In June of 2018, the body of a little baby was discovered floating in the ocean near an inlet in South Florida. One sheriff told NBC News that he had thought he had seen it all, but this corpse really tugged at his heart.

And now, more than 4 years later, through DNA technology, authorities have been able to isolate the mother. She’s been arrested and faces first-degree murder charges. So sad.

How could this type of thing take place in “the land of the free”? I believe that it’s not hard to draw the link between abortion and this type of story which is being repeated over and over. After 63 million abortions where it’s supposedly okay to kill the baby inside the womb, why does it suddenly become wrong to kill the baby outside of it?

Look at these tragic headlines in lifenews.com:

• Woman Abandoned Her Newborn Baby Outside in Freezing Cold, Lied to the Police About Baby’s Location

• Woman Stabs Her 3-Month-Old Baby, Puts Him in Plastic Bag, Throws Him in Dumpster

• Couple Used Poison to Kill Their Viable Unborn Baby, Then Dumped the Baby’s Body

One of the key writers who covers these and other abortion-related stories is Micaiah Bilger who pens articles for lifenews.com.

I asked her to comment on these frequent tragedies. She told me, “The shock never weakens when I hear about another case of infanticide. It’s difficult to imagine how any mother could kill her child, born or unborn, but even more so after seeing her newborn child for the first time. How can a mother hold her precious baby and then throw the child in a garbage bag or abandon it in the cold?”

As to the link between abortion and these cases, Bilger adds, “I suppose after so many years of it being ‘normal’ to kill a child before birth, it’s not surprising that children outside the womb are being devalued, too.”

What should be trumpeted throughout our culture is this: There are safe harbor or safe haven laws that exist in one form or another in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

Within a short time of delivering a baby, often 30 days, a mother can bring a baby over to a local fire department or police department or hospital and drop the child off—no questions asked, no charges filed.

For example, here is what the Sunshine State says about its safe harbor law on its website: “Florida’s Safe Baby Law allows mothers and/or fathers, or whoever is in possession of an unharmed newborn approximately 7 days old or less, to leave them in the ‘arms’ of an employee at any Hospital or staffed 24/7 Fire Rescue Station, or Emergency Medical Station. No questions asked, totally anonymous, free from fear of prosecution.”

How much more humane to let the baby live and be placed in the arms of those who can bring the child to a safe future.

The U.S. Supreme Court even referred to these laws in their Dobbs v. Jackson decision from last June, overturning  Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion decision of January 22, 1973. Dobbs noted:

“…States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and…a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.”

I also asked Eric J. Scheidler, the executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, based in the Chicago area, for a comment on these laws. He told me, “Many women know nothing about this option, and as a result, newborn babies are abandoned and even murdered. We must do more to publicize this important way to save babies’ lives.”

America’s two founding documents have important bearing on the subject of abortion. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. The first right enumerated is the “right to life.”

The founders didn’t grant this right. They simply acknowledged it and spelled it out in our founding documents. The U.S. Constitution begins,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis added]

Our posterity includes the promise for those yet unborn.

One could only wish that the mother in South Florida who apparently drowned her newborn had instead brought the child to a “safe haven.”  After a half-century of the abortion ethic, we have lost a lot of ground in cherishing the “right to life.” Raising awareness of these nationwide safe haven laws is a step in the right direction.

Leftist boomers and their ideological spawn together have created the worst generations, shameful heirs of a noble legacy hard-won by our forebears. Leftist boomers, taking their cues from pervert Alfred Kinsey, hedonist man-child Hugh Hefner, and addled Timothy Leary, ushered in the drug and sexual revolutions. Satiating primitive urges, escapist longings, and self-centered desires while eschewing self-denial and God are the driving forces of these generations. They believe their Deep Thoughts, intense feelings, and overactive groins determine morality (which they incoherently claim is subjective while trying to force others to believe leftist morality is objective, inarguable truth). And so we see the child-sacrifice cult growing, particularly here in Illinois, the former breadbasket/current killing fields of the country.

According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist leftist crank Rich Miller, Illinois House Speaker Democrat Chris Welch “strongly indicated recently that a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive rights was a very likely prospect” (emphasis added).

Miller acknowledged the troubling reality that the manifestly failing state of Illinois is ruled by a de facto single-party system:

Welch will soon have more members of his party than any speaker since the state constitution was revised to reduce the chamber’s membership by a third. He said there were a number of explanations for his caucus’ expansion, but the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was “monumental.”

It’s ironic that leftists who have conniptions about the possibility of Republicans controlling both the U.S. Senate and House and about the somewhat-conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court don’t seem to mind the super-majority of leftists in Springfield who are ruining the state in every measurable way. (Nor did leftists seem exercised about the Warren and Burger Courts, which are both considered liberal Courts.)

But enough about “progressive” inconsistency. Back to the nefarious plans of Illinois’ Springfield miscreants.

Welch told Miller that “the Republican Party, not just here in Illinois but across the country, is wrong on those issues. They’re just wrong.”

“Those issues” seems to be one issue: the legal right of women to choose to kill their gestating children. I’d love to hear more from moral absolutist Welch on his justifications for asserting the wrongness of protecting human life.

State Senator Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) also dismissed the concerns of those who believe incipient human life has value:

I think that voters who would traditionally vote for Republican candidates turned out and said, ‘I’ve had enough of this nonsense. I’m going to vote for a Democrat, or I’m certainly not going to vote for the crazy Republicans’ and skipped a race.”

I’m not sure exactly what Deep Thinker Harmon believes is nonsensical and crazy. Is it “nonsensical” and “crazy” that Republicans believe a new human being comes into existence when sperm and egg unite?

Is it “nonsensical” and “crazy” that Republicans believe more powerful humans ought not have a legal right to order the extermination of weaker humans?

Is it “nonsensical” and “crazy” that Republicans support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which “progressive” legal scholars have long argued had no basis in the Constitution?

Miller cited the new president of Personal PAC, Illinois’ most powerful pro-genocide lobbying organization, Sarah Garza Resnick, who hopes to “work with legislative Republicans to recruit pro-choice candidates.”

What is the “choice” she wants Republicans to support—the one she avoids identifying? That would be the “choice” of women to have their human offspring dismembered at any stage of development for any or no reason with no restrictions: no limits on gestational age, no parental notification, no mandatory waiting periods, no informed consent (and no limits on scientific experimentation on human embryos).

Garza offers some unsolicited advice to Republicans:

“I think that any smart political strategist would need to read the tea leaves of what is going on and what the voters are sending a very clear message on. And if you want to stay relevant and get the other important issues that you care about discussed, then I think it would make sense to recruit and run pro-choice Republicans. …

If you look at what happened in Kansas, and if you look at what happened where [abortion] was on the ballot in five states … on November 8, the people of this country overwhelmingly want choice to be protected and codified and they don’t want it to be dismantled.”

Well, anyone who’s anyone knows how important it is to “stay relevant.”

This seems a good moment to remind Americans who favor truth and justice over political expedience that sometimes the madding crowd is on the way wrong side of history. We should have learned that lesson from the history of the slave trade all around the world. And at one time, there were countless numbers of Americans who did not want the institution of slavery dismantled. It’s a good thing Garza wasn’t around then to offer unsolicited advice to political leaders.

Sunny Hostin, co-host of The View—a show whose leftist hosts are so intolerant and hostile they drive away all co-hosts with distinctly conservative views—recently compared white suburban women who would vote for Republicans to “roaches voting for Raid.” The steaming pile of ironies keep mounting.

First Hostin, a person of color and member of the diversity-loving, anti-racist crowd, refers to white women as roaches. And then she claims that voting to outlaw the extermination of tiny, weak humans is equivalent to voting for extermination. Hmmm …

Near as I can tell, Hostin is suggesting that outlawing the intentional serial extermination of tiny humans will result in deaths of women, so let’s examine Hostin’s claim to see how sound her analogy is.

In legal abortion, the dead victims are intentionally killed by the choice of their mothers aided and abetted by the law. In illegal abortions, the rarely dead women die accidentally as a result of choices they made.

Thousands of women choose to have their human offspring killed—nearly one million humans annually. Compare that to the statistics for the number of women who accidentally died from illegal abortions a decade before Roe legalized prenatal genocide. According to the liberal Guttmacher Institute, by “1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200.”

Who do leftists treat like roaches? Who do they want to exterminate? (As an aside, would leftists support the daily serial killing of actual roaches via dismemberment? I’d say there are two chances of that: slim and fat.)

It’s not surprising that apparatchik for the prenatal genocide industrial complex Sarah Resnick Garza believes “codifying” human slaughter “on the constitutional level would make sense.” Let’s hope and pray that there are enough decent Illinoisans left in Illinois and the General Assembly to keep that from happening.

The 103rd General Assembly begins on Jan. 11, 2023 and runs for two years. IFI will alert our subscribers about any proposal regarding an abortion amendment to the Illinois constitution and urge them to contact their lawmakers to dissuade them from supporting it.

A Lawless Decision Finally About to Be Overruled

The U.S. Supreme Court appears to be poised, absent dereliction of duty or cowardice, to overrule one of the most wicked, unlawful, and murderous decisions it has ever issued.

In overturning (destroying, really) Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113), the Court will have done much to restore judicial integrity, but not enough.

In 1820, amid the attempt to end slavery in the United States, a compromise for admitting the State of Missouri to the Union was reached. While imposing some limits to official political support for slavery, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, in effect, continued the U.S. Government’s official endorsement of the systematic enslavement and forced servitude of large numbers of kidnapped Africans.

Likewise, in 1854, this compromise was replaced with another [1]; to let the States decide for themselves whether or not to allow the majority to enslave the minority. Opposition to this replacement (proposed by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas) was the basis for formation of the Republican Party and the rise in prominence of Abraham Lincoln.

Once again, the unalienable Right to Liberty of these People, was officially alienated from them with the explicit consent of The United States of America!

Today, according to the verified initial draft of Justice Samuel Alito‘s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center [2] (better described as Jackson Unwanted Children’s Death Center), the Court rightly demolishes both Roe [3], and its descendant Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833).

In the Dobbs draft though, the Court continues to sanction the States’ unconstitutional denial of certain persons’ Right to Life at the hands of those more powerful. States may not lawfully do so. I call it the Mississippi Compromise of 2022.

According to one list of deaths at the hands of tyrannical dictators, the United States’ denial of the Right to Life of 63,000,000 children unwanted by their mothers since the Roe v. Wade decision—boys and girls whose only crime was being too small to be defended—places post-1973 America in second place (behind only Mao’s Communist China and ahead of Stalin’s Socialist Russia and Hitler’s National Socialist Germany) [4].

Justice Alito’s draft several times vaguely refers “the rule of law.”

The foundation of any American Rule of Law must be what we, the People of the United States, declared to all mankind to be “self-evident” truth, in support of our revolution from England, simply that:

• All mankind is created, equal.
• The Creator has given rights to man (endowed with) which cannot be removed (unalienable).
• Governments, such as that we were about to form, are instituted for the purpose of securing those rights (which include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) deriving their power from the consent of the governed.
• The governed have a right to overthrow governments which do not follow the Rule of Law.

The Court’s draft states, that abortion “presents a profound moral question,” but as Justice Alito proves, science has answered that question (i.e., “is there a human in a pregnant mother’s womb?”), in the affirmative.

The question therefore really becomes a profoundly immoral one, “will government permit the stronger Person (parent) to extinguish the life of the weaker (unborn child)?”

The draft purports to “return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” This is tyranny of the majority.

Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor the Rule of the Law permits such injustice. Neither the People nor their representatives can ever possess such authority:

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

According to the Rule of Law, every human being has a self-evident, God-given, unalienable Right to Life, which is to be secured by any legitimate government. From the moment of conception, we are now scientifically able to identify precisely, the existence of a human being. Therefore, we (i.e., all branches of government, and the governed, by whose consent they rule) must secure this right to every human being within our authority:

This will of his (mankind’s) Maker is called the law of nature … no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. (William Blackstone [5])

As the draft indicates, the U.S. Constitution most certainly does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion, as Roe and Casey did. Neither though, does it permit the citizens of each State to deny persons within their borders, their human Right to Life!

The unalienable Right to Life of every human being within the borders of the United States of America must be secured by the equal protection of the laws of all governments within the Union. The court has the duty under the U.S. Constitution (several places) and the American Rule of Law to so rule.

This is only a first draft. Let us continue to pray, more fervently than ever, that the Court will revise this draft and finally affirm the U.S. Constitution and American Rule of Law: that all States must, to the best of their ability, secure the Right to Life for all people within its jurisdiction.

[1] Note that these “compromises” occurred while the nation was still operating under the American Rule of Law, based upon the law of the Creator, and therefore came from Congress. The legal profession soon thereafter adopted positive law (foundation of law is judicial decisions, therefore improperly expanding role of judiciary), so this similar “compromise” is now coming from the Court.

[2] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf

[3] As demonstrated by the Court’s draft opinion, lawyers, including those who approve of the result, have always known Roe was a bad decision, but modern law schools leave no concept of a decision being ‘bad’ law, since cases determine the law.

[4] https://about-history.com/list-of-dictatorships-by-death-toll-the-top-10-biggest-killers-in-history/

[5]  Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law was the third most cited source in the writings of the founders. https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/founding-father-s-library

Heroism is usefully defined as an act of selflessness — sacrificing oneself for the life of another. Medal of Honor recipients perform acts of true heroism, often giving their life to save their brothers in arms.

But what is the opposite of heroism? What would you call an organization and its leader who brag about killing the most innocent among us and killing in a barbaric, painful manner for selfish reasons?

Planned Parenthood and its leader, Cecile Richards, are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies annually and brag about just that.

Found within the Planned Parenthood Annual Report, a quote by President Cecile Richards:

We are here today to thank generations of organizers, troublemakers, and hell-raisers who formed secret sisterhoods, who opened Planned Parenthood health centers in their communities, and demanded the right to control their own bodies.

Cecile Richards
Women’s March 2017

Breathtaking! Ms. Richards is proud of generations of “organizers, troublemakers, and hell-raisers who formed secret sisterhoods, who opened Planned Parenthood health centers in their communities, and demanded the right to control their own bodies.”

Of course women should have the right to protect and control their own body. But should not the innocent child in the womb have the same right to life written in our Declaration of Independence and admonished in the Bible?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. (Deuteronomy 30)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. (Jeremiah 1:5a)

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. (Psalm 139:14a)

Scripture is abundantly clear that we face a battle between death and life. Jesus said: “…I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6) We’re told to choose life.

But Cecile Richards boasts about her abortions and her agency that chooses death for millions of babies — over seven million, six hundred thousand unborn children murdered through Planned Parenthood alone since Roe v. Wade.

Richards wrote in a 2014 Elle column:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

And in an Katie Couric interview Cecile expands:

It was a decision my husband and I made. It was a personal decision. And we have three children that we adore and that are the center of my life. And we decided that was as big as our family needed to be. It wasn’t anything more dramatic than that.

Let those words sink in.

“It was a decision my husband and I made.”

“And we have three children that we adore and that are the center of my life.”

“And we decided that was as big as our family needed to be. It wasn’t anything more dramatic than that. ”

It was just a decision. Like whether to have cable or dish network, whether to have beef or chicken for dinner. No big deal.

And think about Richards comment “we have three children that we adore and that are the center of my life.” How must those children feel? They are only adored because they happened to be number one, two and three. Had they been number four or more, they would have been killed. That’s a pretty calloused and capricious selection process.

Further, Cecile and her husband, Kirk Adams (who was vice president of the Service Employees International Union, and is now executive director of the Healthcare Education Project in New York), made that choice — a married, power couple. There was no hardship and no threat to Cecile’s life. Just the virulently selfish decision to use abortion as birth control. By any other name that would be called wickedness.

Looking on page 31 of the Annual Report, we see the total abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in 2017:

That’s 321,384 babies whose lives were ended at Planned Parenthood abortion mills in 2017. Consider that taxpayers contribute $500 million per annum to that vile organization, and try not to lose your cool.

Richards deceitfully explains that federal tax dollars do not go toward abortions, but that’s a misleading argument. The government money received by Planned Parenthood is fungible and frees up their other resources to promote their abortion services, lobby state and federal lawmakers, pay rent and the electric bill among other things. The notion that taxpayer money does not fund their abortion services is a ruse.

We should review the inception of Planned Parenthood to understand the true nature of this organization. Most worthy entities have great beginnings, such as the Ivy League Schools which were founded as seminaries. Over the decades, the original intent has degraded and the universities transformed into centers of Progressive propaganda, in direct opposition to a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Unlike the Ivies, Planned Parenthood was founded by an evil eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. As I wrote in 2014:

The real Margaret Sanger espoused sinister motives for advancing birth control and abortion: she fully endorsed eugenics for the betterment of race and society.

Sanger was a Darwinist who embraced a utilitarian view of human life, and proposed to rid our nation of the criminal element and “inferior races” through abortion and breeding programs.

And as noted in the 2016 article, “Planned Parenthood, An Unnecessary Evil“:

The original intent of Planned Parenthood has been veiled with a facade of honorable work, but the truth is despicable to the core.

Planned Parenthood’s predecessor, The American Birth Control League, was founded by Nazi-inspiration Margaret Sanger, the godmother of modern eugenics, in 1921.

So, this behemoth baby-killing business had a nefarious founding and mission, and an anti-biblical, anti-Christ goal of convincing teenaged and older females to choose death rather than life.

And notice, the “other services” touted so frequently by abortion-lover Richards have been dwindling as the main cash crop — killing the unborn and then selling the baby body parts — has increased.

As written at the Daily Wire by Paul Bois:

Feminists love to throw out the “but Planned Parenthood provides other valuable services” line when discussing the organization’s lucrative war against the unborn in the practice of abortion.

It turns out, according to the organization’s 2016-17 Annual Report, those “other services” have been steadily dropping since 2008 while their abortions remain stable, making it PP’s most reliable revenue stream — other than the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars it receives from the government, of course.

As noted by LifeNews, Planned Parenthood’s revenue has increased since 2009, from $1.1 billion to roughly $1.4 billion in 2017. That Planned Parenthood’s overall services have decreased rather increased makes this all the more puzzling. LifeNews provides a summary of the report’s findings:

In 2008, PPFA affiliates were seeing 3 million patients a year. Today, they see only 2.4 million—a huge drop of 20%.

PPFA’s highly publicized ‘cancer screenings’ fell by almost 2/3rds–from 1,830,811 in 2009 to just 660,777 in 2016.

What about contraception services? They dropped from 3,868,901 in 2009 to 2,701,866 in 2016—a 30% tumble.

How about their much vaunted (but barely existent) prenatal services? From 40,489 in 2009 to just 7,762 in 2016—a decline of more than 3/4s.

Bottom line: Planned Parenthood is a vile organization that should be defunded and its president, Cecile Richards, should be out of a job.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to your U.S. lawmakers in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, urging them  to defund Planned Parenthood. Let them know that you strongly believe that businesses which profits from the wholesale killing of babies and the (illegal) selling of baby body parts should be shuttered and never receive another penny of taxpayer money.

More ACTION:  Please pray that our state and nation will repent from supporting this moral, political, and financial evil. Pray that your “pro-choice” family members, friends, and neighbors will finally understand that abortion is barbaric and indefensible in every situation — not just when tax dollars are being spent to support it. Pray that our state and nation will mourn the legalization of abortion, which has eradicated 60+ million innocent lives.

Spread the word! Ask your friends to speak out to their federal lawmakers also by forwarding this email or by posting it on Facebook and Twitter using the hashtag #DefundPP.

Be heroic! Take a strong stand in defense of the unborn! Join Illinois Family Institute in its battle to call for the complete defunding of tax dollars for Planned Parenthood!

March for Life Chicago!

Join thousands at March for Life Chicago 2018 as we come together from across Chicago, the Midwest and the U.S. to defend, protect and celebrate LIFE this Sunday at the Federal Plaza from 2 PM to 4 PM.  For more information, click HERE.

Our goal is to serve as a visual and vocal reminder that the people of Chicago and the Midwest stand for LIFE.  We come together to change perceptions in a society that thinks abortion is the answer. We call upon religious, civic and community leaders to renew every effort to build a nation and culture dedicated to protecting life at every stage and eliminating the violence of abortion. Our women, men, children and families deserve better than abortion!

Join us and choose life and blessing for our nation and the unborn!

In a fluid and volatile story, the London hospital that has been caring for 11-month-old British baby Charlie Gard decided last Friday to reconsider its decision to remove his ventilator while it reviews “new evidence” about the possible effects of an experimental treatment available in the United States. As of this writing, little Charlie is alive. How long he remains alive is yet in the hands—not of his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, who are suffering with him—but in the hands of British doctors aided and abetted by judges who neither love nor suffer with Charlie as his parents do.

As people throughout the world now know, little Charlie was born with a rare genetic disease the symptoms of which first manifested a month after he was born. Charlie is now blind and deaf. He cannot breathe or move on his own. He has permanent brain damage and suffers from seizures.

Charlie has one of the rarest and most severe types of mitochondrial disease: mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Though his disease is incurable, there has been hope over the past 10 months that an experimental treatment called “nucleoside bypass therapy” could alleviate some symptoms and extend his life.

With this sliver of hope, his parents set up a crowd-funding page in January of 2017 that has now raised $1.7 million. Many, perhaps most, medical experts believe that Charlie’s condition has so deteriorated that whatever possibility there may have been for the experimental treatment to work no longer exists. Julian Savulescu, philosopher and bioethicist at the University of Oxford, explained that “Charlie Gard should have been allowed to go to the US for experimental treatment back in April (or better January when it was first considered), not because he would have been cured but just because we couldn’t then be confident his life would have been ‘intolerable’, or not worth living.”

Charlie’s parents have fought a tenacious battle first with the hospital and then in the courts for the right to take Charlie to America at no cost to either the hospital or the British people. Charlie’s parents have lost at every turn. The courts decided that Charlie’s parents will have no role in Charlie’s health care decisions. They have no right even to take Charlie home to die.

One of the attorney’s arguing for the hospital cited an earlier case in which a judge declared that a child’s ventilator could be removed against his mother’s wishes:

[E]ven if his life were completely pain-free, I would come to the conclusion that there is no measurable benefit to him to continue in his present condition and it is simply inhumane to permit it to continue.

Not only did the court’s decision to prohibit Charlie’s parents from taking him to America have nothing to do with limited public resources, but, as revealed in this statement, it also had nothing to do with an assessment of Charlie’s physical pain. The court’s decision was based on the assessment of judges about what constitutes a life worth living.

The Independent quotes an unnamed medical expert who shares how weighty and painful a decision it is for medical staff to unplug terminally ill children: “When a decision to withdraw life support is made for a baby this is not taken lightly and there are often tears in the medical and nursing staff looking after such a baby.”

As the mother of a critical care nurse, I don’t doubt the truth of that statement. But neither the seriousness with which medical staff take such a moment, nor the grief they feel justifies the usurpation of Charlie’s parents’ right to use their own funds to try to improve or extend the life of their child. And no amount of tears from medical staff can possibly equal the tears Charlie’s family has and will shed. What this hospital has done is increase the suffering of Charlie’s parents.

The potential efficacy of the experimental treatment to alleviate Charlie’s symptoms or prolong his life is not the central ethical issue in this heartrending story. The central issue is who gets to decide what treatments Charlie will receive. That Charlie’s inarguably loving and devoted parents have had their rights usurped by the British government should warn all people who enjoy freedom that oppressive, tyrannical governments take many forms.

Ruth Graham writing for “progressive” Slate Magazine frets that cuts to government funding of health care, including Medicaid, make deaths like Charlie’s more likely. Many others fear that nationalized health care poses greater risks. No government can afford to provide all medical treatments—conventional and experimental—to all people. Even in countries with socialized medicine, there are limited resources.

What Charlie’s terrible plight illuminates is how profoundly intrusive, presumptuous, and proprietary the government becomes when health care is nationalized. The British government is not merely deciding which treatments British hospitals will provide, but what treatments British citizens can pursue for their own children at their own expense.

Charlie’s parents are not asking for British doctors or hospitals to treat Charlie. They’re not asking for government funds. Charlie’s parents have the resources to fund his treatment, and yet they are unable to do so because Big Brother has in effect kidnapped little Charlie to whom Big Brother has no relation. Charlie, who was knitted together in his mother’s womb, is now owned by the state.

Join us for a Saturday evening event in Medinah on September 30th for a special one time event with Ray Comfort!

Tickets are just $10 each. Call 708-781-9328 or purchase tickets below.  Click here for flyer.

Click HERE to learn more!

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and Protect Families Protect Choices filed an appeal on Monday, challenging a ruling from the Colorado Secretary of State Title Board in favor of Personhood Colorado (case: 12SA10). The 2-1 decision from the board allows a proposed state constitutional amendment, applying the right to life equally to human beings of every age, to proceed to petition.

Colorado voters overwhelming defeated two similar personhood amendments in the 2008 and 2010 elections, rejecting the measures by 3-to-1 margins both times.

“This appeal is a frivolous attempt to put the brakes on our right to petition on behalf of the preborn,” said Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. “The Court has previously ruled that guaranteeing the rights of a class of human being is a single issue, and we expect a similar ruling this year.”

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Title Board voted in December 2011 allowing Personhood Colorado’s proposed personhood amendment to proceed. In a 3-0 decision, the board dismissed a challenge filed by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. This is the third such challenge filed by the pro-abortion coalition in an attempt to block a Colorado personhood measure based on the requirement that ballot initiatives be limited in scope to a single subject. The decision is the third straight victory for the Colorado right to life advocates.

In 2008, Planned Parenthood filed suit in an attempt to stop a personhood measure from reaching the ballot (case: 07SA245). The Court dismissed its assertion that the amendment violated the single subject rule which limits citizen-led initiatives to a single issue.

“The charges of single subject violation and vagueness are absurd,” continued Garcia Jones. “Colorado personhood amendments have previously defined constitutional rights as applying to every human being from the moment our lives begin. This proposal does the same thing, and also clears up any ambiguity of what that would entail as applied.”

Personhood Colorado submitted new language for 2012 reading. The new proposal lists the effects of its enactment including that only methods of birth control and assisted reproduction that kill a person will be affected.

“In order to affirm basic human dignity, be it resolved that the right to life in this constitution applies equally to all innocent persons.” The amendment defines “person” as applying “to every human being regardless of the method of creation” and “human being” as “a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development.”

The amendment also details that “spontaneous miscarriages shall not be affected by this section” and “medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life shall not be affected by this section.” Medical treatment is defined as including, but not limited to “treatment for cancer, ectopic and molar pregnancy, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, and placenta previa.”

Colorado Right to Life will host a march Saturday, January 21 to launch “Round Three” of the 2012 Colorado Right to Life amendment, Colorado’s third attempt to protect the unborn.