposite: there were fewer fetal-derived cells in women with Alzheimer’s. The reasons are unclear.

A post-abortive mother who gives any of this much thought will reach either distressing or comforting conclusions, depending on whether she has made peace.

 abortion, babies, biology, children, medicine, pro-life, prolife, science, scientists

Filed under: abortion, babies, biology, children, medicine, pro-life, prolife, science, scientists

So you think Planned Parenthood provides prenatal care?

Published on Jan 23, 2017
“Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don’t offer prenatal care.” Though Planned Parenthood claims that women depend on them for prenatal care, Live Action investigators had an incredibly hard time finding facilities that offered prenatal care—though they found plenty of facilities offering abortions.

5 Out of 97 Planned Parenthood Facilities Provide Prenatal Care

abortion, babies, ethics, false, fraud, indoctrination, lies, scandal, video

Filed under: abortion, babies, ethics, false, fraud, indoctrination, lies, scandal, video

Woman Who Killed Her Baby Has Conviction Overturned, Court Says Six-Day-Old Baby Isn’t a Person

original article: Woman Who Killed Her Baby Has Conviction Overturned, Court Says Six-Day-Old Baby Isn’t a Person
October 30, 2015 by MICAIAH BILGER

A New York court recently ruled that a Long Island woman who killed her baby in a car accident cannot be convicted because her baby was not a person yet.

The Times Union reports Jennifer Jorgensen previously was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter for causing the death of her baby daughter in a car crash. She also was indicted for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and endangering the welfare of a child, according to the report.

Jorgensen was in her third trimester when the car accident occurred in May 2008. Her daughter was delivered by C-section after the head-on collision and died six days later, according to the report.

In October, the New York Court of Appeals reversed Jorgensen’s conviction, ruling that she was not guilty because she fatally injured her daughter before she was born.

The court ruling compared Jorgensen’s actions to self-induced abortion and called it an offense that is “no greater than a misdemeanor.”

According to the report:

“… the central question in the case was whether the state Legislature intended ‘to hold pregnant women criminally responsible for engaging in reckless conduct against themselves and their unborn fetuses, such that they should be subject to criminal liability for prenatal conduct that results in postnatal death? Under the current statutory scheme, the answer to this question is no.’”

Not all of the judges agreed on the ruling. In a dissent, Judge Eugene Fahey wrote, “I cannot join in a result that analyzes our statutes to determine that a six-day-old child is not a person.”

Conservative blogger Warner Todd Huston notes that as outrageous as the ruling may seem, the court is right that current state laws do not recognize unborn babies as “persons.” Jorgensen is no longer being held accountable for her baby’s death because, in the eyes of the state, her unborn daughter did not have the rights of personhood when her reckless behavior fatally injured her child.

Huston wrote, “In this case it is clearly the legislature’s fault, not the court’s, and shows how iffy it is to say that a human doesn’t count as human until after they are ‘born.’”

Currently in the U.S., 37 states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in some circumstances, according to the National Right to Life Committee.

New York has two conflicting statutes about the protection of unborn children from violence, according to National Right to Life. One statute calls the killing of an unborn child after 24 weeks for reasons other than abortion “homicide.” However, a separate statutory provision defines the victim of a homicide as a “human being who has been born and is alive.”

JenniferJorgensen

abortion, babies, bureaucracy, government, ideology, legislature, political correctness, public policy, relativism, tragedy

Filed under: abortion, babies, bureaucracy, government, ideology, legislature, political correctness, public policy, relativism, tragedy

If you think pro-life equals anti-choice you’re an idiot, and worse

A curious attitude among the vast majority of the “pro-choice” crowd is that a woman’s right to choose is typically treated as the only legitimate perspective on the matter. Those opposing the killing of babies are often treated as opposing women’s rights, as if opposing the killing of babies somehow equals opposing all women’s rights.

But that’s what myopia does to people. Having a small, narrow minded view of “rights” in this matter prevents the pro-choice crowd from seeing any possibility that the child in the womb has any rights to violate.

This is precisely the same problem encountered by abolitionists who tried to end slavery in the United States. Abolitionists argued that to demean any person by robbing them of humanity places us all in danger. After all, if the government can play semantic games with personhood with one group it can do the same with another. But the myopic view of slave holders required them to attack abolitionists. Rather than merely disagreeing, slavery supporters accused abolitionists of attacking all property rights, because “property rights” was the excuse championed by slavery’s supporters. Thus, in their mind, claiming it was constitutionally invalid to treat a person as property was tantamount to denying the right to property at all. To defenders of slavery the issue was never about oppression except when their right to enslave other people was at risk.

Such a dishonest tactic was necessary for slavery supporters because it became increasingly difficult to defend slavery as discussion continued, as it should. If discussion was minimized or stopped, slave holders would have no reason to defend the evil they practiced. So the best way to end debate on the matter was to shut up those who wanted to debate it. And the best way to do that was to demonize and marginalize those who opposed slavery. That included accusations of being anti-property rights, anti-self government, and even being on the wrong side of history.

Abraham Lincoln, in his speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, made an argument similar to what the pro-life movement argues today against abortion. In our modern age pro-lifers often argue that to have the “right” to kill your own babies is not freedom, but oppression, among other things. Lincoln argued against slavery in much the same way:

The doctrine of self-government is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.

Not only do abortion activists shoehorn the issue into a “women’s rights” perspective, they also fraudulently force abortion into a scientific perspective, as if science was actually equipped to determine when personhood begins. [UPDATE: Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins]

It does a disservice to us all to ignore science or to treat opinion and fact as the same thing. In the first couple months the argument that the fetus is merely a blob of cells has some merit; but one still must choose to view it as “not a person” in development. It’s just as viable to believe the fetus at this stage is a person in development. Neither of these opinions are purely scientific – they are opinions. In fact, American law never official declared black people were people; and it shouldn’t have to.

But after the first couple months, for the remainder of the pregnancy, the child in the womb is not merely a blob of cells and cannot honestly be called such. A recent video was released showing abortion professionals attempting to train activists in defending abortion. One abortion professional actually suggested activists cease lying about the nature of the “person” in the womb and admit that after a certain period of time, the fetus is indeed a person, and that abortion is killing a person. The point of the training was to move past these vapid denials and teach activists how to divert the discussion to some other matter.

In a daytime TV talk show, which I find unworthy of being mentioned by name here, the show’s hosts recently ridiculed Dr. Ben Carson for his insistence that killing babies is a bad idea. But to those ridiculing him, they thought he was talking about controlling women. He wasn’t. No one fighting for a child’s right to live is fighting against “women’s rights”.
CSVVES6XAAEhpNF

What’s more, abortion supporters are acting as if women have a right that, in fact, no one has. While arguing for a woman’s right to choose the assumption is that women have the absolute right to control their own body. The problem is there is no such right.

Imagine this scenario: a 14 year old girl driving a car in the United States. This alone violates at least three laws: (1) there is an age requirement for driving the automobile (which she has not attained yet) and therefore she is (2) driving an automobile without a drivers license and (3) without auto insurance. In most places in the US these three laws are in effect, thus the 14 year old girl is violating all of them. But let’s add a few more details to this hypothetical. She is driving the car with an open beer bottle which violates at least two more laws: (4) under age drinking and (5) there is an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. Now imagine she is (6) driving without wearing a seat belt, (7) texting while driving, (8) driving faster than allowed on that particular stretch of road, (9) driving on the wrong side of the road, and (10) driving while nude.

I doubt all these things violate the law in all areas of the US, but in some places this fictional character is violating the law in all ten ways. And here’s the catch: if you’re reading this chances are you approve of at least one law alluded to in the hypothetical scenario. And since you support at least one of those laws, you support restricting what a person can or cannot do with their own body. No one has the absolute right to control their own body, and no one believes in such a thing.

So what’s so wrong with laws like these? It depends. Most people support such laws because of how they affect others. Admittedly, seeing a teenage girl driving naked could very well have a similar effect on other drivers as driving a car while texting or while drunk could have on the girl herself. It’s because of the effect on other people that most of us find ourselves willing to accept laws restricting our freedom. And that’s why abortion opponents oppose killing babies: because it’s KILLING PEOPLE!

Another lie abortion supports offer is that opponents want to force women to be mothers, completely ignoring the fact that pro-lifers frequently argue for adoption. No one arguing against abortion is arguing for the enslavement of women.

To the defenders of abortion the issue has never been about babies. The issue has always been about control of women, because being able to kill one’s own child is somehow deemed as empowerment and liberating, and a right. That’s how abortion supporters see it, and they are welcome to their view. But they are not entitled to define other people’s opinions. Their elitist stance drives them to pretend everyone treats abortion as about whatever abortion supporters say it is about. And they have to, because recognizing personhood for the child threatens the entire abortion economy and power structure, just like recognizing personhood for slaves threatened that of slavery.

Opponents of abortion are not interested in controlling women any more than opponents of slavery were opposed to property rights. To abortion opponents the issue has always been about babies. Those who call abortion opponents “anti-choice” are just as small minded and dishonest about abortion as slave owners were about abolitionists. I’m not asking or demanding abortion supporters agree with opponents, I’m merely asking supporters to stop lying about what opponents actually want and fight for. Purposefully misrepresenting your opposition makes you look like a fraud, and it makes you look incapable of tolerating dissenting points of view. And your reputation for being small minded and dishonest has had such a negative effect on your movement that even an abortion professional is suggesting you simply admit you support killing babies.

No one fighting against abortion is trying roll back women’s rights. If you can’t see that, you are either a blithering idiot or a liar. And possibly both. I’m talking to you, Chauncey DeVega.

abortion, babies, bias, elitism, fraud, government, history, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, pandering, political correctness, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal, victimization

Filed under: abortion, babies, bias, elitism, fraud, government, history, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, pandering, political correctness, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal, victimization

Pope’s Challenge to Protect Life Instantly Dismissed

original article: Pope’s Challenge to Protect Life Instantly Dismissed
September 24, 2015 by Kimberly Ross

The Pope was in town today, if you didn’t know, but the drooling dropped jaws of the Left probably tipped you off. As the country has been preparing for the papal visit, we’ve been subjected to channels such as CNN essentially turning into EWTN. Suddenly the Pope is revered, and Catholic teaching, most of it anyway, should be seriously considered, albeit briefly. The Pope’s speech before Congress was everything a social justice-leaning Pope would present to the leaders of a nation, complete with remarks about the environment, abolition of the death penalty, and coming together for the common good. You will see these remarks replayed over and over, and there is plenty of “good” in his statements. But there is one remark which will not be logically connected to the greatest sin of this generation. The sin of abortion. As Pope Francis said:

Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

Naturally, “every stage of its development” refers to life from the very beginning – conception – through to the end. While Pope Francis did not use the term “abortion” in his speech before Congress, he has spoken out against it by including the “innocent victim of abortion” in the list of those needing our protection, and determining “It is wrong, then, to look the other way or to remain silent”. This conflicts with those such as cowardly House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 16%, a pro-choice Catholic, who was recently quoted in a New York Times article: “The church has their position, and we have ours, which is that a woman has free will given to her by God”.

The dust had barely settled on media coverage of the Pope’s visit to DC when news outlets began to carry articles of Carly Fiorina’s visit to the ultrasound room of a pregnancy center. CNN‘s headline to the story? “Carly Fiorina trashes Planned Parenthood at South Carolina pregnancy center”. That’s odd, since about five minutes before that they were squealing with delight at the Pope’s speech.

The article opened…

Carly Fiorina took her attacks on Planned Parenthood to the ultrasound room of an alternative pregnancy center in the heart of the Bible Belt on Thursday morning.

“Wow, that shot of the spine is amazing. Look how well developed it is,” she remarked as she observed images of the 18-week fetus.

And the “trashing” the article refers to? Just this:

When Fiorina paced its narrow hallways, staff and pregnant women asked her to “stand for life” and “fight back.”

In between questions about soon-to-be-born child’s names, Fiorina pledged to do just that.

“The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts,” she told supporters in the foyer. “(Liberals) are perfectly prepared to destroy other people’s jobs and livelihoods and communities in order to protect fish and frogs and flies, but they do not think a 17-week-old, a 20-week-old, a 24-week old (baby) is worth saving.”

The lives worth saving, as mentioned by Fiorina, are the same exact lives that Pope Francis mentioned, but Carly is branded as trashing a women’s “health” organization, while the Pope as a whole is praised. How pale the “convictions” of the Left are, and how fleeting. CNN has done an excellent job at showing how absolutely limp the media is, as well as those who heard the Pope’s morning declarations in person, the members of Congress.

Of any two images that show the stark contrast between life and those who applaud its demise, these two pictures, tweeted close to one another, capture that reality.

popevisit

Liberals, both in the media and in Congress, quickly celebrated the Pope’s visit, and, just as quickly, ignored certain challenges that even dared to infringe on their political agenda. The most basic of rights is the right to life, and any desire to do good in this world must hinge on protecting that right. What good is a United States of America if we seek to use natural resources wisely, all the while destroying our most precious gift; the unborn? What good is encouraging the next generation to combat the evils of terrorism if we federally fund legal homicide? What good is celebrating the words of Pope Francis if they are glossed over one minute later while reviewing presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s stop at a pregnancy center?

With the Pope’s visit to Congress, the Left again showed their true colors. Not only is the representative of Catholicism celebrated and fawned over by those who routinely mock faith, but they give weight to just a portion of what he says for fear that the rest might destroy their own concrete “convictions”. I, for one, am not fooled by their paper-thin ideologies which dismiss the thing we should hold most dear.

abortion, babies, bias, congress, cover up, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Filed under: abortion, babies, bias, congress, cover up, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Planned Parenthood Guts Babies And Sells Their Organs, But Who Really Cares?

original article: Planned Parenthood Guts Babies And Sells Their Organs, But Who Really Cares?
September 15, 2015 by Matt Walsh

Not to spoil the ending, but to answer the question in the headline: apparently, not very many people. And now there’s a new Planned Parenthood undercover video out that’s sure to give our country another opportunity to disgrace and damn itself by ignoring the holocaust of children.

It’s the 10th one in the series, and possibly the most revealing. Unless you regularly read pro-life news sources (and you should, especially LifeSiteNews, which is one of the best websites on the entire internet), you probably won’t see much reporting on the subject. I’m a commentator myself, not a reporter, but because both the new and old media have so profoundly failed to do their job, I’ll dedicate the first part of this post to simply giving you the straight news.

Here are the bullet points summarizing each clip in the video, which appears to have been recorded during some sort of ritzy conference for well heeled baby killers:

1. Dr. Carolyn Weshoff, Planned Parenthood’s senior medical adviser, sips some tasty wine while discussing dividing up the dead children and selling them to various clients. She says the people she works with don’t want stem cells, but “particular tissues” like “cardiac” or “eyes” or “neural” or “spinal cords.” She says they can sell any part of a murdered baby. Laughing heartily, she reminds the undercover investigator that they can provide “gonads — oh my God, gonads.” She promises that all of the body parts are “fresh,” like meat from the local deli. She smirks and says that selling the fresh testicles of murdered children can become a “huge PR issue,” and urges secrecy and discretion.

2. Dr. Vanessa Cullins, another high ranking Planned Parenthood official, admits that these transactions could “destroy” their organization if they don’t “time the conversations correctly.”

3. Deb VanDerhei, the national director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, asks the buyer if he “just wants livers.” He says he’s looking for everything. She asks about “remuneration,” which is a fancy word for financial compensation. She brings up the question of profits on her own and without prompting, and worries that the kickbacks be handled “carefully” because “the headlines would be a disaster.”

This theme is returned to at multiple points throughout the footage. Planned Parenthood was obviously very concerned that their black market human trafficking would end up landing them on the front pages or in prison. Perhaps the most depressing part of the video is that there hasn’t been any headlines or any jail time for any of these people. Even they, it turns out, are surprised that nobody cares about them carving up and cannibalizing dead infants. She says PPFA doesn’t have a policy on “tissue procurment,” which, she admits, “is relatively intentional.”

4. Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who we’ve met in previous installments, smiles coyly and confirms there “are no guidelines” and “there will never be guidelines.” Basically, PPFA affiliates can do whatever they want. “Nothing is written,” she says again. She’s practically screaming subliminally that clinics can sell babies for whatever price and for whatever reason. There are absolutely no ethical restrictions imposed from within. From her facial expressions, she appears to be rather proud of this fact.

5. VanDerhei, again worrying about the “headlines,” says she wants clinics to only sell dead babies if it’s “worth it.” She says she knows they can “generate a fair amount of income doing this,” which is a statement that flies directly in the face of pro-choice propaganda claiming PPFA isn’t motivated by profit. She openly plots the cover up for this illegal operation, telling the buyer she’s “not comfortable having the conversation through email.”

6. Vanessa Russo, an official with Planned Parenthood Keystone, talks very openly about her intention to break the law. She says she “won’t be bullied by ridiculous law” (because laws that protect children from being dismembered and sold for parts are, in her mind, ridiculous). She denies that Planned Parenthood “should curtail its business for ridiculousness” (the law is the “ridiculousness” in this case). VanDerhei responds by telling Russo that PPFA doesn’t plan to curtail its business at all. They’ve been given the all clear to “go for it” and collect “remuneration.”

To summarize, Planned Parenthood murders children, thinks its funny to sever their testicles, sells the body parts to generate income, and conspires very explicitly to skirt the laws and hide their illegal activities. We knew all of these facts already, but it’s no less outrageous, despicable, depraved, evil, revolting, and infuriating. Even if none of these points are revelations, this video is still the most important news item since the last video was released. If you haven’t shared the video, you should, because it’s more relevant than anything else you’ve shared or talked about today, guaranteed.

It’s been established well beyond a reasonable doubt that these serial killers are breaking the law. Wake up, fools of America: they’re admitting it on camera. How many times do they have to say “this law is ridiculous and here’s how we intend to break it” before we arrive at the conclusion that perhaps they think the laws are ridiculous and have no problem breaking them? Besides, whichever parts of their operation are legal — like the part where they slaughter the innocent lives to begin with — shouldn’t be. Legal or not,none of this should be funded by the American taxpayer; none of this should be tolerated by a supposedly “Christian country;” none of this should be allowed to go on; none of this should be ignored by so many millions; and none of these activities should elicit anything but a deep and primal hatred from the pit of your soul.

Decent people hate abortion. Moral people hate abortion. God hates abortion. I suppose, then, it’s no wonder our culture is so indifferent on the subject.

I pledged that I would continue writing about these videos for as long as the Center For Medical Progress releases them, but I must admit I’m feeling rather defeated nowadays. After the first bit of footage was made public a few months ago, I hoped an awakening might be on the horizon. I prayed this heroic campaign by CMP would be a devastating blow to the abortion industry. I begged God that He might use this to slap our dull, tired, and distracted populace out of its pathetic stupor. I believed that, so long as these videos continued to surface, there might be a chance for real change. I hoped, at the very least, everyone who calls themselves “conservative” or “Christian” would rally together, realizing that protecting our children from these mercenaries ought to be our primary and most crucial goal. I wished — perhaps I even had a little faith — that “the right” would rise to the occasion and absolutely obsess over this issue until something is done about it.

I don’t want to throw in the towel or abandon all of these hopes, but 10 videos later, it appears I was overly optimistic. The polls tell us public opinion of Planned Parenthood has remained basically unchanged. Those who supported the slaughter of babies before all of this, still do. The disgraceful wimps who were too weak and selfish to have much of a perspective on the matter before all of this, still don’t. The true civil rights champions who gave voice to the voiceless and fought for life and liberty before all of this, obviously still are. There isn’t much evidence that people have crossed over from one category to another. It is a staggering and comprehensible indictment on our culture that 10 videos of abortionists chopping up and selling infants hardly moved the needle at all.

Naturally, the story has been buried by the news media. Even Fox, the supposedly conservative outlet, treats it like a relatively minor item. In the debates last month, they asked one candidate onequestion about Planned Parenthood, and it was more of a cheap “gotcha” attempt than an opportunity to actually hear where these people stand on defunding the abortion industry. Some conservative commentators have been all over this scandal, but many others, like Ann Coulter, remain utterly and shamefully silent (although to be fair, Coulter did take the time to call pro-lifers “p*ssies”). Social media hasn’t been much better. As I write this, the most recent video is not a trending topic on either Facebook or Twitter. Instead, the top stories are Donald Trump, college football, and Hispanic Heritage Month.

And, in the midst of all of this, which Republican leads in the polls? Not the ardently pro-life Ted Cruz, who vows to prosecute Planned Parenthood officials and open a federal investigation into the abortion industry on the first day of his tenure, but the moderate, former partial birth abortion advocate Donald Trump, who brags of donating to rabidly pro-abortion politicians, says that an extremist pro-abortion judge would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice, recently insisted that Planned Parenthood “does good work,” repeated debunked pro-choice talking points about how abortion is “only a small part of what they do,” andpromised to keep funding them. Children are dying by the millions, the abortion industry has been exposed, the time is ripe to wage a serious battle against the most evil institution of our time, and this is who “conservatives” are turning to. Again, staggering and incomprehensible.

Many conservative thought leaders, like Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, have exacerbated the problem, turning their backs on the pro-life movement and the conservative cause by shilling for the most pro-choice Republican in the race. Meanwhile, allegedly conservative websites likeBreitbart make passing mentions of baby harvesting before going right back to incessantly advocating for one of the only guys in the field who promises to keep the status quo on Planned Parenthood. Principled conservatives are learning who they can trust and who they can’t, and the latter category is rapidly growing.

As for our “conservative” representatives in the federal government, they’ve already forfeited the fight, saying they won’t try to strip tax funding from the murderers of babies if it means risking a politically inconvenient government shutdown. Instead, they’ll give us show votes on impotent legislation whileworking to undermine any effort that might actually achieve some sort of result. Several states have responded much more forcefully, but these were mostly states that already provided strong protections for unborn life. Overall, the paradigm doesn’t appear to have shifted very much.

Pro-lifers have suffered a complete betrayal. Much more egregiously, our children have been betrayed. At precisely the moment in history when the pro-life movement is gifted with the best ammunition it’s ever had, many who are supposed to be on our side have deserted us. We are standing here on the battlefield ready to wage war in the name of life and liberty, and as we look around we see our compatriots dropping their weapons and running for the hills. Pro-lifers are finding out what our country and our alleged allies are truly made of, and it’s not pretty. It’s just not pretty.

If you’re looking for someone to offer up a cheerful angle, I’m not the guy. I feel a deep rage and sadness, and it grows every day, especially when I see these videos and I think about all of the children who are murdered by “doctors” and forsaken by their families and their nation. I have never in my life been more disgusted with the country that I love. I feel like flags should be flown at half mast or taken down altogether, in mourning not only of the lost lives, but of America’s lost soul. How can I take “pride” in a culture and a country that fails in its most basic and fundamental task — to protect and love its children? How can I call this the “home of the brave” when we aren’t even brave enough to come together and stop the abortion industry from exterminating a million babies in the next year? How can I say “God bless America” when inside I am really begging Him to finally rain His perfect justice upon us, whatever the cost?

I will still fight. I will still do whatever I can in my own insignificant way to pull us out of this abyss of self-centerdness and moral depravity. I will still desperately pray that God will cure me of my own cowardice, weakness, selfishness, and sin, so that I can be a more effective and dedicated advocate for life and truth. I will still search for the hope and purpose in all of this, but it’s a struggle.

Maybe I’ve despaired too quickly. Maybe there are pro-life victories ahead, even if it doesn’t look like it now. Maybe we will finally snap out of our apathetic haze and see that the ground we’re walking on is covered in the bloody bodies of our own children. Maybe we’ll wake up and be a good, decent, Christian people again.

Maybe.

I have to believe it’s possible. These days, belief is all I have.

abortion, babies, crisis, justice, pro-life, prolife, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: abortion, babies, crisis, justice, pro-life, prolife, scandal, tragedy

Pages

Categories

September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930