Pro-life advocate accuses politicians of using faith for political means

February 3, 2008

From Rusty Pugh and One News Now.

“Pro-life advocate Judie Brown says many politicians — including the two leading Democratic presidential contenders — claim to be Christian, while supporting things that are clearly contrary to Christian beliefs. During an election year, politicians frequently appear in the pulpits of churches, professing to be believers. Such was the case recently when Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) spoke to a Baptist church in Memphis, and Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) appeared at a United Church of Christ in Macon, Georgia. Both Democrats openly support abortion — and the former first lady even argued earlier this month in a campaign mailing that she is more pro-abortion than her opponent. American Life League president Judie Brown says there is a disconnect in the public mind with regard to what God teaches about the sanctity of human life versus what has become the political rhetoric of Christianity. “It is one thing to profess to be a believing Christian, and another to, by your actions, either confirm that you are indeed a believing Christian, or that you are using your so-called Christianity for the purpose of political gain,” says Brown. Brown says that in many cases — such as Obama’s and Clinton’s — she sees politicians “using their professed Christianity for political ends, without even recognizing what it means to be a Christian, and I find that rather sad.”


Clinton vs. Obama: A New Twist In The Fight For Life And Power

January 30, 2008

From Gary Randall and the Faith and Freedom Network and Foundation.

“It may be worse than you think. We have known for a long time that many liberal, secularists will do just about anything to get elected. Including running and hiding from their voting records. However, as voters have become more sophisticated and started actually looking at voting records, some lawmakers have taken creativity to a new level.

A few weeks ago Hillary accused Obama of not being as “pro-abortion” as she is. To prove it, she pointed to his voting record on the subject while he served in the Illinois State Legislature. She said he voted “present” instead of voting “no” on anti-abortion issues.

As his defense surfaced, you won’t believe who was orchestrating and planning his vote.

That’s right. Planned Parenthood.

In defending his pro-abortion position, the Obama people said, “Oh, no. He is actually more pro-abortion than Hillary, because he was voting “present” on those bills to further the cause.” Planned parenthood confirmed that they had actually devised the plan to have him and other Democrats vote “present” because there was a threat to some of their offices.

The threat?

Well, Pam Sutherland, CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, explained it to the press. She said, “We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats. It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood, to decide that a ‘present’ vote was the same as a ‘no’ vote.”

Astute? Probably. Devious? Who is devious? The astute republican leader who publicizes a lawmaker’s voting record or the lawmaker who decides that “present” means “no”?

This is another case of lawmakers getting elected by saying one thing during elections, then doing something very different once in office. Voter beware.

So, who is more pro-abortion, Obama or Clinton? We’ll let the abortion people fight that out.

This does cause one to wonder if either of these folks actually got to the White House, what kind of “code” voting Planned Parenthood would devise for them.

Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood just announced a campaign to raise $10 million to defeat pro-life candidates at the state level.

We need real change.”


An Unexpected Correlation: The Legacy of Abortion

January 23, 2008

From Mark Earley and Breakpoint.

“A woman—let’s call her Caroline—was 92 years old. She was dying, in agony, but Caroline’s pain was not physical. It was emotional. Caroline, you see, had been carrying a secret for more than 50 years: As a young woman, she had undergone two abortions, suffered terrible guilt all her life—and now, on her death-bed, afraid that God could not forgive her.

As her palliative-care nurse, Jean Echlin, writes, “At the end of her life she shared with me her agony over her lost babies . . . she felt that she had committed murder.”

Caroline is not alone, as Echlin writes in Perspectives 2007, a publication of the De Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. Echlin also tells the story of a woman named Lydia, who was dying of cancer. Even with the use of a pain pump, which gave her steady doses of morphine, Lydia’s pain did not abate.

“I asked her if her faith or prayer could be of any comfort,” Echlin writes. “Lydia remained silent except for her moaning.” But the next day she confided the truth. “I can’t pray—God won’t listen,” Lydia said. “I killed a precious baby when I was 18 . . .” Lydia’s abortion had taken place more than 40 years ago—and she was still grieving over it.

Caroline and Lydia are but two examples of what the Institute calls an “unexpected correlation” between abortion and pain-relief care. Dying women experience unresolved guilt and psychological pain related to their abortion—guilt and pain that stand in the way of a peaceful death. Their guilt is so great, Echlin says, that it impedes the effectiveness of their pain medication. Only when the abortion issue is resolved—when someone listens to them and assures them of God’s forgiveness—is the pain medication made effective, and the women able to die peacefully.

This is dramatic testimony that abortion is not, as the abortion lobby claims, something women will “get over” in a week or two. It is evidence that we know inherently that we are made in the image of the God who gives life. When we do violence to that image—when we destroy life instead of nurturing it—it has a profound effect on our emotions, our psyche, and our souls.

Today, as we mourn the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the tens of millions of abortions that have resulted from this dreadful decision, we must recognize that there are likely many women among us who are silently suffering abortion grief decades after their babies’ lives were snuffed out. As the De Veber Institute notes, these women need our compassion, and their trauma should be recognized and acknowledged by their care providers.

As we comfort the dying, we must also help the living. We must make sure young women know the truth: that abortion takes a human life; that there are alternatives to abortion; and that there are people who will help them through a difficult, unplanned pregnancy.

And they must be told that the notion that they will simply “get over” an abortion is a bold-faced lie. The truth is that if they walk into that abortion clinic, they may still be feeling the agony over taking their baby’s life—even on their deathbed a half century later.”


Barack Obama, John Edwards Tout Pro-Abortion Positions in New Survey

December 21, 2007

From Steven Ertelt and lifenews.com.

“Democratic candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards touted their pro-abortion positions in a candidate questionnaire presented to them by RH Reality Check, a web site for hard-core pro-abortion activists. They and second-tier candidate Chris Dodd were the only Democrats seeking the presidency to respond.

Obama’s campaign staff answered the questionnaire for the Illinois senator and said “Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed [abortion.]”

His staff pointed out that Obama has consistently earned 100 percent marks from pro-abortion groups during both his Senate tenure and his time in the Illinois legislature. His campaign also points out that, in 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area’s Roe v. Wade celebration

Obama’s campaign stressed how he has been involved in trying to shape the pro-abortion movement for the future.

“This year at a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups,” the campaign said.

Regarding the legality of abortion, the campaign said Obama “supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade” and “does not support the Hyde amendment” protecting taxpayers from funding abortions with their tax dollars.

On other issues, the campaign says Obama opposes parental consent bills, opposes abstinence education when it’s not combined with sexual education, and he would overturn the Mexico City Policy preventing public funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas.

Meanwhile, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards’ campaign staff answered for him, and provided the answers in first person.

“I have consistently worked to protect and promote” abortion, the completed questionnaire said. “As a senator, I earned a 100 percent voting record with both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.”

Edwards’ campaign staff explained that his health care plan includes coverage for abortion and that he opposes abstinence education when taught by itself.

Edwards made it clear that he will tolerate not restrictions on abortion — including parental involvement or preventing taxpayer funding.

“No, I do not support restrictions on abortion,” he said. “I have opposed bans on abortion procedures (such as the so-called “partial birth” legislation) that do not make an adequate exception for a woman’s health.”

“I oppose any effort to restrict abortion as an option for women who depend on the government for their health care needs. I support public funding of abortion services for low-income women,” Edwards added. “While in the Senate, I voted against restrictions on funding for abortions for federal employees and District of Columbia residents.”

Edwards also bashed pregnancy centers and said he would not support federal funding for them to help women choose alternatives to abortion.

“No, federal tax dollars should not endorse or support programs that knowingly include medically or scientifically inaccurate information and that mislead and intimidate women,” he said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat not thought to have much of a chance of getting the nomination, submitted a fully pro-abortion questionnaire as well.”


Heisman Winner Makes Forward Progress on Life

December 13, 2007

From the Family Research Council.

“According to his mom, football sensation Tim Tebow came very close to missing his run at the Heisman Trophy. Pam Tebow says it wasn’t because of his performance, but because her doctors had advised the couple to abort him. Back in the ’80s, when she and her husband Bob were in the mission field, Pam was diagnosed with a medical condition that could only be treated with drugs that risked harming her unborn child. To avoid “irreparable damage” to her baby, doctors suggested that she abort the future Heisman winner. She refused. Today, Pam, Bob, and the entire University of Florida football team are glad she didn’t. Despite the doctor’s prediction, Tim was born completely healthy–and remains so. In his acceptance speech for the Heisman, Tim said, “I just (want) to first start off by thanking my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave me the ability to play football, gave me a great family and support group…” Sadly, not every unborn child is as fortunate as Tim. For every baby like him, whose parents embrace the gift of life, there are countless others whose lives are ended before they begin, all in the name of “choice.” Of the 49 million who never lived to realize their potential, imagine the number of future leaders, inventors, doctors–and, yes, even Heisman trophy winners–among them. We are grateful to the Tebow family for sharing their testimony and pray that it helps persuade other women of the inherent value of their unborn children and the great promise that lies within.”


Children: Some Killed, Others Wounded

December 5, 2007

From the Family Research Council.

“In Oregon, a former Planned Parenthood abortionist has pled guilty to charges that he advertised and engaged in child pornography. Abortionist George Kabacy, who for the last several years has resided in Washington state, faces anywhere from five to 10 years in prison for possessing over 8,000 sexual images of children on his home computer. Kabacy’s trial is one of many ongoing investigations with ties to Planned Parenthood, including high-profile probes in Kansas, Connecticut, Ohio, and California. Many involve a string of alleged sexual abuse and statutory rape cover-ups by Planned Parenthood clinic workers. In Kansas, former attorney general Phill Kline has filed over 100 criminal charges against one abortion center in the month of November alone, many of them involving performance of illegal abortions and falsification of reports. For too long, our nation has allowed Planned Parenthood to be a silent partner in the abuse of children. Attorneys general and district attorneys should move quickly to launch their own inquiries into local Planned Parenthood branches and put violators out of business once and for all.”


Survivor: The Womb Edition

November 5, 2007

From the Family Research Council.

“Having just witnessed the miracle of new life, I was amazed at the story of the Lord’s protection over an unborn baby that doctors in the U.K. tried–unsuccessfully–to abort. The child, who physicians claimed suffered from an enlarged heart that would likely be fatal in the womb, was a twin. Heeding their doctors’ advice, which was to put the child out of his misery, Rebecca and Mark Jones reluctantly agreed to abort the baby in hopes of saving his brother. Gabriel, as he is now known, had other ideas. When the medical team tried to sever his umbilical cord to cut off the blood supply, the cord was too strong. Next they tried to divide the placenta in half “so that when Gabriel died, it wouldn’t affect his twin brother.” To everyone’s amazement, Gabriel survived for another five weeks–long enough for Rebecca to deliver him. She and her husband now marvel that their babies are both alive and completely healthy. “No one could quite believe it,” Rebecca says, seven months later. In fact, the procedure that doctors thought would end Gabriel’s life was later credited with saving it. The distribution of nutrients through the separate placentas helped give him the strength he needed to keep fighting. As moving as this story is, it does underscore just how vital it is for families to have pro-life doctors who share their worldview. Like the Joneses, we’re often at the mercy of the medical community’s opinion, and surely we all want their advice to be illuminated through a pro-life lens. “