Uh oh, somebody at the Today Show didn’t get the message from the Ministry of Truth. Last week, a panel of four Today Show talking heads called the human creature with human organs, a human head, human limbs, human features, and human expressions growing inside of a woman a “baby.” #HumanHeadsWillRoll Stacey Abrams is not going to be happy about that.

Science-denier, election-denier, presidential-wannabe, softcore porn writer, and conspiracy-theorist nonpareil Stacey Abrams thinks Americans are not only deplorable but gullible. Last week she startled the nation with this pronouncement:

There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.

In her peculiar conspiracy theory, who designed the “manufactured sound to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body”? What is her evidence for this nefarious plot? As an aside, does Abrams need to be on some meds?

One wonders if Abrams conferred with Calculated Carnage—also known as Planned Parenthood (PP)—on her bolus of truthiness. Until recently Planned Parenthood’s website said this about human fetal development at gestational weeks 5-6:

A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop

That was then. This is now:

A part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it’s not a fully-formed heart — it’s the earliest stage of the heart developing.

PP sophists desperately hope Americans are as scientifically ignorant as Abrams pretends to be. PP hopes that Americans don’t know what part of the human embryo produces “cardiac” activity and that Americans believe upon full developmental maturity a body part turns into something wholly different.

Unfortunately for the PP sophists, Americans do know, for example, that when babies are born prematurely, their still-developing body parts that produce respiratory activity are lungs. Many Americans understand that a developing human heart is as a much a human heart as a developing human is, in objective reality, a human. If still-developing human hearts were not human hearts, then body-snatchers and research institutions wouldn’t be paying PP top dollars for them.

Abrams isn’t alone in coming up with strained rhetorical contrivances to avoid humanizing tiny humans. This past February, New York Times staff writer Roni Caryn Rabin described the sound mothers hear on an ultrasound at six weeks as being produced by “a primitive tube of cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood.”

In her elaborate attempt to convince people that an organized, complex, self-directed mass of “cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood” is nothing whatsoever like a beating human heart, Rabin elaborates:

The electric activity begins at around six weeks in a tube of cells that will become a heart, after multiple gyrations.

It will bend and loop and twist itself into an S shape. Thick cushions of embryonic tissue will grow toward one another to create walls, and a ridge on the floor of the ventricle will rise to meet them to partition the heart. If all goes well, four chambers and valves will form by the ninth or 10th week of pregnancy, and the heart will continue developing throughout gestation. But a heartbeat’s familiar “lub-dub, lub-dub” sound is created by the closing of the heart’s valves, which do not exist in the six-week-old cardiac tube.

Is that the medical term for the complex development of the human heart: “gyrations”? I thought gyrations were what Elvis’s wayward pelvis did.

At least as noteworthy as Rabin’s emphatic assertion that THERE IS NO FOUR-CHAMBERED HEART INSIDE ANY SIX-WEEK-OLD HUMAN, is her admission that “if” all goes well, those pesky chambers and valves will be present by the ninth or tenth week of pregnancy.

Since Abrams supports the legalized slaughter of tiny humans throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any or no reason, the age at which a human heart has four chambers and beats means nothing to her.

As of Jan. 24, 2022, Dr. Vincenzo Berghella, Director of the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University writing on the well-known website Baby Center said this:

a baby’s heartbeat can be detected by transvaginal ultrasound as early as 3 to 4 weeks after conception, or 5 to 6 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period.

YIKES! “Baby”? “Heartbeat”? What was Dr. Berghella saying? And why did Baby Center even have a man writing about pregnancy. Sheesh.

By July 20, 2022, writer Karen Miles—not a doctor—had changed the section to imply a more palatable, less humanish development:

You may be able to see the beating of cells in the heart tube for the first time when you’re about 6 weeks pregnant. … At 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy, there’s a flickering of cells within the embryo’s torso. This flickering is the developing heart tube. At this point, the heart isn’t the four-chambered organ we’re familiar with.

Can’t say the word “beating.” Wouldn’t be prudent. “Beating” might suggest to women that there’s a human with a life-sustaining heart inside her. Instead, Miles used the word “flickering,” which means “to move unsteadily or irregularly.”

Prying itself from the conspiracy to control women, in June 2021, ABC News said that Texas’ heartbeat law “bans abortion once the rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue — aka the ‘fetal heartbeat’ — can be detected.” “Fetal heartbeat” was in scare quotes. “Rhythmic contracting of fetal cardiac tissue” was not.

The terrifying conspiracy to “convince the world that men have the right to take control of women’s bodies” is ubiquitous, hiding in plain sight for all the tin-foil hat-accoutered paranoiacs to see. WebMD says that at week 6 “your baby’s tiny heart has started to beat.”

Healthline states that “A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks.”

Medline Plus states that at gestational weeks 6-7 a “Baby’s heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. This can be seen by vaginal ultrasound.”

The American Pregnancy Association says that “Generally, from [gestational age] 6 ½ -7 weeks [fetal age: 5 weeks] is the time when a heartbeat can be detected.”

Maybe one day mad pink-hatters will stomp their jackbooted feet and shriek, “It’s not a baby!” until they stomp a hole in the ground and disappear into the dark Upside Down where non-sense and feelings rule, and evil is relished as good. In that day, women will let their babies’ hearts keep beating.

Based on the response from the left, you would think that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would virtually guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why, then, are some conservative and pro-life groups opposing his confirmation?

On the positive side, many pro-life leaders reacted enthusiastically to the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the highly-respected Susan B. Anthony List.

She said, “President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court.”

In her opinion, Kavanaugh was “an experienced, principled jurist,” who has a “strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

Many others were enthusiastic as well, including conservative think tanks and long-term pro-life leaders.

On the negative side, Jane Coaston wrote an article for Vox.com explaining, “Why social conservatives are disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh.”

She pointed to a number of top leaders in the conservative and pro-life movement who had reservations about Kavanaugh or who called for outright opposition.

Upon hearing of President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, the National Review’s David French wrote, “I’ll defend [Kavanaugh] vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.”

Tim Wildmon, President of the highly influential American Family Association, wrote, “AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.”

Other groups, like Columbia [South Carolina] Christians for Life sent out e-blasts with titles like, “ROE VS. WADE protector Kavanaugh: Another red flag for Jesuit-educated, Jesuit school director, BRETT KAVANAUGH.” (This was sent out August 30.)

Another pro-life activist sent out links to this video, with this warning: “President Trump broke his campaign promise to pro-lifers when he nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Ricardo Davis of Georgia Right to Life calls Kavanaugh’s pro-abortion position ‘morally reprehensible’ and urges pro-lifers and conservatives to demand Kavanaugh’s withdrawal and for Trump to replace him with a real pro-life nominee such as Amy Coney Barrett.”

How can we make sense of this?

On the one hand, there is agreement that someone like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, if appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, would definitely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the opportunity present itself. The downside is that many believe that in today’s climate, despite the Republican majority, she would not have been confirmed.

Others have suggested that it’s unlikely that there will be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade as much as an incremental challenge. What if something like the Fetal Heartbeat Bill became law and was challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court? How would Kavanaugh vote on that?

The real answer is that we simply do not know what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh would do.

According to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a Senior Legal Fellow, Kavanaugh’s “record meets the Schumer standard of a judge who does not predictably rule for a particular side. That is because Kavanaugh is the kind of judge who follows the law rather than his personal views.”

What, then, are we to make of the varied and passionate responses to Justice Kavanaugh? Does the left have reason to fear? Does the right have reason to rue a missed opportunity?

Here are a few things that seem clear.

First, we can be almost certain that Justice Kavanaugh will be a far better friend of the U.S. Constitution and of conservative values than any judge a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed. That is a very big positive.

Second, we who are pro-life do well not to put our ultimate trust in a man (Kavanaugh) or an institution (the U.S. Supreme Court) to change the direction of our nation. (This is not to deny the importance of both the man and the institution. It is simply to bring perspective.)

Third, it is possible that Kavanaugh himself cannot guarantee how he will rule if confirmed. There have been surprises in every direction from various appointees in the past, and even the best vetting process cannot guarantee the future.

Obviously, I hope that the leftist opposition to Kavanaugh is correct and that, should the opportunity arise, he would vote for life and for family and for our essential liberties.

But there may be a reason for the concern of some on the right, in which case we should be praying for Kavanaugh and the rest of the members of the Court that God would direct their hearts.

Scripture teaches that, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” Surely He can turn the hearts of U.S. Supreme Court justices as well.

More importantly, He can turn the hearts of a nation. That is the greater goal when it comes to cultivating a culture of life, and it must always remain the foremost goal for all of us who love life. As powerful as the Supreme Court has become, it alone cannot transform hearts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

A majority of Americans including many mainline Christians support legal abortion, but many religious conservatives say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center.

Those religious conservatives are now hoping that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in light of President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a practicing Catholic, to the U.S. Supreme Court. They’re optimistic that having a fifth conservative on the bench could lead to a reversal of the 1973 landmark case that made abortion a constitutional right. Kavanaugh gave a speech last year in which he praised former Chief Justice William Rehnquist for dissenting in Roe v. Wade.

A Pew survey last year showed that 57 percent of Americans support legal abortion, while 40 percent believe it should be illegal in most or all cases. A Pew 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that evangelicals tend to oppose legal abortion while people in mainline Protestant churches, as well as Jews, atheists, and agnostics, tend to support it. While Catholics are divided, the Roman Catholic Church continues to speak out against abortion.

Sixty-six percent of Southern Baptists are opposed to legal abortion, compared to only 8 percent of Unitarian Universalists and 18 percent of Episcopalians. Other religious groups with a high percentage opposed include Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christians affiliated with the Assemblies of God.

In a January 2018 news release, Pew reported:

Among those who do identify with a religion, the majority view about abortion among members of a particular group often mirrors that group’s official policy on abortion. This is the case with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church) and the Southern Baptist Convention – both churches oppose abortion, as do most members of those churches. And the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Unitarian Universalist Association, and Reform and Conservative Judaism, for example, all support abortion rights, in line with most of their adherents.

There are, however, cases where the views of a church’s members don’t align with its teachings on abortion. For instance, while the Roman Catholic Church is an outspoken critic of abortion, U.S. Catholics were divided on the issue in the 2014 survey, with 48% supportive of legal abortion and 47% opposed.  (See chart HERE.)

In June 2017, the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting denounced Planned Parenthood and called on Congress to fully defund it. The convention passed a resolution that called out the “immoral agenda and practices of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates, especially their role in the unjust killing each year of more than 300,000 precious unborn babies, its use of particularly gruesome illegal abortion methods, and its profiteering from harvesting unborn babies’ tissues and organs.”

By contrast, representatives of mainline denominations have been vocal in support of legal abortion. This past March, 68 faith leaders in Iowa wrote a letter published in the Des Moines Register criticizing a bill in the state legislature that would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The letter said in part:

Every person has the right to their own personal and religious beliefs and to live their life how they determine is best for them. The government does not have the right to infringe on the freedoms or privacy of Iowa women based on those religious beliefs. Every woman deserves to consult her values, faith, and doctor when making a decision about her body and her pregnancy. Any law that strips a woman of her faith and tries instead to legislate her values for her is immoral.

Republican state lawmakers in Iowa were able to pass the fetal heartbeat bill despite objections from Democrats. No Democrats supported the bill. It was signed into law by Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, but a judge blocked it from taking effect July 1 as a result of a lawsuit filed by abortion activists.

The Chicago Tribune has reported that more out-of-state women have been coming to Illinois for abortions because of less restrictive laws compared to those in surrounding states. The overall number of abortions had dropped, however, but is now on the rise, an increase attributed to a state law passed last year that expands taxpayer subsidies for abortions. Under the new law, which took effect January 1, Medicaid recipients and state employees and their dependents covered by state employee insurance can get taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

Read more:  Illinois Taxpayer Funded Abortions Increase at Least 274 Percent in First Six Months of 2018

Spread the Word! 

Do you have friends or acquaintances who could benefit from IFI’s informational emails? If you do, please forward this IFI email to them and encourage them to subscribe our e-mail list!

It is only because of concerned citizens like you that we are able to continue promoting pro-family values in the Prairie State.