Challenging Activist Judge & NAF


Troy Newman & Judge William Orrick

 

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

 

On July 14, 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released its first undercover Planned Parenthood video, blowing the whistle on the abortion industry’s practice of illegally harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies.

 

Just 17 days later, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a lawsuit against CMP and ultimately secured a preliminary injunction against lead investigator and CMP founder David Daleiden. The injunction prohibited him from releasing any footage obtained during NAF conferences and meetings, which David had attended undercover with the goal of exposing illegal activity by the abortion industry.

 

Fast forward almost two years—and the lawsuit is still ongoing. Meanwhile, Daleiden’s footage from the NAF conference remains under lock and key, leaving some to wonder what secrets NAF is trying to hide. (Abortion Industry’s Interests Should Never Outweigh Public Concerns or First Amendment Rights; By Marissa Mayer; Alliance Defending Freedom; 4/21/17)

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick violated the First Amendment Rights of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) by gagging all undercover videos exposing the murderous intent by National Abortion Federation (NAF) in trafficking aborted and live birth baby parts for profit. Planned Parenthood was stung the same way. Leftists in law enforcement are doing their best to cover-up these nefarious murders and felonious activities with baby part trafficking.

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who granted the preliminary injunction in favor of the National Abortion Federation to halt the release of the videos, ordered any links to the video to be removed after it was published by the Center for Medical Progress on Thursday.

 

Judge Orrick also ordered CMP lead investigator David Daleiden and his attorneys to appear in court June 14, The Associated Press reported, for a hearing where he will consider holding them in contempt for releasing the footage.

 

Mr. Daleiden has been charged with 15 felonies in California stemming from his undercover investigation into the abortion giant. His attorneys have called it a “witch hunt” that flies in the face of the First Amendment.

 

YouTube has not responded to a request for comment.

 

The three-minute video showed top Planned Parenthood executives joking about severed fetus heads, admitting to altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal organs and conceding that clinics have a financial incentive to sell the human remains from abortions. (YouTube removes latest Planned Parenthood video on judge’s order; By Bradford Richardson; Washington Times; 5/26/17)

 

Judge Orrick took advantage of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court’s unfavorable ruling to make that gag order.

 

The abortion industry has desperately tried to suppress and delegitimize the work of CMP, including through the use of litigation. We represent former CMP board member Troy Newman – who is also the President of Operation Rescue – in lawsuits filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates, and we recently filed briefs in both cases.

 

In the NAF case, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the defendants from publishing videos or materials relating to NAF conferences, or sharing such information with anyone, including state Attorneys General or local law enforcement officers, while the case moves forward. The defendants have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and we recently filed a reply brief (under seal by court order) that emphasizes that government investigators, and the general public, have a compelling interest in being able to review the videos and materials themselves.

 

In the PPFA case, we recently filed a reply brief supporting our motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Our brief explains that all of the claims – such as wire fraud, racketeering, and breach of contract – are meritless, so the case should be dismissed. (Two Briefs Filed in Fight to Expose Illegal Abortion Practices; By ACLJ.org; 7/2016)

 

One of the founders of CMP, Troy Newman, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to win back the First Amendment Right to expose the crimes of Planned Parenthood.

 

Here is the Press Release that I first received in my Inbox from Operation Rescue; however, I’m cross posting the PR from ChristianNewsWire.com.

 

JRH 8/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

PRESS RELEASE

August 4, 2017

ChristianNewsWire.com

 

Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-683-6790 ext. 111; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President , 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue,  info.operationrescue@gmail.com   

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and a founding member of the Center for Medical Progress, filed a petition yesterday to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of a preliminary injunction that prohibits the release of undercover videos recorded at National Abortion Federation (NAF) meetings – even to law enforcement when they contain evidence of crimes.

 

The petition, captioned Newman v. National Abortion Federation, states:

 

This Petition stems from an injunction forbidding the voluntary disclosure to law enforcement agencies, other governmental bodies, and the general public of recordings and other information that the enjoined individuals and entities-as well as Congressional investigators-believe are evidence of widespread criminal, illegal, and unethical conduct, including felonies.

 

Newman is represented by Jay Sekulow, who leads Newman’s team of attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

 

During Newman’s tenure on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress, the NAF, and later Planned Parenthood, filed suits in a San Francisco Federal Court against Newman and others in an effort to prevent the release of further undercover videos that exposed the illegal trade in aborted baby body parts.

 

And it is little wonder that the NAF would not want the videos released.

 

Newman’s Supreme Court Petition notes that Congressional investigations conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives referred members of the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

Newman argues that the enjoined recordings corroborate the determination of the two Congressional investigations, which found evidence that NAF members (including several Planned Parenthood organizations) were engaged in the following criminal conduct:

 

  • Profiting from the sale of fetal organs;

 

  • Altering abortion procedures for financial gain;

 

  • Performing illegal partial-birth abortions;

 

  • Killing newborns who survived attempted abortions;

 

  • Failing to obtain informed consent for fetal tissue donations;

 

  • Violating federal regulations regarding Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and

 

  • Fraudulent overbilling practices.

 

Newman’s petition further states:

 

It has long been a tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence that individuals who believe that they have information concerning criminal or illegal activities should be permitted, and encouraged, to voluntarily provide such information to government authorities. Similarly, investigative journalism concerning matters of public concern, including the uncovering of illegal, unethical, or troubling activities, is a constitutionally protected, venerable undertaking.

 

Newman’s unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit was joined by state 14 Attorneys General, led by Arizona, who are seeking to review the evidence contained in the recordings.

 

As the most important abortion case currently under litigation, Newman v. NAF could have profound implications on the future use of undercover investigative techniques and the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence in criminal investigations.

 

Read the Petition in Newman v. NAF

 

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America.  Click here to support Operation Rescue.

____________________

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

__________________

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

About Operation Rescue

 

Who We Are

 

History

 

Endorsements

 

What Others Say About Us


Contact

 

© Christian Newswire 2017. All Rights Reserved. | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW – Washington – DC – 20006 | 202-546-0054 

 

Christian Newswire Services:

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.   Click to see our client list. 

 

How much does it cost?

 

$75 is what we charge to transmit your 400-words-or-less(‡) news release to our exclusive national media list.  Our competitors charge from $295 to $395, yet they do not have the direct contact with reporters and news producers that we have.

 

You do not need to use a credit card.  We will send you a bill.  It is that easy.  Just email us your news release, or use the form on this website and tell us to send it out.  No membership fee. You are not required to purchase any additional services.

 

Want to know more about where your news release will go and who will see it?

 

National list of over 2500 reporters and news producers whose beat is “conservative & family issues” ($75 for up to 400 words‡)  These are TV, radio, wire-service, and print reporters/producers that cover family and conservative issues, that READ THE REST

 

Pro-Life Journalists Seek Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech, Baby Parts Case


I just finished posting about the extremely questionable prosecution, jailing and exorbitant bail against Sandra Merritt this morning. Then, I go to my email inbox. Lo and behold! I found an email from Operation Rescue reporting the Ninth Circuit of Appeals (located on the Left coast) ruled that the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover obtained videos and recording cannot be turned over to the police EVEN if criminal conduct is reveal!!!!!!

 

“A three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.”

What is our nation coming to when even the Judicial Branch condones lawlessness in the name of protecting the Leftist transformative agenda that has hammered into American thought?

 

Here is the Operation Rescue article that was linked in my email alert.

 

JRH 5/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Pro-Life Journalists Seek Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Free Speech, Baby Parts Case

 

By DeAnn Flanagan

May 8, 2017

Operation Rescue

 

San Francisco, CA – The Center for Medical Progress and its founding members, including Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, are seeking to appeal a draconian Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect the First Amendment Rights of journalists to report to law enforcement evidence of crimes contained in undercover recordings.

 

A three-member panel of the liberally activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional footage obtained through the CMP’s undercover investigations – even those recordings that contain evidence of criminal conduct committed by Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation officials – cannot be released to law enforcement personnel. A requested review by the full Ninth Circuit was denied.

 

The ruling is related to a federal lawsuit, National Abortion Federation v. CMP, et al, that was filed in 2015 after the CMP released several videos showing Planned Parenthood executives haggling over top dollar to illegally sell aborted baby organs and tissue. The NAF sought to block the further release of possibly incriminating videos.

 

Attorneys for the American Center for Law and Justice are representing Newman in that case.

 

A joint motion filed May 5, 2017, is seeking a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate pending the filing of a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The motion states that the court wrongly upheld a “prior restraint” on CMP’s First Amendment speech, which had captured great public interest. The undercover videos were also the subject of investigations by House and Senate panels that later referred Planned Parenthood organizations to the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorneys General for further criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

“Prior restraints are ‘the most serious and least tolerable infringement of First Amendment Rights,’” stated the motion to stay.

 

So radical was the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the pro-life leaders’ defense attorneys argued:

 

Outside the context of trade secrets and classified information, no federal court – other than now this Court – has upheld an order suppressing information of high public interest based simply on the agreement of the parties to do so. Other federal courts have declined to put the weight of their contempt power behind the enforcement of private agreements to defeat the public’s right to know.

 

“In a case of critical importance to free speech rights, the Ninth Circuit has wrongly barred pro-life citizen journalists from reporting crimes and submitting evidence to law enforcement. Instead, the Court has opted to protect the ability of the NAF and Planned Parenthood to conceal possible criminal activity,” said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President, Operation Rescue. “The rogue Ninth Circuit has showed their penchant for liberal, pro-abortion judicial activism once again, and we look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court once again overturning one of their grossly unconstitutional decisions.”

 

Order denying appeal to full Ninth Circuit.


Defense Motion to Stay Mandate pending SCOTUS filing.

 

_______________

Copyright © 2017 Operation Rescue, Inc. 

 

Who We Are

 

Operation Rescue® is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue® recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become perhaps the most visible voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.

 

Click here to donate.


Click here to contact.

 

READ: Operation Rescue’s Non-Violent History is a Matter of Public Record

 

Troy Newman, President

 

Adopted at birth and raised in San Diego, Troy Newman has more than 27 years of experience and leadership in business and pro-life ministry with great success growing Christian organizations. Troy is an accomplished strategist with remarkable insight.

 

His vision, expertise, and leadership have  READ THE REST

 

Yurki1000 Comment – Stand4Life Email


Yurki1000 posted a comment on my NCCR about page urging me to spread the word about a petition to drop charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt by California for exposing just how evil Planned Parenthood is in killing unborn babies. Signing the petition will take you to a donation page. Your support would be a worthy cause. But at least sign the petition! California has taken privacy laws to the point of disregarding the First Amendment on Free Speech and a Free Press.

 

Essentially Yurki is cross posting an email from Stand4Life which is a part of Operation Rescue. Support Daleiden and Merritt and sign the petition!

 

JRH 4/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Yurki1000 Comment – Stand4Life Email

Posted April 6, 2017 at 1:53 PM

 

STAND4LIFE sends me email. Would you spread the word please?

 

– Planned Parenthood is pure evil. They make billions of dollars every year by murdering pre-born children and then selling their dismembered body parts to the highest bidder. And on top of it all, they receive $500 million of OUR taxpayer dollars every year!

 

We can end it, my friend. We can fight for justice for David and Sarah. We can defund the butchers at Planned Parenthood and end the slaughter of innocent, pre-born children.

 

If you’re ready to join the fight, please do so right now by signing Operation Rescue’s national petition.

 

And please, please urge your friends and family members to do the same. We need as many pro-life allies as possible to show the radical abortion lobby that we will keep fighting for the unborn!

 

Thank you, and God bless you.

 

Faithfully yours,

 

Troy Newman
President
Operation Rescue –

 

https://secure.giveworks.net/operationrescue/save_pro_life_heroes/HUM6299

 

Home:

http://www.operationrescue.org/

 

Norma McCorvey is with Jesus


norma-mccorvey-quote-undoing-roe-v-wade

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2017

 

Roe v. Wade legalized baby-killing as a form of birth control in America in 1973. In case you didn’t know it, Roe was a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey. At the time McCorvey was 23 when she wanted to end an unwanted pregnancy. Because of Texas law against abortion she ended up giving birth but gave the child up for adoption.

 

The American took up McCorvey’s case to legalize baby-killing for birth control and won for Roe-McCorvey two-years later before the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision favoring “privacy” over an unborn child’s right to life.

 

In 1989 McCorvey publicly made known she was the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade – still a proponent of baby-killing.

 

In 1995 Norma McCorvey came under the influence of Reverend Philip (“Flip”) Benham and understood that killing an unborn child was murder. She then became a Pro-Life champion to save the lives of unborn children from legalized genocide. Rev. Benham first came to prominence as an Anti-Abortion activist via Operation Save America (OSA) and lately the Leftist Multiculturalists hate him for his pro-Biblical views that agrees with God that the LGBT lifestyle is an abomination.

 

rev-benham-baptizing-norma-mccorvey-1995

Rev. Benham baptizing Norma McCorvey 1995

 

Norma McCorvey has passed in this life on February 18, 2017 and now resides with Jesus Christ the Son of God and Savior.

 

Here is the Christian Newswire article that outlines the life of the redeemed.

 

JRH 2/19/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Death of Roe

 

Contact: Rev. Flip Benham, 980-722-4920; 

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, 254-715-3134

Sent February 18, 2017 3:38 PM

Sent from Christian Newswire

 

“O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory” (1 Corinthians 15:55)

 

WACO, Texas, Feb. 18, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Right after Norma McCorvey’s conversion to Christ, she wrote, “I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade decision that brought legal child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes.”

Operation Rescue/Operation Save America is pleased to report that she did not go to the grave with that burden. She went to the grave with the salvation of her Lord. He took the burden, her debt of sin upon Himself and through His crucifixion and resurrection, redeemed Miss Norma’s guilt-ridden soul. The old Norma died (Pre Roe) and a new Norma emerged (Post Roe).

When she struggled with the overwhelming guilt of her involvement with abortion, Rev. Flip Benham, who baptized her, gave her this reassuring Scripture, “I sought the LORD, and he answered me; he delivered me from all my fears. Those who look to him are radiant; their faces are never covered with shame.” (Psalms 34:4, 5)

Rev. Flip Benham, former National Director of OR/OSA, states, “The three people most instrumental in ushering us into the era of Roe v. Wade, Dr. Barnard Nathanson (founder of NARAL), Sandra Cano (Jane Doe of Doe v. Bolton), and Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade), are now all in the great cloud of witnesses cheering us on as we continue to fight for the lives of our Lord’s precious preborn babies. All three lied or were lied to, to give us this damnable law. All three were sinners saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. All three, in their Christian years, did their very best to undo the lies that gave us Roe v. Wade. All three are today more alive than they have ever been. All three have run their lap of the race. It is our turn now! Good night for now Miss Norma – we will see you in the morning!”

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, current National Director of OR/OSA states, “Looking back on how the Lord has used this ministry, we rejoice in the thousands of lives that have been spared, the souls that have been saved, like Miss Norma, and the many death camps that have been shut down. We pray the death of Roe (Miss Norma) prophetically signals the death of Roe vs. Wade. May the destroyer of men made in the image of God be destroyed in Jesus’ mighty name!”

 

For those interested in Miss Norma’s reflections, here is her poem called Empty Playgrounds: afterabortion.blogspot.fr/2003/05/empty-playgrounds-poem-by-miss-norma.html

 

For her full story, check out her book Won by Love, www.amazon.com/Won-Love-Norma-McCorvey/dp/0785286543

______________

Norma McCorvey is with Jesus

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2017

______________

The Death of Roe

 

Christian Communication Network, 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.  READ THE REST

 

Grand Jury Indicts Daleiden for Exposing Planned Parenthood


David Daleiden

John R. Houk

© January 26, 2016

David Daleiden and another pro-life individual have been indicted by a Texas Grand Jury for exposing Planned Parent pertaining to live-birth abortion/murder of babies. All those involved should be indicted.

This is reprehensible! David Daleiden and any Pro-Life person or organization should be given the highest civil award available on a scale including Federal, State and Local. Then every person involved in the live-birth abortion/murder practiced by person or organization should be prosecuted for murder or as an accessory.

Below is the Life News story that will include a link to a petition as well as the petition itself which you must click to sign if you are against the murder of unborn human lives.

JRH 1/26/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Grand Jury Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies, Indicts Man Behind Videos Instead

 

By STEVEN ERTELT

JAN 25, 2016 6:44PM

Life News

A Texas grand jury has ignored the videos exposing a Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic caught selling aborted baby body parts and has instead indicted the man behind producing the expose’ videos.

The video of the Houston Planned Parenthood makes it appear the Planned Parenthood abortion business may be selling the “fully intact” bodies of unborn babies purposefully born alive and left to die. The video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact aborted babies.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Farrell at the abortion-clinic headquarters of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs.

But today, Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and another pro-life activist behind the videos. Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them.

SIGN THE PETITION: Drop the Charges Against David Daleiden and Charge Planned Parenthood

“Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson announced Monday that Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs. Another activist was also indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, “the Associated Press reported.” A news release announcing the indictment doesn’t say what the record was. Anderson said the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.”

If convicted, Daleiden faces 20 years in prison while Planned Parenthood officials face no legal consequences for their actions.

The grand jury’s decision comes even after state officials raided several Planned Parenthood facilities in an unprecedented move that followed on the heels of pro-life Governor Greg Abbott announcing earlier in the week that the state would further de-fund the abortion business.

In fact, Governor Abbott’s office informed LifeNews that the state investigation of Planned Parenthood continues:

“The Health and Human Service Commission’s Inspector General and the Attorney General’s office have an ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s actions,” said Governor Abbott. “Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation. The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.”

Before it began its work, pro-life advocates were concerned about the grand jury and undue influence by abortion activists.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson promised a thorough investigation of the Planned Parenthood abortion business. But a Planned Parenthood board member works as a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office.

Planned Parenthood could be breaking the federal law known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that requires abortion clinics, hospitals and other places that do abortions to provide appropriate medical care for a baby born alive after a failed abortion or purposefully birthed to “let die.” That would be one of the potential ways Planned Parenthood could produce a “fully intact” baby to sell to StemExpress for research. Most “crunchy” abortion methods would do damage to the baby’s body.

“Where we probably have an edge over other organizations, our organization has been doing research for many many years,” explains Farrell in the video. When researchers need a specific part from the aborted fetus, Farrell says, “We bake [sic] that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that.”

Asked specifically if this means Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast can change abortion procedures to supply intact fetal specimens, Farrell affirms, “Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they’re collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens, so I know it can happen.”

The investigators ask Farrell how she will frame a contract in which they pay a higher price for higher quality fetal body parts, and she replies, “We can work it out in the context of–obviously, the procedure itself is more complicated,” suggesting that “without having you cover the procedural cost” and paying for the abortion, the higher specimen price could be framed as “additional time, cost, administrative burden.”

Farrell finally summarizes her affiliate’s approach to fetal tissue payments: “If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”

Farrell also indicates to the investigators over lunch that the specimen sales from her department contribute significantly to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s overall finances: “I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.”

At one point in the video, Planned Parenthood staff show off the body of a 20-week old twin baby aborted and sold for parts.

+++

Petition Wording:

Drop the Charges Against David Daleiden and Charge Planned Parenthood

Petition published by LifeNews.com on Jan 26, 2016

Target: Harris County District Attorney

Region: United States of America

Web site: http://www.LifeNews.com

SIGN THE PETITION

Petition Background (Preamble):

A Texas grand jury has ignored the videos exposing a Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic caught selling aborted baby body parts and has instead indicted the man behind producing the expose’ videos.

The video of the Houston Planned Parenthood makes it appear the Planned Parenthood abortion business may be selling the “fully intact” bodies of unborn babies purposefully born alive and left to die. The video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact aborted babies.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Farrell at the abortion-clinic headquarters of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs.

Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them. If convicted, Daleiden faces 20 years in prison while Planned Parenthood officials face no legal consequences for their actions.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson promised a thorough investigation of the Planned Parenthood abortion business. But a Planned Parenthood board member works as a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office.

Petition:

We call on Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson to drop all the charges against David Daleiden and to instead properly investigate Planned Parenthood and charge it with any appropriate charges related to its activities selling the body parts of aborted babies.

SIGN THE PETITION

+++

David Daleiden Responds to Grand Jury Indictment: Planned Parenthood Broke the Law, Not Me

By STEVEN ERTELT

JAN 26, 2016 11:01AM

Life News

The man behind the undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies parts and aborted babies has responded to the shocking grand jury indictment a Harris County grand jury delivered yesterday. His short answer? Planned Parenthood is guilty, not me.

As LifeNews reported Monday, a Texas grand jury has ignored the videos exposing a Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion clinic caught selling aborted baby body parts and has instead indicted the man behind producing the expose’ videos.

The Texas grand jury indicted David Daleiden and another pro-life activist behind the videos. Instead of prosecuting Planned Parenthood for selling aborted baby parts, Daleiden was indicted for buying them. If convicted, Daleiden faces 20 years in prison while Planned Parenthood officials face no legal consequences for their actions.

In a statement to LifeNews, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood has been unable to deny or refute the evidence he and his team collected in the videos that show the abortion company potentially breaking multiple state and federal laws selling aborted baby parts for profit.

“The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws,” he said.

SIGN THE PETITION: Drop the Charges Against David Daleiden and Charge Planned Parenthood

“We respect the processes of the Harris County District Attorney, and note that buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well. Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see,” Daleiden continued.

Live Action president Lila Rose also emailed LifeNews about the grand jury indictment and said Daleiden, who formerly worked with Rose at LiveAction on previous expose’ videos related to Planned Parenthood, is the victim here.

“David Daleiden and his team have done a tremendous public service by exposing the horrific crimes against humanity that Planned Parenthood hides behind closed doors. CMP’s investigation forced Planned Parenthood, a tax-funded billion dollar corporation, to admit it was harvesting and selling aborted baby parts,” she said.

She continued: “The district attorney’s office was asked months ago about recusing itself from this case because one of its prosecutors serves as a board member of the Planned Parenthood affiliate involved in the case. It is unacceptable that the office did not recuse itself to eliminate any and all questions of potential bias. A special prosecutor should be appointed now to review this entire investigation.”

Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life agrees and told LifeNews:

“It’s horrifying that the Houston grand jury failed to indict the organization who was willing to sell baby body parts yet somehow manages to indict the journalist who caught them in the act. The fact that an employee of the District Attorney is on the board of Planned Parenthood confirms an incestuous relationship between corrupt officials in the Harris County DA’s office and the nation’s largest abortion provider, whose livelihood is on the line should they be criminally charged with selling the body parts of aborted babies. I’m proud to stand with David, the Center for Medical Progress, and journalists everywhere on this one.”

Meanwhile, local pro-life organization Texas right to Life told LifeNews the grand jury hearing and results were politically motivated. here’s the statement the pro-life group released:

Yesterday, Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson announced that Harris County’s investigation into the criminal conduct at Houston’s Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has ended. Anderson said that the case is closed and that she has no further recourse. The case centered around video footage captured by the Center for Medical Progress in which executives of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast candidly admitted (1) that they routinely deliver “intact fetal cadavers” and (2) that selling these baby specimens was “all just a matter of line items.”

In a politically motivated grand jury hearing on Monday, the evidence of illegal practices of dismembering unborn children was ignored, while the investigative journalists who revealed the abortion atrocities were indicted for exercising their First Amendment rights. People who report crimes should not be indicted due to the political ties of the prosecutors. This botched proceeding represents a grave miscarriage of justice.

Rather than reviewing criminal activity that results in high profits from selling abortion and then reselling the aborted children in pieces, the grand jury moved to punish the very people who reported the criminal activity. When an agency that dismembers preborn children capable of feeling pain is exonerated in such a kangaroo court, the prosecutors and those entrusted to administer justice are proving themselves inept, if not corrupted by ties to the abortion industry. The same videos contain graphic footage of abortion workers laughing as they retrieve and sift through body parts, which they identify on camera as organs, arms, and legs of children who had been aborted earlier that day.

The video of the Houston Planned Parenthood makes it appear the Planned Parenthood abortion business may be selling the “fully intact” bodies of unborn babies purposefully born alive and left to die. The video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact aborted babies.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Farrell at the abortion-clinic headquarters of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs.

The grand jury’s decision comes even after state officials raided several Planned Parenthood facilities in an unprecedented move that followed on the heels of pro-life Governor Greg Abbott announcing earlier in the week that the state would further de-fund the abortion business.

In fact, Governor Abbott’s office informed LifeNews that the state investigation of Planned Parenthood continues:

“The Health and Human Service Commission’s Inspector General and the Attorney General’s office have an ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s actions,” said Governor Abbott. “Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation. The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.”

Before it began its work, pro-life advocates were concerned about the grand jury and undue influence by abortion activists.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson promised a thorough investigation of the Planned Parenthood abortion business. But a Planned Parenthood board member works as a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office.

Planned Parenthood could be breaking the federal law known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that requires abortion clinics, hospitals and other places that do abortions to provide appropriate medical care for a baby born alive after a failed abortion or purposefully birthed to “let die.” That would be one of the potential ways Planned Parenthood could produce a “fully intact” baby to sell to StemExpress for research. Most “crunchy” abortion methods would do damage to the baby’s body.

“Where we probably have an edge over other organizations, our organization has been doing research for many many years,” explains Farrell in the video. When researchers need a specific part from the aborted fetus, Farrell says, “We bake [sic] that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that.”

Asked specifically if this means Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast can change abortion procedures to supply intact fetal specimens, Farrell affirms, “Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they’re collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens, so I know it can happen.”

The investigators ask Farrell how she will frame a contract in which they pay a higher price for higher quality fetal body parts, and she replies, “We can work it out in the context of–obviously, the procedure itself is more complicated,” suggesting that “without having you cover the procedural cost” and paying for the abortion, the higher specimen price could be framed as “additional time, cost, administrative burden.”

Farrell finally summarizes her affiliate’s approach to fetal tissue payments: “If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”

Farrell also indicates to the investigators over lunch that the specimen sales from her department contribute significantly to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s overall finances: “I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.”

At one point in the video, Planned Parenthood staff show off the body of a 20-week old twin baby aborted and sold for parts.

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all eleven:

o In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

o In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.

o In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.

o In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”

o In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”

o In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

o In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

o In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.

o The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.

o The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.

o Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb VanDerhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.

o The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.

The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.

_____________________

Grand Jury Indicts Daleiden for Exposing Planned Parenthood

John R. Houk

© January 26, 2016

_____________________

Grand Jury Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies, Indicts Man Behind Videos Instead

And

David Daleiden Responds to Grand Jury Indictment: Planned Parenthood Broke the Law, Not Me

COPYRIGHT © 2016 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

About Life News

LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. With a team of experienced journalists and bloggers, LifeNews.com reaches more than 750,000 pro-life advocates each week via our web site, email news reports, social networking outreach and weekday radio program.

LifeNews.com also acts as a service provider to furnish news content to media that share the pro-life perspective. The topics covered by LifeNews.com include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bioethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and cultural legal and legislative issues as they affect the pro-life community.

Formerly the Pro-Life Infonet, LifeNews.com has been harnessing the power of the Internet since 1992 to bring pro-life news to the pro-life community. We’ve developed a reputation for fairness, accuracy and timeliness in our two decades of service. We are not affiliated with any organization, religious group, political party or church denomination.

LIFENEWS.COM STAFF

Steven Ertelt – Founder and Editor

As the founder and Editor of LifeNews.com, Steven Ertelt has provided the pro-life community with news via the Internet since 1993. He also serves as the President of Colorado Citizens for Life, a statewide pro-life group, and a member of the board of directors of the National Right to Life Committee. He is the READ THE REST

When Leftists Call Fiorina a Liar


When Leftists Call Fiorina a Liar

YOU KNOW there is a warping of a real truth

By John R. Houk

© September 18, 2015

I was watching Leftie Fox News contributor Alan Colmes call Fiorina a liar about her passionate disgust with of a baby abortedI mean – murdered fully intact with the heart beating and people talking about harvesting baby’s brain. It was an abhorrent description of infanticide. So I decided to look for that video.

An unsurprising Google search turned up numerous Left Wing websites calling a Fiorina a liar just like Colmes. The fact is, after you hear a Leftist say something is a lie, it is more than likely the truth.

The truth is the video in question does not actually show an intact baby allegedly aborted but heart beating on a table. The video does show former StemExpress employee Holly O’Donnell describing the exact event that Carly Fiorina accused Planned Parenthood of at the CNN GOP Debate on Wednesday. In fact the O’Donnell description flashes to a fully baby that has the appearance of being taken from a women prematurely (as in the skin was all red) with one of the tiny precious legs have a spasm. Included with the video below is the entire Youtube description (This video is a repeat performance of an earlier cross post – “The Secret History of Planned Parenthood”):

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

 

Published by The Center for Medical Progress

Published on Aug 19, 2015

Image of Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2542212/Mother-shares-heartbreaking-photos-baby-miscarried-19-weeks.html
****************************************­*

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 today at: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/08/human-capital-episode-3-planned-parenthoods-custom-abortions-for-superior-product/

The series focuses on the personal narrative of Holly O’Donnell, a former Blood and Tissue Procurement Technician for StemExpress, a biotech start-up that until last week was partnered with two large northern California Planned Parenthood affiliates to purchase their aborted fetus parts and resell them for scientific experimentation.

O’Donnell describes the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘I want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

The San Jose Planned Parenthood does abortions up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Referring to the beating heart of the aborted fetus, O’Donnell remarks, “I don’t know if that constitutes it’s technically dead, or it’s alive.”

State and federal law require that the same treatment be given to an infant born-alive after an abortion as to a normally delivered baby (1 U.S.C. 8, CA Health and Safety Code 123435). California law also prohibits any kind of experimentation on a fetus with a discernible heartbeat (CA Health and Safety Code 123440). StemExpress has been cited in published scientific literature as a source of fetal hearts used for Langendorff perfusion, which keeps a heart beating after it is excised from the body: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2015/730683/

O’Donnell also tells how her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain. ““She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can’t even describe what that feels like,” she says.

The video also features recordings of Dr. Ben Van Handel, the Executive Director of Novogenix Laboratories, LLC, and also of Perrin Larton, Procurement Manager of Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR). Novogenix is the company that has harvested fetal organs from abortions done by Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, in Los Angeles, while ABR is the oldest fetal tissue procurement company and works with Planned Parenthood in San Diego and other clinics around the country. Van Handel admits, “There are times when after the procedure is done that the heart actually is still beating,” and Larton describes abortions she has seen where “the fetus was already in the vaginal canal whenever we put her in the stirrups, it just fell out.”

CMP’s Project Lead David Daleiden notes, “Today’s video contains heartrending admissions about the absolute barbarism of Planned Parenthood’s abortion practice and baby parts sales in which fetuses are sometimes delivered intact and alive. Planned Parenthood is a criminal organization from the top down and should be immediately stripped of taxpayer funding and prosecuted for their atrocities against humanity.”

###

See the video at: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2015/08/human-capital-episode-3-planned-parenthoods-custom-abortions-for-superior-product/

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.

One can go to the CMP home page to view more viciousness of Planned Parenthood and there is page labelled Investigative Footage.

SO AGAIN, is Carly Fiorina a liar?

NO!

The Planned Parenthood history of culling the herd for a better eugenic population is quite old going all the way back to the murder clinic’s founder Margaret Sanger (The Religion of Eugenics and the State – 2011 and Nazism, Eugenics and Abortion – 2009). America’s Left, viz. the Democrat Party (wittingly or unwittingly) is a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood NOT because women’s health issues, but rather to cull the herd.

So when Leftists and Dems call Carly Fiorina a liar YOU KNOW it is disinformation to fool the masses of Leftist good intentions that are really a continuation of the transformation process Obama began inflicting America with in 2008.

JRH 9/18/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Liberals Accuse Carly Fiorina of ‘Lying’ About Graphic Planned Parenthood Video Description During GOP Debate — but What’s the Full Story?

By Billy Hallowell

Sep. 17, 2015 1:15pm

The Blaze

Some on the left are accusing Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina of lying after she said during Wednesday night’s debate that undercover Planned Parenthood footage shows a “fully formed fetus” alive on a table as “someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

Slate flatly accused Fiorina of “lying” after she directly challenged Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama to watch the videos, while a writer at Refinery29 dismissed Fiorina’s “graphic” and “upsetting” claims as “totally made-up.”

The debate is noteworthy given the general consensus that Fiorina’s excoriating comments were among her strongest moments during the debate.

“Anyone who has watched this video tape — I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the able, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain,” Fiorina said. “This is about the character of our nation. And if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, then shame on us.”

VIDEO: Carly Fiorina Response to Planned Parenthood on CNN Debate | The Blaze

 

Slate writer Amanda Marcotte correctly noted that the publicly released undercover footage released by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Ethics does not show such a scene, writing that there are no images of babies “kicking or hearts beating.” Vox reporter Sarah Kliff also declared that Fiorina was “wrong,” noting that she watched all 12 hours of released footage and never saw such a thing.

However, Fiorina was not concocting the story out of thin air; most of the details that she described were recounted in an accompanying mini-documentary series also produced by the Center for Medical Progress.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician, described in the Center for Medical Progress’ “Human Capital” documentary series how she once saw the heart of a baby still beating after an abortion.

“[The] episode 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,” a press release accompanying the video’s release last month stated.

The majority of the documentary — the seventh video released overall by the Center for Medical Progress — focused on O’Donnell recounting how she was once asked to help procure brain tissue from a fetus, an experience she said shook her to her core.

“Since the fetus was so intact [my coworker] said, ‘This is a really good fetus, and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We’re going to procure brain,’” O’Donnell says in the video. “She takes the scissors and she makes a small incision … and goes, I would say to maybe a little bit through the mouth, and she was like, ‘OK, can you go the rest of the way?’”

Watch the video below (caution — graphic): [Blog Editor: I am not showing video as The Blaze story does because it can be viewed above.]

No images from the incident O’Donnell described were shown; however, there are other photos and clips interspersed throughout the video that feature late-term and stillborn fetuses.

One of those photos caused some critics to object last month that the Center for Medical Progress was misleading viewers: it showed an image of a stillborn baby as O’Donnell described the brain procurement procedure. Kliff described it as “stock footage.”

The image of the stillborn baby, Walter Fretz, who was born at 19 weeks, was originally included without any notation about where the photo came from; his mother has since said that she did not agree with the use of her son’s image by the Center for Medical Progress, according to the Christian Post.

At another point in the documentary, footage of a different fetus was interspersed, seemingly for effect, as O’Donnell described in a voice-over the features of the fetus from which she procured brain tissue. As she spoke of the baby’s facial features, video rolled of a late-term fetus moving its limbs, with a credit that read, “Courtesy of Grantham Collection & Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”

Mollie Hemingway speculated in the Federalist that Fiorina was speaking broadly about the 10 videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, noting that the seventh video featuring O’Donnell “does, in fact, show a fully formed fetus, heart beating and legs licking.”

Other videos in the series did feature the remains of deceased fetuses inside pathology labs as well.

VIDEO: Carly talks to Good Morning America about the debate and Planned Parenthood

 

Fiorina appeared on “Good Morning America” on Thursday morning to discuss her debate performance, doubling down on her claims about Planned Parenthood, while pushing back against some of her critics.

“I didn’t misspeak … . This kind of butchery erodes the character of our nation,” Fiorina said. ”Rest assured, I have seen the images I talked about last night. Rest assured that human lives are being aborted fully formed in order to harvest body parts.”

David Daleiden, the project lead for the Center for Medical Progress, told TheBlaze in a statement that “the footage in question was from Grantham Collection & Center for Bio-Ethical Reform used to illustrate the first person eye witness testimony of Holly O’Donnell of the barbaric acts committed inside Planned Parenthood abortion facilities.”

“Planned Parenthood and their supporters are afraid to watch and talk about this footage because it shows their illicit baby parts trade for what it really is: the industrial-scale commodification and exploitation of tiny human beings,” Daleiden said.

++++

Blog Editor: I was alerted via email from LifeNews.com that the House has passed legislation to hold Planned Parenthood criminally liable for selling body parts from harvest still alive babies.

+++

House Passes Bill to Hold Planned Parenthood Criminally Liable for Harvesting Aborted Babies Still Alive

 

By STEVEN ERTELT

September 18, 2015 12:56PM

LifeNews.com

The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that would hold the Planned Parenthood abortion business criminally liable for harvesting body parts from aborted babies who are technically still alive.

The center for Medical Progress has released 10 videos catching and exposing Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies and their body parts. One of the most shocking videos caught the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by pro-life Congressman Trent Franks would make failure to provide standard medical care to children born alive during an abortion a federal crime. It would also apply stronger penalties in cases where an overt act is taken to kill the abortion survivor.

Under the pro-life bill there is also a civil right of action for mothers of children who survive an abortion to hold the abortion provider accountable.

Congressman Chris Smith implored the House to pass the bill.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

“Undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion,” the New jersey congressman said. ”

Dr. Savita Ginde, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains says “sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure—they are intact…” that is, Madame Speaker, born alive. Breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes on the video watching a “fetus …just fall out.” And left to die.”

“We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival,” Smith added. “Abortion clinics have no incentive whatsoever to save the child. Abortion clinics do not have neonatal intensive care units—they are in the business of killing babies, not saving them.”

“The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. This legislation builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions,” he concluded.

The House voted 248 to 177 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill and 5 Democrats joining them. No Republicans voted against the pro-life bill while 177 Democrats voted against it. One member voted present.

A rpo-life sneator (sic) says he will introduce the Senate version of the bill on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse told LifeNews.com that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate when Congress resumes its work on Monday.

He said: “If this isn’t the most non-controversial sentence in American politics, it’s time to check our national conscience: newborn babies must receive care and attention. Societies are judged by how we care for the vulnerable and surely anyone with a heart— regardless of where they stand on the abortion debate— should be able to agree that our laws should protect newborns. I’m grateful that a bipartisan majority of the House stood up for babies and I look forward to introducing companion legislation in the Senate next week.”

Despite passage of the bill, the Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the measure. The position statement explaining the opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says the pro-life bill “would impose new legal requirements related to the provision of abortion services in certain circumstances, which would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care.”

As pro-life Congressman Chris Smith explains, this has Obama on record once again opposing care for babies born alive who survive abortions. Obama clearly either believes that killing babies after they are born is a reasonable part of an abortion or he fears that abortion companies like Planned Parenthood would stop doing abortions before they would be willing to comply with a requirement to save the babies that survive them.

“Late yesterday the President demonstrated that his subservience to Planned Parenthood is absolute and without question,” said Smith. “Blindly following the orders of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, the President issued an extreme unequivocal statement that he would veto the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that simply says a child that survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age and forbidding acts of lethal violence against such babies.”

Smith told LifeNews.com: “We are talking about babies that have been BORN ALIVE and are separate from their mothers,” Smith said. “Yet President Obama’s extreme obsession with promoting abortion doesn’t stop with killing unborn children. Even abortion survivors are not safe from this President and Planned Parenthood. Can we not treat these tiny infants as a person—as patients? According to the Abortion President and the largest abortion provider in the nation, the answer is a resounding NO.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instragam for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.

Smith continued: “These extreme statements demonstrate just who we are dealing with in the White House, but the question remains. Will Members of the House and Senate follow the lead of the abortion giant, Planned Parenthood? Or will they at least draw a line at infanticide and vote for a law protect abortion survivors and ensure people like Kermit Gosnell who kill babies who survive abortions are prosecuted and brought to justice?”

In the video CMP released exposing how Planned Parenthood harvests organs from babies who are still alive, the video features 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. That’s the company that acts as a middleman and purchases the body parts of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood to sell to research universities and other places. StemExpress was partnered with Planned Parenthood up until last week, when it quietly announced it ended its relationship with the abortion corporation.

The video includes O’Donnell’s eyewitness narrative of the daily practice of fetal body parts harvesting in Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. She tells the harrowing story of harvesting an intact brain from a late-term male unborn baby whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

O’Donnell describes the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term baby aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, California.

The procurement of body parts from aborted babies who are still alive is a violation of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a pro-life bill President George W. Bush signed into law to protect unborn babies who survive abortions. Now, Congress wants to add teeth to that law to make it so Planned Parenthood or other abortion companies would be held criminally liable for breaking the law.

The National Right to Life Committee provided LifeNews a detailed analysis of the groundbreaking new pro-life legislation, H.R. 3504. The information comes in the form of a letter from top NRLC officials to members of Congress urging a vote for the bill.

In 2002, Congress approved, without a dissenting vote, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), subsequently signed into law by President George W. Bush and codified as 1 U.S.C. §8. This important law states that “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes. The bill defines “born alive” in terms of explicit criteria – “complete expulsion from his or her mother . . . at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

The BAIPA was a response to troubling indications, well summarized in the House Judiciary Committee’s excellent 2001 report on the legislation, that some abortion providers and pro-abortion activists did not regard infants born alive during abortion procedures as legal persons – especially if the infants were deemed to be “pre-viable” (i.e., have limited life expectancy due to prematurity). Such a mindset puts a substantial number of live-born infant persons in jeopardy of gross neglect or overt violence. Live birth, as defined in 1 U.S.C. §8, may occur a month before “viability.” BAIPA made it crystal clear that life expectancy is entirely irrelevant for purposes of legal personhood.

However, in the years since 1 U.S.C. §8 was enacted, evidences have multiplied that some abortion providers do not regard babies born alive during abortions as persons, and do not provide them with the types of care that would be provided to premature infants who are born spontaneously. In some cases, such born-alive infants are even subjected to overt acts of deadly violence. In 2013, Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia was convicted under state law of multiple homicides of such born-alive infants, but such a prosecution and conviction is uncommon. In some jurisdictions, local authorities seem reluctant to investigate reports of infants born alive during abortions, or to bring appropriate indictments even in cases in which the publicly reported evidence of gross neglect or overt lethal acts seems strong.

Public concern has been increased by a recent series of hidden-camera videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, in which various persons described events and practices within certain Planned Parenthood abortion clinics that, at the very least, raise questions about whether it is generally recognized among abortion-clinic personnel that a born-alive baby is a legal “person,” whether before or after “viability.” Other passages raise similar questions regarding some persons who operate firms that obtain and sell baby body parts, obtained from abortion clinics.

National Right to Life believes that it is time for Congress to act decisively to put the entire abortion industry on notice that when they treat a born-alive human person as medical waste, as a source for organ harvesting, or as a creature who may be subjected to lethal violence with impunity, they will do so at grave legal peril. H.R. 3504 would enact an explicit requirement that a baby born alive during an abortion must be afforded “the same degree” of care that would apply “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including transportation to a hospital. This language does not dictate bona fide medical judgments nor require futile measures, but rather, requires that babies born alive during abortions are treated in the same manner as those who are spontaneously born prematurely. This language is based on very similar provisions contained within H.R. 36, passed by the House of Representatives on May 13, 2015.

In addition, the bill applies the existing penalties of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111 (the federal murder statute) to anyone who performs “an overt act that kills a child born alive.” This would apply, for example, to an abortion clinic staff person who dissects a breathing born-alive infant in order to harvest an intact liver, or to an abortionist who ends a born-alive baby’s whimpers with a sharp blow to the skull, or by snipping the spine.

In addition, the bill provides a civil cause of action to women who are harmed by violations of the act. The civil action provisions are similar to language in H.R. 36.

—- YEAS 248 —

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

—- NAYS 177 —

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O’Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

—- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 1 —

Garamendi

—- NOT VOTING 8 —

Delaney
Fincher
Fortenberry
Kind
Rangel
Smith (WA)
Thompson (CA)
Wagner

SEE ALSO LifeSiteNews.com – “BREAKING: US House votes to defund Planned Parenthood in wake of baby parts scandal

_______________________

When Leftists Call Fiorina a Liar

By John R. Houk

© September 18, 2015

_____________________

Liberals Accuse Carly Fiorina of ‘Lying’ About Graphic Planned Parenthood Video Description During GOP Debate — but What’s the Full Story?

All information © 2015 TheBlaze Inc

____________________

House Passes Bill to Hold Planned Parenthood Criminally Liable for Harvesting Aborted Babies Still Alive

COPYRIGHT © 2015 LifeNews.com. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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.
 

Life at Conception or Murder?


life_begins_at_conception

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2014

 

Jenni H. of the National Pro-Life Alliance re-sent an email ascribed to Senator Rand Paul which encourages readers to sign a petition promoting the Life at Conception Act. This is one of those cases in which the petition is actually a fund raiser.

 

I am typically annoyed by these kind of fund raisers because they feel a bit deceptive. Fund raising petitions smack of irrelevance pulling on the heart strings of a cause an organization or political candidate senses will finance their agenda.

 

At the same time I also understand it takes money to move an agenda you or I are very supportive toward. This is a case in which I am very supportive. I feel it is murder to kill an unborn child. Leftists and feminists tell women abortion isn’t murder. They tell them that killing an unborn child is really the simple removal of a fetus that is nothing else than a female body part like ovaries or an appendix.

 

The thing is ovaries are akin to eggs. Unfertilized that egg is nothing but a body part that is expendable. An appendix is not a vital organ in which experts only guess as to what its function or used to be to our older ancient ancestors. An appendix is not an organ in which life perpetuates independently from a woman’s body at an ever maturing rate.

 

The organ that scientists and doctors call a fetus is that which does increasingly mature and someday will be expelled by a female body to grow and live independently. That makes a fetus more than an organ. That makes a fetus a living person. If you believe in a Creator that living person has a living soul. If you are an idiotic atheist that living person is destined for sentience. To forcefully terminate that life against the desires of that life is murder. It is irrelevant if that unborn life does not have the capability to comprehend its future sentience.

 

Either way terminating a life is murder especially if the primary reason for doing so is as a form of birth control. I could care less if a Leftist or feminist argues about an unborn baby that is conceived in rape, incest or physical defect. Those unborn children comprise less than 5% of aborted babies. 98% of aborted babies are killed because a gal and/or guy copulated and primarily the gal is convinced or has been convinced it is an personal inconvenience.

 

On a personal level I would like to stop all abortion except if the life of the female depends on an abortion. BUT DEAR GOD, killing an unborn child as a form of birth control or convenience is simply murder. 2% or less of abortions occur because of rape, incest or physical defect. THIS MEANS 98% unborn babies are legally murdered! THAT IS CRAZY!

 

So sign the National Pro-Life Alliance Life at Conception Act. For God’s sake if it is in your budget send the NPLA some dough for the cause. If you are not an NPLA find another organization that supports giving rights to an unborn baby so he or she does not become a part 98% murder rate of legalized infanticide.

 

JRH 11/13/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Re: Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade 

 

Sent by Jenni H.

Sent from NPLA

Sent: 11/13/2014 12:31 PM

 

Did you see the message below?

Following huge pro-life advancements in the last election, Senator Rand Paul is working hard to pass the Life at Conception Act and it’s vital you act.

If you haven’t signed it yet, I hope you will take a moment to do so by clicking here.

If you have signed it already, could you spread the word by forwarding this email to your friends and family?

Every name on the petition will help build support for the Life at Conception Act.

Sincerely,

Jenni


From: Rand Paul [rand.paul@prolifealliance.org]
To: John Houk [john@slantright.com]
Subject: Sign the Petition to Bypass Roe v. Wade

 

For more than 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 61 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

Thanks to the results of the last election, you and I are in a better than ever position to force an up or down roll call vote on the Life at Conception Act.

And your petition will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and ultimately win a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.

You see, it will be a tough fight, but I believe with your signed petition it is one we can win.

Please click here to sign your petition right away.

 

By turning up the heat through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign in this session of Congress, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the two thousand sixteen elections.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act.

The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,387 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come.  But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S. The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

That’s why it’s so critical to work to get a vote on the Life at Conception Act, legislation that would reverse Roe v. Wade.

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Your petition is the critical first step in fighting to end abortion.

Along with your signed petition, please consider making a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. SENATOR RAND PAUL

Republican Kentucky

 

Sign the Life at Conception Act Below

 

Dear Pro-life American,

Tragically, over 4,000 babies are aborted every day in our nation.

That’s over 1.6 million every year!

But by passing a Life at Conception Act you and I can end abortion in America!

The Supreme Court itself admitted in Roe that once Congress establishes the personhood of unborn children, they must be protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which explicitly says: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property.”

Since the Supreme Court is waiting for someone to tell them who the law counts as persons, let’s not wait another minute!

Your petition will let your Senators and Congressman know that their constituents support full protection for the unborn and that they must stand for life in Washington.

After signing the petition, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10, $25 or more to NPLA.  No matter the amount you give, your donation will be matched by a generous supporter!

     Sincerely,

 

     Rand Paul,
     United States Senator (R-KY)

 

LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT PETITION

 

___________________________

Life at Conception or Murder?

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2014

__________________________

Re: Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade 

 

Because of NPLA’s tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(c)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions (IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC § 162(e)(1)).

 

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 will protect the unborn from the moment of conception onward.

We believe that it is not sufficient to merely support minor regulations on abortion in a few outrageous cases.

Instead, members of the National Pro-Life Alliance lobby both incumbents and candidates for office to come out clearly for measure like a Life at Conception Act to legislatively define constitutionally-protected “personhood” as READ THE REST

Personhood Defeats Baby Killing Abortion


Truth of Abortion

 Personhood for All - No Matter how Small

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John R. Houk

© March 3, 2014

 

The Personhood Movement does not get a lot of publicity from the Mainstream Media because of an opinion set down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The decision of the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade made abortion on demand legal regardless of any legislation or people’s initiatives on a State or Federal level. The irony of the Roe v. Wade decision is SCOTUS then and in later decisions not necessarily about abortion but of personhood left the door open legislatures – State & Federal – to define personhood which would have a huge effect of the Secular Humanist Leftist agenda of demoralizing America. Which is probably the reason the MSM does not give a lot of attention except for occasionally printing anti-personhood propaganda.

 

“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court justices enshrined this logical inconsistency in their 1973 decision to legalize abortion. By allowing mothers to abort their babies, the Court implicitly operated on the assumption that in this instance it is acceptable for one person to end the life of another, giving no regard to the innocence of that person or his God-given right to life.

 

This could only be done by denying the personhood of the fetus (a Latin term for the unborn child, meaning “little one”). In the face of the state of Texas’ argument that “the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Justice Harry Blackmun responded, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Justice Blackmun nevertheless concluded that, “the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

 

The High Court’s confusion over the nature of personhood was again demonstrated on January 21, 2010, when it ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations are considered persons under the Constitution. Although technically corporations are identified as “legal fictions,” by extending to corporations “personhood,” the Court affirmed their right under the First Amendment to engage in political campaign speech.

 

Thus we have the supreme irony—which only our American judicial system is capable of —corporations are now considered persons, but unborn babies in the womb are not.” (A Person’s a Person, No Matter How Small; By Dr. Karen Gushta; Stop the War on Children; 2/21/11)

 

AND SO the very SCOTUS decisions that activist courts made child murder legal has given an out to make abortion murder by law.

 

With this in mind Senator Rand Paul has been involved for some time to get voters to sign a Personhood petition to support a Federal (U.S. Congress) Life Begins at Conception Act. I will post the most recent email signed by Rand Paul but is actually sent out by the National Pro-Life Alliance momentarily. Prior to that though I am going to post a page from Personhood USA that clearly presents the Personhood case. Personhood USA must be on to something for when I Googled “Personhood Movement” that organization came with a number of Left Wing blogs and news sites doing hit pieces on it. I even noticed in a one Google summary (sorry I didn’t pay attention at the time to the link) that suggested that Personhood USA might cause a rift in the Pro-Life movement. This kind of press makes Personhood USA an organization and website to be attentive toward if irritates Leftists so much.

 

If you don’t want to wait to get to Rand Paul to sign the petition you can go HERE. BUT I would hope you would read through the Personhood USA definition to get a clearer understanding.

 

JRH 3/3/14

Please Support NCCR

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

What is Personhood?

 

Personhood USA About Us Page

 

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

 

VIDEO: Pro-life? What is it?

 

“Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!

 

They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!

 

This then also begs the question, is every human being a person?

 

There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity.

 

If you look up the word “person” in your average dictionary (we’ll use Webster’s), you’ll find something like this: “Person n. A human being.”

 

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics”

 

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons, and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law.

 

Personhood holds the key to filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission in the Roe v. Wade majority opinion:

 

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade

 

VIDEO: Roe v. Wade

 

In 1973, the science of fetology was not able to prove, as it can now, that a living, fully human, and unique individual exists at the moment of fertilization and continues to grow through various stages of development in a continuum until death.

 

However, pick up any embryology book today and you will find that your life and every person’s life began at fertilization (Click to read more). [Blog Editor: Unfortunately the link is missing where it reads “Click to read more”.]

 

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

 

For nearly forty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is that, in America, there is a group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. It is truly astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

 

“In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.”

Virginia Supreme Court, 1858

 

VIDEO: A Day To Advance!

 

Throughout history, certain people groups have felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood, and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such horrors possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for preborn Americans.

 

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the United States today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in this shameful injustice.

 

What is a person? A person is a human being at every age.

 

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

__________________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

By Senator Rand Paul

Sent: 3/1/2014 9:08 AM

Sent From: National Pro-Life Alliance

 

For over 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

You see, in the coming year it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record.

And your petition today will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.

Please click here to sign your petition right away.

 

By turning up the heat on Congress in 2013 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the next election.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act.

 

The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

 

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

 

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S.

 

The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade, along with a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

________________________

Personhood Defeats Baby Killing Abortion

John R. Houk

© March 3, 2014

_________________________

What is Personhood?

 

About Personhood USA

 

What is Personhood?

 

Personhood is a movement working to respect the God-given right to life
by recognizing all human beings as persons who are “created in the
image of God” from the beginning of their biological development,
without exceptions.

 

What is Personhood USA?

 

Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a
culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and
by law.

 

Personhood USA serves the pro-life community by assisting local
groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the
ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all
innocent humans.

 

We intend to build the support of at least two thirds of the states in an
effort to reaffirm personhood within the U.S. Constitution.

 

Personhood USA opposes vigilante violence.

 

Personhood USA is a 501(c) (4) Christian ministry that welcomes those who believe in the God-given right to life.

 

Approved by the Personhood USA Board and Advisory Board 8/7/2010

 

What can we do to help?

 

This is the first question Personhood USA asks READ THE REST

_________________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

National Pro-Life Alliance 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 will protect the unborn from the moment of conception onward.

We believe that it is not sufficient to merely support minor regulations on abortion in a few outrageous cases.

Instead, members of the National Pro-Life Alliance lobby both incumbents and candidates for office to come out clearly for measure like a Life at Conception Act to legislatively define constitutionally-protected “personhood” as beginning at the moment of conception.

Grass-Roots Pressure Has Built Record Support in Congress for Ending, Not Merely Regulating, Abortion-on-Demand

The grass-roots lobbying efforts of our 650,000 members have garnered a record level of support and cosponsors for such substantive measures.

The fact is, even with pro-abortion politicians still in leadership positions in the Senate and a radical President in the White House, pro-lifers have record support in Congress. More than 80 new members of Congress were elected on pro-life platforms. Now pro-lifers must hold the feet of each and every self-proclaimed “pro-life” member of Congress to the fire and demand meaningful legislation to limit, and ultimately end, abortion-on-demand.

Yet pro-abortion politicians from both parties will use every trick available to stop pro-life legislation. Nevertheless, READ THE REST

SUPPORT Life Begins at Conception


abortion-is-murder-definition

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2013

 

I am a Pro-Life/ANTI-Abortion kind of guy. I don’t believe a woman has a right to kill an unborn baby’s life. The woman might carry the unborn life but that does not make the baby a portion of her body. The concept of Pro-Choice – i.e. a woman should be able to choose decisions about her own body – is a load of self-delusion by Leftist ideology more interested in controlling/managing the extent of the Earth’s population (See Also HERE) than the Civil Liberties of a person’s life (Personhood) that has not been born yet.

 

In early 1973 the Supreme Court exacted a piece of unconstitutional Judicial Activism by creating law rather than ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In essence the case of Roe v Wade the Justices decided by fiat and a 7-2 vote to allow women to kill their unborn babies on demand. The Heritage Foundation has a great summary of the Roe v Wade decision:

 

Summary

In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.  The Due Process Clause protects a broad right to privacy that is also found in the Ninth Amendment and the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.  This substantive due process right to privacy permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason during the first trimester.  Subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the state may reasonably regulate abortions in ways related to maternal health.  After viability, the state may regulate or proscribe abortions, but it must permit them if found necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, an exception which was expanded in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

 

Analysis

This case is activist because the Supreme Court relies upon notions of living constitutionalism, invoking the doctrine of “substantive due process” to create a right that is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution.  This doctrine, which was established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, is the prime example of judges reading broad constitutional terms divorced from any textual or originalist moorings, thereby making them empty vessels into which they can pour any policy preferences they desire.  The Due Process Clause, which is now being used by judges as a judicial wildcard, was simply meant to protect the citizens from government abuse by ensuring that no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by a fair process.  The fact that the Court has used the word substantive to describe a clause that is clearly about process creates an anachronism that defies language and logic.  The Court in Roe wields the Clause to support abortion rights without any reasoned justification: after citing previous Supreme Court cases that erroneously established a broad constitutional right to privacy, the Court blithely asserted that this right “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

 

The opinion, which received a wave of criticism from those on both sides of the abortion debate, is infamous not only for its foundationless assertions about the meaning of the Due Process Clause, but also for its flawed historical analysis.  In an attempt to evaluate societal opinions about abortion throughout history, Blackmun looks to ancient societies, such as the Persian Empire, as well as the views of modern American lobbying organizations, but completely skips over the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Conveniently so.  In 1868 “there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion, stated Justice William Rehnquist in his dissent.

 

In his dissent, Justice Byron White accurately described this decision as “an exercise of raw judicial power.”  Under the guise of constitutional interpretation, the activist majority seized from the American people their ability to decide this controversial issue through the democratic process. (Roe v. Wade; Heritage Foundation)

 

There is an innovative Pro-Life plan to circumvent Leftists in Congress and in the Supreme Court. The plan is called the Life at Conception Movement (Personhood). Some Pro-Life Activists in individual States have been lobbying for such a law on a State basis. Senator Rand Paul has taken the Movement to the National level by introducing S. 583 in March 2013:

 

Calendar No. 30

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

 

S. 583

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

March 14, 2013

 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

 

March 18, 2013

 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


A BILL

 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Life at Conception Act of 2013’.

 

SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

 

In this Act:

 

(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human person’ and ‘human being’ include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

 

(2) STATE- The term ‘State’, and as used in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution, includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

 

Calendar No. 30

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 583

 

A BILL

 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.


March 18, 2013

Read the second time and placed on the calendar (S. 583: A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the rightGovTrack.us)

 

Here is the Library of Congress summary of S. 583:

 

3/14/2013–Introduced.

 

Life at Conception Act of 2013 – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child. (S. 583 Library of Congress Summary; GovTrack.us)

 

The only drawback I see about S. 583 is that it is a Bill rather than an Amendment. A Bill is easy to repeal depending on the Political Party in power in Congress and/or POTUS. An Amendment centered around the Life at Conception Movement is difficult if not also impossible to get through Congress with America’s current political spectrum divide. On the other hand if Congress managed to pass such an Amendment I suspect a sufficient number of States would line up behind it. The most populous States may be bastions of Leftist deception; however more States are Conservative on the Pro-Life stand pertaining to abortion. Amendments are ratified by State Ratification rather than a direct popular vote.

 

If S. 583 passed with the slimmest of margins in both Houses of Congress I suspect the voters’ choice for President in 2008 and 2012 – our Marxist-in-Chief – would veto the legislation. However, a successful Congressional campaign to enact the Life at Conception Act can lead to an annual thorn in Obama’s side until a Conservative President is elected in 2016. With the Life at Conception Act in mind it should be a no-brainer that Conservatives must win both the Senate and the House in the November 2014 General Elections.

 

At any rate the standard form of pressure that can be placed on our Representatives and Senators is via the petition method. Obviously petitions have no impact on the law on a Federal basis; however Representatives and Senators due pay attention to the numbers of their constituents that sign a petition. The petition numbers give legislators an idea on how to operate their campaigns for reelection.

 

The National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA) has been at least one of the vehicles that Senator Rand Paul to educate voters on the Life at Conception Act and how such a bill would use the Supreme Court’s own guidelines to make abortion on demand as a birth control method to at least become limited. The NPLA is not only using petitions to influence Representatives and Senators but the organization is also using the petition method as a fundraiser. This a fantastic fundraiser to participate in particularly for Christians who still believe in Biblical Morality. The NPLA petition will lead you to a donation page that will offer choices of donations. Take note that if you are in my boat and have a tight budget and you desire to make sure you give to your Church you might feel a bit limited if you even can donate to the Life at Conception cause; nonetheless one of the options is “other”. So I say, “DO SOMETHING!’ even if it is just $1 buck.

 

JRH 10/25/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

By Senator Rand Paul

Sent: 10/24/2013 3:23 PM

Sent by National Pro-Life Alliance

 

Dear Concerned American,

For 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

You see, in the coming year it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record.

And your petition today will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

 

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.
Please click here to sign your petition right away.

By turning up the heat on Congress in 2013 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the next election.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act. The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

 

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S. The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade, along with a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

_______________________________

SUPPORT Life Begins at Conception

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2013

______________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

NPLA Legislative Agenda

 

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

These are all important and worthwhile activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn from the moment of conception.

A wide array of legislative opportunities exists today upon which pro-life Americans must capitalize. Every year, National Pro-Life Alliance members are polled to set legislative and tactical priorities. Please click on the links below to learn more about the initiatives the National Pro-Life Alliance and its members rank as top priorities.

None of these battles will be easy. But they are all ultimately winnable. Pro-lifers owe the unborn nothing less. Thanks again for your interest in our program and your support for the unborn.