It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.
Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of (a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and (b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?
Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.
It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.
Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.
Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.
Last week, Live Action released the second video in their latest investigative project, Inhuman. Late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo, who works at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in Washington, D.C., is shown in the video. He had many memorable things to say, both in the edited and unedited version of this part of the investigation. In response to the videos, he says that he has not watched them because he considers pro-lifers terrorists.
Many have reacted strongest to Santangelo’s statement that for a hospital to attempt to save a baby born alive from an abortion is “the stupidest thing they could have done.”
Kristi Burton Brown’s article sums up many of the abortionist’s problematic statements, including when he told the 24-week-pregnant investigator that:
… if you do everything possible to help it survive, you know, there’s a – maybe a 20-30% chance that it would survive. If you don’t do anything, then, you know, the chances are much, much less.
If that number sounds fishy, that’s because, as Kristi points out, while citing findings from a 2009 Swedish study, the chance is actually much higher. For the woman in question, being 24 weeks pregnant, 67% of babies born at that gestational age survive.
All these statistics are helpful, especially to show that Santangelo not only has a disregard for the unborn but that he presents false information for women, likely in order to close an abortion sale. Kristi ends her article with the mention of how Santangelo pressured the investigator into aborting, rather than telling her to “[t]ake your time, think about it, go home.” That’s something the abortionist actually says he would “hate to say.”
However, as useful as these statistics may be, one may wonder if they really even matter. Even if the investigator were 22 weeks pregnant, a gestational age where less than 10% of babies born survived, would that baby have any less of a right to life? Having a chance that’s in the single digits may not be much to hope on, but it’s not zero. And miracles can happen. That child deserves a chance at life whether he or she is born at 22 weeks or once the mother has reached full term.
While the United States erroneously fails to protect the right to life from conception, we can be thankful that there is the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Thus, if a baby is born alive from an abortion, even at 22 weeks, when there is such a low chance of survival, he or she must be given medical care in an attempt to save his or her life. Santangelo is simply wrong. He is wrong to perform abortions to begin with, he is wrong to circumvent the law, and he is wrong to treat women and babies, born and pre-born alike, so callously.
Infertility can be one of the most heartbreaking trials a couple undergo. Wanting to bear your own children is a desire felt by the vast majority of mankind, so when someone is unsuccessful in becoming pregnant, the natural reaction is to find a way to do so using the medical advances available today. One of those is in-vitro fertilization (IVF). And while there are many ethical concerns surrounding IVF, one in particular troubles me: the fact that IVF turns children into designer products to be engineered and sold – and then discarded, if they’re found to be “defective” in some way.
A perfect example is a couple who are angry that they underwent IVF and ended up with twins. Their story in the Huffington Post is similar to many other couples: they already had one child and wanted another. They tried to get pregnant for two years unsuccessfully, and then they tried artificial insemination. When that didn’t work, they decided to try IVF. Not unusually, they chose to implant two embryos, as it gave them a better chance of one taking. They were hoping for a girl, but, shockingly, they ended up with twin boys. You would think that they might have considered and accepted the possibility of twins beforehand…but apparently not.
As horrible as this might sound, we found ourselves wishing these twins away. We considered a reduction for about 30 seconds. (That’s essentially an abortion of one twin, not both.) If you thought that IVF involved playing God, a reduction felt beyond brazen — Machiavellian, even. Give us a reason, we thought, as we had the twins tested for genetic anomalies. None came.
Ah, yes. The heartbreak of knowing that your child doesn’t possess a genetic anomaly which could then allow you to kill him guilt-free. Meanwhile, their attitudes towards their children don’t sound promising.
I’m trying not to be so bitter and to embrace what’s ahead of us. It’s possible these kids will sleep at some point, I suppose. In the meantime, I’ve promised to stop referring to one of the boys as “extra” and have told my wife I will try to refrain from calling my first-born son “the free one.” With four months left to go, I’m not sure what stage we’re in at the moment — but it’s not acceptance. My wife and I even both privately admitted that we don’t like the new children, which is of course insane.
Their children aren’t even born yet, and because there’s one too many, they already don’t like them and give them dehumanizing nicknames.
What is troubling about this article isn’t that a couple is experiencing fear and anxiety over how they will handle raising twins as opposed to one child. Juggling multiple newborns is certainly not easy, and feeling some trepidation about how they will handle such a major life change is certainly normal. What makes this article so terrible is that this wasn’t a freak accident. It wasn’t something that miraculously happened – the couple chose this possibility. They knowingly implanted two embryos, knowing that twins could result from that. But because they didn’t get the single girl that they wanted, they considered killing one of the babies, and now they publicly talk about how they wish they weren’t there. (One can only hope that the children will never read this article.)
And this serves as the perfect example of how IVF can cause such problems. It turns babies from miracles into products to be designed and bought. Most disturbingly, it isn’t uncommon for parents to throw out the baby when the end result isn’t what they wanted. Selective reduction of twins – very often after undergoing IVF – is on the rise. Babies with Down syndrome are aborted after the couple goes through IVF. Because hey, when you’re shelling out thousands upon thousands of dollars for your little designer embryo, you should be able to get the spawn you want, right? And when you don’t, they’re completely disposable.
It’s hard to imagine that respect for life exists when parents are designing the babies they want, and then griping about – or worse, killing – their child when they don’t get the results they want. Have we truly forgotten that children are not handbags? They aren’t designer shoes or a personalized piece of jewelry from Tiffany’s. Children aren’t products to be bought and sold. They aren’t meant to be designed and engineered and tinkered with. But isn’t that what IVF is turning them into?
The legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly remains embedded in our national consciousness whenever we are faced with issues of discrimination. It was Dr. King, primarily, who taught America to keep her promises in considering that all human beings are persons and that, as persons, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. He called on us to judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, because it is our moral failures that weaken us as a nation, and it is moral strength to view all persons as having inherent dignity.
Planned Parenthood, unfortunately, has rejected this viewpoint in perpetuating the idea, with taxpayer funding, that moral failure is something to be celebrated, and that our laws should enshrine legal discrimination against unwanted children. Their backing of Colorado’s “Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act” and opposition to the “Brady Project” is a good example of their commitment to legal and taxpayer-funded discrimination against persons in the womb who are deemed unworthy to breathe free.
The Brady Project is a Colorado petition drive to support a state constitutional amendment backed by Heather Surovik, who lost her nine-month-old pre-born son Brady when they were hit by a drunk driver. The amendment would allow criminal prosecution of those who commit “criminal offenses and negligent and wrongful acts” that result in the death of a pre-born child.
Rational basis is given in the text of the amendment – specifically, that an unborn child is a “person” and, as such, merits protection by the law in those cases when a pregnant woman loses her child in the course of a criminal act such as the drunk-driving incident that took the life of Surovik’s son Brady. Planned Parenthood opposes the Brady Amendment because, as the nation’s largest abortion provider, the corporation relies on a rejection of the rational basis that pre-born children are “persons.” Instead, the people at Planned Parenthood are supporting “Crimes Against Pregnant Women” legislation so that pre-born babies can continue to be discriminated against based on whether they are “wanted” or “unwanted.”
According to Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, the legislation backed by Planned Parenthood has serious legal ramifications for children in the womb.
“It was partly authored by Planned Parenthood. Not only does it remove every restriction for abortion that is on the books, but it intentionally and specifically denotes that anyone not born is not a person,” Mason told CNA.
If Colorado accepts Planned Parenthood’s “Crimes Against Pregnant Women” legislation and rejects the Brady Amendment, there should be no argument that Colorado will have indeed come full circle in rejecting Dr. King’s vision that we are created equal by virtue of our humanity alone.
What type of woman would take on China and their One Child Policy? The same woman who led students in the protest at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and found her name on China’s most-wanted list after the government cracked down on the protest, killing and wounding thousands of Chinese citizens.
Chai Ling is that woman, and in her book, A Heart For Freedom, she tells her compelling story. It’s the story of a girl who at the age of ten was put in charge of her younger sister and brother and grandmother while her parents were away for a year serving as army doctors. She loved her country and studied hard, eventually earning a place at the prestigious Beida University in Beijing (Peking University).
At Beida Chai Ling was exposed to new ideas and learned that improvements were needed in the Chinese government. When students planned a peaceful protest in Tiananmen Square, seeking dialog with government officials, Ling stepped into the role as student leader. She escaped the June 4 massacre and was forced to flee from Beijing and ultimately from China. Now she and her U.S.-based organization, All Girls Allowed, fight to expose the injustice of the One Child Policy.
Chai Ling knows what it is like to be a Chinese woman facing pregnancy without a birth permit. In her book, she tells of that first abortion:
After my father registered me, I was taken into an operating room, where a middle-aged woman was waiting. She wasn’t mean, just matter-of-fact, as if accustomed to this kind of operation. The room was cold. With no anesthesia, she inserted a long tube into my body, and I felt the pain of cutting and heard the sucking sound of a vacuum. I was in agony, but I couldn’t move or cry out. Next to me, an empty bottle began to fill with pinkish white foam. I felt the blood drain from my face, and my heart was in shock. As I felt I was about to faint, I heard the woman’s harsh voice. “Are you okay? If you can’t do it, I will leave and come back later.” “Oh, please don’t leave,” I begged. “Just finish it.” I could not imagine having to go through this procedure again. Clearly not pleased, she looked at my face carefully and then continued for what seemed like a century before the noise finally came to an end. When she left the room, I looked at the bottle by my side. It was filled with redness. Half an hour later the woman came back and told me I could go. I managed to walk out of the room and saw my father in
the lobby. When the woman told him the procedure was finished, he nodded and started walking. I followed along behind. Pain and shame engulfed me. We went back to the bus and road the two hours home without saying a word.
After this first occurrence, Ling was forced into two more abortions.
I commend Ling for her bravery in publicly sharing those dark times in her life. Now she is devoting her life to protecting others from being forced to endure the experiences she was subjected to.
To learn more about this remarkable woman, purchase a copy of her book here.
Last week, Yale announced that its student health plan will cover sex-reassignment surgery for students, deeming it an important part of “equal-access” health care.
This might shock anyone who doesn’t follow academia, but I wasn’t the least bit surprised. This is just the latest among seemingly endless efforts by colleges to accommodate the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) student community.
“We hope that this represents a commitment to catch up to our peers in terms of offering transgender students an equitable student life and health care experience,” Gabriel Murchison, a member of Yale’s Resource Alliance for Gender Equity, told the Yale Daily News.
While offering coverage for sex changes is extreme, many campuses offer gender-neutral housing with the same goal in mind: to make the college experience more comfortable for gay and transgender students. My own Ohio University set aside gender-neutral dorm space back in 2011, and the student newspaper praised this decision as a “progressive step,” which was meant mostly “to accommodate those students who identify as transgender.” (No one seems to have conducted any research to see how many transgender students were actually enrolled at OU.)
And you know what? I’m okay with that. Cost issues aside, I’m glad that colleges are reaching out to students who struggle to find acceptance in the “real world.” Unfortunately, they show no such concern for another demographic that could use support on campus: pregnant students.
“I felt…pitied by the faculty,” says Lauren Pope, now a married mother of four living in Austin, Texas. “There was definitely an undertone of disapproval.”
Lauren was a freshman at Salem College when she found herself unexpectedly pregnant. She knew she wanted to carry the pregnancy to term and marry the baby’s father. But it soon became clear that she had another choice to make: a baby or a degree.
“There was no on-campus housing for married students,” says Lauren. “Since I’d have to live off campus, my scholarship was cut. They actually reduced it by more than just the amount that covered housing, so my out of pocket costs were a lot higher. There were no services of any sort for day care.” She had no choice but to leave Salem and transfer to a local college in Austin.
Considering their lack of resources and support, is it any surprise that a third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on college-age women? There’s an office of LGBT Affairs on nearly every campus. Where is the resource center for pregnant and parenting undergrads?
I decided to call Ohio University and find out. First was the student health center. Did they offer any sort of prenatal care for students?
“No,” they told me. “We have a gynecologist on staff, but for pregnancy, they’d have to be referred out.” Since OU is in a rural area, this could mean that a pregnant student has to travel considerable distance to see a doctor.
I called the housing department. Did they offer any on-campus housing for parenting students? The employee who answered the phone seemed a bit baffled that I’d ask such a weird question and put me on hold to find out. (Unsurprisingly, the answer was “no.”)
“We know that young women, especially students, who become pregnant, are directly targeted by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, told me. “Often, there is nowhere for her to live on campus after she is ‘outed’ as being pregnant and there is no housing available for her on campus after the baby is born; no daycare options, no changing tables in the bathrooms, or lactation rooms. “
That’s a striking contrast to the LGBT community, which has demanded – and received – gender-neutral housing and gender-neutral bathrooms on many campuses. Hawkins said it’s time for pro-life students to start speaking up.
“In many universities today, the administration has never been asked to provide accommodations for pregnant and parenting students, so they have never thought about it,” she said. “We want to force administrations to think about these things and how equal protection is guaranteed to every student, even those who are pregnant.”
Colleges roll out the red carpet for LGBT students. But pregnant students receive a very different, unspoken message: “You’re not welcome here.”
It’s time for that to change. For ideas on how you can reform your campus, visit www.studentsforlife.org.
A recent post on HuffPo has gone viral, being reposted mostly by people who can’t believe what they just read. A man, if you can call him that, writing under the pen name Albert Garland wants you to know: “My Wife Is Expecting Twins and I Am Not Happy About It.”
This article is an excellent example of what we mean when we say “first-world problems.” Even as it starts, I know I am about to read something steeped in a viewpoint warped and twisted by selfishness. It begins thusly:
I’ve been doing some spying lately, casually asking friends and acquaintances about their experiences with having twins.
A buddy from college said of the first year: “Think of the worst thing you can imagine. That’s what it was like.”
We’re two sentences in, and I’m already gaping at my monitor. When I think of “the worst thing” I can imagine, my mind immediately leaps to children with leukemia, extreme poverty, famine, murdered children. That type of thing. What decidedly does not leap to mind is “parenting two infants.”
I’m already thinking about my mother. She found herself, a divorced single mother of two with a GED and a job in food service, pregnant with twins at age 27. And then parenting us all alone. But I’ll get to that.
We’re just getting started with this mind-blowing article.
A former colleague was more blunt: “Twins were always my worst nightmare.”
And now it’s my and my wife’s nightmare; we’re expecting twins this August.
Horror of horrors.
Not only did these disgusting people get pregnant on purpose; they did IVF on purpose. That’s right: they paid a doctor $10,000 to put those two embryos in this awful man’s wife.
In the parsimonious manner of postmodern family planners, they decided to have one more child for their toddler son. A girl, of course, since they had a boy already. (What made them think they could select the gender? An inflated sense of the power of their own wishes, perhaps?) The old-fashioned way didn’t work (they’re in their late 30s), and IUI (intra-uterine insemination) didn’t work. So the next step was the $10,000-a-pop crap-shoot of IVF, in-vitro fertilization.
It worked. But, dadgum it, wouldn’t you just know it – she came up pregnant with twins. Twin boys. Can you even imagine such suffering?
Here is the part of the article that makes you realize that if you’re reading the thoughts of a normal man, we need to seriously reevaluate our definition of “normal.”
As horrible as this might sound, we found ourselves wishing these twins away.
We considered a reduction for about 30 seconds. (That’s essentially an abortion of one twin, not both.) If you thought that IVF involved playing God, a reduction felt beyond brazen — Machiavellian, even. Give us a reason, we thought, as we had the twins tested for genetic anomalies. None came.
I have no comment. There’s nothing I can say.
The loving father goes on to talk about how horrible his son made his life.
When our first son was born, I was naïve. I remember thinking it was going to be nice to be home for a while and have some time off. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Those first six weeks were brutal. Then the colic arrived. Two months later, we were shattered, frazzled, damaged. … Three years later, we still struggle mightily with a boy who’s fiercely strong-willed and seems to inherently know that crying pushes our buttons.
Does anybody else want to put this guy through, I don’t know, Army Basic Training or something? Yes, I have no doubt that parenting a baby with colic is hard. But “damaged”? Seriously? And three years later, you “struggle” with your three-year-old son? Maybe it’s because you’re terrible parents. Just a thought.
So tell me how this isn’t going to suck. (Did I mention we live in a one-bedroom apartment?) Sure, in 10 years I could have close to a starting five of super-athletic, NBA-hopeful alpha males living under my roof smelling up the joint. But right now it’s hard for us to see twins as good news.
First: maybe you should live somewhere where you can afford more than one bedroom. Second: way to embrace the eugenics mentality of valuing the lives of your children only if and when they’re useful to you. If none of them become NBA-hopefuls, will you still love them?
In fact, he doesn’t mention once in this article that he loves any of his children.
This is how it ends:
With four months left to go, I’m not sure what stage we’re in at the moment — but it’s not acceptance. My wife and I even both privately admitted that we don’t like the new children, which is of course insane…
They say the most important thing is the kids’ health — but what about ours?
What about yours? Who cares? With all the time and energy you spend thinking about yourself, you don’t need any help from the rest of us.
I have a dual viewpoint of this article. I’m not only, as they say, struggling with infertility, but I was nearly nine years old when my mother became unexpectedly pregnant with twins. Her boyfriend, their biological father, found out she was pregnant and took off, forever.
I remember a magnet on our refrigerator when I was growing up. It said: “A baby is God’s opinion that the world should go on.” It stayed there for years. Later, Mom told me she put it there for a reason, to remind herself when it was hard.
And of course it was hard. They didn’t sleep. Ever. For the first ten months, my mother slept in two-hour spurts. Now in her early 50s, she goes to bed at nine o’clock every night, and jokes that she’s still catching up.
She struggled. We all did. But my mother, who most certainly did not pay $10,000 for those twins, who was shocked and scared by her unplanned pregnancy, nevertheless handled single motherhood of two children plus twins with grace, fortitude, and love – some words “Albert Garland” might consider looking up.
Around the world, people much poorer than the Garlands view large families in the biblical way: as a blessing. Right now, somewhere, in a country where a one-bedroom American apartment would look like a palace, a man is wearing rags and watching with pride as his babies play on the floor of a shack.
“Albert Garland” is a wake-up call. His revolting words hold up a mirror to a culture that has become selfish, soft, and sad. We have forgotten what real suffering is, because we tend to not experience it. We have become so privileged that we can no longer tell the difference between joy and pain.
I’ll be praying for all the Garlands – especially their children.
In 1977, abortion was legal throughout the country during all nine months of pregnancy. When an obstetrician/gynecologist told teenager “Mary W” that she was 28 weeks pregnant, he suggested that she give the baby up for adoption, as few doctors in the area were willing to perform abortions that late.
But Mary was determined, and she managed to find an abortionist – Dr. William Baxter Waddill. On March 2, 1977, Mary arrived at Westminster Community Hospital for a saline abortion.
Saline abortions are seldom performed today because of the danger to the mother and the possibility of live births, but in the 1970s and ’80s, they were very common. They were generally used to end pregnancies towards the end of the second trimester.
In a saline abortion, a caustic saline solution is injected into the woman’s uterus. It slowly burns and poisons the baby, and then the woman goes through labor, “giving birth” to a usually dead child.
The abortionist injected the saline and then left, leaving the nurses to tend to Mary. It was common for abortion doctors to inject their patients with saline and then leave, forcing the nurses to bear the emotional brunt of the abortion procedures and to dispose of the dead babies. In this case, however, Mary gave birth to a living 2-lb., 8-oz. baby girl.
At first the nurse did not realize that the baby was still alive. She clamped the cord as normal and placed her in a bucket to be taken to the pathology lab. Then the baby began moving and crying. The nurses gathered around the baby. Unsure what to do, they summoned their supervisor, who called Dr. Waddill at home. Mary was not told that her baby had been born alive – the infant was whisked away from her before she realized what had happened.
All of this came out in testimony at the trial.
While waiting for Waddill to arrive, the nurses cleaned the baby, suctioned her throat to help her breathe, brought her to the nursery, and placed her in isolette. A neonatal ICU nurse began taking care of the child and charted a heart rate of 88 beats per minute. According to the American Heart Association, an ideal heart rate for newborns is 140 bpm. However, premature babies often have lower heart rates, and many of them survive.
When Dr. Waddill arrived at the clinic, he was angry. He reportedly chased all the nurses out of the room and made a call to another physician, Dr. Ronald Cornelson. The law at that time stated that two doctors needed to be present to pronounce a premature baby dead. The conversation between the two doctors was recorded and entered into evidence in the trial. According to the tape, Waddill said:
If we all tell the same story, there will be no trouble. … So long as we stand together, no one anywhere can make any accusations anywhere. … Do not get squirrely. Just tell them exactly as we’ve discussed. Just say you went in, there was no heartbeat and you left.
Dr. Cornelson later testified that he believed that the baby was closer to 31 weeks than 28 weeks. He heard Waddill say, “Sorry to get you into this mess, we had a baby that came out alive from a saline abortion, and it can’t live!”
Dr. Waddill requested potassium chloride to inject into the baby’s heart and stop it. Dr. Cornelson prevented the nurse from getting it. Waddill then discussed throwing the baby into a bucket of water. Dr. Cornelsen said in testimony:
I said, ‘Why not just leave the baby alone?’ Waddill said, ‘This baby can’t live or it will be a big mess.’
Finally, Waddill began strangling the child in full view of Cornelson and other nurses. No one stopped him. He was quoted saying, “This baby won’t stop breathing!”
When the baby was autopsied later, an examination of the lungs indicated that the baby had been breathing for at least 30 minutes. There were bruises on her throat, consistent with strangulation.
Dr. Waddill went to trial. However, despite the fact that the autopsy proved that the baby had been strangled and a number of witnesses watched the strangulation, charges against Waddill were dismissed after two mistrials. He was never punished for strangling the baby. He was not reprimanded in any way.
He did not lose his medical license. In fact, he continued to perform abortions, and as of the year 2000, he was working for the Family Planning Associates’ chain of abortion clinics. He and the clinic he worked at were even endorsed by the National Abortion Federation, an organization that supposedly gives endorsements only to the best facilities and providers.
(Incidentally, despite the fact that Family Planning Associates has been endorsed by the NAF, at least 12 women have died at their clinics,and there have been numerous lawsuits.)
Could the little girl have survived if she had not been strangled? In the 1970s, neonatology was not as advanced as it is today. In the 1990s, over 90% of babies born at 27 weeks were able to survive. The number is even higher now.
Statistics from the 1970s are harder to come by, but an article in The Sydney Morning Herald claims that these babies had about a 71% survival rate if given medical attention promptly. So it is possible – if not very likely – that the baby would have survived if she had continued to be treated in the ICU.
Much of the information contained in this article was brought to light by Christina Dunigan. Her blog can be found here:
See “History: William Waddill and the killing of baby W” and “Can Gosnell Walk?”
I was a member of an internet forum for women who are trying to get pregnant. The other day someone posted a new thread titled, “Help! 16 and Maybe Pregnant!”
I took a deep breath and clicked on it. I knew what I was going to find. And I wasn’t wrong.
I found the girl’s story, which was pretty much what you’d expect: had unprotected sex with her boyfriend, period late, scared to tell parents…the usual.
Then I found two days’ worth of posts by grown, adult women urging the girl to tell her parents or, if she didn’t feel like she could trust her parents, another trusted adult. Every single post urged the girl, if she ended up not being pregnant, to make sure and use condoms and/or birth control pills in the future.
One woman, a health care professional, told the girl she was old enough to get contraception on her own, and urged her to do so.
Almost every single post mentioned Planned Parenthood as the ultimate safe haven, a place where she could get a free pregnancy test and talk to someone about her “options.” I probably saw the word “options” about 30 times in that thread.
So I took another deep breath and became the lone voice crying in the wilderness. I told the girl that she certainly had options, but if she is indeed pregnant, she is a mother. Forever. No matter what happens after this. Her only choice is what kind of mother she is going to be.
I was the first person, the first adult woman, to suggest that this girl stop having sex.
I was also the first person to mention a pregnancy center. I told her that unlike Planned Parenthood, their services are absolutely free: free pregnancy test, free ultrasound, free help with absolutely anything she needs help with, from abusive parents or boyfriends to a job to a place to live to adoption placement to baby clothes. All free.
I told her she was getting a lot of bad advice, and was going to get more before all this was over.
I told her about my awesome friend Destiny, who got pregnant at 16, gave birth to an amazing little boy at 17, and went on to become a wife and mother of four and total badass. I told her not all teen moms are worthy of MTV reality shows. I told her that if she is indeed pregnant and chooses life, her life will be harder but better. I told her lots of women (probably most women) regret their abortions, but I’ve yet to meet a woman who regrets her child.
As you can probably imagine, my post was not a popular one. It became more and more clear that the women of this board were more interested in showcasing their progressivism than actually helping the girl. They seemed to be in competition to out-snark each other, to show how worldly they were in their increasingly hostile responses to my message. I was called “unreasonable,” “naive,” and “dense.” “Down here in the real world,” one post began, “we recognize that teenagers don’t sit around and read the bible. They have S-E-X.”
Over here in Logic Land, we recognize that S-E-X exists for the express purpose of making babies, and divorcing S-E-X from said purpose leads to unwanted babies.
This incident made me think hard about how brilliant Planned Parenthood’s marketing has been. They truly are synonymous with affordable, helpful gynecological care to many women in this country. And that is completely terrifying.
I wasn’t so much surprised by what I read as I was surprised by the uniformity of thought. I guess I figured that on a board consisting entirely of women trying to get pregnant, at least one would pipe up for the unborn child in this scenario. But they didn’t.
I never responded to the thread again, and neither did the original poster. I’ve prayed for her and her possible baby ever since. Maybe the fact that my post was so different from the others made it stand out to her. Or maybe not. I’ll probably never know.
This foray into the world of internet forums was a pretty new one for me, but I think I’ve lost my stomach for it. It’s hard to discuss my fertility struggles with these people, knowing the majority of them share the sick opinion that only “wanted” babies deserve to live.
by Rebekah O’Brien
Editor’s Note: This article was first published at LifeSiteNews on March 26, 2013 and is reprinted here with permission.
I had only been working for LifeSiteNews for a few weeks when a friend of mine came for a visit. She’s one of my best friends, and she’s an extraordinary person, full of love and compassion. She is also pro-abortion.
As the social media coordinator, I have the responsibility of finding stories on LifeSiteNews.com and posting them to Facebook and Twitter.
I spend a lot of time reading articles. While my friend was visiting, I was reading an article that contained the illustration displayed here, of a D&E abortion of a 23 week old baby.
My friend looked over my shoulder and gasped.
“What are you LOOKING at?” she asked, horrified.
“That’s an abortion,” I answered plainly.
“But, that’s a baby!” she exclaimed. “That doesn’t happen!”
“That’s a 23 week abortion. That happens quite frequently, actually.”
I tried to remain calm.
She’s not stupid. Really, honestly, she isn’t. She’s actually incredibly intelligent, educated. She has a degree.
I truly believe that my friend has been deceived.
How else could an intelligent, loving individual be completely “pro-choice”?
People are told what they want to hear, that it’s “just a blob of tissue,” or they’re told, “abortion is OK in certain circumstances,” and most importantly, they’re told “abortion is a woman’s right.” But when they are presented with the reality that what they thought was a blob of tissue was actually a baby, a human being, a lot of them change their minds. Yes, a lot.
She just stared at the illustration with pain in her eyes.
“I don’t know if I’m OK with that.” She said with finality.
As of April 29, 2013, Planned Parenthood of Delaware has temporarily closed its doors. It seems that Ruth Lytle-Barnaby, the clinic’s new CEO, should not have been so “confident in the high quality of care at the office.”
As reported previously at Live Action News, Planned Parenthood of Delaware has been riddled with problems in 2013. Multiple 911 calls for injured women and botched abortions were made in a very short period of time. Two nurses quit, telling an ABC News affiliate of the horrific conditions at the clinic:
a ‘meat-market style of assembly-line abortions where the abortionist refused to wear gloves, surgical instruments were reused without being cleaned, and “bloody drainage” remained on abortion tables between procedures, exposing women to blood-borne diseases.’
Despite endangering the lives of women, exposing them to disease and filth, committing apparent medical malpractice, and – of course – killing babies in unspeakable ways, this clinic also had the audacity to advertise itself as a training ground for future abortionists. The public is left to wonder what exactly Planned Parenthood’s “high quality of care” involves.
Planned Parenthood is now left to clean up the bloody mess it has created, if indeed it can. With news circuits reporting on the Gosnell trial and Live Action’s latest investigations into abortion clinics’ treatment of babies born alive after attempted abortions (many kill them or leave them to die), the abortion industry isn’t exactly doing well. Problems abound – as well they should in any industry dedicated to death.
Many problems remain hidden – yet to be exposed. But many things are becoming abundantly clear:
- When the most innocent, helpless humans are targeted for killing, little respect for other human life remains.
- When money is the bottom line, women suffer forced abortions.
- When corruption is rampant, horrors abound.
- When a “standard of care” involves intentional killing, “care” is stripped of all meaning. Women and children are thrown to the wayside and literally, are left to die or suffer great injury.
- When a corrupt, death-centered industry is allowed to be its own inspector, conditions will only worsen and crimes will be committed.
- The corruption, filth, and horrific conditions of the abortion industry may close itself down faster than pro-life laws.
Most likely, Planned Parenthood of Delaware will attempt to reopen its doors. (For now, Delaware is the first state in the nation to be free of a surgical abortion facility.) But if it chooses to do so, it must be faced with closer scrutiny.
Around the nation, state governments and the public are learning a hard lesson: abortion clinics cannot be left alone. They must be regulated. They must be inspected. They must be investigated. They must be held to strict standards.
And since clinics that are centered on death can never quite escape filth, horror, and corruption, they must be shut down – permanently.
New York Magazine recently posted an article with incorrect statements, two of which need to be addressed:
Statement One: “When an attempt last year to prove that Planned Parenthood endorsed sex-selective abortion (they don’t) was quickly sniffed out by clinic employees, it seemed Rose and her video production company Live Action were losing steam.”
The common thread among the different investigations that Live Action released on Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas, New York, Hawaii, and North Carolina was that the clinics tried to shield themselves from liability by referring the patient to an OB/GYN for determination of the unborn child’s gender. However, once that “neutral third party” had made the determination, the clinics were glad to help patients abort for gender reasons.
No, we don’t do anything. I mean, we do ultrasounds, but not, you know, to determine whether or not it’s a boy or a girl. I’m pretty sure you can do that. And I’m pretty sure that they could probably tell you. I haven’t – I don’t see why not; they’re doing the ultrasound. If they can see if it’s a boy or a girl, they’ll do it. But we’ve never had anybody just come in just for that, you know, but I don’t see why not.
From New York:
Woman: –’cause we’re pretty sure it is a girl again – 80%-90% sure – and then once we get that confirmation, I’ll just plan on keeping [the appointment]. And I’ll call you guys if for some reason we found out, “It’s a boy!”
PP: That’s fine. Um, I’ll give you my card, and you can call me.
In Hawaii when the woman explained that she didn’t want to have another girl, the Planned Parenthood worker responded:
But, I mean, you know, it’s really up to the patient whether – I mean everybody has their different reasons why they choose to have a termination and, of course, everybody’s story matters and if that’s, you know – if that’s what you wanna base your – base your decision on – really – it’s really up to you.
Woman: After this – after terminating this female pregnancy just, like, let my body heal –
PP: Let your body recover, yeah.
Woman: – start trying again and then hopefully it’s a boy but if it’s a girl – like, maybe – like, what if it was, like, a year later? Is it okay to – ?
PP: It’s okay.
Woman: – come back and terminate.
And finally from Planned Parenthood in North Carolina:
PP: …it sounds like you, um, would like confirmation of the gender of the pregnancy, um, and depending on that, you, you know, would kinda make the decision for you as to –
PP: – if you wanted to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it, is that –
PP: – OK. Do you know how many weeks you are?
PP: … I mean there’s a lot of other tests that could be performed through an OB/GYN.
Woman: To confirm that it’s a girl.
Woman: … the last thing we wanna do is accidentally abort the boy because we were operating on wrong information
PP: Right. And I think it’s very important that you have a very informed decision, um, and that you get all the information that you need in order to move forward.
In addition to encouraging women to move forward with abortions when the basis of that abortion is gender selection, Planned Parenthood actively opposed legislation that would have made sex selection abortions illegal. According to Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
This legislation will impose harmful restrictions on a woman’s access to care and limit her choices as she makes personal medical decisions. Furthermore, it would intrude on the critical nature of the doctor/patient relationship and interfere with a doctor’s ability to provide nonjudgmental, high-quality care for women.
Planned Parenthood is there to provide abortions for anyone who wants one and for whatever reason they want one. It doesn’t matter if the reason is because the innocent child happens to be the wrong gender. They will still endorse – and perform – an abortion.
Statement Two: “One employee incorrectly says the fetus will be killed by solution in a medical waste jar (recalling a vivid detail from Gosnell’s clinic), and another doctor tells the patient that a live fetus won’t be intubated.”
The author of this New York Magazine article unilaterally states that the employee who said that the fetus would be killed in a medical waste jar was incorrect.
The context in which that question was originally posed was in relation to if the child was born alive, as evidenced by breathing and twitching. How does the author know that the solution wouldn’t kill the baby? And how does the author know that this isn’t the practice?
The woman in the video was talking to a clinic worker who worked at an abortion clinic. Has the author been to an abortion clinic on a regular basis and observed what happens there?
The ad (below) features a young girl helping her mother, who is pregnant with another child, in the kitchen. The little girl asks, “Can the baby hear me?” to which the mother responds, “I think so!” (It’s true: according to the Mayo Clinic, babies begin to hear and respond to sound around week 18 of pregnancy.) When prompted by her mother to tell the baby a secret, the little girl embraces her pregnant belly and says, “You’re really going to love mom,” and the advertisement closes with Mother’s Day wishes from Publix.
TV features a lot of advertisements targeted at moms: household products, family-friendly cars, and grocery stores like Publix. However, advertisements with pregnant women — and those that go out of their way to acknowledge the humanity and dignity of the other person living inside of them — are few and far between. Kudos to Publix, Huggies, and Tide for taking the road less traveled.
In January, pro-aborts were outraged over the closure of a Michigan abortion clinic. The clinic, which was run by Dr. Robert Alexander, was inspected by the Muskegon Fire Prevention Bureau, and found to have multiple violations. In addition to unsterilized medical equipment, improper disposal of needles, and a leaky roof, the clinic was found to be operating under unsanitary conditions.
The photos show unsanitary conditions, including stained medical equipment near an examination chair, trash near lab equipment and discarded in a storage room, and water stains and holes in a leaky ceiling that is falling apart.
The investigator also reported ‘blood dripping from a sink p-trap in a room used by patients.’ …
The photos document a long list of violations that pose a danger to ‘human life and public welfare,’ according to city documents.
The clinic was shut down in December, but Alexander still has a license to practice medicine, and could begin practicing again if he chose to. Now, Michigan state Senator Tonya Schuitmaker is calling for an investigation into the Board of Medicine’s protocol for investigation allegations. The reason? In addition to running a filthy, disgusting abortion clinic, Alexander allegedly was responsible for botched abortions, including one where he left the baby’s head inside the mother and caused life-threatening injuries.
The physician observed that he has treated several of Alexander’s patients in the emergency room, including one woman in her second trimester whose uterus Alexander allegedly perforated during an abortion.
“Dr. Alexander perforated the woman’s uterus so badly that it was hanging on by two blood vessels,” the physician wrote. “The decapitated head of a fetus was in the woman’s abdomen and the large intestine had been grasped and pulled away from its blood supply and into the vagina. The woman required a hysterectomy, colonoscopy, and several units of blood to save her life.”
The physician added, “I, for one, was very happy to hear he is no longer practicing in Muskegon, but I fear for women anywhere this man would go.”
Before his clinic was shut down, there had been multiple complaints filed against Alexander. Why wasn’t his clinic shut down? Because of an alleged conflict of interest on the medical board:
Target 8 in February exposed how an apparent conflict of interest allowed Muskegon abortion clinic Dr. Robert Alexander to continue to practice after complaints against him were not investigated.
Those complaints — about alleged botched abortions — were closed out by the then state Board of Medicine Chairman Dr. George Shade. It was the same Dr. Shade who, several years earlier, helped Alexander get his medical license back after Alexander had served time in prison for selling illegal prescriptions.
Botched abortions, a filthy abortion clinic, and a history of illegally selling prescription medications? This is a man who under no circumstances should be practicing medicine, despite the weeping from pro-aborts about his clinic closing.
Time and time again, it has been proven that Kermit Gosnell is not an anomaly in the abortion industry. Late-term abortionists are found to practice infanticide. Disgusting abortion clinics flourish because pro-aborts fight against legislation to prevent them. And abortionists are able to butcher women with no consequences. Is it any wonder that Gosnell could practice for almost two decades without being stopped?
Note: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Senator Schuitmaker was an OB/GYN.
First, I would encourage you to watch the footage from Tuesday’s Hannity Live where Sean Hannity invited Lila Rose and Tamera Holder as guests to discuss Live Action’s latest video releases. It’s slightly infuriating watching Holder randomly throw baseless accusations at Lila, but try to make it through.
Notice that Tamera Holder did not actually answer the questions she was asked. But really, what did we expect her to say? That a baby born alive has rights and it was not okay to kill that baby? Not killing children is clearly too radical of a viewpoint for her.
In answer to the question of whether or not a baby born alive had a constitutional right to live she sidetracked and jumped to the topic of abortion being allowed up to 24 weeks. Last time I checked, abortion was killing an unborn child. She was not asked about abortion. She was asked about killing a baby born alive. Her defense of this position—she did not create the abortion law. Great, the discussion isn’t about abortion law.
“What if the baby was born breathing?” Holder’s answer was that the exact phrase used in the undercover video was “if it looked like it was breathing,” which in her mind was not the same thing as “it was breathing.” Therefore, she apparently was not able to answer the direct question of what if a baby was born and it was still breathing.
Holder believed that when the woman and clinic worker in the video were referring to the child as “it” they were not talking about a baby. Apparently you have to refer to a baby as a “he” or a “she” or as “the baby” in order for Holder to believe you are actually referring to a baby.
Next she attacked Lila for going undercover. Now we all know that if you walk into an abortion clinic and say that you are pro-life and you want to know what would happen if a baby was born alive that you would get a straight answer, right? Wrong!
Holder so kindly pointed out that Live Action is not the FBI—apparently citizens are not allowed to make peaceful investigations. But it sounds like she would approve of Lila joining 60 Minutes.
One of Holder’s favorite accusations was that this was edited footage. Sure, Fox News edited the footage it showed to fit within the needed time frame, but all the Live Action footage is online for anyone who wants to watch it. Lila only had to mention this multiple times.
Holder was asked, “When does it become a baby?” I would have liked to hear her answer on that. Unfortunately she didn’t answer the question. However, Hannity asked if after nine months, and she said “no.”
When the topic of Dr. Gosnell was brought up she said that Gosnell found guilty is a “disgusting, disgusting criminal person.” However, she again lost track that the issue was infanticide. And she accused those fighting infanticide of being hypocrites and allowing one person to taint everyone. I’m not sure how she thought there was only one person involved in infanticide since the clinic in New York and DC would follow infanticide just like Dr. Gosnell.
Holder told Lila that if she wanted to take on this issue she should go to law school and fight the law. As an attorney, I don’t believe that the only people who can effectuate good in this world are other attorneys. What kind of country would we be if only attorneys had a voice and input into the law?
So when all else fails, Holder resorted to attacking Lila personally by telling her, “You should do better as a woman than go undercover.” When Hannity asked her why she was attacking Lila personally, she for once answered the question! Her response was that she believed the investigation was “shoddy.” I guess that is the only thing you can say when faced with video footage of a clinic worker telling a woman that if her baby was born alive then they would take care of it by killing it in a solution or if the baby was born outside of the clinic then the proper thing to do would be to flush it.
(And if you are interested in learning about Holder’s continued tempter tantrum, you can check out twitchy.com’s report of her tweets with Katie Pavlich on Wednesday.)
Jurors in the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell meet for deliberations again today (Thursday) in Philadelphia. Gosnell is charged with murder for killing four babies and one woman in his abortion mill. The judge’s instructions to the jury: “He has to share the specific intent to kill.” Did Kermit Gosnell “intend” to kill people? This question is at the heart of the abortion debate. Does anyone involved in promoting “choice” in abortion “intend” that people be killed? Let’s examine this.
Did Kermit Gosnell “intend to kill” people?
Some would say that the answer to the question jurors are asked to consider in the Gosnell case depends on how one feels about abortion. A pro-”choice” person would say that these particular human beings, at least while they are still inside the womb, are not “persons,” so the answer is no. It is not “killing” at all, to them. Whenever these “non-persons” (under the law) are accidentally born and show signs of life, even the President of the United States believes it is too much of a “burden” (to the law) to treat them as persons. Why should we expect any other pro-”choice” person to disagree with that?
Indeed, why should we expect any abortionist, who is actively, daily involved in procedures to ensure that fetal heartbeats stop, to disagree with it? One second, the abortionist is dealing with “tissue” that must be destroyed, and the next second he is expected to treat this “tissue” as a human person with a right to life that is equivalent in its sacredness to his own right to life? That transformation from a cold and pitiless doctor to a compassionate and life-saving doctor is the real “burden” to the pro-”choice” person, I would argue.
Do abortionists ever “intend” to kill people?
The answer to this question depends less on what is going through his/her mind than it does on whether human life is itself objectively sacred. We have learned this lesson, I hope, from our societal experience in dealing with serial killers who have been convicted of killing born persons. In Wichita, for example, Dennis Rader, who referred to himself as the “BTK” killer, terrorized the community for decades. There is no dispute that he intended to kill people and that he lived a double life so that he was able to fool even his own family into believing he was incapable of murder. He did this through “compartmentalization” and through dehumanizing his victims by referring to them as “projects.”
Psychopaths do not feel emotions the way normal people do. Consequently, when their guard is down, they may say or do things that reveal their lack of concern for others and their absence of conscience. This was the case when Rader described his victims as “projects” and calmly explained how he selected a victim, gave the “project” a code name and then researched and stalked her until he found the right opportunity to attack.
Rader is a very accomplished psychopath: his ability to carry on two very different lives attests to it. “I was pretty cold. I shot from the hip very quickly,” he told Larry Hatteberg of KAKE-TV. “Very compartmentalized. I can wear many hats; I can switch gears very rapidly. I can become emotionally involved. Be cold at it.”
When we look at pictures of Rader’s victims, we can say that even though we don’t know anything about these people, they are persons who had the right to continue living. Their humanity is evident, therefore their personhood is evident. While the pro-”choice” activist insists on referring to unborn children as “fetuses” and on denying personhood, the pro-lifer knows better. To the pro-life person, all human life is sacred. Just as we know that Dennis Rader “intended to kill” even though he attempted to fool himself by referring to his victims as “projects,” we know that abortionists “intend to kill” persons inside (and sometimes outside) the womb even though they have hardened their hearts to objective reality. We know from the life of Dennis Rader, and many other serial killers, that “compartmentalization” allows serial killers to live double lives. Regardless of what they may do in other areas of their lives, like Dennis Rader, abortionists kill behind closed doors. They “intend to kill” because they intend to stop fetal heartbeats. Though they may convince themselves that these are not “persons” with sacred value, objectively, they are persons with sacred value. This is why Live Action’s projects of investigation that expose what goes on behind closed doors are so important in awakening people to the reality of abortion. Abortion is intentional killing. It is not self-defense. It is not an “accident.” It is willful, direct and intentional killing.
Kermit Gosnell has committed far more than five murders. He “intended to kill” far more than five people. He is a serial killer. All abortionists are serial killers. As such, they all belong in prison, just as assuredly as Dennis Rader belongs in prison.
Lila Rose, president of Live Action, spoke with Bill O’Reilly Monday on the O’Reilly Factor regarding the undercover videos recently released by Live Action. The segment, which was later posted to Live Action’s You Tube account, can be found here (and it includes segments of the undercover videos exposing unethical abortion practices):
Reading the different comments that people have posted will strike you. There is an overwhelming gratitude toward Live Action and Lila Rose for exposing this issue. Here are just some of those comments:
Thank you for shining light into the darkness to expose the horrors that go on in the P.P. clinics….hopefully the cold truth will cause young girls to think about what they are about to do.
Scary reality we live in.
Thanks Live Action for exposing it.
I am just concerned, regarding the trial of that abortion “Dr”; when they keep saying that he killed the babys “that were born alive”…? Whether they survived the invitro massacre, or were killed after they passed thru the birth canal…they had all been viable lives, slaughtered…in or outside the womb! Thank you, for keeping this terrible issue, out front and prominently, in the news.
Thank you for being a friend to humanity.
Thank you Lila..you are my hero. People need more GOD in their life! Life starts at conception! Both a human body and soul!
I’m AMAZED at the incredible courage it takes to do what Lila is doing. This is something we should all support. She exposes the fallacy that abortion is “safe, legal, and rare.” I pray for mercy on our country for all the precious children that have been aborted. Hollywood and the media have tried to sanitize what abortion really is. It not only destroys/kills children, it leaves lasting damage on a woman’s soul.
I’m glad Lila is speaking out.
I find it amazing that in the “land of the free” a cat has more rights and freedom than a child, born or unborn. It’s a living thing, period.
I, too, am thankful for Lila and Live Action’s boldness in addressing the murder of the youngest members of our society.
There used to be a time when the economy was stable, women stayed home and took care of the children and the household, and men were the breadwinners. However, everlasting wars brought on a growing economy that needed women. Men were out fighting, and women wanted to work. They needed to work.
From 1920 to 1973, the American social landscape changed. While men were off at war, women had to take factory jobs to help support the American economy. Women faced discrimination in the workplace and in efforts to gain political office. Women’s rights group became more active as women around the world as other countries and cultures began to promote programs and beliefs that women had the right to self determination.
As the economy grew and there were more jobs, women needed a place in the workplace, and they believed that they needed “self-determination.”
But what did this mean? And how far would it go? Should women be allowed to determine the totality of their own futures, even if it meant killing their children in the process? Or was there a line where self-determination ended? When Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, abortion became readily available for women who had “obstacles” in their way that would keep them from fulfilling their life plans.
Women Being Driven by Their Image of Men
Because of Roe - one court decision – abortions were somehow now acceptable. Any obstacles that stood in a woman’s way of getting her education or starting her career were fair game for destruction – even her children. Because after all, a women should be just like a man in every way. She could go to school like a man, have sex like a man, go to work like a man, and not have to carry children like a man.
Yet in this drive to be just like men in every single way, someone forgot that women are uniquely designed to give birth to the human race. We are women for a reason. We are nurturing for a reason – it’s simply a matter of design. Several recent editorials have voiced the view that women ought to realize their right to be mothers and the need for them to be just that.
Somehow, many women have lost their way and allowed their image of what a man is to drive all their ambitions. We need to stand up for ourselves – as women – to society and stand up for the real feminism. Real feminism is being feminine, being women. We can do things that men can do, but we can also do things that we were meant to do. We shouldn’t have to give up our basic instincts to adjust to society’s standards. Our gender has been changing over the years in a very unnatural way.
Is Society to Blame?
The problem largely lies in our society – that it tempts us to be whatever we want to be, regardless of whether or not we should be that. We are able to be sexual beings and do whatever we want while ignoring the consequences. Many in society think this is liberating, but freedom to do as we please while killing others in the process is pure selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s not true freedom if the weakest of our society have no say in whether they live or die. Freedom to be born and the basic right to life should comprise our one foundational human right, since without this right, nothing else matters.
The media depicts sex constantly. Schools teach sexual education while influencing teens to believe that unintended pregnancies are shameful. They also teach teens that if they don’t get a college degree or some sort of career, they are not contributing members of society.
How on earth can young girls who are thrown into a society that shames pregnancy and glorifies sex ever grow to be pro-motherhood? How can girls be taught to value family life when they are told that obtaining a career is more important and more necessary? They are taught that it is okay to have a choice with their bodies, but what about the baby’s body? If the baby is not wanted, then society teaches these girls that he is not a body or a person or even human, for that matter. Society tells our girls that their babies are clumps of cells that will eventually take over their lives, sort of like a cancer.
A human is not a cancer. Instead, the views of our society are a cancer that will destroy our human civilization if it continues as it is. If procreation is seen as wrong, then what is right to our society? Is living how we want, and leaving no future to the human race, the right thing to do? Is killing our children what society wants? Is getting a career and leaving no room for children and family the most important thing to do?
Our population will diminish to nothing if we continue to kill ourselves off. Slowly but surely, our human race is diminishing, and for what? To live selfishly and do as we please? By doing so, we are leaving the earth empty.
So is abortion society’s fault? It is everyone’s fault. Our society as a whole is to blame. The lawmakers, the parents, the teachers, the women, the men, the media, and everyone else who allows this war to go on – no one who stands by is faultless. We are fighting a war against ourselves, and this war must be stopped.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “[t]o ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.” We must not sit by and watch as our most innocent and defenseless brothers and sisters are killed because of society’s problem with telling women that they must not kill their children. That should be a given. We must all be soldiers and peacefully fight in this war. These babies have no voice to speak for themselves. We must be that voice. To be anything else is inhuman.
Our nation was horrified at the recent sensationalized Steubenville rape case, where a young girl was brutalized by two of her male peers while she was unconscious. The assault was documented for the world to see and shared over social media, and initially the boys were protected by their high school football star status.
However, thanks to public and national pressure, the boys were later found delinquent and were sentenced for their crimes. The sickening nature of the crimes and mistreatment of the victim and the young ages of all involved have had the media and society alike wringing their collective hands at the tragedy of the entire scenario.
Various media outlets and bloggers have also risen to the occasion to attack coverage that has been deemed too sympathetic toward the young rapists, emphasizing that while the boys’ lives have been permanently altered as a result of their crimes and convictions, the victim’s life was permanently altered because of those boys – before the boys were even able to consider feeling remorseful.
The sympathy directed toward the rapists for being held responsible for their actions and blaming the victim for her own assault seems to be “rape culture” in a nutshell, and this behavior is rightly regarded as disgraceful by feminists and non-feminists alike.
That is why it is so puzzling that, as the world embraces the condemnation of a grotesque violation of a 16-year-old girl, that same world applauds Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not act as an enemy to rape culture, but as an ally to it.
As many victims of habitual sexual assault know all too well, abortion is the most effective way to cover the tracks of a rapist, while inflicting an additional violence upon both the mother and the child. One would expect that an organization which brands itself as pro-woman would want to distance itself as far as possible from enabling rape, especially the rape of children, but unfortunately, that is not the case here.
Live Action has publicly shown this issue with Planned Parenthood time and again, much to the chagrin of the abortion provider. Yet Cecile Richards does a great job of protecting rapists and ensuring the further victimization of women and girls. For example, when Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder signed HB5711 into law in December of 2012, legally requiring physicians to screen women for coercion before committing abortions, Richards was quick to condemn the motion, declaring:
This bill was meant to ban abortion in Michigan, and it was pushed through in a lame-duck session by legislators who were voted out of office because of their extreme views on women’s health.
Before it was even passed, Richards made sure to sound the abortion alarms and paint all Michigan women with the same brush over at the Huffington Post, warning that “women in Michigan would lose access to safe and legal abortion – and a range of other health services.” Ensuring access to abortion at all costs, regardless of the circumstances of how the woman became pregnant and whether or not she wants to stay pregnant, is paramount to Richards and her wallet.
Consider also the pro-abortion response to women who were victimized during their abortions, and who regret their abortions (that is, when such women are even acknowledged). Instead of placing the blame on the act of abortion, or perhaps even upon the perpetrators of the abortion, that blame is shifted solely onto the woman.
The woman is the one who is wrong for feeling negatively about the abortion; she was the one who made the choice; she should be grateful she even had the choice; she should have known the risks; no one else is to blame, and she’ll get over it… Sound familiar? Oh, hey, rape culture…
It is apparent that abortion culture and rape culture are essentially the same – the victim is dehumanized and made out to be the criminal, while the actual criminals are patted on the back by the POTUS, or are cheered on at the local stadium.
If the nation can recognize the ugliness of rape culture in Steubenville, then surely it is time for it to recognize the hideousness of abortion culture in the United States.
Third Undercover Video Exposes Center That Would Leave Babies Born Alive from Failed Abortion to Die
Today Live Action released the third video in its Inhuman undercover video investigation. The latest installment in the investigative series only further establishes the fact that Kermit Gosnell, with his “House of Horrors,” is not alone. With footage taken at the Family Planning Associates Medical Group in Phoenix, Arizona, the brutality, inhumanity, and lawlessness of the late-term abortion industry is clearly documented.
When asked by the undercover investigator what would happen if the baby were to survive the abortion, Linda, an abortion center counselor, admits they would not help the baby. From the press release:
Sometimes they are [alive], yeah. But it doesn’t–it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will come out whole. ‘Cause they use suction, plus they use instruments so sometimes the fetuses don’t come out–you know, it’s not complete…
Investigator: But if it does come out whole…I mean, are–will they resuscitate it? Like, will I have to take care of it?
Linda: Uh-uh… No…They do not resuscitate.
Later in the video, Doctor Mercer tells the undercover Live Action investigator who is 24 weeks pregnant:
We do the injection, which is a quick poke through your belly, um, and that stops the fetal heart, so that makes it so, if you were to deliver, there shouldn’t be movement. There shouldn’t be any of those things… Yes we induce a demise–an intrauterine demise… Um, death.
Watch the shocking video below. For more information, visit www.liveaction.org/inhuman.