Monday, February 8, 2016

Pro- Life All the Way


Pro-lifers respond to attacks on pro-life stance of Rubio, Cruz

Two of the top presidential contenders, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, have recently come under fire for their consistently pro-life position – not from the abortion lobby, but from other Republican presidential hopefuls. Now, a national pro-life organization with hundreds of thousands of members is calling for an end to the attacks.

In an open letter addressed to Governors Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Jim Gilmore, and John Kasich, along with Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, the Susan B. Anthony List urges “a swift and decisive end to the attacks other candidates and their surrogates are making concerning the courageous pro-life positions of Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.” The letter is in response to a litany of statements which sound far more like “Planned Parenthood talking points,” as SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser noted, than the position of a party which claims to stand for the protection of the preborn.

In an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie implied that Rubio’s pro-life position would hurt him in New Hampshire:
That’s the kind of position that New Hampshire voters would be really concerned about. I’m pro-life, but I believe that rape, incest and life of the mother, as Ronald Reagan did, should be exceptions to that rule.
I will tell you one thing Marco Rubio has done: He has made it very clear that on the issue of pro-life, Marco Rubio is not for an exception for rape, incest, or life of the mother.
Now… you know I think that’s the kind of position that I think New Hampshire voters would be concerned about.

Unfortunately for Christie, even the New York Times says this is a misrepresentation of Rubio’s pro-life position, particularly on the exception for the life of the mother.
Rubio recently told CNN he believes that all human life, even those conceived in rape, must be protected. “I personally believe that you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy,” he said.
The Susan B. Anthony List isn’t alone in supporting Rubio and Cruz’s pro-life position. Live Action president Lila Rose told Sean Hannity in a recent Fox News interview, “I think we can do better for women who are victims of sexual abuse and trauma to say that abortion is somehow a pathway to healing. Abortion is not a pathway to healing; it’s another violent act.”
Juda Myers
Juda Myers
Juda Myers, founder of Choices4Life, which advocates for those conceived in rape, said that politicians who claim to be pro-life while allowing exceptions to abort children because their fathers were the criminals are the ones who are not really pro-life. Myers knows how these kind of statements affect those conceived in rape – because she’s one of them. Myers’ birth mother was gang raped but lovingly chose to place her for adoption:
Society has put in our minds what women would and should feel about babies conceived in rape. But through my research I’ve found that women pregnant by rape do not think the way the general public thinks. Even those who previously thought they would abort find themselves feeling differently about the innocent baby inside them.
Myers believes that politicians who support exceptions for rape and incest are actually pro-choice. “100% pro-life is 100%,” she points out. “There is no exception. Choice for death in pregnancy is still pro-choice for death.” Myers also says, “The exception has opened the door so that all abortions can be legal. If rape/incest abortions were made illegal then ALL legal abortions would cease.”
Lindsey Graham abortion Cruz
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Christie is not the only GOP contender lashing out against a 100% pro-life position. In late fall, Live Action News reported that 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush also criticized Rubio’s consistently pro-life position. And now, former Republican presidential candidate, Lindsey Graham (who supports Jeb Bush for president) has piled on, chiding Senator Ted Cruz’s ardent pro-life position. Graham stated on MSNBC:
If a woman is raped in Ted Cruz’s world, she’s going to have to carry the baby of the rapist. I’m pro-life, but I won’t go there. I think that’s hard to sell with young women.

Graham showed that his desire to “grow” the Republican party comes first and does not include promoting the idea that all preborn children have value:
I may be wrong, and I hope I’m wrong, but I think it’s going to be very hard to grow the party among women if you’re gonna tell young women, ‘If you get raped, you’ve gotta carry the child of the rapist.’ Most pro-life people don’t go there.
Elaine Riddick embraces her son (image credit: Maafa21 blog)
Elaine Riddick embraces her son (Photo: Maafa21 Blog)
“The child of the rapist.” This is an idea that is in no way pro-life, and labels an innocent child by the crime of his or her father.
Elaine Riddick, a rape victim and pro-life advocate, bore a child after being raped as a teen, and takes issue with Graham’s assertions: “You just have no idea how wonderful that child has made my life,” she told Live Action News, speaking of her son, Tony. Riddick believes children conceived in rape should be protected, not destroyed, and points to her story as an example:
In the Black community at that time there was no such thing as abortion. My life would not be what it is without my son. I knew he was my child. He shaped my whole being from then to now. My son is a gift regardless of how he was conceived. He is the most beautiful thing I can see. The most positive person.
Riddick, who at 14 became a victim of forcible sterilization by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, is very outspoken on Planned Parenthood’s eugenic agenda, and suggests that politicians who support abortion for reasons of rape should not be trusted:
When I hear a politician say everyone deserves to live except a child conceived in rape I am shocked. Those are the ones you need to watch. I would disqualify them for the simple reason that they have no idea what a woman has to go through- no sense of worth or conscience and God’s worth. God said every life, every person is made in His image. He intended for these children to be born.
Marjorie Dannenfelser
Marjorie Dannenfelser
While GOP presidential contenders attack the pro-life positions of Senators Rubio and Cruz, they could instead be exposing the truth about Planned Parenthood’s dismal record on aiding and abetting child rape.
SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser minced no words in her open letter, and effectively summed up what many pro-lifers are feeling regarding the attacks on Cruz and Rubio:
Let me be clear: An attack on this aspect of these candidates’ pro-life positions is an attack on the pro-life movement as a whole.

Source: LiveAction News

Texas and {Planned Parenthood


For abortion advocates, more babies are a reason for ‘sad face’ emojis

0876The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt on March 2, which will examine if Texas’s law (HB2) requiring abortion centers to be held to the same standards as surgical outpatient centers and requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at hospitals places an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion. While HB2 has been in effect, an estimated 10,000 lives have been saved in Texas from abortion. Many would forget that these children are living, breathing human beings.
Abortion advocates claim that women dangerously self-abort when they can’t access abortion or birth control (ignoring the dangers of even legal abortions performed at abortion centers). They even came up with a faulted study to support these claims.
But now, seemingly overnight, they’ve changed the argument – they’ve decided that Texas women have actually just been having a whole lot of children they can’t support.

Image via screenshot of Facebook Thursday morning.
Image via screenshot of Facebook Thursday morning.
Planned Parenthood is still trending on Facebook, as of Friday morning. Lamented are the results from a study claiming that births increased by 27 percent (only they actually didn’t), which were paid for by Medicaid. These living, breathing human beings were allowed to be born and might even go on to be blessings in their parents’ lives and in the world around them. Apparently, that’s horrible news.
Planned Parenthood Action linked to an article from the Los Angeles Times: “After Texas stopped funding Planned Parenthood, low-income women had more babies.” And News Republic shared an article from The Guardian: “Aggressive Planned Parenthood cuts hurt poor women the most, study finds,” written by pro-abortion columnist Molly Redden.
Pro-abortion media outlets have also been making the rounds on Twitter. Cosmopolitan has taken a lot of heat for using a ‘sad face’ emoji in their post about Texas women having more babies:
Why is it that Planned Parenthood and their friends in the pro-abortion media portray having children as what “hurt[s] poor women the most”? If anything, what’s hurting women is the mindset that poor women shouldn’t have children simply because they are poor – arguably, it’s a eugenic mindset to say that poor women shouldn’t reproduce.
Planned Parenthood should know. Their organization was founded by Margaret Sanger, known for having held eugenic and racist views. Why should we be surprised, then, that the organization providing one-third of abortions in the country (along with their media friends) would see more births as a bad thing?
We can talk about the “cost” until the cows come home, but pro-lifers would always prefer that money is directed towards life and not death.

Source: LiveAction News

Rape and Politics

Photo by Gage Skidmore (via

Christie sees immediate backlash from comments on abortion for rape at GOP debate

During Saturday night’s GOP debate, one question focused on the issue of abortion, as moderator Mary Katherine Ham acknowledged that most Millennials support restrictions on abortion.
But Chris Christie – who had earlier stated that he was pro-life for all life, including “when it’s a lot more complicated” – made an outrageous error. Christie’s pro-life bona fides have been questioned before, as years ago, he referenced a personal donation to Planned Parenthood. The New Jersey governor had seemed to possibly redeem himself with his bulldog approach to Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts and his commitment to defund the abortion giant.
But during Saturday’s debate, Christie inexplicably called one form of abortion “self-defense.”

Christie attempted to explain his reason for supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest:
I believe that if a woman has been raped, that is a pregnancy that she should be able to terminate. If she is a victim of incest, this is not a woman’s choice, this is a woman being violated. The fact is that we have always believed, as has Ronald Reagan, that we have self defense for women who have been raped and impregnated because of it or been victims of incest and been impregnated for it. I believe that they do not have to deliver that child if they believe that is an act of self defense by terminating that pregnancy.
As a former prosecutor, Christie should be well-educated on the boundaries of self-defense, so this explanation is particularly puzzling coming from his mouth. Self-defense is used against a perpetrator, not against another innocent human being.
The backlash against Christie came hard and fast, as viewers were outraged by his suggestion that babies themselves are their mothers’ attackers.

Source: LiveAction News

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Futil Care


Simon’s Law: “To Be Heard”

By Sheryl Crosier
Editor’s note. Missouri State Rep Bill Kidd has filed HB 1915, Simon’s Law. It has two basic components. First, a health care facility must let a patient, resident or a prospective patient or resident know if they have a futility policy that will limit care in any way. Second, a do-not-resuscitate order cannot be placed in a minor child’s medical file without the written permission of at least one parent or legal guardian.
simon91reOn September 7, 2010, God blessed us with a beautiful baby boy named Simon. His name means, “To be heard.” Even with a bilateral cleft lip, he was absolutely perfect to our family.

Did you know that having one extra chromosome could lead to denial of treatment and care withheld? On Simon’s third day of life, he was diagnosed with trisomy 18. Many doctors declare that trisomy 18 is “incompatible with life,” despite evidence of the contrary in those who survive for months, years and even decades.

On December 3, Simon’s oxygen saturation levels began to fall. We were told this is the end, nothing could be done. Simon drew his last breaths, I asked again what could be done and I was told “nothing.” At 10:45am December 3, 2010, Simon died.
Imagine watching your child take their last breaths, his oxygen saturation levels plummet and the medical professionals do nothing.

Later, we found out there was a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) in his medical file which explains why the medical professionals stood around and did nothing.

On top of that we found out Simon was only getting comfort feeds-the least amount of food, not intended for nourishment. It means they starve you to death. If Simon hadn’t stopped breathing, he might have starved to death.

It was a battle we fought to defend our son’s life and dignity. Not only were Simon’s human rights violated, as he was a victim of genetic discrimination, but also our parental rights were taken away. When our son, Simon was a living, breathing human being, who brought incredible joy to his family; and he experienced love and joy from us…did he NOT deserve the right to live?
Someone else decided our son’s life didn’t have value. Care was withheld and a DNR order was placed in our son’s chart, without our knowledge or consent as Simon’s parents. Ultimately, our wishes were ignored and Simon’s death was expedited.

I can’t bring my son back. But, I want to make sure this doesn’t happen to another child, your child and my other children. In my opinion, no one loves their child more than their parent. Do not let this happen to your child.

Source: NRLC News

Bluring the Facts


Making suicide easier – and no one takes notice

By Paul Russell, Director, Hope Australia
“The reality is, a portion of our population will suicide and I don’t think we should make it so hard.”
Philip Nitschke
Philip Nitschke
Who said that? You’re guessing; putting two and two together, noting the author of this article and, hand quickly in the air from the back of the class you yell: “Philip Nitschke!”
And you are right. The quote comes from a Guardian newspaper article on the 12th of December. And not a word from the suicide prevention agencies. Even those like Beyond Blue and the Black Dog Institute – fine organisations that spoke out against Nitschke in the Nigel Brayley case in 2014 – total silence.
Not good enough.
Isn’t the whole idea of “prevention” precisely about making suicide difficult, making it unthinkable? Earlier this year a steel net was built at significant expense into the Golden Gate Bridge to, indeed, make it hard. We do the same for high vantage points wherever a risk is perceived. This is simply common sense. As a society we are motivated towards prevention not facilitation.
Thankfully, not everyone was silent. The Guardian, in that same article, published scathing commentary from psychiatrist and mental health campaigner, Prof. Ian Hickie.
From the article:
“The vast majority of suicidal people had an underlying mental health problem which could be compounded or brought on by issues such as social isolation or the loss of a loved one, he said. “I think it is disingenuous to confound issues of voluntary euthanasia and suicide,” he said. “Nitschke has no understanding of mental health and related issues, and absolutely no empathy.
“He has demonstrated a lack of humanity and a lack of concern for those who find themselves in these situations and their families, and a complete lack of compassion for those who are socially isolated and trying to connect with their world.”
The context of the article is the announcement by Nitschke that he intends to hold a conference on rational suicide in Melbourne next year. Nitschke’s thesis is that not everyone who contemplates suicide is acting from an irrational thought process and not everyone is depressed. The Guardian reports:
“Now that his medical career is over, he says, he will be pushing to extend the euthanasia debate by pushing the idea of rational suicide, a concept even many supporters of voluntary euthanasia balk at.”
“He says prisoners serving life sentences and with no eligibility for parole should be given the same option, which he says is an example of rational suicide because they are not always depressed or unwell. Similarly, he says someone who loses their spouse and who decides that as a result, they do not want to live any more, should have the freedom to make the choice to die without being accused of being depressed.”
In these and other examples Nitschke fails completely to recognise any other possible alternative. It suits him and the euthanasia lobby more broadly to continue to deliberately suggest scenarios that have but two options where one is all sweetness and light and the other, diabolical: buy the book, take the pill, pass the law OR suffer terribly for an indefinite period of time.
It’s a trick, folks; life is not like that. It’s just a sales trick; a sleight of hand – the stock-in-trade of the snake oil salesman.
After all, this is all about the Exit business model and little more; especially now that Nitschke need not concern himself about what the medical profession thinks since he is no longer in their ranks.
Does it really matter that his claim rings hollow–that Nigel Brayley’s death was a “rational suicide”–after Nitschke admitted on BBC Radio earlier this year that he did not understand Brayley’s reasoning? It sounds like he made it all up, claiming that because Brayley was a suspect in two suspicious deaths that his suicide to avoid possible incarceration was therefore “rational”. Ever heard of fear, Mr. Nitschke? It can make rational beings do irrational things.

Nitschke appears to be extending this notion of rational suicide to the elderly en bloc. The whole “fear-factor” is there in spades. The Guardian reports:
Nitschke believes all elderly people regardless of their health condition should be issued Nembutal, a class of drug known as a barbiturate that proves fatal at high doses, so they have the option of taking their own life.

The day before The Guardian story he issued a press release asking the government to decriminalise possession of small quantities of Nembutal held by elderly Australians. Why? Because somehow it is all our fault that people who go to his workshops and who are bedazzled into purchasing Nembutal overseas now fear prosecution for possession:

“Many of those attending had imported the drug illegally, and now wanted to have the purity of the drug to be tested. They were fearful though, that if this were known they could lose the drug and be subject to criminal charges.”
A classic snake oil pitch! A captive audience convinced that there is only one solution to what bedevils them being used themselves as a pitch to further build the business. Would that count as “rational”? I expect so if it fits the message.

The suicide prevention organisations need to wake up to this travelling roadshow of fear. The whole notion that euthanasia is about those who have serious or terminal illness is shown for the croc that it is. As Nitschke foreshadows, it is ultimately about everyone and anyone who wants to leave this world for whatever reason, anytime. Each and every one will determine his or her own reasoning which includes, as we know already from the data, fear of future suffering or disability.
Nitschke says that part of what determines rationality in suicide is the capacity for the person to make decisions “in their best interests.” How is it ever in a person’s “best interest” to no longer exist? Once essence (or being) is lost, there is no subject matter for this supposed best interest. His argument is pure wind; empty sophistry.

This is precisely why every occasion of a person considering suicide must continue to be treated as “irrational.” Otherwise we risk creating a two-tiered response: one that says, “no, don’t do it”; the other that says, “it’s your business, go ahead”.
Unfortunately, the silence from the suicide prevention sector portends precisely this kind of outcome. It is an intellectual weakness or a lack of courage that categorizes requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide any differently from suicidal ideation. No one is saying that out loud, of course; but the silence screams its name.

Source: NRLC News



Woman waking up from abortion: “Give me back my baby!”

By Sarah Terzo
abortionlastsforeverThe Abortionist is a book written by an illegal abortionist in 1962. This is the contents of a letter that was written to the abortionist. [1]

“I recall fighting my way out of the black void into which the drug had plunged me to hear myself screaming hysterically, “I want my baby! Give me back my baby!” And as I sobbed away, you tried to console me, telling me it was over and that everything was all right.
But everything wasn’t all right. Lying there, I felt only disgust at myself. I had broken nature’s most sacred code, the propagation of the human race. That was the trust for which I had been placed on earth and I had violated it.

But life is also survival of the fittest and, in some way, I knew I was not fit to bear a baby or to be a mother…

I hated myself, I hated the father of the child and vowed never to see him again.…
But you I do not hate. You have given me a second chance. When everyone else turned their back in scorn, you were willing to allow me the responsibility of deciding whether I wanted my child. You made me feel I still had the dignity due to every human being.”

There is so much self-hatred and post abortion regret in this testimony, yet she does not blame the abortionist who did the abortion. She seems to be unable to admit that abortion was a horrible mistake, no matter how upset it made her.

[1] Dr. X, Lucy Freeman The Abortionist (London: Victor Gollacz LTD, 1962) 43 – 44.
Editor’s note. This appeared at Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinic quotes website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and PLAGAL.

Source: NRLC News

More on Euthanasia


Normalizing Elder Couple Joint Suicides

By Wesley J. Smith
assistedsuicide883People keep pretending that assisted suicide/euthanasia are about terminal illness. That’s a clear ploy to get people to accept the premise that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering.

After that, logic will take over. Once a population begins to accept the overarching premise, the limitations such as terminal illness melt away.
Sometimes, it doesn’t even have to wait that long. In Belgium, elderly married couples can receive joint euthanasia–even if one or both isn’t seriously ill.

And now, in Australia, a healthy elderly couple is praised in a journal called Starts at Sixty! for committing joint assisted suicide before becoming ill. From, “Why This Couple Chose to Leave the World on Their Own Terms
Peter and Pat were scientists, explorers, parents, and jokesters. They had devoted their lives to their passions and raised three daughters – Judy, Anny and Kate. They lived life to the full and were determined to avoid the illness and fragility that so often comes with old age.
Both Peter and Pat had discussed their choice to take their own lives for many years. They decided long ago this was the way they wanted to go and they made sure their daughters understood their decision. To them, prolonging life for the sake of living was not enough. They enjoyed hiking and reading and debating each other on science, literature and arts.
They did not want to live a life where all of these things were not possible. The idea of nursing homes and palliative care was not something they wished to consider. They would die with the sharp minds and good humour they had cherished their whole lives.
They decided to commit suicide before becoming ill or debilitated by age–with the information on how to get dead provided by the Down-Under Kevorkian, Philip Nitschke:

Peter joined Nitschke’s organisation Exit International, which teaches people peaceful methods to end their own lives, and was a strong advocate for the right choose how and when to pass on. On 21 October, a week before Peter and Pat passed, their daughters arrived at the family home to spend time with their parents before they had to say goodbye forever.
Their three girls are similar to their parents. Two have PhDs and one is a concert pianist in Germany. They are rational, just like their parents, and understand their desire to go out on their own terms.

Anny asked if they could wait until after Christmas, just to have one more family celebration together, but they would not. The date had been set and they would make their final exit the day after Pat’s 87th birthday.

The children were fully supportive! They came over for a goodbye gathering, and left–knowing their parents would then kill themselves.

Speaking about her parents’ decision to take their own lives, the couples’ youngest daughter Kate said she believes, like her parents, that people should be afforded the right to suicide if they are of sound mind.
“It shouldn’t be so difficult for rational people to make this decision,” Kate said. “Obviously, care has to be taken but assisted suicide should not be illegal.”

Notice, no serious illness or disability required. That’s the logic of assisted suicide kicking in!
We used to consider such joint suicides a preventable tragedy. Increasingly, they are a cause for celebration, as elder suicide is beginning to be normalized and extolled.
Mark my words, if trends continue, you will be asked to attend the suicide of a loved one.
If that happens, what will you do? Say yes, and you are morally complicit. Say no, and you risk being ostracized by the family as “judgmental” and “moralistic.”

People have not even begun to grasp the radical changes assisted suicide brings to a society.
Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide


“Inconvenient truths” undermine case for Physician-Assisted Suicide

By Dave Andrusko
assistedsuicide431I was lucky enough to be included in an email distributed to a number of people and organizations who are fighting the scourge of physician-assisted suicide. Included was a link to a fascinating piece that ran in the Psychiatric Times.
The author, Steven A. King, MD, MS, is described as being in private practice of pain medicine in New York. Dr. King is also Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine. We’re taking time to discuss his report because it reminds us of what Dr. King calls “inconvenient truths” which are too often lost in the debate over physician-assisted suicide.
King tells us he has no particular religious convictions, so the oft touted claim that opposition to PAS is essentially confined to folks of faith doesn’t apply to him. That is just one of many “inconvenient truths” he highlights.
Not being a physician, I was completely unaware how some/many argue that being depressed, so to speak, goes with the territory of wanting to be “assisted” to die. For me the most important paragraphs in “Physician-Assisted Suicide: More Than Meets the Eye” address that very troubling reality. Referring to the requirement “that if the attending physicians believe a mental disorder is a potential factor in the request, they need to make a referral to a mental health specialist, usually defined in the laws as a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist,” King writes

Any psychiatrist who has been involved in consultation/liaison psychiatry can readily recognize inherent problems in the laws. Most non-psychiatrist physicians have limited training in mental illness, so relying on them to identify such illness is a chancy proposition.
Furthermore, when it comes to terminally ill patients, there is a widespread perception that depression is normal and that there is no need to address it. The executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine once wrote, “Dying patients who request assisted suicide and seem depressed should certainly be strongly encouraged to accept psychiatric treatment, but I do not believe that competent patients should be required to accept it as a condition of receiving assistance with suicide.” Some physicians fear that referring patients to psychiatrists and psychologists is an insult to the patients by indicating it is felt that they are considered “crazy.” A study from Oregon found that of those who died under its RTD law in 2014, fewer than 3% were referred for a mental health evaluation.

Dr. King also tackles the critical issue of pain and how studies have “shown that pain is often poorly managed, including in terminally ill patients.”

It has bothered me that many proponents of RTD laws choose to overlook this, preferring to leave the impression that this isn’t a problem and that every terminally ill person receives expert palliative care. When confronted with the evidence of the reality of deficiencies in pain management, they acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be corrected but that it shouldn’t stop the passage of RTD laws. …
Untreated pain or fear of it is far from the only reason for suicide requests but—along with a desire not to be a burden to others, fears about loss of autonomy, and depression and hopelessness—it is one of the most common.

All of these truths—and more found in “Physician-Assisted Suicide: More Than Meets the Eye”—are habitually overlooked in the pell mell rush to legalize (and “normalize”) physician-assisted suicide. Take five minutes and read Dr. King’s fine assessment.

Source: NRLC News

Words Have Meaning


Abortion: Another Word for Failure

By Jean Garton
Editor’s note. Jean Garton is best known to pro-lifers as the author of the classic, “Who Broke the Baby?” But over the years she has also contributed a number of wonderful essays for National Right to Life News and National Right to Life News Today. She has also spoken at the last three National Right to Life Conventions.
130124-jean-staker-gartonreOne of the most frayed and tattered books in my office is a treasure I found at a garage sale. It was in a dirty cardboard box filled with dusty old volumes. A scribbled sign read, “10[cent] each.”
My bargain book is a 60-year-old copy of Roget’s Thesaurus. Unlike the newer copy on my shelf, the old one contains words which, in current usage, sometimes have been emptied of their meaning. When I need an alternate word for a speech or article, the old version is a valuable resource.
One day when I was seeking a synonym for the word “failure,” the thesaurus provided the following options: “successlessness, blunder, defectiveness, abortion….”

Abortion? A synonym for “failure”? Pretty wretched company, especially since so many people today associate abortion with such benign and positive words as “choice,” “privacy,” and “rights.”
The results of abortion are indeed wretched, as most women know who have experienced this first hand. But, we might ask, if abortion is another name for blunder and defectiveness (and failure and pain and disappointment), why don’t more women tell other women?

One reason victims are reluctant to “go public” with their “choice” is because often concealing an abortion quickly becomes their highest priority. These unfortunate women have learned to their everlasting regret that yesterday’s “solution” has become today’s (and tomorrow’s) ever-present problem. Managing guilt, suffering, and loss can absorb all their energies. But the conspiracy of silence is not limited to the grieving woman whose child has died.

After all, she has a family, friends, and the baby has (had) a father. How do we explain the unwillingness of others around her, including those who are personally pro-life, to “go public” with what they know to be true?

Perhaps part of the explanation is that while it is unborn babies who die as a consequence of abortion, a nation’s moral imagination – – its ability to empathize – – can also be killed. To think that we can kill without something very important in us dying is a dangerous illusion.
I recall one column that glowingly touted the chemical abortion pill, RU-486. The author dismissed concern for the unborn child as insignificant. After all, she said, what is involved is “no larger than a grain of rice.”

She didn’t mention that RU486 is used at a time when the unborn child has a beating heart, spinal cord, two brain lobes, internal organs, and even a face. After decades of pro-life education and legislation, how is it possible for people to be so ignorant of reality? Perhaps it is there are “none so blind as those who refuse to see.”

But in the end, because the pro-life movement has gone public with the truth, despite the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that was supposed to have “settled” the abortion question, abortion remains today the most unsettled question in our public life.
Looking back over lo these many years, it is obvious that my old 10[cent] Roget’s Thesaurus had it right. Abortion IS a failure – – a failure to care, a failure to protect, a failure to help.

Source: NRLC News

New Hampshire


A few thoughts four days before the New Hampshire primary

By Dave Andrusko
election2016lreLast night’s mano y mano faceoff between pro-abortionists Hillary Clinton and Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders was pretty much all you could have asked for. Each gave as good as they got five days before New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
Sanders is ahead by about 20 points (31 points in another poll) over the former Secretary of State, not surprising in that he is the U.S. senator from nearby Vermont.
On the Republican side, the latest polls have Donald Trump retaining a commanding lead. Senators Marco Rubio (Fl.) and Ted Cruz (Tx.) are battling for second place, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively.
But, as Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray cautioned POLITICO, “These people [late deciders] really are volatile.” He added, “They really are undecided. Even if they pick a candidate today or tomorrow, they can change their mind.”
As we’ve talked about a number of times, Sen. Sanders seemed to have cast a spell over younger Democratic voters. Their enthusiasm for him is incredible, as the New York Times reiterated in an interesting piece that ran yesterday.
The headline, as it should, cuts to the chase: “Young Democrats Flock to Bernie Sanders, Spurning Hillary Clinton’s Polish and Poise.”
Meaning? A perception of warm authenticity versus cold calculation:

“It seems like he is at the point in his life when he is really saying what he is thinking,” said Olivia Sauer, 18, a college freshman who returned to her hometown, Ames, Iowa, to caucus for Mr. Sanders.
“With Hillary,” she said, “sometimes you get this feeling that all of her sentences are owned by someone.”
Clinton’s painfully clumsy attempts to connect with Millennials is the stuff of a Saturday Night Live skit. Amy Chozick and Yamiche Alcindor write
The day after Mrs. Clinton, 68, barely eked out a win over Mr. Sanders in Iowa, her campaign held a conference call with prominent Democratic supporters. Several of the officials, who are delegates to the party’s convention, expressed concerns about the campaign’s sometimes awkward attempts to reach young voters, including its reliance on baby boomer celebrities who have less resonance with the millennial generation.
“I’m very close to Jamie Lee Curtis and I know she was there, but she’s not young anymore,” Rosalind Wyman, a prominent Democrat in Los Angeles, said of the 57-year-old actress and spokeswoman for Activia yogurt, who campaigned for Mrs. Clinton in Iowa.
Who is Jamie Lee Curtis, besides a spokesman for yogurt? If you are a certain age you remember she made her film debut in 1978 starring in John Carpenter’s “Halloween.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Be sure to tune in the Republican debate Saturday night on ABC News.

Source: NRLC News