FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE


Facebook is using censorship to block the publicity of the Pro-Life movie exposing the nefarious behind the scenes lies and manipulation that was behind the Supreme Court making unborn baby-murder (abortion) on demand legal via Roe v. Wade in 1973. The flick is called ROE v. WADE the Movie.

 

VIDEO: ROE v. WADE The Movie INDIEGOGO CAMPAIGN

 

Posted by Roe v. Wade The Movie

Published on Jan 8, 2018

 

Indiegogo Campaign for “Roe v. Wade” Launches January 10, 2018.

[Blog Editor: You can donate to the cause with this link:] https://tinyurl.com/yaz6zehk

 

I’m running with the WND story on Facebook censorship, but should note that Breitbart claims Facebook is backing off on the censorship if “crowdfunding” for the movie. However, the Breitbart story shows how Facebook took crowdfunding page down, then restored the page and then took it down again. Ergo, as of this post, who knows how many times Facebook will remove and restore.

 

JRH 1/13/18

Please Support NCCR

****************

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE

Theatrical drama to tell ‘true story’ of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood

 

By ART MOORE

January 12, 2018

WND

 

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

 

A crowdfunding site for a theatrical drama in production that promises to tell the “true story” of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a “right” to abortion has been blocked by Facebook.

 

The movie’s producer, Nick Loeb, told WND the content of the pro-life movie, which exposes Planned Parenthood’s roots in the eugenics movement, clearly is the reason for the censorship.

 

Actor and producer Nick Loeb

“They have even blocked people sharing the ads I paid for,” Loeb said.

 

“This is stealing or fraud.”

 

Facebook has not responded to requests for an explanation.

Loeb told WND he and his colleagues are looking for a lawyer to take on the case.

 

Learn the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

 

The executive producer of the movie is Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and the head of the group Civil Rights for the Unborn.

 

The film features Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight as a Supreme Court justice.

 

On the film’s Indiegogo crowdfunding page, the makers describe it as “the real untold story of how people lied; how the media lied; and how the courts were manipulated to pass a law that has since killed over 60 million Americans.”

 

“Many documentaries have been made, but no one has had the courage to make an actual feature film, a theatrical movie about the true story.”

 

The producers, calling it the “most important pro-life movie in history,” say Hollywood “only wants you to hear their version of the story,” noting there are three movies in development that take a pro-abortion stance.

 

“But you shouldn’t be surprised. Hollywood has always had an agenda to influence Americans to accept abortion, even if they have to re-write history to do it.”

The movie opens with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, speaking about her “Negro project” initiative aimed at reducing the growth of African-American population in the United States.

 

It continues as abortionist Bernard Nathanson joins with famed feminist-activist Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood to recruit for a legal case “a broke girl with a 10th grade education named Norma McCorvey,” who became known as “Jane Roe.”

 

The opposition to the activists seeking to legalize abortion is led by the film’s protagonist, Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, who believed “that she became a doctor to protect life, not destroy it.”

 

Later, Nathanson, through the help of new sonogram technology, “realizes he is killing babies, confesses to all the lies and becomes a leading activist in the pro-life movement,” and McCorvey, realizing she had been manipulated, also joins the pro-life cause.

 

Internet freedom

 

WND reported last month censorship of Christian and conservative speech online by tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple is the target of an initiative called Internet Freedom Watch, launched by the National Religious Broadcasters.

 

The initiative has established a website, InternetFreedomWatch.org, to document cases, including Twitter’s removal of an ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., in October and Facebook’s removal of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s post supporting Chick-fil-A in 2012.

 

NRB, which has published a chart with more than 30 instances of Internet censorship, said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a former Federal Communications Commission commissioner have endorsed the effort.

 

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has accused Twitter and other tech companies of being disingenuous by arguing for a free and open Internet while they “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.”

 

NRB also wants Congress to hold hearings on the “severe problem of viewpoint censorship on the Internet.”

 

In a recent case noted by Internet Freedom Watch, PJ Media D.C. editor Bridget Johnson was suspended from Twitter with no warning or explanation.

 

WND reported in August that days after the launch of a book arguing fascism and Nazism are ideological spawns of the left, author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and his promotion team were locked out of his Facebook page by hackers.

____________________

DONATE TO WND

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

The Secret History of Planned Parenthood


Taken too soon: Walter’s tiny heart was still beating as his mother and father said their goodbyes

Normally these types of emails are mere fund raisers. Indeed there is funding request in this email, BUT it doesn’t happen until Martin Fox has his say about the myth that Margaret Sanger – the founder of Planned Parenthood – was a great American who stood for women’s health.

VIDEO: Human Capital – Episode 3: Planned Parenthood’s Custom Abortions for Superior Product

 

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on Published on Aug 19, 2015

Image of Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks, from
****************************************­*

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

#PPSellsBabyParts PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTED BABY’S HEART STILL BEATING IN LATE-TERM ORGAN HARVESTING CASE

Whistleblower Who Harvested Aborted Baby Parts Inside Planned Parenthood Clinics for StemExpress Describes “Most Difficult Experience I Had There” In Latest Documentary Episode

Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 19–The third episode in a new documentary web series and 7th video on Planned Parenthood’s supply of aborted fetal tissue tells a former procurement technician’s harrowing story of harvesting an intact brain from a late-term male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

The “Human Capital” documentary web series, produced by The Center for Medical Progress, integrates expert interviews, eyewitness accounts, and real-life undercover interactions to explore different themes within Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal tissue. Episode 3, “Planned Parenthood’s Custom Abortions for Superior Product,” launches READ THE REST

After looking at and reading Margaret Sanger’s legacy Martin Fox gives out a brief history you probably won’t see on TV. Do some simple research (Good Place to Start: HERE and HERE) on Planned Parenthood’s beloved founder.

JRH 8/30/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

The Secret History of Planned Parenthood

Sent by Martin Fox

Sent: August 30, 2015 12:34 PM

Sent from: National Pro-Life Alliance

Planned Parenthood has recently garnered national attention for harvesting and trafficking in unborn babies’ organs.

Yet pro-abortion politicians are swarming to their defense.

In fact, front-running presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released an ad declaring her full throated support for the abortion giant.

And specifically, Hillary has heaped praise upon Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.

“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”

And as far as “vision” goes, Planned Parenthood more than lives up to its founder’s barbaric expectations.

Sanger made her vision for Planned Parenthood perfectly clear when she wrote that she did “not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

You read that right.

Sanger went on to call for the “cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds…”

In fact, Sanger even spoke at a Ku Klux Klan meeting in New Jersey to overwhelming applause, and received dozens of more invitations from similar groups.

The fruits of Sanger’s “vision” for Planned Parenthood can still be seen today, as 78% of Planned Parenthood clinics can be found in minority communities.

And in New York City alone, more black babies are aborted than born every year.

The fact is, there is nothing “courageous” about ending innocent human lives.

And as the truth about Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby continues to be exposed, you and I must keep up the fight to end this slaughter once and for all.

For Life,

Martin Fox, President
National Pro-Life Alliance

P.S. If you can, please chip in with a contribution by clicking here. Your National Pro-Life Alliance is entirely dependent on voluntary contributions to keep our vital programs running. We receive no government funding.

_________________________

NPLA Mission

Because every human life is precious in the eyes of God, and science and common sense dictate that life begins at conception, it is clear that abortion is the wanton taking of human life and no truly great nation can allow this practice to take place.

Ever since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 55 million precious unborn babies have lost their lives.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s members, staff and volunteers are dedicated to halting this slaughter once and for all. And despite the many remaining obstacles, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

National Pro-Life Alliance’s Focus Is Passing Substantive Pro-Life Legislation

The National Pro-Life Alliance occupies a unique and important role in the pro-life movement. The focus of many other pro-life organizations is research, publications or counseling.

These are all important and worthy activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that READ THE REST

Palin uses Photo to Slap Reality into Leftists


John R. Houk

© July 29, 2015

Updated 7/29/15 5:55 PM

Sarah Palin has posted a simple photo on her Facebook page that has a powerful message for Democrats, Lefts, Baby-Killers and BLT activists. The photo has side-by-side a Confederate Flag and the logo of Planned Parenthood. The caption on the photo: “WHICH SYMBOL KILLED 90,000 Black Babies Last Year”.

The Confederate Flag deserves to be controversial. On one hand it is the vestige symbol of African-American slavery to White masters. On the other hand the Confederate Flag is a symbol of southern American culture that in all honesty was more than the horrors of man owning other men and women as property on par with livestock.

Here is an excerpt from an American southerner that ennobles Southern Culture in the Antebellum days:

We specify the Southern Gentleman and Southern Lady as opposed to the simple terms of “gentleman” or “lady”. There is a difference. The word “gentleman” is also used for the English tradition of the gentleman. That is largely determined by birth and the English nobility structure. The Southern Gentleman, on the other hand, has no formal connection to the family one was born into other than the fact that the characteristics of a Southern Gentleman are usually passed down from one generation to the next in families that value those characteristics. One can overcome the place and circumstances of his birth and be a Southern Gentleman by making the decision to follow that path. The “Southern” in Southern Gentleman also refers to the warmth and traditions of Southern culture.

… Like true nobility, being a Southern Gentleman is determined by actions – not by birth.

… (Southern Culture and Heritage; By Stephen McGehee; The Southern Agrarian)

Daniel Lawrence Slusser writes of the mythic sense of Southern honor and the sense of superiority of the Southern Gentlemen:

The Southern Code was not a written law, but an unspoken tradition that prescribed proper behavior and specific punishment for those who deviated from the “proper” course. It covered nearly every aspect of a Southern gentleman’s life, including: how a gentleman should speak to a woman, the proper relationship between a white man and his slave, the proper mode of dueling with other gentlemen, and the appropriate means of punishment for slander.9 Yet, the Code’s prescribed punishments were not meant to apply solely to the uncouth brigands in the North. In the Southern gentleman’s mind they were applicable to any dispute between men in the North or the South. …

The decades preceding the Civil War saw the emergence of a new type of gentleman known as the Southern cavalier. These cavaliers were a kind of puffed up Southern gentleman playboy that viewed himself as a valiant knight of royal white descent who claimed the right to demand reverence. …

… It was administered in a manner that was endorsed by the “Southern Code”; a code that existed for the purpose of defining and protecting honor. The fixation of the Southern gentry on this perceived need for honor motivated a violent response to the negative judgments cast by Northerners. Ultimately, this tendency to violent defense of honor helped to precipitate the Civil War and made the idea of entering into such a war more palatable to Southerners. It may have made some of them even relish it.31 Later, during the course of the Civil War, Southern General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson expressed this Southern morbid honor sentiment at Harpers Ferry: “What is life without honor? Degradation is worse than death.”32 (IN DEFENSE OF SOUTHERN HONOR: PRESTON BROOKS AND THE ATTACK ON CHARLES SUMNER; By Daniel Lawrence Slusser; Digital Commons; 2010)

AND YET this same Southern Culture was one of the last bastions of slavery in the Western World (Brazil being the last North/South American nation to abolish slavery in 1888). A culture that treated human beings as chattel to be worked to the whims of a slave owner’s benevolence or brutality. AND even if benevolence was the rule the rule of law enforced among the Southern Slave States were brutal and harsh as only a slave culture can be to exist. Here is an excerpt from Boundless.com that portrays the worst case scenario for Americans:

General Elements in Slave Treatment

 

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied widely depending on conditions, times and places. Treatment was generally characterized by brutality, degradation, and inhumanity. Whippings, executions, and rapes were commonplace. Exceptions, however, did exist to virtually every generalization, for instance, there were slaves who employed white workers, slave doctors who treated upper-class white patients, and slaves who rented-out their labor. These are not, however, the common rule.

Slaves were generally denied the opportunity to learn to read or write, in order to ensure that they did not form aspirations that could lead to escape or rebellion. Medical care to slaves was generally provided by other slaves or by slaveholders’ family members. Many slaves possessed medical skills needed to tend to each other, and used many folk remedies brought from Africa. After such well-known rebellions as that by Nat Turner, in 1831, some states prohibited slaves from holding religious gatherings, as slaveholders feared such meetings would facilitate communication and might lead to rebellion.

Sexual Abuses

Slavery in the United States included frequent rape and sexual abuse of slave women. Many slaves fought back against sexual attacks, and many died resisting. Others carried psychological and physical scars from the attacks. Sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in a patriarchal Southern culture which READ ENTIRETY(Treatment of Slaves in the U.S.; Boundless.com; 7/21/15)

And here is a less pathological picture of slavery but still not a life a free person encompassed with Constitutional Rights:

It is a mistake to think that slave labor was mostly unskilled brutish work. Cultivation of cotton, tobacco, rice, and sugar requires careful, painstaking effort. On larger plantations, masters relied on slave carpenters, bricklayers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, tanners, tailors, butchers, masons, coopers, cabinet makers, metal workers, and silversmiths. Large numbers also worked as boatmen, waiters, cooks, drivers, housemaids, spinners, and weavers.

During the 1850s, half a million slaves lived in southern towns and cities, where they worked in textile mills, iron works, tobacco factories, laundries, and shipyards. Other slaves labored as lumberjacks, as deckhands on riverboats, and in sawmills, gristmills, and quarries. Many slaves were engaged in construction of roads and railroads.

Most slave labor, however, was used in planting, cultivating, and harvesting cotton, hemp, rice, tobacco, or sugar cane. On a typical plantation, slaves worked ten or more hours a day, “from day clean to first dark,” six days a week, with only the Sabbath off. At planting or harvesting time, planters required slaves to stay in the fields 15 or 16 hours a day. When they were not raising a cash crop, slaves grew other crops, such as corn or potatoes; cared for livestock; and cleared fields, cut wood, repaired buildings and fences. On cotton, sugar, and tobacco plantations, slaves worked together in gangs under the supervision of a supervisor or a driver.

There is a tendency to think of slavery as an economically backward and inefficient institution. In fact, sugar and cotton plantations were the most innovative economic unit of their time in terms of labor management and organization. They anticipated the assembly line and the factory system in their reliance on such as close supervision and division of tasks.

Slave masters extracted labor from virtually the entire slave community, young, old, healthy, and physically impaired. Children as young as three or four were put to work, usually in special “trash gangs” weeding fields, carrying drinking water, picking up trash, and helping in the kitchen. Young children also fed chickens and livestock, gathered wood chips for fuel, and drove cows to pasture. Between the ages of seven and twelve, boys and girls were put to work in intensive field work. Older or physically handicapped slaves were put to work in cloth houses, spinning cotton, weaving cloth, and making clothes.

Because slaves had no direct incentive to work hard, slaveowners combined harsh penalties with positive incentives. Some masters denied passes to disobedient slaves. Others confined recalcitrant slaves to private jails. Chains and shackles were widely used to control runaways. Whipping was a key part of plantation discipline.

But physical pain was not enough to elicit hard work. Some masters gave slaves small garden plots and permitted them to sell their produce. Others distributed gifts of food or money at the end of the year. Still other planters awarded prizes, holidays, and yearend bonuses to particularly productive slaves. (Slave Labor; Digital History ID 3041; Digital History; © 2014 [Look at: The Origins and Nature of New World Slavery])

Thus the Confederate Flag is certain to inspire reactions that could lead to some human conflict.

Then enters Sarah Palin’s contrasting photo that should lead an intelligent person to comprehend that no matter the rights and wrongs of Antebellum society, the abortions voluntarily embarked upon simply as birth control has cost more human lives than African-Americans experienced as slaves than the human souls extinguished in the name of birth control. Palin pointed points out those murdered babies numbered 90,000 African-American babies in 2014 alone.

Forget all the arguments that abortions performed due rape, incest, birth defects or saving the life of the mother are necessary. I have some personal feelings on those issues; nonetheless the humongous amount of abortions occur as an activity of birth control after sex between a consenting male and a consenting female. There is no other way to define such abortion as the murder of a human soul that has not been born.

ALSO the feminist/Leftist argument that a woman has rights over her own body is completely ludicrous. A human soul inside a woman’s body is kept alive by the woman but is absolutely separate from her body. HENCE terminating an unborn baby inside a woman’s body is essentially murder. No matter how many times one tries to call an unborn baby a fetus as if it is the same as an

appendix, it simply is not true. That organ medicine calls a fetus is a human soul. Terminating the human soul is murder. Since SCOTUS legislated from the bench in Roe v. Wade forcing legalized abortion there have been “57,762,169 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973”. Just so I know you read that number, since 1973 nearly FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION babies have been murdered by doctors primarily as birth control between consensual sexually active males and females.

The number one purveyor baby killing in the USA is Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was founded in 1942. It grew out of the American Birth Control League, which was established in 1923 by the radical social activist Margaret Sanger

Today, PPFA is the largest abortion provider in the United States, with some 850 clinics around the country (down from a peak of 938 in 1995). …

PPFA opposes any limitations on access to abortion, including the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and also opposes mandatory parental notification for minors wishing to undergo the procedure. Approximately one-third of PPFA’s clients are girls younger than 18 who live with one or both parents. Some 97 percent of these girls qualify for federal assistance to reimburse a provider of social services. This is because PPFA teaches its affiliates how to exploit federal “family planning” programs by qualifying as many clients as possible for federal subsidies of pregnancy tests, contraceptives, and abortions covered by Medicaid.

READ ENTIRETY (PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA (PPFA); Discover The Networks)

If you have listened to the news in the last week or so you are aware Planned Parenthood – America’s baby killing machine – has been caught callously talking about aborted murdered baby parts to sell for research:

A shocking video released by a pro-life activist group Tuesday shows a top Planned Parenthood executive on a hidden camera bragging about how the abortion provider’s doctors perform the procedure so skillfully that infant body parts can be salvaged for sale.

The video, shot by investigators for LifeNews, was shot in 2014. It wasn’t clear why it wasn’t released until now.

On it, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation senior director of medical services, is with actors who are posing as buyers interested in purchasing infant body parts. She literally brags about how she aborts babies in such a way that she can harvest their parts.

(Warning: Contents will disturb some viewers.)

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on July 14, 2015

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola said on the video. “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola added. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

According to the video, besides being repugnant, the practice is also illegal.

U.S. federal law states that, “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.”

In one of the most disturbing parts of the video, Nucatola admitted she didn’t always know what the body parts were going to be used for.

“Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. I mean that’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess they want muscle,” she said while casually eating a salad.

The Twitterverse was rife with users damning the abortion provider. (Planned Parenthood director caught on video proudly selling aborted baby body parts; By Carmine Sabia; BizPac Review; 7/14/15)

The Center for Medical Progress released this video further exposing the heinous actions of Planned Parenthood:

VIDEO: Human Capital – Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on Jul 28, 2015

Background track “Cylinder Four” by Chris Zabriskie () used under Attribution License (). CMP claims no ownership of this track.

Fetus animation adapted from Nils Tavernier, “L’odyssee de la vie” () under fair use. CMP claims no ownership of this artwork.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

#PPSellsBabyParts EX-CLINIC WORKER REVEALS PROFIT MOTIVE IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD BABY PARTS SALES, VP MEDICAL DIRECTOR PRICES BODY PARTS “PER ITEM”

“We Can See How Much We Can Get Out of It,” says Planned Parenthood Affiliate VP; Whistleblower Who Harvested Aborted Baby Parts Details Traumatic Job in Planned Parenthood Clinics in New Documentary Web Series

Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004

LOS ANGELES, July 28–The first episode in a new documentary web series features a woman who once worked in Planned Parenthood clinics describing the profit motive involved in Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts, and includes new admissions from top-level Planned Parenthood leadership about the illicit pricing structure.

The “Human Capital” documentary web series is produced by The Center for Medical Progress and integrates expert interviews, eyewitness accounts, and real-life undercover interactions to tell the story of Planned Parenthood’s commercial exploitation of aborted fetal tissue. Episode 1, “Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts,” launches today at:

Episode 1 introduces Holly O’Donnell, a licensed phlebotomist who unsuspectingly took a job as a “procurement technician” at the fetal tissue company and biotech start-up StemExpress in late 2012. “I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says O’Donnell, who fainted in shock on her first day of work in a Planned Parenthood clinic when suddenly asked to dissect a freshly-aborted fetus during her on-the-job training.

For 6 months, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant women at Planned Parenthood who met criteria for fetal tissue orders and to harvest the fetal body parts after their abortions. O’Donnell describes the financial benefit Planned Parenthood received from StemExpress: “For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated.”

Episode 1 also shows undercover video featuring the Vice President and Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) in Denver, CO, Dr. Savita Ginde. PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates clinics in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde concludes that payment per organ removed from a fetus will be the most beneficial to Planned Parenthood: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Dr. Katherine Sheehan, Medical Director emerita of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest in San Diego, describes her affiliate’s long-time relationship with Advanced Bioscience Resources, a middleman company that has been providing aborted fetal organs since 1989: “We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.”

“Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts is an offensive and horrifying reality that is widespread enough for many people to be available to give first-person testimony about it,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for The Center for Medical Progress. “CMP’s investigative journalism work will continue to surface more compelling eyewitness accounts and primary source evidence of Planned Parenthood’s trafficking and selling baby parts for profit. There should be an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while Congress and the states determine the full extent of the organization’s lawbreaking.”

###

See the video at:

Tweet: #PPSellsBabyParts

For more information on the Human Capital project, visit centerformedicalprogress.org.

The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.

Check out what the Center for Medical Progress did for the Planned Parenthood hacks and Leftists that are spinning these expose videos are edited propaganda taken out of context. They posted a full unedited version to demonstrate nothing was taken out of context:

VIDEO: FULL FOOTAGE: Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices – 1:13.37

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on July 21, 2015

EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:00 AM ET, 21 JULY 2015

#PPSellsBabyParts SECOND PLANNED PARENTHOOD SENIOR EXECUTIVE HAGGLES OVER BABY PARTS PRICES, CHANGES ABORTION METHODS

President of PPFA Medical Directors’ Council Mary Gatter Doesn’t Want to “Lowball” Price, Suggests “Less Crunchy” Technique, Says She Wants a Lamborghini

Contact: Peter Robbio, probbio@crcpublicrelations.com, 703.683.5004

LOS ANGELES, July 21—A second undercover video shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Dr. Mary Gatter, haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique” to get more intact body parts.

It is similar to last week’s viral video showing PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola admitting to using partial-birth abortions to get intact parts and suggesting a price range of $30 to $100 per specimen.

Gatter is a senior official within Planned Parenthood and is President of the Medical Directors’ Council, the central committee of all Planned Parenthood affiliate medical directors.

Actors posing as buyers ask Gatter, “What would you expect for intact [fetal] tissue?”

“Well, why don’t you start by telling me what you’re used to paying!” Gatter replies.

Gatter continues: “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out READ THE REST at Youtube post

Planned Parenthood is an organization that has a transformist agenda and ideology that I am certain brings a twinkle of glee to President Barack Hussein Obama. That transformist agenda/ideology was planted by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Here are some DTN excerpts that shows Sanger more as an Anti-American rather than a righteous women’s rights activist:

· Founder of Planned Parenthood

· Marxist

· Feminist

· Opened America’s first birth-control clinic in 1916

· Advocate of eugenics

Margaret Higgins Sanger was a radical feminist, eugenicist, Marxist, and the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

In 1912 Sanger and her family settled in New York City. She became a member of both the Women’s Committee and the Marxist Committee of the New York Socialist Party. “Our living-room,” she would write in her 1938 autobiography, “became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists and I.W.W.’s [Industrial Workers of the World members] could meet.”

After separating from her husband in 1913, Sanger began writing an eight-page monthly feminist-socialist newsletter called The Woman Rebel, which often promoted contraceptive use and sex education. Using the slogan “No Gods and No Masters,” The Woman Rebel was distributed through the mail, and once again Sanger came under fire for violation of the Comstock Law. In 1914 she was indicted on criminal charges but promptly fled to England.

Sanger’s reasons for advocating birth control stemmed, in part, from her views on race and heredity. She was a devoted eugenicist who advocated forced sterilization — of the poor and the mentally deficient, in particular, who she believed were likely to produce “subnormal” offspring — for the purpose of improving society’s overall gene pool. Examples of her ideas on selective breeding are found throughout her columns and newsletters. For instance, she wrote:

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.”

“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind,” Sanger elaborated.

At a March 1925 international birth-control event in New York City, Sanger advocated — for the “salvation of American civilization” — the sterilization of those “unfit” to procreate. In addition, she condemned the “irresponsible and reckless” rates of procreation among those “whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She was referring specifically to Catholics who rejected the use of contraception. “There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people,” she added, “that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”

In her quest to engineer a civilization devoid of “subnormal children,” Sanger often worked jointly with groups and individuals whose goals vis a vis eugenics overlapped with her own, even if their larger agendas differed from hers. In 1926, for instance, she presented a lecture on birth control to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. In September 1930 she invited Nazi anthropologist Eugen Fischer (whose ideas were cited by the Nazis to legitimize the extermination of Jews) to meet with her at her home.

Sanger’s commitment to eugenic “sexual science” dovetailed seamlessly with her Marxist vision. While she had been heartened by the success of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, she doubted that a revolution for a new communist order in the U.S. could be carried out by a proletariat class of limited intellectual capacity. … Sanger wrote in The Pivot of Civilization, “my purpose is not to depreciate the efforts of Socialists aiming to create a new society, … unless sexual science is incorporated … and the pivotal importance of birth control is recognized in any program of reconstruction, all efforts to create a new world and a new civilization are foredoomed to failure.”

… Sanger turned her attention specifically to the reproductive practices of black Americans. She selected former ABCL director Clarence J. Gamble (of the Procter and Gamble company) to become BCFA’s southern regional director. That November, Gamble drew up a memorandum titled “Suggestion for Negro Project,” whose ultimate aim was to decrease the black birth rate significantly. Anticipating that black leaders would be suspicious of anyone exhorting African Americans to have fewer children, Gamble suggested that BCFA place black leaders in high positions within the organization, so as to give the appearance that they were in charge of the group’s agendas. BCFA presented birth control as a vehicle for the upward economic mobility of blacks.

READ ENTIRETY (MARGARET SANGER; Determine The Networks)

Margaret Sanger was a Marxist-Nazi Admiring racist determined to bring a New World Order devoid of the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights. So which issue is more heinous? A Confederate Flag representing a long gone culture or Planned Parenthood still nefariously killing babies for bucks.

JRH 7/28/15 (Hat Tip: Noisy Room)

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Sarah Palin’s rebel flag scores direct hit on Planned Parenthood

By Steve Berman

July 28, 2015

BizPac Review

 

Nothing makes heads explode on the left faster than flinging their own banned images in their face, and Sarah Palin has scored a direct hit.

Palin’s recent Facebook post featuring an image of the Confederate battle flag side by side with Planned Parenthood’s logo poses the question: “which symbol killed 90,000 black babies last year?”

The post has garnered over 120,000 “likes” since Sunday.

Since the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress released its first undercover video on July 14, which shows one of its executives, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, negotiating the price of aborted babies’ body parts with investigators posing as buyers, Palin has nearly exclusively devoted her Facebook page — with 4.4 million followers — to taking down the abortion provider.

Posts using the hashtag #defundplannedparenthood feature statistics such as CEO Cecile Richards is paid $1.50 for each abortion performed (her annual salary is $500,000), and that 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

As of Tuesday, Sunday’s post has generated over 5,000 comments, many of them personal attacks on the pro-life movement. When liberals post “Lol Sarah’s just salty because she is an aborted fetus all grown up” and “Sarah Palin is dumber than a ten pound sack of stupid,” it’s a good indication that a nerve has been struck.

Watching the left twist itself into pretzels defending the killing of unborn innocents while digging up the grave of long-dead Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest because of the rebel flag would be amusing it if were not so outrageously ghoulish — and painfully sad.

____________________________________________________

Palin uses Photo to Slap Reality into Leftists

John R. Houk

© July 29, 2015

____________________________________________________

Sarah Palin’s rebel flag scores direct hit on Planned Parenthood

 

Steve Berman

Steve is a serial entrepreneur who has been starting and running businesses for 25 years. Writing about conservative causes is his passion.

 

Copyright © 2015. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview

Baby Killing and God Almighty


John R. Houk
© April 7, 2015
 
 
Published by mendel7
Published on Published on Oct 3, 2012
 
Yurki1000 responded to a comment presented by a person who calls himself “That guy” who wrote quite a pejorative comment to a January 2014 post entitled “Be informed: What Girl Scouts USA does with their cookie ‘dough’”. The original post was about the Girl Scouts of America became supportive of the baby killing machine known as Planned Parenthood. One thing to keep in mind about Planned Parenthood is that it was founded by Margaret Sanger who was a promoter of Nazi-style eugenics. Sanger’s eugenics theories were utilized the belief that African Americans were an inferior race and that the physically and mentally handicapped could be eliminated by weeding out the gene from the populace via abortion (aka baby killing).
 
Before I proceed further I’ll share an edited version of “That guy’s” profanity laced Left Wing defense of Planned Parenthood:
 
You’re ridiculous [sic], making the scouts [i.e. the Girl Scouts] out to be little minions of satan killing babies with every small oz. of nougat and coconut goodness. If you boycotted every institution that did supposed “immoral” things you’d most likely be starving, homeless and without a country to live in. It is total douches like you helping create ignorance and further the lack of intelligence in people. I hope you didn’t have kids that will one day grow up to be as ignorant as yourself. [Sounds like a disciple of Margaret Sanger, right?]
 
Instead of pointing the finger at those “damn liberals and their baby killing ways, maybe try looking deeper into your closed minded DEMOCRATIC leaders (not just the right but also the left) who sign bills with no regard of which let your children ingest poison from Monsanto and give them immunity in any court of law within the USA [Like there is an equivalent comparison between baby killing and a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) like companies like Monsanto that modify plant food genetically with potential harmful side effects]. If your child gets liver cancer from a roundup [Roundup Ready] soaked [More on Roundup GMOs] tomato, you can’t do sh*t but put more money in their pockets with her medical bills.
 
I’ve said my piece. Pick your battles wisely you f**k*ng goof ball. [Comment from That guy; 4/2/15 12:21 AM; Text and Links enclosed by brackets by this Editor]
 
Adding genetically modified material to a plant hoping for a better food product is not the same as killing unborn babies to terminate the genetic line of humans that race-supremacists dream of to eliminate the perceived detriments to the human race. Even though the overall concept of GMO foods may have long health risks for all human health, the intention is to increase the food supply for the growing population. (The scary thing is if Leftist population control advocates begin using GMOs to actually phase certain humans much like Sanger thought she could do with murder.)
 
 
Published by WestPhillyGurl
Published on Jan 3, 2011
 
Here are some titles with embedded links so you can get a good picture of the racist/master-race eugenics of the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
 
·         GROSSU: Margaret Sanger, racist eugenicist extraordinaireWashington Times 5/5/14
 
 
·         The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black America – (Part one of six part post) BlackGenocide.org © 2012
 
Now in setting up the nefarious nature of Planned Parenthood’s beginnings and matching that to the fact that PP’s nationwide baby-killing machines are responsible for the most murderous abortions in America. Yurki11000’s comment focuses on Roe v. Wade in 1973 opening the floodgates of legalized baby-killing as measured to the Biblical morality of the debacle initiated by America’s Left.
 
Yurki1000 excerpted a 2013 Denison Forum essay entitled “WHAT ABORTION HAS COST AMERICA’S FUTURE”. I encourage to read the entire relevant essay but here I am just utilizing Yurki1000’s comment excerpt.  Within the Jim Denison essay is a link to another Denison essay written in 2011. That very informative and yes, very lengthy, essay examines abortion from through the eyes of a Christian but in a fair way presents the Pro-Choice (idiots) view validating abortion. That is a good read to start, refer back to occasionally and learn. That essay is entitled “ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD”. I am cross posting Denison’s essay directly after Yurki1000’s excerpt comment.
 
JRH 4/7/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************
 
 Roe v Wade
Of course many businesses are bad. But still. God’s opinion counts.
 
 Thou Shalt Not Kill
 
 SCOTUS rules abortion legal
 
“State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
 
The year was 1971, and the date was December 13th. Roe v. Wade was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on January 22nd on 1973, 39 years ago, the Court ruled to protect a woman’s right to access an abortion. This week marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that struck down many state laws restricting abortion. Surprisingly, only 44 percent of Americans under age 30 know that Roe deals with abortion. Even more surprisingly, 53 percent of Americans think abortion “is not that important, compared to other issues.” Here’s why they’re wrong.
 
Since Roe, more than 55 million lives have been aborted. According to the Movement for a Better America, the resulting labor lost to our nation will cost our future GDP some $45 trillion. By comparison, our national debt stands at $16 trillion. Consider the impact on Social Security: each day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65. At current trends, Social Security will be bankrupt in 21 years. One major reason: of the generation under 45 whose taxes support Social Security, a third was aborted.
 
______________________________
ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD
 
By Jim Denison
July 22, 2011 17:04
 
Every year, approximately 40,000 people die on American highways. Every ten days, that many abortions are performed in America. Doctors conduct 1.5 million abortions every year in the United States, more than the total of all America’s war dead across our history.

Since the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in January of 1973, more than 48 million abortions have been performed in America. This is a number larger than the combined populations of Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Depending on the year, an abortion occurs for every three or four live births in our country.

Abortion is the moral issue of our time. It seems impossible to wrestle with the difficult issues of our day without addressing this crucial debate. Most conservative Christians believe that life begins at conception and abortion is therefore wrong. But are we sure? Is this a biblical fact? If the answer is clear, why have so many denominational leaders taken pro-choice positions? Is there a biblical, cohesive, practical position on this difficult subject?

I began this essay with the conviction that the pro-life position is most biblical. But I did not know much about the legal issues involved, or the theological arguments for a woman’s right to choose abortion. As you will see, the debate is much more complex than either side’s rhetoric might indicate. But I believe that there is an ethical position which even our relativistic society might embrace.

Choosing sides

An “abortion” occurs when a “conceptus” is caused to die. To clarify vocabulary, “conceptus” is a general term for pre-born life growing in the mother’s womb. More specifically, doctors often speak of the union of a sperm and an ovum as a “zygote.” A growing zygote is an “embryo.” When the embryo reaches around seven weeks of age, it is called a “fetus.” However, “fetus” is usually used in the abortion debate to describe all pre-born life.

A “miscarriage” is a spontaneous, natural abortion. An “indirect abortion” occurs when actions taken to cure the mother’s illness cause the unintended death of the fetus. A “direct abortion” occurs when action is taken to cause the intended death of the fetus.

Why do so many people in America believe that a mother should have the right to choose direct abortion?

In 1973, the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade, its landmark abortion ruling. In essence, the Court overturned state laws limiting a woman’s right to abortion. Its decision was largely based on the argument that the Constitution nowhere defines a fetus as a person, or protects the rights of the unborn.

Rather, the Court determined that an unborn baby possesses only “potential life” and is not yet a “human being” or “person.” It argued that every constitutional reference to “person” relates to those already born. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees protections and rights to individuals, but the Court ruled that the amendment does not include the unborn.

The Court further determined that a woman’s “right to privacy” extends to her ability to make her own choices regarding her health and body. Just as she has the right to choose to become pregnant, she has the right to end that pregnancy. The Court suggested several specific reasons why she might choose abortion: “specific and direct harm” may come to her; “maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future”; “psychological harm may be imminent”; “mental and physical health may be taxed by child care”; problems may occur associated with bearing unwanted children; and “the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood” should be considered.[1]Since 1973, four positions have been taken in the abortion debate:

 
·         There should be no right to an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. This has been the Catholic Church’s usual position.
 
·         Therapeutic abortions can be performed to save the mother’s life.
 
·         Extreme case abortions can be permitted in cases of rape, incest, or severe deformation of the fetus. Most pro-life advocates would accept therapeutic and extreme case abortions.
 
·         Abortion should be available to any woman who chooses it. This is the typical “pro-choice” position.
 
Moral arguments for abortion [2]
 
“Pro-choice” advocates make five basic claims: (1) no one can say when a fetus becomes a person, so the mother is the most appropriate person to make decisions regarding it; (2) abortion must be protected so a woman who is the victim of rape or incest does not have to bear a child resulting from such an attack; (3) no unwanted child should be brought into the world; (4) the state has no right to legislate personal morality; and (5) a woman must be permitted to make pregnancy decisions in light of her life circumstances. Many theologians, pastors, and denominational leaders consider these claims to be both biblical and moral.

First, “pro-choice” proponents argue that a fetus is not legally a “person.” They agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the Constitution nowhere grants legal standing to a pre-born life. Only 40 to 50 percent of fetuses survive to become persons in the full sense. A fetus belongs to the mother until it attains personhood, and is morally subject to any action she wishes to take with it.

Second, abortion must be protected as an alternative for women who are the victims of rape or incest. While this number is admittedly small in this country (approximately one percent of all abortions), it is growing in many countries around the world. As many as one in three women may become the victim of such an attack. They must be spared the further trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

Third, no unwanted children should be brought into the world. If a woman does not wish to bear a child, she clearly will not be an appropriate or effective mother if the child is born. Given the population explosion occurring in many countries of the world, abortion is a necessary option for women who do not want children. The woman is more closely involved with the fetus than any other individual, and is the best person to determine whether or not this child is wanted and will receive proper care.

Fourth, the state has no right to legislate our personal moral decisions. The government has no authority to restrict homosexuality, consensual sex, cigarette consumption, or other individual decisions which many people consider to be wrong. Since there is no constitutional standard for when life begins, decisions made regarding a fetus are likewise a matter for individual morality.

The state should impose legislation on moral questions only when this legislation expresses the clear moral consensus of the community, and when it prevents conduct which obviously threatens the public welfare. Nearly everyone condemns murder, for instance, and believes that it threatens us all. But Americans are divided on the morality of abortion. It is hard to see how aborting a fetus threatens the rest of the community.

And so abortion should not be subject to governmental control. It is better to allow a mother to make this decisions than to legislate it through governmental action. Many who personally consider abortion to be wrong are persuaded by this argument and thus support the “pro-choice” position.

Fifth, the rights and concerns of the mother must take precedence over those of the fetus. Even if we grant fetuses limited rights, they must not supersede the rights of mothers, as the latter are clearly persons under the Constitution. If we allow abortion to protect her physical life, we should do so to protect her emotional health or quality of life as well.

This was one of the Court’s most significant arguments, as it sought to protect the mother’s mental and physical health. Many “pro-choice” advocates are especially persuaded by this argument, and view the abortion debate within the context of a woman’s right to control her own life.

Moral arguments against abortion

“Pro-life” advocates counter each of these claims with their own ethical arguments. First, they assert that a fetus is a human life and should be granted the full protection of the law. The fetus carries its parents’ genetic code and is a distinct person. It does not yet possess self-consciousness, reasoning ability, or moral awareness (the usual descriptions of a “person”), but neither do newborns or young children. As this is the central issue of the debate, we’ll say more about it in a moment.

Second, most “pro-life” advocates are willing to permit abortion in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. Since such cases typically account for only one to four percent of abortions performed, limiting abortion to these conditions would prevent the vast majority of abortions occurring in America.

Third, “pro-life” advocates agree that all children should be wanted, so they argue strongly for adoption as an alternative to abortion. They also assert that an unwanted child would rather live than die. By “pro-choice” logic, it would be possible to argue for infanticide and all forms of euthanasia as well as abortion.

Fourth, “pro-life” supporters do not see abortion legislation as an intrusion into areas of private morality. Protecting the rights of the individual is the state’s first responsibility. No moral state can overlook murder, whatever the personal opinions of those who commit it. The state is especially obligated to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves.

But what of the claim that legislation must always reflect the clear will of the majority and protect the public welfare? The collective will of the culture must never supersede what is right and wrong. For instance, marijuana is so popular that as many as 100 million Americans say they’ve tried it at least once. Nonetheless, we ban it because its harmful effects are clear to medical science. The effects of abortion on a fetus are obviously much more disastrous to the fetus. And just because society is unclear as to when life begins does not mean that the question is unknowable.

If more of the public understood the physical and ethical issues involved in abortion, the large majority would consider abortion to be a threat to public welfare. Abortion threatens the entire community in three ways: (1) it ends the lives of millions, on a level exceeding all wars and disasters combined; (2) it encourages sexual promiscuity; and (3) it permits women to make a choice which will plague many of them with guilt for years to come. And so abortion meets the standard for legislative relevance, and must be addressed and limited or abolished by the state.

Fifth, “pro-life” advocates want to encourage the health of both the mother and the child, and do not believe that we must choose between the two. As the rights of a mother are no more important than those of her newborn infant, so they are no more important than those of her pre-born child. The stress, guilt, and long-term mental anguish reported by many who abort their children must be considered. The legal right to abortion subjects a woman to pressure from her husband or sexual partner to end her pregnancy. Killing the fetus for the sake of the mother’s health is like remedying paranoia by killing all the imagined persecutors. For these reasons, “pro-life” advocates argue that a moral state must limit or prevent abortion.

When does life begin?

This is obviously the crucial question in the abortion debate. If life does not begin until the fetus is viable or the child is born, one can argue that the “right to life” does not extend to the pre-born and abortion should be considered both legal and moral. But if life begins at conception, there can be no moral justification for abortion, since this action kills an innocent person.

There are essentially three answers to our question. “Functionalism” states that the fetus is a “person” when it can act personally as a moral, intellectual, and spiritual agent. (Note that by this definition, some question whether a newborn infant would be considered a “person.”)

“Actualism” is the position that a fetus is a person if it possesses the potential for developing self-conscious, personal life. This definition would permit abortion when the fetus clearly does not possess the capacity for functional life.

“Essentialism” argues that the fetus is a person from conception, whatever its health or potential. It is an individual in the earliest stages of development, and deserves all the protections afforded to other persons by our society.

Our Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If an unborn child is considered a person, it possesses the “inalienable” right to life as well.

So, can we determine when life begins? Our answer depends on the definition of “life.” A “pro-choice” advocate recognizes that the fetus is alive in the sense that it is a biological entity. But so is every other part of a woman’s body. Some consider the fetus to be a “growth” and liken it to a tumor or other unwanted tissue. Biology alone is not enough to settle the issue.

What about capacity? Many ethicists define a “person” as someone able to respond to stimuli, interact with others, and make individual decisions. A fetus meets the first two standards from almost the moment of its conception, and clearly cannot fulfill the third only because it is enclosed in its mother’s body. Would a newborn baby fulfill these three conditions?

What about individuality? If we view a fetus as a “growth” within the mother’s body, it would be easier to sanction her choice to remove that growth if she wishes. But a fetus is distinct from its mother from the moment of its conception. It is alive–it reacts to stimuli, and can produce its own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity. It is human, completely distinguishable from all other living organisms, possessing all 46 human chromosomes, able to develop only into a human being. And it is complete–nothing new will be added except the growth and development of what exists from the moment of conception.

It is a scientific fact that every abortion performed in the United States is performed on a being so fully formed that its heart is beating and its brain activity can be measured on an EEG machine. At 12 weeks, the unborn baby is only about two inches long, yet every organ of the human body is clearly in place.

Theologian Karl Barth described the fetus well:

The embryo has its own autonomy, its own brain, its own nervous system, its own blood circulation. If its life is affected by that of the mother, it also affects hers. It can have its own illnesses in which the mother has no part. Conversely, it may be quite healthy even though the mother is seriously ill. It may die while the mother continues to live. It may also continue to live after its mother’s death, and be eventually saved by a timely operation on her dead body. In short, it is a human being in its own right.[3]And note that you did not come from a fetus–you were a fetus. A “fetus” is simply a human life in the womb. It becomes a “baby” outside the womb. But it is the same physical entity in either place.

For these reasons, “pro-life” advocates believe that the U. S. Supreme Court was wrong in deciding that a fetus is not a person entitled to the full protections of the law. Apart from spiritual or moral concerns, it is a simple fact of biology that the fetus possesses every attribute of human life we find in a newborn infant, with the exception of independent physical viability. Left unharmed, it will soon develop this capacity as well. If a life must be independently viable to be viewed as a person, a young child might well fail this standard, as would those of any age facing severe physical challenges.

 
The Bible and abortion

These statements are based on moral claims and legal arguments. They are intended to persuade society regardless of a person’s religious persuasion. But many in our culture also want to know what the Bible says on this crucial subject.

Silent on the issue?

“Abortion” appears nowhere in the Bible. No one in the Bible is ever described as having an abortion, encouraging one, or even dealing with one. The Bible says nothing which specifically addresses our subject. And so many have concluded that the issue is not a biblical concern but a private matter. They say that we should be silent where the Bible is silent.

“Pro-life” advocates counter that by this logic we should be silent regarding the “Trinity,” since the word never appears in Scripture. Or “marijuana” and “cocaine,” since they are not in a biblical concordance. However, these issues came after the biblical era, while abortion was common in the ancient world. So this argument doesn’t seem relevant.

If abortion is a biblical issue, why doesn’t the Bible address it specifically? The answer is simple: the Jewish people and first Christians needed no such guidance. It was an undeniable fact of their faith and culture that abortion was wrong. How do we know?

Consider early statements on the subject. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides are a book of Jewish wisdom written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50. They state that “a woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.”

The Sibylline Oracles are an ancient work of Jewish theology. They include among the wicked two groups: women who “produce abortions and unlawfully cast their offspring away” and sorcerers who dispense materials which cause abortions (2:339-42).

The Mishnah (“instruction”) was the written record of Jewish oral teachings transmitted since the time of Moses. These teachings were committed to writing around 200 B.C. In the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin we read: “We infer the death penalty for killing an embryo from the text, He who sheds the blood of a man within a man, his blood shall be shed; what is ‘a man within a man’? An embryo” (Sanhedrin 57b, quoting Genesis 9:6).

An abortion was permitted only to save the life of the mother:

If a woman was in hard travail [life-threatening labor], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the great part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life (Oholoth 7:6).

The Jews in the Old and New Testaments did not need to address the issue of abortion, since no one considered it a moral option. In a similar vein, I have never preached a sermon against cigarette smoking or plagiarism. The Bible does not specifically speak to these subjects, and they are legal within certain limits, but no one in our congregation would consider them to be moral or healthy choices.

When the Christian church moved out of its Jewish context, it encountered a culture which accepted the practice of abortion. And so, after the New Testament, Christians began speaking specifically to the subject.

For instance, the Didache (the earliest theological treatise after the Bible) states: “thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide.”[4] And the Epistle of Barnabas (early second century) adds, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thy own life. Thou shalt not procure abortion, thou shalt not commit infanticide.”[5] These books were widely read and accepted in the first centuries of the Christian church.

Important biblical passages

While the Bible does not use the word “abortion,” it contains a number of texts which relate directly to the beginning of life and the value of all persons. Let’s look briefly at the most pertinent passages.

Exodus 21:22

“Pro-choice” scholars usually begin the discussion with this statement in Exodus:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. 21:22-25).

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus commented on this text:

He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given to the woman’s husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life.”[6] (Antiquities of the Jews 4:8:33).

But notice the translator’s note: “The law seems rather to mean, that if the infant be killed, though the mother escape, the offender must be put to death; and not only when the mother is killed, as Josephus understood it.”[7]And note this later statement by Josephus:

The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have done so, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind.[8]

If this text does indeed teach that a person causing a miscarriage is only to be fined, while one causing “harm” is to receive severe punishment, we would have an important indication that the fetus is not as valuable as its mother. Is this what the text clearly teaches?

The New Revised Standard renders the text, “so that there is a miscarriage.” The New American Standard follows suit, as does the New Jerusalem Bible. But the New International Version translates the text, “she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury.” The New Living Translation similarly states, “they hurt a pregnant woman so that her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results . . .” The English Standard Version renders the phrase, “so that her children come out, but there is no harm.” Why this crucial difference in translation?

The Hebrew phrase is literally rendered, “And they come forth children of her.” “Children” is the plural of yeled, the usual Hebrew word for child or offspring (the Hebrew language has no separate word for “fetus” or the pre-born). “Come forth” translates yatsa, a word which does not specify whether the child is alive or dead, only that it leaves the womb. And so the Hebrew of Exodus 21:22 does not indicate whether the woman suffered a miscarriage (NRSV, NASB, NJB) or experienced a premature healthy birth (NIV, NLT, ESV). But it does refer to the fetus as a “child.” And it is important to note that the text does not use shachol, the Hebrew word for “miscarriage” (this word is found in Exodus 23:26 and Hosea 9:14 among other occurrences).[9]Verse 23 settles the issue for me: “But if there is serious injury . . .” (NIV), implying that no serious injury occurred in verse 22. In other words, both the mother and her child survived the attack and were healthy. And so this passage does not devalue the pre-born life or speak specifically to the issue of abortion.

Genesis 2:7

The Bible describes man’s creation in this way:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up–for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground–then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (Gen 2:4-7).

It seems that Adam did not become a “living being” until he could breathe. And so some believe that a fetus is not a “living being” until it can breathe outside the mother’s womb. Until this time it is not yet a person. President Bill Clinton explained his pro-choice position as based significantly on this logic. He said that his pastor, W. O. Vaught, former pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, told him that this was the literal meaning of the text.

There are three problems with this argument. First, Adam was an inanimate object until God breathed into him “the breath of life,” but we know conclusively that a fetus is animate from the moment of conception. Second, the fetus breathes in the womb, exchanging amniotic fluid for air after birth. Third, Adam in Genesis 2:7 was a potential life even before he became a human being. By any definition, a fetus is at the very least a potential human being. We’ll say more about this fact in a moment.

Psalm 139

One of David’s best-loved psalms contains this affirmation:

For it was you who formed my inward parts;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made

Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.
In your book were written

all the days that were formed for me,
when none of them as yet existed (Psalm 139:13-16).

David clearly believed that God created him in his mother’s womb and “beheld my unformed substance” before he was born. “Pro-life” theologians point to this declaration as proof that life is created by God and begins at conception.

Of course, those who do not accept the authority of Scripture will not be persuaded by this argument. And some who do believe that David’s statement is poetic symbolism rather than scientific description. He is simply stating that he is God’s creation, without speaking specifically to the status of a fetus.

Jeremiah 1:5

As part of God’s call to the prophet Jeremiah, the Lord issued this declaration: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). God clearly formed Jeremiah in the womb and “knew” him even before that time. He “consecrated” or called him to special service even before he was born. God’s plan for Jeremiah began before his conception and his birth.

It’s hard for me to see how those who accept biblical authority could make a “pro-choice” response to this statement. I suppose they could claim that the verse is symbolic and spiritual, not scientific, that it is a metaphorical description of God’s eternal plan for Jeremiah. But the text seems to be specifically related to Jeremiah’s conception and gestation.

Luke 1:39-45

Luke’s gospel records the visit of the pregnant Mary to the pregnant Elizabeth:

In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Luke 1:39-45).

When Elizabeth said that “the child in my womb leaped for joy” (v. 44), she made clear the fact that her “fetus” was a fully-responding being. She used the word brephos, the Greek term for baby, embryo, fetus, newborn child, young child, or nursing child. It is the same word used to describe Jesus in the manger, where the shepherds “went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the manger” (Luke 2:16).

Paul used the word in reminding Timothy “how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). The Bible makes no linguistic distinction between the personhood of a human being, whether before or after its birth.

The rights of the innocent

The Bible consistently defends the rights of those who are innocent and undeserving of punishment or death. For instance:

 
·         “Do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty” (Exodus 23:7).
 
·         “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
 
·         The Babylonians attacked Jerusalem “for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to pardon” (2 Kings 24:3-4).
 
It is clear that God cares for the innocent and defenseless of the world. Children, whether before their birth or after, would be among his most valued creations.

The witness of Christian history

How has the Church viewed the issue of abortion across its history? Are “pro-choice” religious leaders in step with traditional Christian thinking on this subject? Or has the Church even spoken with a unified voice when addressing the question?

Early church fathers were clear in their opposition to abortion. Athenagoras (ca. AD 150), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Tertullian (ca. 155-225), St. Hippolytus (ca. 170-236), St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-79), St. Ambrose (ca. 339-97), St. John Chrysostom (ca. 340-407), and St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) all issued strong condemnations of this practice.

However, these theologians did not specifically say when the body receives a soul. This is the process called “animation” or “ensoulment” by early philosophers. Many in the ancient world followed the thinking of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) on the issue. He believed that “ensoulment” occurred 40 days after conception in males and 90 days in females, and taught that abortion prior to this time was not murder.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), arguably the greatest theological mind after Paul, can be quoted on both sides of the issue. As regards whether souls are given to bodies at conception, Augustine said, “He . . . who formed them, knows whether He formed them with the soul, or gave the soul to them after they had been formed. . . . I have no certain knowledge how it came into my body; for it was not I who gave it to myself.”[10] He was critical of a theologian who was too dogmatic on this issue, claiming, “how much better it is for him to share my hesitation about the soul’s origin.”[11] He did not believe that we can know when people “obtain their souls.”[12]

And yet Augustine was convinced that those who die in the womb will be resurrected with the rest of humanity and given perfect bodies in heaven. If they died, they must have lived; if they lived, they will be resurrected. Babies deformed at birth will be given perfect bodies in paradise as well.[13] It would seem that Augustine believed life to begin at conception, as the moment the fetus can die, it must have been alive.

Theologians, popes, and church councils in the centuries to follow would continue to debate this issue. St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) could speak of the “murder of an unborn child” (Letter 22:13), and yet he could state that abortion is not killing until the fetus acquires limbs and shape (Letter 121:4). Pope Innocent III (ca. 1161-1216) stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus when the woman feels the first movement of the fetus (the “quickening”). After such “ensoulment,” abortion is murder; previously it is a less serious sin, as it ends only potential human life.

Thomas Aquinas (1225?-74) condemned abortion for any and all reasons. However, he agreed with Aristotle’s conclusion that a male child was formed enough to be judged human at 40 days, a female at 80. Only when the fetus could be considered human could it have a soul.

On the other hand, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) issued a decree in 1886 which prohibited all procedures which directly kill the fetus, even to save the life of the mother. He also required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

To summarize, Christian leaders across church history have been uniform in their condemnation of abortion once the fetus was considered to be a “person.” Many in the ancient and medieval world were influenced by Aristotle’s beliefs regarding the time when this occurred. If they could know what we know about the fetus from its earliest stages of life, I believe they would revise their opinion and condemn abortion from the moment of conception. But it is impossible to know their position on information they did not possess.

 
What about rape and incest?
 
The Bible makes rape a capital offense:
 
If the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor (Deuteronomy. 22:25-26).

God’s word clearly condemns such a crime against women. “Pro-choice” advocates often point to this issue early in the debate, arguing that a woman should not continue to be victimized by bearing a child as the result of such a horrific crime.

Unprotected intercourse results in pregnancy about four percent of the time. If one in three women is likely to be raped in her lifetime, and incestuous relationships subject a woman to repeated sexual abuse, pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are so likely that abortion must be legal as a remedy for women subjected to such crime.[14] Nearly all pro-life advocates concede the point, allowing for abortion in the case of rape and incest.

However, it has been established by numerous surveys over the years that rape and incest victims represent approximately one percent of the abortion cases recorded annually in this country. A decision to limit abortions to this exception would prevent the deaths of nearly all of the 1.5 million babies who are aborted each year. Only about three percent of the abortions performed each year in America relate to the health of the mother, and three percent relate to the health of the child. Ninety-three percent are elective.

To allow for abortion because of the very rare incidence of abortions performed because of rape and incest is something like suspending all marijuana laws because of the small number of patients who could benefit from its medicinal effects. We could stop the use of traffic lights because of the incidents when they slow a sick person’s rush to a hospital, but would we not cause more harm than we prevent?

At the same time, Americans must be conscious of the fact that rape and incest are far more common in some other countries and cultures. Rape in particular is a typical means of coercion and military control in some societies. There the percentage of abortions related to rape may be much higher than is the case in America.

This caveat stated, I’m not sure that even this decision is the moral choice. I must quickly admit that my status as an American, Anglo male makes it very difficult for me to commiserate with women who have experienced such trauma as rape and incest. But it is hard for me to understand how the child which is produced by this terrible crime does not deserve to live. Ethel Waters, the famous gospel singer, was the product of a rape. So was a student I taught at Southwestern Seminary, an evangelist with a global ministry today. I tread very lightly here, but would at the very least suggest that this issue is far from the primary cause of abortion in America today.

Conclusion: a way forward?

“Pro-life” advocates typically believe that life begins at conception, so that abortion is wrong. “Pro-choice” advocates typically belief that life begins when the fetus is viable independent of its mother or at birth, and that abortion should be a legal choice for the mother prior to that point. The framers of the Constitution did not address this issue. The Supreme Court in 1973 interpreted this silence to mean that constitutional rights to life do not extend to the pre-born. And yet the Bible speaks with a single voice in viewing the pre-born as the creation of God and as children deserving of protection and care. In light of these contradictory facts, is there a way to move forward?

Given that the participants in this debate come from a variety of religious and personal worldviews, it seems implausible to find common ground by beginning with biblical teachings or religious convictions. So I suggest the following non-religious, constitutional strategy.

First, we should build a consensus for permitting abortion to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. These account for a small percentage of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year. Even though some (like me) question the morality of this position, most would concede the point in order to reduce the 93 percent of abortions which are elective in nature. Allowing for this exception removes the most obvious and emotional obstacle to the “pro-life” position.

Second, we should understand that the pre-born possess at least the potential for “life,” however it is defined. Many of us believe that a fetus is a human being by every definition of the term except independent viability, and note that the pre-born will attain this status unless harmed. But even those who disagree with this assertion will admit that every fetus is in the process of becoming a “person.”

Third, “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates should work together to fulfill President Clinton’s desire that abortion be “rare.” Even the most ardent “pro-choice” supporters surely would support an agenda intended to decrease the number of abortions performed each year.

One way to achieve this goal would be for both sides to promote adoption as the best answer to an unwanted pregnancy. Both sides could also support abstinence and birth control education. Many “pro-life” advocates view birth control measures as promoting sexual promiscuity, but we may have to choose between sexual activity or unintended pregnancy and a resulting abortion.

Both sides could join forces in educating the public about the actual characteristics of the fetus. It has been proven that women are far less likely to choose abortion when they see a sonogram of their unborn child or learn about its present capacities. Adoption would then become a more likely option for the mother to choose. Leaders from both sides could be asked to adopt a united agenda aimed at decreasing the number of abortions performed each year in our country. If this strategy is successful, it may change the public’s opinion regarding the morality of abortion.

Fourth, whatever the “pro-choice” position decides to do to help limit abortions, “pro-life” advocates must do all we can to care for both the unborn child and its mother. We must care for the mother and the father of the child, and do all we can to help those who have chosen abortion in the past. We must work hard to advocate adoption and to provide life necessities for at-risk families. We must be “pro-life,” not just “pro-birth.”

It may be that these steps would eventually help to change the legal status of abortion. A constitutional amendment extending legal protection to the fetus would be more likely to pass if more Americans were taught to view the fetus as a life. Alternately, it would be more likely that the courts would recognize the rising consensus against abortion and rule in light of this conventional wisdom.

Conclusion: choosing life

Mother Teresa, writing to the U. S. Supreme Court as it was considering petitions related to the abortion issue, stated boldly:

Your opinion [in Roe v. Wade] stated that you did not need to “resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” That question is inescapable. If the right to life is an inherent and inalienable right, it must surely obtain wherever human life exists. No one can deny that the unborn child is a distinct being, that it is human, and that it is alive. It is unjust, therefore, to deprive the unborn child of its fundamental right to life on the basis of its age, size, or condition of dependency. It was a sad infidelity to America’s highest ideals when this Court said that it did not matter, or could not be determined, when the inalienable right to life began for a child in its mother’s womb.[15]

She has been widely quoted as stating, “It is a deep poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”[16]

I attended my first National Prayer Breakfast in 1995, where I heard remarkable speakers address the president and other national leaders. Those attending were still talking about the previous year’s keynote speaker. Mother Teresa, 83 years old in 1994, had said to the 3,000 in the audience, “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” Later in her speech she implored the gathering, “Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child.”[17] She received a standing ovation. After her speech, she approached President Clinton, pointed her finger at him, and said, “Stop killing babies.”

Would abortion be a moral choice when a family is very, very poor; they have 14 children, and another on the way? That child was John Wesley. What about a father who is ill and a mother with tuberculosis; their first child is blind, the second is deceased, the third is deaf, and the fourth has tuberculosis. Now she is pregnant again. Her son would be called Beethoven.

A white man rapes a 13-year-old black girl and she becomes pregnant. Her child is Ethel Waters. A teenage girl is pregnant, but her fiancée is not the father of the baby. Her baby is Jesus.

In a church I once pastored, a woman gave me her unsolicited testimony regarding an abortion she had chosen eleven years earlier. Here’s her story:

I cried tears of shame, tears of pain, tears of heartache. I cried for my sin so black I didn’t believe that there could ever be a way that I could make amends–ever be a way that I could atone for what I had done. That there could ever be a way that I could be clean again. For 11 years I cried for myself, because I couldn’t get away from what I had done.

But God blessed me. In the depths of my dark and lonely valley he was there. His grace and mercy are great–his love is so wonderful. He wooed me back to his side, saying to me, My child, my child, I love you. O my child I love you. Yes, I forgive you.

I am blessed. I know that I am forgiven. I have forgiven myself–God has headed me. But many are not so blessed–they never get to meet my Jesus; they never experience his love and forgiveness. For them, the crying goes on.

 
[NOTES]
 
[1] http://tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe. [2] For more on the ethical arguments for and against abortion see Milton A. Gonsalves, Right & Reason: Ethics in theory and practice, 9th ed. (Columbus: Merrill Publishing Co., 1989).[3] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985 [1961]) 3.4.416.[4] The Didache, or teaching of the twelve apostles (Nashville: Christian Classics, 1980) 2:2, p. 27.[5] The Epistle of Barnabas 19:5, in Christian Classics p. 118.[6] Josephus: Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1978) 4:3:33, p. 100.[7] Ibid., 100.[8] Josephus, Against Apion 2:25, p. 632.[9] For further discussion of this linguistic issue see Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,´inReadings in Christian Ethics, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 32-5.[10] Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed, Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1991) 1:25; vol. 5, p. 325.[11] Ibid., 1:17; p. 322.[12] Ibid., 4:5, p. 356.[13] Augustine, Enchiridion 85; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 3:265.[14] Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “Reproductive Choice: Basic to Justice for Women,” in Readings n Christian Ethics, ed. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 2:27.[15] Mother Teresa, “Recalling America,” in First Things May 1994, 9.[16] Illustration Digest Nov-Dec-Jan 1993/4, 15.[17] Mother Teresa, “Whatsoever you do,” speech to the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994; http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/mtspeech.html
____________________________
Baby Killing and God Almighty
John R. Houk
© April 7, 2015
_________________________
ABORTION AND THE MERCY OF GOD
 
© 2009-2015 Copyright, Denison Forum. All rights reserved.
 

Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014


Romans Persecuting Christians

Do you have your head in the sand believing the Left there is no war on Christianity in America?

 

JRH 1/7/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014

 

Link sent by Gary L Cass, D. Min.

January 6, 2015

DefendChristians.org

 

2014 was another wild and frustrating year for American Christians as the threats to our liberties and values are increasing. Here are the results of our online poll of the Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2014. It’s not as predicable as you might think.

 

Rather than getting lost in the trees and not recognizing the forest, lets (sic) look at the larger trends revealed in the poll, and they are disconcerting.

 

Political correctness about social issues, (sexual deviancy and abortion) has been institutionalized publicly and privately. Biblically faithful Christians and their institutions are being pressured to compromise their values and accept arbitrary, tyrannical, secular ethics or feel the wrath of politicians, the courts, the academy, the media, and business.

 

Churches are being coerced to subsidize abortions, a pastor is on trial for telling the truth, ministers are bullied by a tyrannical mayor, and Christ is continuing to be blasphemed on network TV.

 

This is a sobering set of facts, but ones that ought to stir us to action, not resignation. As we pray and act, we do so in faith that God can turn us back to him. The means He uses our bold, counter-cultural voices of Truth. Christ calls us back to reality and to respect for His ordained institution of marriage and the sanctity of life created in His image and freedom to declare the whole counsel of God’s Word.

 

Share this list with your family and friends. We MUST engage in concerted prayer, evangelism and seek FIRST God’s Kingdom and His righteousness. America is ripe for either God’s justice or a heaven sent revival.

 

1. Christian colleges are now facing a new threat to their institutions… allow homosexual behavior or be stripped of accreditation. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges is threatening to strip Gordon College, of their accreditation unless the college accepts “homosexual practice” by it’s students. More here.

 

2. Federal Judge, Michael Posner, ignored Supreme Court precedence and allowed a frivolous lawsuit to move forward against American minster, Scott Lively. Lively is a minister and an attorney and was invited by the Ugandan legislature to help them create laws to protect their society from the homosexual movement. Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), hauled Rev. Lively to US Federal Court under international law accusing him of “crimes against humanity.” More here.

 

3. Annise Parker, the lesbian Houston mayor, ordered city’s churches to turn over sermons, any e-mails, text messages, and other communications that talk about homosexuality, gender identity issues, or Annise Parker herself. The pastors were targeted after organizing descent against a bill passed by the city council that allowed transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice. After news spread throughout the Country, Parker’s attorney’s dropped the subpoenas. More here.

 

4. HGTV canceled a new program, “Flip It Forward”, because of the stars support of traditional marriage. The series followed the life of two brothers, David and Jason Benham, as they helped struggling families buy fixer-upper homes and transform them into forever homes. Both brothers have been vocal about their support for traditional marriage. More here.

 

5. The Girl Scouts USA introduced family planning into their curriculum in partnership with Planned Parenthood. The Girls Scouts also tout the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, as an “eloquent woman”. More here. [Blog Editor: Sanger favored eugenics and abortion to rid America of Black Americans, the intellectually challenged and those deformed by birth defects.]

 

6. California churches are now required to cover the costs of abortions as “basic health care.” The state legislature is trying to exploit a “loop-hole” in the national healthcare law for the pro-abortion agenda. More here.

 

7. Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced to resign from the huge tech company he founded after it was discovered he donated $1,000 towards legislation to uphold traditional marriage in California. Proposition 8 was a ballet initiative in support of traditional marriage that was approved by a majority of California voters, but was later ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. More here.

 

8. American tax dollars are still being used to pay for abortions. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Washington, found that at least 1,036 plans use your tax dollars to fund abortion-on-demand. More here.

 

9. A California male high school teacher returned as a woman from spring break. 56 year-old married father, Gary Sconce, has been a teacher at the rural Yosemite High School for 24 years. But after a letter was sent to the parents, he returned from the break as “Karen Adell Scot.” More here.

 

10. “I only wish the Virgin would’ve had an abortion,” was belted out in a song by musical guest, Kristeen Young, on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. “The song,” according to Young, “is about the centuries of religious persecution of women.” More here.

__________________________________

Copyright © Christian Anti-Defamation Commission.

 

About DefendChristians.org

 

Our Mission

 

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) is a not-for-profit 501(c) (3) Education Corporation whose purpose it is to become the first-in-mind champion of Christian religious liberty, domestically and internationally, and a national clearing house and first line of response to anti-Christian defamation, bigotry, and discrimination. More

 

History

 

The idea of the Christian Anti-defamation Commission (CADC) is not new. It has been publicly discussed since at least 1996, and perhaps as early as the 1980s. In October of 1999, General William Hollis, J.D., Ph.D., incorporated the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. More

 

See also:

 

Founders

 

Advisory Board

 

Make a Donation – DefendChristians.org