While the pro-life position is widely associated with Bible-believing Christians, there are actually professing Christians who identify as pro-choice. In fact, one of my pro-life colleagues was speaking at a church in Michigan when, to his shock, he learned that the pastor had recently taken up an offering to help one of the young ladies in the church get an abortion. How can this be?

A pro-life colleague in Charlotte, North Carolina told me that he knew an abortion doctor in the city who gave a tenth of her earnings to her local church. In her mind, she was doing God’s work.

In that same spirit, Breitbart reports that, “Several left-wing, pro-abortion activist groups led by so-called ‘clergy’ are ramping up their efforts to make sure women can abort their unborn children, including transporting them to states where abortionists are still operating.”

In the words of Katie Zeh, a pastor and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, “It’s so central to our faith to care for people, so it’s no surprise that clergy [prior to Roe v. Wade] were part of the group helping people get abortion care.”

When we look to the Scriptures, it is clear that the Bible describes the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is a child with potential life and destiny ahead, not a clump of cells. So, the pro-life position is easily deduced from the pages of the Bible.

But when we look to writings of the early Church leaders, their condemnation is even more direct and forceful. And remember: this was without the visual evidence of ultrasounds and without today’s massive improvements in fetal viability. Still, they recognized abortion for the evil that it is.

One of the earliest Church writings from outside the New Testament is the Didache, also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve,” as if going back directly to the twelve apostles.

It states, “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2).

Both abortion and infanticide were prohibited, regardless of what the rest of the culture practiced. Such was the counter-culture mentality of the Church, being transformed by the Word rather than conformed to the world (see Romans 12:1-2).

Another important source from the early Church is the Letter of Barnabas. It mirrors the Didache, stating, “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19). It’s a baby inside the womb and a baby outside the womb.

Writing towards the end of the second century, Tertullian said, “In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8).

Skipping ahead 200 more years, to the end of the fourth century, Jerome wrote, “Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13).

And this is just a sampling of the statements of these Church leaders, for whom abortion was a deeply sinful practice. In the words of John Chrysostom, also in the late fourth century, abortion is “murder before the birth.”

In fact, David Bercot, in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, listed more than 20 relevant quotes under the heading of Abortion/Infanticide, indicating how these Church leaders saw abortion and infanticide as two sides of the same coin. (Note that infanticide was widely practiced in the ancient world, with parents leaving unwanted infants outdoors to be killed by animals or nature.)

The amount of citations gathered by Bercot also points to the importance of the topic for these Christian leaders, the earliest of whom were the disciples of the apostles.

For those of you reading this article who have had abortions or participated in an abortion, it is understandable that these quotations sting deeply. At the same time, there is mercy and forgiveness and healing and restoration at the cross. And if you confess your sin to God and cry out for mercy and grace, the blood of Jesus will cleanse you – thoroughly, completely, and eternally. And this includes the sin of abortion.

And to every Christian leader who claims to find biblical support for your abortion-supporting position, I leave you with the words of Jesus: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).

When those babies in the womb – the ultimate “little ones” – are being destroyed, their angels are looking right into the face of the heavenly Father. You will answer to Him on that final Day.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Abigal Ruth

The love of a parent for a child is the most natural love there is. Most people find it easier to love their children than any other people on the planet and would sacrifice their very lives for their children if necessary. I don’t think it’s overstating it to say that our love for our children is probably the purest and least self-serving love of which we are capable as fallen human beings in a broken world.

So how is it that killing our children has become not only epidemic in practice but morally acceptable in the minds of so many Americans? I am of course talking about abortion. The most obvious answer is that we are sinners and everything about us is corrupt in one way or another—even our love for our children. God makes that fact crystal clear in the Bible which whitewashes nothing. References to children being sacrificed to pagan gods pepper the pages of the Old Testament. The well documented practice of ancient Romans abandoning their unwanted infants at garbage dumps to die of exposure, neglect and/or animal attack, surely indicates that a lack of respect for human life is normal for human beings who don’t have the enlightenment of God’s law. But still, how have so many mothers become the mortal enemies of their own unborn children?

I would suggest to you that there is another principle at work here. It can be found in Paul’s letter to the Galatians (3:24) which says, “the Law has become our tutor…(AMP)” Paul was, of course talking about God’s laws which He gave to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. The central point of this verse is not the point I am about to make, but nevertheless true: For better or worse, all laws teach people about right and wrong—especially non-religious people who do not have an independent moral code. They figure if it’s legal it must not be that bad…

In their excellent book, Legislating Morality, Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek say it this way,

“Even though laws don’t change hearts overnight, they often help change attitudes over the long term…Today, apart from the tiny fraction of racist extremists in this country, everybody believes that slavery is morally wrong. Did hearts and attitudes change overnight because we outlawed slavery? No. Behavior changed because slave owners didn’t want to go to jail, but the law did help change pro-slavery attitudes over the long term…Before the Civil War, slave owners could rationalize the obvious immorality of slavery under the cover of “it’s legal.” Afterward, the law didn’t proved that convenient excuse and attitudes slowly changed.”

The same has been true of abortion. Abortion on demand was illegal for the first 200 years of our existence as a nation. All fifty states had laws against it. Even in New York it was limited to cases of rape, incest and saving the mother’s life. Before Roe v. Wade the vast majority of Americans believed that abortion was immoral. The laws in all fifty states protecting the unborn confirms this. The legalization of abortion did not come about as a result of the American people clamoring for it. The change in attitude toward abortion came after seven unelected U.S. Supreme Court justices arbitrarily reversed the will of the majority as expressed through their legislators to protect the unborn. Legalizing abortion helped to remove the stigma of immorality and taught millions of Americans the lie that abortion is morally acceptable. We have seen the same change in attitude happen in a stunningly short period time with regard to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

We need not criminalize every behavior that God calls sin. That would be both unworkable and foolish. However, our civil laws should never contradict God’s laws because God’s laws accurately reflect what is truly right and wrong.

I can foresee a day in which infanticide, prostitution and even pedophilia will not only be legalized but will become morally acceptable in the minds of many Americans. Unless more people learn to fear God and turn to His law as the primary source of moral wisdom, the escalation of evil is inevitable. The consequences will be catastrophic–especially for children. Pastors, it’s time to quit pulling your punches. Teach God’s law as well as His grace. If your congregations don’t learn right and wrong from God they WILL learn it elsewhere…

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
~Romans 10:14~

As President Trump gazed out over his audience in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber during his State of the Union address, he had to have noticed the prominent block of female Democratic lawmakers seated front and center, dressed in white to symbolize their growing power in the halls of government.  Their presence was a painful reminder to the President that in the 2018 Congressional races female voters preferred Democratic candidates by 19 points, sending a record 106 women to Congress.

As he begins the third year of his presidency, Trump is in the doghouse with the fairer sex who, according to the polls, disapprove of him by almost a 2-to-1 margin. Quite a turnaround from 2016, when Trump won the election with record support of women – notably white women.

Accordingly, the President spent much of his speech touting women’s gains during his administration, which sent the Democratic contingent to their feet in enthusiastic applause.  In addition to job creation and electoral successes for women, Trump noted that paid family leave –a key women’s issue – was included in his budget.  One senses the standing ovations when certain issues were raised were not in praise of Trump, but rather defiant, as in: “Your days are numbered.”

Undeterred by his ambivalent audience, Trump launched into his signature issue of immigration, pointing out that many female illegal immigrants are sexually assaulted on their long journey to the US southern border.  He even highlighted the presence in the chamber of an ICE agent who rescues women from sex traffickers.  The contingent dressed in white sat stone-faced and muted in lock-step with their leadership, which has announced its opposition to a border wall despite the dangers posed to female illegal immigrants

Turning his attention to a central issue for social conservatives, the President boldly announced his opposition to what he termed “chilling” legislation recently introduced in New York and Virginia that would loosen abortion restrictions: “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world … Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” he pleaded to vigorous applause from Republicans.

The abortion issue is gaining steam nationwide in the buildup to the 2020 national elections.  Worldometers.info, a site that tracks global statistics in real time, reports that abortions are the leading cause of death worldwide.  The 43 million abortions in 2018 exceeded deaths from all other causes, including cancer and heart ailments.  With a President who unabashedly addressed the issue in his SOTU speech, we can hope and pray that his words will encourage a great movement to overturn Roe vs. Wade and finally put an end to abortion, led by masses of those who concur with his words: “Let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.”

Christian Life in Exile
On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

Nothing screams “nasty woman” quite like Virginia lawmaker Kathy Tran’s cold-blooded and thankfully defeated bill that would have legalized de facto infanticide. When asked prior to the vote if her bill would allow the slaughter of a full-term baby during labor, she was forced to publicly admit that it would.

If it had passed, full-term healthy babies could have been slaughtered for any reason that a murderous doctor deemed a threat to a mother’s “mental health.” Just wondering, shouldn’t this be a hate crime? Wikipedia defines a hate crime as one in which a “perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group.” Doesn’t the premeditated, direct killing of humans based on their age fit that definition?

Tran’s morally transgressive and repugnant bill removed the requirement that abortion is permitted if “continuation of the pregnancy is likely to substantially and irremediably impair the mental… health of the woman.” She removed the words “substantially and irremediably.” This means that a mother could have her full-term child aborted if she says it would only insubstantially and remediably “impair” her “mental health.” And y’all know what that means. It means that Virginia would have followed Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont—where women can have their full-term babies killed for no reason—in legalizing de facto infanticide.

As I wrote several days ago, 24 other states permit the active, intentional killing of full-term babies for “mental health” reasons, which include “emotional, psychological, and familial” considerations. In other words, for any reason. What Tran’s removal of the words “substantially and irremediably” did was make it glaringly obvious that “mental health” is a deceitful rhetorical pretext to conceal that abortion of full-term, healthy humans is legal.

When asked about this barbaric law, Democratic governor and pediatric neurologist Dr. Ralph Northam employed some tricksy rhetoric to try to persuade listeners that de facto infanticide of full-term babies is justified if they are defective:

When we talk about third-trimester abortions…. it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So… if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.

First, who calls a full-term baby a “fetus”? Interestingly, in the next sentence, he inadvertently acknowledged the truth that the full-term “fetus” is actually an infant.

Second, would an infant that may or may not be resuscitated be a dead infant—one whose breathing or heart has stopped? If so, this raises some questions. How did this fetus/infant in Northam’s sanitized hypothetical come to be dead? Was Northam alluding to the natural death of an infant born with a condition incompatible with life, or was he referring to an infant whose death was caused during labor by a Dr. Mengele-wannabe? If full-term babies can be killed because of severe deformities or terminal conditions one day prior to their birth day, why shouldn’t full-term babies with severe deformities or terminal conditions be killed post birth—also known euphemistically as “after-birth abortion.”

Tran and Northam seek to implement legislatively what philosopher Michael Tooley, Princeton University “bioethicist” Peter Singer, and eugenicists everywhere advocate. They advocate for the legal right of some humans—let’s call them Superhumans—to decide which humans have a right to live and which—because of their defects—have no such right. Let’s call the latter group the Expendables.

Tooley wrote this in 1972 in an article titled “Abortion and Infanticide”:

An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity…. If this view of the matter is roughly correct, there are two worries one is left with at the level of practical moral decisions, one of which may turn out to be deeply disturbing. The lesser worry is where the line is to be drawn in the case of infanticide…. The practical moral problem can thus be satisfactorily handled by choosing some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted. This interval could then be modified once psychologists have established the point at which a human organism comes to believe that it is a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.

Through some tortured reasoning about the ethics of torturing kittens, Tooley concludes that it is not membership in the species “homo sapiens” that determines the right to life but rather self-conceptualization as a “continuing subject of experiences and other mental states” and a belief that one is “such a continuing entity” that confers on humans a right to live. Therefore, neither newborns nor humans in the womb—or as Tooley calls them, “parasites”—enjoy that right.

As I have written, Peter Singer wants to extend killing “rights” 30 days post-natally to allow parents to ascertain the health status of their conditionally wanted children. After all, some imperfect humans may have escaped all the currently available tests for determining human perfection and, therefore, “wantedness.”

The infamous Singer himself acknowledges in his book Practical Ethics that we have already started down the unctuous slope:

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show… this is not something to be regarded with horror…. [O]nce we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that… collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

More recently, in 2011, two philosophers at the University of Melbourne, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in which they advocated for “after-birth abortion”:

[W]e argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In the “social justice” paradigm that divides society into oppressors and oppressed, who are the oppressors: the Superhumans or the Expendables?

We are fast returning to paganism, from pagan sexuality to child sacrifice. Is there a moral difference between sacrificing babies to imaginary gods and sacrificing babies to the god of self?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Virginia-Lawmaker-Wants-to-Make-Child-Sacrifice-Even-Easier_01.mp3

On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

It is a wonderful time to be a member of the leftist Death Cult. There were four major news items from the baby-killing department just this week. You probably heard about three of them. Maybe not the fourth.

First, the Supreme Court ruled that abortionists have the absolute God-given right to kill babies in unsanitary, unsafe and unregulated pseudo-medical clinics.

Second, the Supreme Court sided with a Washington state law that forces Christian pharmacists to dispense abortion pills.

Third, alleged comedian Chelsea Handler wrote an article in Playboy discussing her own abortion experience. She explained how she once had two abortions in the same year. She said she’s “grateful” for her abortions and she doesn’t “look back” or think at all about her two dead children. They would have been very financially inconvenient, she reasoned, therefore it’s a great blessing that they were violently destroyed.

As post-abortive women in denial often do, she compensated for her feelings of intense guilt by thumping her chest and congratulating herself. She insisted that she should be “applauded” for aborting her kids because she would have been a bad parent – which, by the way, is a bit like blowing up your kitchen because you’re afraid you might be a bad cook. Handler also pointed out that there are 7.3 billion people in the world, making it “smart” and “sustainable” to exterminate surplus babies. She ended her essay/murder confession on a triumphantly feminist note: “I’d love for somebody to try to tell me what to do with my body,” she declared. “I dare them.”

Unsurprisingly, the left was enamored with Handler’s tale of fetal destruction and bloodshed. They called it “incredibly honest” and “brave” and “bold” and  ”optimistic.” Her words were a “truth bomb,” they squealed. Her experience is “a demonstration of the importance of self-determination,” they cried. And so forth. You get the idea.

Now, keep all three of these stories in mind as we move to the fourth.

On Monday, right around the time that the Supreme Court was reaffirming a woman’s divine right to kill her baby, a judge in Ohio was sentencing a woman to life in prison without parole for doing exactly that. Emile Weaver, a former college student, now faces decades behind bars for killing her newborn daughter after giving birth to her in the bathroom of her sorority house.

The details are horrific but relevant to the discussion. Weaver became pregnant and apparently decided early on that she wasn’t going to keep the baby. She proceeded to spend her pregnancy drinking and smoking pot and playing dodge ball. She wasn’t worried about the child’s health because she knew she’d get rid of it eventually. One can assume that her unborn daughter – unaware that her mother’s womb was death row – suffered greatly as she awaited her execution.

For whatever reason, Weaver never aborted the baby while it was still inside her. She waited until she was born and placed her in a trash bag and tossed her outside. Seemingly quite satisfied with herself, she then calmly texted “No more baby” to the girl’s father. “Taken care of,” she continued to reassure him.

Weaver could have gotten as little as 20 years in prison, but the judge threw the book at her just like she threw her precious child into the trash. He decided not to give her the discount she may have expected as a young blond sorority girl. He elected to hand her the same sentence he’s probably handed other first degree murderers. Considering her callous premeditation and utter disregard for human life, it’s hard to argue with the judge’s decision.

But it’s even harder to ignore the connection between this story and the other three I outlined. Taken together, the questions they raise are obvious: Why is a woman sitting in prison for killing a baby in the same country that proclaims baby murder as the sacred right of all women? Why is Weaver branded a killer in the same country that brands Handler a hero? What are the actual moral and scientific differences between Weaver’s choice, which our culture considers criminal, and Handler’s choice, which our culture celebrates as empowering and liberating?

The answer, of course, is clear: There is no real difference. A couple of minutes is all that separates abortion from infanticide. If Weaver had simply been in a different place and gotten there a little earlier and used a different method to “take care of” her problem, she would be getting high-fives on Twitter rather than pat-downs at the big house. If that bathroom had been a clinic, if that trash bag had been a medical waste container, if the baby had been poisoned instead of suffocated, Weaver would be writing a self-congratulary essay for a feminist website rather than filing a motion with the court of appeals.

There are a million abortions in this country every year, and at least 11,000 late-term abortions. What Weaver did was a minute away from both of those statistics. If she’d just gotten around to carrying out her murderous plot one minute earlier, she’d be counted as another courageous feminist warrior, not as another inmate on cell block B.

We should note that there are people in this country who perform late-term abortions for a living. These champions of women’s rights were highlighted in a sympathetic documentary a couple of years ago. They’re invited to speak at colleges and feminist conferences. Yet they have, hundreds and thousands of times, done exactly what Weaver did, only they happen to (usually) do it while the fully-formed and developed child is in the womb. But so what? What difference does that really make?

Consider, too, that the penalties for performing illegal partial birth abortions – a method of abortion where the child is killed as it is in the process of being delivered – are quite minor. A doctor who kills a baby when almost its entire body is hanging outside of the mother’s birth canal faces the possibility of fines. Meanwhile, a woman who kills a baby a second after the head comes out of her birth canal faces life in prison. On what moral or scientific principle can we justify that sort of disparity? It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about this for even a moment that either that doctor is just as guilty as that mother, or that mother is just as innocent as that doctor.

Let’s go back to Handler’s heroic Playboy editorial. You recall that she offered three rationales for her decision to kill two children in a single year. Weaver could qualify under all three:

1. The world is overpopulated.

If the the mythological overpopulation of the Earth makes abortion “smart” and “sustainable,” surely it makes post-birth abortion just as smart and just as sustainable. In fact, it makes all murder smart and sustainable, especially the most efficient forms of it. Genocidal dictators, terrorists, and serial killers have done far more to solve the overpopulation problem than Handler. Why should she get all the credit? If Handler can be “applauded” for terminating two human beings in the name of environmental sustainability, surely Pol Pot deserves a standing ovation.

Weaver did not contribute as much to the depopulation effort as either Handler or Pol Pot, but pro-aborts should still be grateful for her modest effort. And they certainly shouldn’t support locking her in prison for it.

2. She would be a bad parent.

If the possibility of being a “bad parent” can justify abortion in the womb, obviously it can justify abortion outside of the womb. Weaver was a reckless, selfish, cruel and immature sorority girl. If she can’t make a claim to being a bad mother, or a potentially bad mother, nobody can. So if any woman can kill her child because of the potential of being a bad mother, why can’t she? Why should the return policy end at birth? As a matter of fact, why should it end at any point?

After all, a mother doesn’t really know what kind of parent she’ll be when the child is still inside her. She still doesn’t know a second or two postpartum. But what about a mother who has actually given it a go and realized through experience that she’s simply not cut out for this whole mothering deal? Why should she be forced to continue in the endeavor indefinitely? Why did Handler get to kill a kid because she might be a bad mother, but actual bad mothers can’t? Weaver gave birth to her daughter, looked in her eyes, and still felt no desire to care for her. Why should she be forced into it if Handler wasn’t? Again, what is the moral and scientific reasoning behind imposing motherhood on one woman but not on the other?

3. She can do what she wants with her body.

If Handler can kill her kids because it’s her body and she can do what she wants, why couldn’t Weaver? Remember, Weaver faced a stiffer sentence because she drank and smoked and played violent sports while carrying a baby in her womb. But she made those choices with her body, didn’t she? Shouldn’t pro-choicers be outraged that this poor woman is being persecuted for using her body as she saw fit? The baby didn’t even count as a legal person while Weaver was poisoning it with liquor and drugs. Why should it be held against her?

And after the child was born, Weaver still retained “autonomy,” did she not? She didn’t even kill the kid directly. She simply put it in a bag and refused to do anything for it. By pro-abortion logic, why should she be forced? Why should she be compelled to use her body to hold the child, carry it, feed it, clothe it, etc.?

Yes, she could have put her daughter up for adoption. She could have even surrendered her at a hospital rather than kill her. But that requires her to use her body, doesn’t it? She has to make phone calls, drive somewhere, probably fill out some forms. Worst of all, in the mean time she’d still have to provide some basic care, entirely against her will as a sovereign and independent woman. Newborn babies are very delicate and require immediate, hands-on attention. If they don’t receive that attention, they’ll die. The law requires a mother give that attention, but on what basis? The thing is just a few breaths removed from being an inhuman blob of cells. How important can it really be? And at any rate, how can an autonomous woman be turned into the thing’s slave?

How can we coerce a mother into physically – with her body – tending to the child if we cannot coerce her into simply remaining pregnant for a few months. I have it on good authority from virtually every woman I’ve ever heard speak on the subject that caring for a newborn is infinitely more difficult and demanding than being pregnant. Why should the harder job be required if the easier one is not? If a woman can be judge, jury and executioner of her unborn progeny, why should she lose that authority upon delivery? Why should her godlike powers over life and death end at her vagina? Why are feminists limiting themselves in this way?

Liberals should be outraged by Weaver’s conviction and sentence. She did exactly what millions of other women have done, and she did it for exactly the same reason. They ought to rally to her defense. They ought to be condemning this judge – this man judge – for daring to question the difficult choice a woman had to make. There ought to be #JusticeForEmile hashtags. Liberals ought to be taking pictures of themselves looking somber and holding signs that say “Bring Back Emile” and “Free Weaver” and “Emile’s Body Emile’s Choice.” Liberal politicians ought to be championing her cause. Hillary Clinton ought to be coming ferociously to Weaver’s defense, explaining how her oppression is an oppression of all women everywhere.

I just want liberals to be consistent. I want them to approach this issue with their eyes all the way open, which is something most of them have never done. I want them to accept the unavoidable reality that what happened in the sorority bathroom is the same as what happens in abortion clinics every day. They are identical situations. You cannot escape it it. You cannot deny it.

I want them to confront the awful fact that every argument they make in favor of abortion also applies to infanticide. I want them to see that the arguments are the same because the actions are the same. Then I want them finally to decide if they can really remain on the side of the argument that justifies, whether inadvertently or inadvertently, the first degree murder of infants.

And if they find that they can – if their conscience is so dead that they can actually take their abortion logic to its reasonable conclusion without wincing – then let them go out and make their case. But let them make it honestly for a change. Let them come out and show themselves. Let them become unabashed defenders of violence and brutality. If we cannot drive the Devil out of this country, at least we can strip off his mask.

This article was originally published in The Blaze.