Friday, May 1, 2015

Sex Selection Abortion


New UN Report Warns of Dangers of Prenatal Sex Selection, massive loss of female babies

Send to Kindle
Editor’s note. The following analysis was provided by the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues.
sad-doll-toysA new report by UNFPA’s office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia reveals that an estimated 171,000 girls are ‘missing’ in South Caucasus and parts of South-East Europe while there is a growing surplus of men.
Preventing gender-biased sex selection in Eastern Europe and Central Asia contains a dire message of concern on the anticipated impact of the destruction of unborn baby girls and distorted sex ratios:
“Sex imbalances at birth will also translate two decades on into a surplus of men, a demographic imbalance likely to affect their marriage prospects and one with the potential to increase human trafficking, crime, gender-based violence, and political unrest in severely affected regions.”

The report demonstrates that countries experiencing the harmful consequences of this disastrous population control tool–devised by population control activists not only to reduce births by destroying unborn baby girls but to eliminate future mothers– need to take action to stop the practice which often stems from a cultural preference for boys.

The 2011 resolution passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Prenatal Sex Selection is credited in part as a reason for growing actions for awareness and efforts to stop it.
The resolution brought attention to the fact that prenatal sex selection has resulted in unbalanced sex ratios in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia where the sex ratios at birth varied from 111-112 boys for 100 girls. It condemned the practice “as a phenomenon which finds its roots in a culture of gender inequality and reinforces a climate of violence against women, contrary to the values upheld by the Council of Europe.”

As in the UNFPA report, the Resolution warned Member States of the social consequences of prenatal sex selection, “namely population imbalances which are likely to create difficulties for men to find spouses, lead to serious human rights violations such as forced prostitution, trafficking for the purposes of marriage or sexual exploitation, and contribute to a rise in criminality and social unrest.”
Included in a list of suggested actions was a call for Member States to “introduce legislation with a view to prohibiting sex selection in the context of assisted reproduction technologies and legal abortion, except when it is justified to avoid a serious hereditary disease”.

The UNFPA report describes how abortion, especially the use of abortion pills, is used to fuel this extreme act of gender discrimination:

“Abortion, which has long served as a standard family planning method, is now also used as a way to avoid female births. More recently, the emergence and misuse in the region of medical abortion pills and of assisted reproduction technologies may offer new ways for couples to practice sex selection, further fuelling discriminatory behaviour.”

This new report describes legal bans on sex selection abortions, on technology for sex determination, and on advertisements for such technology as “obvious policy options for targeting prenatal discriminatory behavior” and states that such bans “send a clear signal of governments’ official position towards sex selection and provide a basis for inter-ministry cooperation around issues of gender discrimination.”

However, pro-abortion politics is injected into the report as it also states that bans on sex selection abortion can have a “risk of infringing on reproductive rights.”
The UNFPA report accurately notes how the outcome document of the ICPD [International Conference on Population and Development] meeting in Cairo called for the elimination of prenatal sex selection and female infanticide:

“The ICPD Programme of Action adopted by 179 countries in 1994 aims in particular at ‘[eliminating] all forms of discrimination against the girl child and the root causes of son preference, which results in harmful and unethical practices regarding female infanticide and prenatal sex selection’.”

It is regrettable that at the recent UN meeting of the Commission on Population and Development the controversial outcome document made no mention of the need to stop the violence and discrimination of sex selection abortion and completely ignored the war on unborn baby girls.

Source: NRLC News



South African Judge Approves Mercy Murder

Send to Kindle
By Wesley J. Smith
Judge Hans Fabricius
Judge Hans Fabricius

I once spoke in South Africa at a biomedical conference in Cape Town against euthanasia. I was the opening keynote and I mentioned that it would be both a tragedy and a travesty if a country in which large swaths of formerly oppressed people–with limited access to quality medical care–legalized euthanasia.

More, I argued that legalizing killing doctor-administered death among a population in which some 20% were infected with HIV/AIDS would open the door to the worst kind of discrimination.
My speech was very favorably received, including by the first black head of the South African Medical Association, who spoke after me and declared that his country’s (then) irrational and unscientific policy to fight HIV ”is euthanasia!”

All efforts to legalize euthanasia there have gone nowhere. What to do? Just have judge issue an order. As one has. From the AP story:

A terminally ill man has been granted the right to end his life in South Africa, where euthanasia is illegal. For the first time in South Africa, Judge Hans Fabricius on Thursday ruled that Robin Stransham-Ford could be euthanized with no legal or professional consequences for the doctor who will participate.
Stransham-Ford, 65, only has weeks to live, said rights group DignitySA, who supported the court bid and picketed outside the courthouse in the capital Pretoria. Stransham-Ford has prostate cancer, leaving him in constant pain. The medication used to manage his pain leaves him constantly sedated, the group said.

In other words, his pain can be alleviated. But that’s not good enough, so let’s open the door to killing. The judge dissembled, pretending he wasn’t breaking the spine of the law and spitting in the face of democratic processes:

This decision was not an endorsement of the End of Life Decision draft bill, the judge said. The proposed assisted suicide legislation was submitted to the justice and health departments 17 years ago and has languished there.

Please. That’s like pushing a boulder down a steep slope and then shrugging that it wasn’t your fault that the resulting avalanche wiped out the town.

A judge permitting euthanasia–even though against the law–was precisely how the horrors of the Netherlands were unleashed. Unless stopped on appeal, it will be worse in South Africa, putting the troubled country on a path in which the destitute and those still suffering from the evil after-effects of Apartheid will face a new form of potential oppression in which killing short-circuits the great effort required to craft an effective and widely available palliative care sector.
Editor’s note. This appeared at

Source: NRLC News

The War On Pregancy Centers


‘Bully Bill’ forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion advances again

Send to Kindle

By Susan Michelle

medicalbuildingDespite obvious infringement on free speech, the protests of pro-lifers, and government intrusion on private matters, the California bill aimed at forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion has cleared yet another hurdle.
AB 775 is gaining traction in its race to become law. On Tuesday, the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the bill 7 to 3, edging the measure closer to a full vote.
Pregnancy Help News reports:

“The bill, euphemistically named ‘The Reproductive FACT Act’ by co-authors David Chiu (D) and Autumn R. Burke (D) is likely to pass with the committee’s approval, placing it before the 80-member Assembly body at a to-be-announced date.
“Nicknamed the ‘Bully Bill’ by pregnancy help organization leaders in the Stop AB 775 State Committee, the proposed legislation was met with opposition from 117 Californians—representing 26 non-profit pregnancy help organizations.
“Meanwhile, 15 citizens represented their support of the bill.”
However, the bill has some well-known supporters, including NARAL Pro-Choice California, Planned Parenthood, and even the state Attorney General and the Los Angeles mayor. At issue is the statement that pro-life pregnancy centers would be forced to promote, as well as the implications of the statement:

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.”

Sheldon Hadley, a pro-lifer who sits on the boards of California pregnancy care centers, said:
“This bill forces all California pregnancy centers to refer for abortions,” Hadley said. “The bill targets pregnancy centers, and pregnancy centers alone… The authors of AB 775 know the Hyde/Weldon Amendment prohibits abortion referrals and discrimination or forced abortion referrals, and therefore were careful to avoid using the word ‘referral’ in the bill. But a rose is still a rose under any other name.”

Assemblyman James Gallagher (R) posed important quetions to the authors of AB775, David Chiu (D) and Autumn R. Burke (D):

“Why doesn’t your notice say, ‘adoption’ in it? ‘Free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, adoption, counseling.’ I don’t see any of those services listed in your notice.
“You’re saying that these private (entities) who receive no funding—no government funding whatsoever—they’re completely private, they have to tell about the government-funded programs that are out there, but the same is not true of the government programs. They don’t have to say, ‘There’s these groups out there who have qualified, licensed people.’”

But the bill has no equal access to pro-lifers; it does not compel abortion facilities to refer for adoption or sell prenatal services as they do abortion services. The bill, as opponents have noted from the start, would force speech on pro-lifers that promote the very thing their religious and moral values oppose.

All Californians are encouraged to contact their legislators, and may find that information at
Editor’s note. This appeared at

Source: NRLC News

They Stop At Nothing

TIME Lets Planned Parenthood Boss Hail Abortion as ‘The Key to Women’s Opportunity’

Send to Kindle
By Katie Yoder
Cecile Richards
Cecile Richards
Young women, do you want to attain your dreams and seize your opportunities? Then snuffing out an innocent life may be just the thing for you!
In an April 28 piece for TIME, Cecile Richards, president of taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, argued, “We Need to Talk – Really Talk – About Abortion.” In it, her “talk” focused on how abortion is “key to women’s opportunity” and an outlet to “pursue their dreams.” Richards praised the media – her megaphone – for their efforts to blast abortion-positive messaging.
To begin her piece, Richards commended Girls’ star Jemima Kirke for publicly sharing her abortion story.
Kirke, who couldn’t afford anesthesia, Richards argued, showed that “women’s access to abortion and other reproductive health care is seriously limited due to their economic circumstances” and location.
“Jemima’s story was also a reminder that the ability to decide when or whether to have children is key to women’s opportunity to be financially secure and pursue their dreams,” she added.
But with politics on top of “so much shaming in popular culture,” women “get the message early and often that … there’s still something wrong with that choice,” Richards lamented.
(Or maybe some choices are inherently wrong, and will always be so, Ms. Richards – like ending the life of an unborn baby.)
In response, she called for “seriously overdue” “public dialogue about abortion” – jumpstarted with some help from celebrities and politicians “talk[ing] about their abortion experiences.”
She included herself in that trend. Recalling her Elle story, Richards wrote, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision for me.”
Richards also applauded “a new generation of television and film producers” for “writing and casting roles where abortion is a fact of life,” including the media-hyped Obvious Child, Girls and The Fosters.
Those films, she said, “depict women making the decision to have an abortion and finding support from their family and friends,” as well as “reflect the reality” of Planned Parenthood: “that abortion is a reality of women’s lives, and it is most important that all women can get high-quality medical care, no matter what.”
Echoing DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (D-Fla.) language, Richards said at her organization, “we believe that a woman’s decision about her pregnancy should be hers.”
To talk about abortion, Richards recommended three tips: address “the caring and compassionate” abortion doctors, instruct “how safe the procedure is,” and highlight “the consequences for women in need” due to “burdensome and unnecessary” restrictions.
As with the media, women who regret their abortions didn’t exist in her rhetoric. Nor did pro-life women.
Editor’s note. This appeared at  and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

China and Genocide


Chen Guangcheng calls China’s violent population control policies “genocide”

Send to Kindle
Editor’s note. The following comes from the office of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Mr. Smith is co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus.
Pro-Life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) meets pro-life human rights activist Chen Guangcheng when Mr. Chen arrived in the United States on Saturday.
Pro-Life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) meets pro-life human rights activist Chen Guangcheng when Mr. Chen arrived in the United States on Saturday.

Washington, D.C. – At a hearing today, Congressman Chris Smith (NJ-04) called on the Administration to use existing U.S. law to block entry into the U.S. for Chinese government officials responsible for implementing China’s coercive, brutal population control policies.
In his testimony, blind activist and legal advocate, Chen Guangcheng calls China’s violent population control efforts “genocide” and calls for a U.N. tribunal to “investigate crimes committed by the Communist regime in China…particularly [the] genocide” created by the 35 year enforcement of the “One-Child Policies.”

“We should hold China to universal standards that apply to all states and that China itself claims to uphold,” said Smith, chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and the chairman of the House panel that oversees international human rights. “As a nation, we must not turn a blind eye to the Chinese government’s continuing acts of silencing dissent, committing crimes against its own people, and repressing its citizens’ fundamental human rights. It has been a gross failure for the Obama Administration to fail to enforce existing law. We already have a law in place, the Admiral Nance and Meg Donovan Act which I authored, that will bar visas to Chinese officials, but unfortunately, it is not being used. ”

Congressman Smith’s opening statement can be found here.
The hearing, entitled “Population Control in China: State-Sponsored Violence Against Women and Children,” was held by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), which Congressman Smith chairs, along with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. It examined the economic and security problems associated with China’s draconian “One-Child Policy,” including an increased gender imbalance favoring males, making China a regional magnet for sex and bride trafficking of women from neighboring countries. The hearing webcast can be viewed at

The hearing included expert witnesses including Valerie Hudson from Texas A&M, Nicholas Eberstadt from the American Enterprise Institute, Reggie Littlejohn and Chai Ling, founders of the women’s rights advocacy groups Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and All Girls Allowed, respectively. The hearing also included Chinese human rights leader Chen Guangcheng, who was imprisoned in China for four years for his advocacy for women.
Said Congressman Smith

“China’s one-child policy is state sponsored violence against women and children, despite small changes made last year to the policy, it remains coercive, it remains intrusive, and remains a threat to the birth of any girl child—tens of millions who were lost because families chose to have boys with the one child they were allowed to have. This is unacceptable, it is horrific, it is tragic, and it is wrong. I urge the government to do what is right, not only of its people, but what is clearly in its own interest, and end this policy now.”

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China, established by the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 as China prepared to enter the WTO, is mandated by law to monitor human rights, including worker rights, and the development of the rule of law in China. Its members are a bipartisan combination of Congress and White House appointees.

Source: NRLC News

What is a Human Life Worth- Everything


4-month-old baby, two others pulled safely from rubble caused by Nepal earthquake

Send to Kindle

“To save a human life, we’ll risk almost anything”

By Dave Andrusko
nepalbabyrubblereSix days out, and rays of hope out of the utter disaster caused by a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in Nepal that has claimed the lives of nearly 6,000 people with a much larger tally expected.
CNN and the Associated Press are reporting that teenager Pemba Tamang was pulled from the rubble today in the capital of Kathmandu by Nepalese rescuers, supported by an American disaster response team. “Krishna Devi Khadka, believed to be in her 20s, was rescued from another location,” CNN reported.

A couple of days ago the Associated Press ran a heart-in-your-throat story about the rescue of a four-month-old Sonit Awal.

I won’t spoil the joy of reading the story. Here are just a few of the remarkable events that transpired that led to the baby’s rescue.
Sonit’s nine-year-old sister was watching him when the earthquake struck Saturday. She escaped unhurt as buildings collapsed in Bhaktapur, which is just east of Nepal’s capital.
When Nepalese photojournalist Amul Thapa first heard the baby’s cries, Sonit was trapped under a wooden beam. According to the AP

That beam “was supporting everything,” the 26-year-old remembers. To move it would have meant to bring even more danger to the trapped child.
Thapa’s own family in his hometown of Bhaktapur had suffered and his home had been destroyed but Thapa said when he heard the baby cry all he could think was “Please God, help him.”

At 10:00 a, on Sunday, the day after the earthquake, Nepalese army soldiers pulled Sonit out from mountains of debris.
“Sonit Awal’s chubby cheeks were caked in chalky, concrete dust,” according to the AP story. “One tiny fist curled tightly shut, the other seemingly covering his face.”
“When I saw the baby alive all my sorrow went,” Thapa said. “Everyone was clapping. It gave me energy and made me smile in spite of lots of pain hidden inside me.”
Amazingly, Sonit appeared to have suffered only a small cut over his brow.
Andrew Olvera, who heads the team from the U.S. Agency for International Development, explained to AP why rescuers were doing what they did:

“The whole operation is dangerous. But it’s risk versus gain. To save a human life, we’ll risk almost anything.”

Source: NRLC News

Thursday, April 30, 2015



A terrific pro-life resource: “The case against abortion: prenatal development”

Send to Kindle
By Dave Andrusko
9weekbaby5Of the three categories of posts on National Right to Life News Today that receive the most response, two are especially adroit at combining appeals to the head and to the heart. By that I mean prenatal development videos and music videos, such as John Elefante’s wonderful pro-life, pro-adoption “This Time” (“Pro-Life Music Video ‘This Time’ goes viral’”)

On their own National Right to Life News Today readers periodically send me examples of these two kinds of videos. First, the ones that illustrate that most miraculous process–how you and I each started out the same but ended up each unique. Second, there are pro-life music videos.
So, as I do occasionally, today I am reaching out asking you to send me links to just such videos.
Here’s an example: “The case against abortion: prenatal development.”

Only 3 minutes and eleven seconds long, the video covers the waterfront at a breakneck speed. The video borrows from many of the finest resources—in print and online—to create a riveting and absolutely convincing case against abortion.
Backed by a pulsating music score, a question flashes across the screen: “At what point does it become wrong to intentionally abort a developing human being?” Options range from conception through birth.
We see a snapshot of a Gallup poll where 2/3rds support a first-trimester abortion but only 10% support a third trimester abortion. Why the discrepancy?”
Because the former “kills a baby” while a first trimester abortion “kills a bunch of cells…. Or does it?”
The remainder of the video races through a highly entertaining, richly informative/persuasive tour conclusively demonstrating the developmental continuity of human beings whose maturation unfolds just the way it is supposed to–unless he or she is aborted.

“The case against abortion: prenatal development” begins with a quick perusal of the prenatal photography taken by Lennart Nilsson in his classic, “A Child is Born.” We see in these photos the developmental milestones and how remarkably intricate the child even in the first weeks.
Next to flash on a screen is that statement, “Nucleus [Medical] Media creates award winning medical illustrations.” Now we are shown the unborn as if her mother’s body is translucent. Again, it is remarkable how developmentally sophisticated the child even in the first trimester.
“On the outside chance you’re still envisioning the first trimester embryos and fetuses as shapeless clumps of tissue…” we are introduced to “The biology of prenatal development.” As it happens I wrote about this incredible 42-minute-long DVD in 2010.

This documentary utilizes six different imaging technologies to give you unforgettable images inside the womb of the growing baby at the embryonic and fetal stages. The breath-taking real-time pictures that are utilized are of the human embryo in the first three weeks. Without thinking, you have absorbed another lesson in early prenatal development, including the fact that six week embryos have measurable brain impulses.

Then the first of two key truths wrap up, “The case against abortion: prenatal development.”
“They may not look like a baby yet, but they look exactly as a human being should look, 21 days after conception.”
To finish the point, we see highlighted text from Geraldine Lux Flanagan’s book, “Beginning Life” that reads,
“In the hours of conception, every aspect of the genetic inheritance for the new individual will be determined once and for all.”
The inescapable conclusion?
“At any stage of pregnancy abortion kills a rapidly developing, genetically distinct human being.”
Wow! Do yourself a big favor and watch, “The case against abortion: prenatal development.”
And please send send me links to pro-life videos!

Source: NRLC News

Planned Parenthood


PPFA’s Cecile Richards on increasing pro-abortion solidarity through “talking about abortion experiences”

Send to Kindle
By Dave Andrusko
Cecile Richards
Cecile Richards

When PPFA president Cecile Richards wrote in ELLE magazine last fall that she’d had an abortion, we discussed that revelation once and then, shortly later, wrote about it again.
And because this is the president of the largest abortion conglomerate in the galaxy, we returned for a third time when Richards posted a 1 minute, 19 second long video for “The 1 in 3 Campaign,” a project of Advocates for Youth.

Now, having got the hang of it, Richards has just written for what has become another in-house publication of the Abortion Movement–TIME magazine–under the headline “We Need to Talk—Really Talk—About Abortion.”
Before we get to why we really need to talk about abortion, according to Richards, some background will help us understand her “evolution” from a Johnny-come-lately (in “speaking” about her abortion) to someone who can’t talk about it enough.
Her October 2014 ELLE essay ran under the headline “Ending the Silence That Fuels Abortion Stigma.” The essay was 748 words long. Just 68 talked about her own abortion in language that was almost clinical.
By contrast her interview with Cosmopolitan, even with a highly sympathetic interviewer, couldn’t be that bland. What was interesting (as we wrote) was her insistence that her family had handled this shocker in an almost matter-of-fact fashion.
Richards said when she opened up to ELLE, her children’s response to learning they were short a sibling
was really awesome. It’s interesting, I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it. I look at the positive response from Planned Parenthood employees……[etc., etc., etc.]
But how could that possibly be true? If it was “no big deal,” how and why could she tell “it was important to them that we talked about it”?
You know your mom is a big shot in the “pro-choice” movement, runs in powerful circles, and is joined at the hip to pro-abortion President of the United States.
But while your mom has talked about being non-judgmental; about how having an abortion is easy as pie; about “freeing women,” you didn’t know that she non-judgmentally freed herself by having an easy-as-pie abortion of your brother or sister.
Of course that would be a big deal, which is why my sympathies immediately went out to Richards’ children.

Which brings us to her TIME magazine essay.
Richards is delighted that movies and television programs are talking about abortion–talking about abortion in the prescribed fashion, of course. (They “depict women making the decision to have an abortion and finding support from their family and friends.”) She’s even happier that celebrities such as Jemima Kirke are talking about their abortions.

Richards conveniently omits that these “stories” reveal far more than is intended and, in fact, often work against the narrative that abortion is as safe as taking two aspirins and that Planned Parenthood is a paragon of health care virtue. (See here.)

She also subtly suggests that abortion is an almost afterthought to PPFA, which is absolutely not the case.
But in a sense Richards is right about one thing in her TIME essay.
The discussion about abortion is “filled with “myths” and “stereotypes”–but not because they are filling a “void” left as the result of women failing to talk about their abortions. The myths and stereotypes are of the Abortion Industry’s own making.
Such as? The illogical myth that there is essentially no post-abortion aftermath–and if a woman is having problems they are because she had emotional or psychological difficulties prior to the abortion. (How’s that for sympathetic?)
In fact, a sizeable minority of women do have a whole range of difficulties, as we have discussed numerous times at NRL News and NRL News Today.

Or the myth that the ranks of the abortion industry is filled with Dr. Welbys. Just read about abortionist Steven Brigham–just one of the many, many stories we have written about abortionists–and you quickly realize how grotesquely untrue that is.
And then there such demeaning stereotypes as the cruel notion that the thousands of loving pro-life volunteers who work at women helping centers care not about the woman or girl who is about to make a life-and-death decision but only about their “ideology.”
Richards concludes, “Women are increasingly feeling supported to share stories that have, in some cases, been kept silent for years.” True.
But they are not stories that celebrate their abortions. Overwhelmingly they are confessionals in which a woman says she would do anything if she could just go back in time and save her baby.
But those are not the kind of stories that TIME magazine gives space to or ELLE touts to its readers.

Source: NRLC News

Pro-Abortion Hillary


Hillary Clinton’s “barely veiled advocacy for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred cows”

Send to Kindle
By Dave Andrusko
Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, speaking at EMILY's List 30th Anniversary dinner
Pro-abortion Hillary Clinton, speaking at EMILY’s List 30th Anniversary dinner

Pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received a fair amount of attention–including from us–for parts of a remarkably candid (and disturbing) speech she delivered last week to the “Women in The World Summit” in New York City [].
More than one person subsequently told me that whatever negative publicity she received at the time for the speech in which she blew kisses to her pro-abortion sisters, it would be small compared to the far greater blowback the former Secretary of State will eventually experience.
I thought of those conversations when I read USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers’ blistering op-ed that ran yesterday.

In case you’ve forgotten, Clinton said the following:
“Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half but far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed [applause]. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century, and not just for women, but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

The message was impossible to miss: to bring real “reproductive health care” to the ends of the earth (Hillary and Bill Clinton are anti-life missionaries), a lot that means a great deal to billions of people must be jettisoned.

And you don’t change what Clinton labeled “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases” with pleasantries. You do so coercively, with the power of the state.
Powers asks Clinton to dispense with the euphemisms–she is talking about abortion and contraception— and “Then she should explain why she thinks she, or anyone else, has the right to dictate what religious people believe about either issue. We know she wants to be president — but does she think she is God, too?”

Our issue is abortion, so let’s see what else Powers has to say about Clinton’s speech and abortion. There are three main points.

* “Like President Obama — who famously opined that Americans ‘cling’ to religion out of bitterness — Clinton seems to view religious doctrine in opposition to her political agenda as nothing more than ‘biases’ or ‘codes’ to be dismantled by those who know better,” Powers writes.
There are differences, of course, between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton but they share an abiding faith (so to speak) in the power of abortion to reshape the world and the right/obligation of people like them to make people like us kneel to their agenda.

* Powers offers, “It would take an army of psychologists to determine why Clinton believes that her worldview should override that of centuries of religious doctrine,” adding, “Religious beliefs that differ from mine are not automatically viewed as targets for transformation.” But they need to be “transformed” because the enlightened elite know better. And if you have to do so by legislation, activist courts, or the power of the purse, well, why not?

* A number of writers, including me (and now Powers) placed Clinton’s chilling comments alongside a post by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni. Bruni has not been, is not now, and likely will be even less likely in the future to worry about the religious rights of those who disagree with his agenda on social issues.
As Matt Lewis said of Bruni
Hillary’s comments also remind me of something Frank Bruni wrote in a recent column, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana.” In that piece Bruni argues that “our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”
And if you and I don’t willing bow “to the enlightenments of modernity”? Bruni doesn’t say and neither (precisely) does Hillary Clinton. But Powers has a pretty good idea. She ends her column
The intolerance, condescension and ignorance expressed about religious people is troubling enough in itself. But what sends chills up the spine is the barely veiled advocacy for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred cows. … How exactly will Clinton change religious beliefs at odds with her worldview?
Inquiring minds would like to know.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Aftermath


Pregnant and alone at Harvard

Send to Kindle
By Dave Andrusko
sadwoman64The last NRL News Today post for Wednesday is by far the most important. It is my reflections on a confessional that appeared in Harvard University’s student newspaper under the headline “Pregnant at Harvard?”

There is no online commentary following the story, written by “Anonymous.” Why? We’re told the op-ed is “anonymously due to the private and intensely personal nature of its content.” Online commentary “has been disabled for this piece in an effort to help protect the author’s identity.”
Everything about this story screams pain–an “all-encompassing pain.” We were all young once and most of us attended a college or university. Once we left home, we can remember how ‘free’ we suddenly found ourselves. And the author of this op-ed is honest–brutally honest–about how head-over-heels she fell in love with her “soulmate,” the “one person who had promised to always be there for me.” And, as is almost always the case, they broke up. Only later did she find out she was nearly four months pregnant.

“Looking back, it seems obvious that my symptoms were classic pregnancy indicators, clues we all learn in ninth-grade health class,” she writes. “I wasn’t stupid. But perhaps I was in denial.” Perhaps?
She adds, “I woke up every day praying that I was having some extended nightmare. I wasn’t.” A week later she headed to the clinic

with just a book, a water bottle, my Harvard ID, and a locket containing a picture of my ex-boyfriend and me. The procedure didn’t take long. It wasn’t even that physically painful. But when it was over, I screamed. I couldn’t stop screaming. As I write these words, it has been over a month since the abortion—and on the inside that screaming hasn’t stopped.

I truly want you to read “Pregnant at Harvard?”  so let me add just these thoughts.
It’s been a month since the abortion, she writes
There are nights where I stay up holding the locket [which has her ex-boyfriend’s picture in it], the one piece I have of both my ex-boyfriend and my child, and just cry hysterically. There are nights where I try so hard to convince myself that life is worthwhile by talking myself to sleep with thoughts of stargazing and dancing and laughter, but no matter what I think about I can’t get rid of an all-encompassing sense of pain.

“Anonymous” talks about how hard it can be at Harvard to get help, how easy it is to feel utterly alone, and how amazing it is that her roommates missed all the obvious signs. She wanted someone to take the initiative–to come to her.
She ends her powerful op-ed with thoughts about it might be “easier” to shove the ‘issue’ under the rug. But…

I’ve tried to cope with my situation by distracting myself with other boys; my ex uses his current girlfriend to pretend that everything is normal. Sometimes reality is too hard to deal with, and finding any escape seems like the only plausible option. This—telling my story—is a way to say that no matter what you’re going through, even if you can’t reach out for help at this point, you’re not the only one. You are not alone.
If you saw me today, you’d never guess what I’m hiding. You’d see me heading to class with an oversized backpack, or studying in Lamont, or dancing at a final club, or laughing in the dining hall while surrounded by friends. I look happy. But on the inside, I’m still screaming. …

I wonder if that “Pregnant At Harvard?” brochure is still sitting untouched in the Women’s Center. Maybe I should’ve picked it up freshman year.
Source: NRLC News