FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE


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

 

VIDEO: ROE v. WADE The Movie INDIEGOGO CAMPAIGN

 

Posted by Roe v. Wade The Movie

Published on Jan 8, 2018

 

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

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

 

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

 

JRH 1/13/18

Please Support NCCR

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

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE

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

 

By ART MOORE

January 12, 2018

WND

 

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

 

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

 

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

 

Actor and producer Nick Loeb

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

 

“This is stealing or fraud.”

 

Facebook has not responded to requests for an explanation.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Internet freedom

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

____________________

DONATE TO WND

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

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

 

An Unalienable Right to Life


Ps 139_13 God knows U before born

I am a little hampered from doing my typical introductory duties today due to recovering from cataract surgery and I feel a one-eyed cyclops, Because of the surgery I am excerpting Justin Smith’s thoughts to the submission. This also me tugging on potential heartstrings: If anyone would like to donate to my hospital deductible feel free to avail yourself to either my paypal button on SlantRight 2.0 blog or to the

link under my initials

 

This submission addresses the recent abortion SCOTUS ruling on June 27th.

 

The recent Supreme Court ruling on Texas abortion clinics needs much closer examination, and by that same token so too does the overall question of abortion and how We proceed in the future as a moral nation that truly does value all life.

 

JRH 7/7/16

Please Support NCCR

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

An Unalienable Right to Life

 

Sent: 7/6/2016 12:17 PM

By Justin O. Smith

 

Life has intrinsic value, but pro-abortionists of the Far Left and the Democratic Party, who have already received their unalienable God-given right to life, have ignored the rights of the unborn to live since the 1973 Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision. They have attempted to desensitize American society to the murders of nearly 70 million babies, horrifically and painfully killed by being ripped apart, suctioned, chemically burned and decapitated, and far too often their agenda has been advanced by Supreme Court Justices, who have interjected their own political bias into a case rather than objectively interpret the law, just as America witnessed once more on June 27th, 2016.

 

The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, struck down two safety-directed and medically sound common sense provisions of Texas law that demanded abortion physicians must have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinics and that abortion clinics must meet the standards of an “ambulatory surgical center.” The decision called these provisions an “undue burden” on a woman’s non-existent and phantom “right” to an abortion, which illustrates how sick and lost America has become, as our courts, many so-called “leaders” and many citizens define what constitutes life based on convenience, the height of inhuman evil.

 

Star Parker, a well-known journalist, observed in her June 29th article that the requirement for Texas abortion clinics to meet the standards on an “ambulatory surgical center”, a provision adopted by 20 other states, was a direct response to the Kermit Gosnell case in Pennsylvania. Gosnell operated a filthy, unregulated clinic for years, and he was convicted on manslaughter and murder charges stemming from his unsavory, immoral and incompetent procedures.

 

Many Americans have a great appreciation for their right to privacy, but that right does not supersede the right of the unborn to their lives. The hypothesis advanced in the 1965 Griswold vs Connecticut decision and the basis for Roe vs Wade was created from thin air and incoherent logic, pulled straight from the Supreme Court’s ass. In similar fashion, the Court’s June 27th decision was pulled from its collective ass, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor joining Breyer in finding within the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution a “right” unknown to our Founding Fathers, a right that actually embodies an atrocity that the Founders most certainly would have rejected if it had come before them.

 

There is absolutely no mention of anything in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments that remotely resembles any right to abortion. As such, anything concerning abortion must fall to the States, because the Tenth Amendment plainly states: “The powers not delegated to the United Sates by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, provided years of objective service and his adjudication of cases should serve as a template. Scalia noted in 2009: “I do not believe that the Constitution requires States to permit abortion, but neither do I believe it invalidates state laws that permit abortion”.

 

Following the latest trends activated by minority protests and their own whims, time and again, ignorant high-perched idiots on the Supreme Court, this council of kings __ court jesters to be more accurate __ have supplanted sound existing laws, proper precedents, referendums and the will of the people and tradition with perversions of the law, as viewed through the lens of Obamacare, “gay” [same-sex] marriage and religious liberty. They make law rather than interpret law objectively, and in the process, they betray America and trample on the critical ingredient of our democratic constitutional republic __ our Liberty.

 

Thomas Jefferson, a lawyer and our third U.S. President, foresaw this day, stating: “… the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the judiciary; an irresponsible body … advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of the jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states … [It] will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

 

While one ponders all of this, bear in mind that Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project, the fountainhead of Planned Parenthood, started as a eugenics plan to contain the “inferior” races through birth control, sterilization and abortion, a plan to make certain only the most “fit” were allowed to be born. And, as Rev. Jesse Peterson observes in ‘From Rage to Responsibility’, Sanger never intended for abortion to be widespread in the white population; she viewed abortion as a method for improving the population by convincing poor minorities to murder their unborn babies.

 

Since 1939 abortion on demand has been a part of the Far Left’s vision for America and the Democratic Party’s platform. In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in the Democratic Party’s platform for 2016 and beyond, and they are demanding the revocation of all restrictions on abortion, including the gruesome partial-birth abortions in which late-term babies are murdered as they exit the birth canal.

 

On June 27th, Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Women won’t be ‘punished’ for exercising their basic rights,” suggesting that babies are a form of punishment rather than a gift from God, unless the mother decides she wants the baby. But packaging abortion as “a woman’s right to choose” ignores the rights of the father and the rights of the unborn child.

 

Abortion is the murder of a human child, and it should be illegal.

 

America’s Founding Fathers articulated one’s right to life in the Declaration of Independence, in such a manner that the right to life is known and recognized to be fundamental to the unalienable God-given rights our Constitution was designed to protect; and, since life begins at conception, each individual human life has an unalienable right to life from its earliest beginning. This is especially true once the unborn baby can survive outside the womb, and as such, even in the womb, these babies are deserving of “due process” and “equal protection” under the law, as provided under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

Unmask the horror of abortion and reveal the beauty and worth of those little persons residing in millions of wombs across America, our fellow human beings, in every definition of the word “person” __ Little perfectly formed human babies. Negate and nullify the abortionists’ claim to constitutional primacy, with the certainty that these little human beings’ unalienable rights come from God by virtue of the fact that all humans are created in His image, imbued with a unique dignity and worth not found in the rest of creation, and move America to once again see abortion as grossly immoral, barbaric and criminal, just as America viewed it centuries before this generation.

 

End this abominable practice by advancing the standard that “these truths” are “self-evident” throughout States’ constitutions and Congressional mandates, while dismissing and refusing to obey the Supreme Court’s edicts that are based on pretexts and ill-conceived logic and that are contrary to American principles that value life and liberty.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________

Spellcheck Editing courtesy Microsoft Word.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

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.