The foulmouthed comedian and talk show host Chelsea Handler has written an essay—appropriately for Playboy Magazine—rationalizing the intentional killing of her two preborn babies when she was 16 years old. She was not pregnant with twins. She became pregnant twice when she was 16.

Handler characterizes her parents’ offer to help her dispose of her offspring as good parenting: “They acted like parents for one of the very first times in my life and took me to Planned Parenthood.  I felt parented, ironically, while I was getting an abortion.”

Perhaps Handler’s pitiable revelations about her childhood in Vanity Fair help explain not only her hard edges but her antipathy toward marriage and children:

On her childhood, and absent parents:

“I grew up in New Jersey, and I was the youngest of six kids, and I had a father who was a used-car dealer and a mother who was a Mormon, and they slept a lot, kind of like cats. And they just never planned on having me, and I had five older brothers and sisters that were in college, and they said, ‘Oh, you know, I guess you can raise yourself.’ And they were serious.

“And I started to go through life, and you know, like, I heard kids around the neighborhood talking about nursery school. I said, ‘What’s that? Nursery school sounds cool.’ And I remember charging into my parents’ bedroom, I’m like, ‘What’s everybody’s talking about nursery school? Am I going? Am I going?’ They were, like, ‘No, no.’ Meanwhile, I was still in diapers, because they hadn’t bothered to potty train me. I was five. I’m like, ‘And why am I wearing a diaper?’

“So they said, ‘No, no. Nursery school is not important. We’ll get you started when you have to go to kindergarten.’ And I go, ‘No, I don’t think so. I want to go to nursery school. It sounds very important to me. I could get a big break in nursery school; I don’t know what could happen.’ And my parents were, like, ‘No, just wait for kindergarten,’ because that was in walking distance to my house, so they were, like, ‘At least you can get yourself there, we don’t have to be responsible for you.’ And they were so not participating in my childhood.”

On realizing she had to raise herself, and the worst school lunch possible:

“And I did go to nursery school, I went and found a popup nursery school in my neighborhood, and I registered. I didn’t listen to my parents, because I knew I had to create a life for myself. And it became more and more obvious to me as I grew up a little bit more. You know, they would forget to pack me lunch for school. They never packed me lunch, and I would go to school and everybody had a lunch, and I would want to sit with the cool girls, with the cool lunchboxes, and, I had to get a lunchbox used. And I came home one day, and I said, ‘Mom, you never pack me lunches, like the other girls. Dad, you never drive me to school.’ And my mom said, ‘O.K., I’ll pack you lunch.’ And I went to school that day, and I sat at the cool girls’ table, and I took out my lunch, and I was so excited my parents made it for me, and it was two hardboiled eggs wrapped in tinfoil. It was like the most uncool lunch you could ever imagine in your life. And I looked at these hardboiled eggs, and I tried to maintain my coolness, I said, ‘Oh, this is fine.’ And I went to crack them, and they were raw eggs, and they splattered everywhere.

“And I went home to my parents, and I said, ‘What the f**k is going on here? I am a child, and you guys need to raise me, O.K.? Where was I supposed to cook those eggs? On a skillet that I don’t have? On the blacktop at school?’ And that’s when I just started to think, Oh god, my life is all about being responsible for me. No one is going to take care of me. I want to be beholden to no one….if these are the people that are in charge of me, then I want to be in charge of me.”

On realizing that she didn’t want to be somebody’s wife:

“I remember looking through my parents’ financial records, and confronting them and saying, ‘Why isn’t Mom’s name on the deed to this house?”…And he said, ‘Oh, shut up. You ask too many questions. You’re always asking questions. You’re not elegant at all.’

“And I looked at my father, ‘Well, maybe I’m not here to be elegant, O.K.?’ And he goes, ‘Well, you’re not going to make anybody a very good wife.’ And I said, ‘Well, I’m not planning on being anyone’s wife.’ And I wasn’t. And my mom and I talked a lot about children, and she just had this kind, anachronistic idea of what it was like to raise a family. And I just thought, Oh my God, I don’t ever want to have kids—well, I don’t ever want to have a kid—but I don’t ever want to send my daughter to school with two raw eggs. I didn’t want to do that, and I didn’t want to ever not have my name on the deed of the house. How silly it sounds, it was an important kind of notion for me; it was one of those moments.”

Though Handler’s far less than ideal upbringing explains her feelings and beliefs about childlessness, abortion, and marriage, it doesn’t justify her moral conclusions or her odd moral imperatives.

Getting unintentionally pregnant more than once is irresponsible, but it’s still necessary to make a thoughtful decision. We all make mistakes all the time. I happened to f**k up twice at the age of 16. I’m grateful that I came to my senses and was able to get an abortion legally without risking my health or bankrupting myself or my family. I’m 41 now. I don’t ever look back and think, God, I wish I’d had that baby.”

It seems that to Handler it is morally imperative to be “thoughtful” about whether to abort her babies but not “necessary to make thoughtful decisions” about having sex or having unprotected sex. It seems that a “thoughtful” decision for Handler encompasses primarily her feelings and little about the moral status of the incipient lives growing within her. Why is it more thoughtful to intentionally end the life of her child than to give birth to him or her and allow others to provide what Handler could not?

Handler prognosticates on the fate of Roe v. Wade:

I don’t buy that Roe v. Wade is in danger. We’re too far ahead of the game. Once you go forward in history, you don’t go backward….You can’t introduce a black person and be like, “Oh, I just got a slave!” That era is over. It’s similar to what’s happening in Mississippi and some other states with gay-marriage discrimination—marriage equality is going to take. You can’t stop that. We’ve already made the decision, and now we’re moving on to transgender rights. And it’s a wrap on men deciding what women can do with their bodies.

What would “progressives” do without slavery to exploit? How would they frame their moral arguments without race to compare to everything? How would archdefenders of the indefensible continue their  assaults on unborn babies and sexual sanity had there been no Jim Crow laws? How would social Darwinists who falsely believe that history moves inevitably toward truth and justice—as, of course, defined by them—argue their positions if they couldn’t hitch their abattoirs, bathhouses, and co-ed showers to the backs of the enslaved? Godwin’s law should be revised to accommodate “progressive” argumentation: “If a discussion on sexual matters goes on long enough, sooner or later a “progressive” will compare someone or something to a racist or racism.”

Handler concludes her essay with more foolishness:

We have 7.3 billion people on this planet. Anybody who carefully decides not to become a parent—let alone a bad parent, which is what I would have become—should be applauded for making a smart and sustainable decision.

I’d love for somebody to try to tell me what to do with my body. I dare them.

Someone should tell Handler that no one—literally no one—is saying she or any other woman who does not want to be a parent should become one. Many are saying, however, that her lack of desire to be a parent does not give her the moral right to deny life to another. Those who value all human lives are not trying to tell her what to do with her body. They’re trying to tell her what she ought not do with the body of another. And in case she hasn’t noticed, it’s not just men defending the lives of the unborn. There is an army of women—including young women—bending the arc of moral universe toward justice for the unborn.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Conservative friends, if it weren’t clear to you already that the halcyon days for theologically orthodox people of faith in America are over, read the ominous, hostile, and arrogant words of Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell professor of law at Harvard Law School:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won…. For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who—remember—defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.

Conservatives are the equivalent of racists and Nazis because they believe human beings whose lives begin at conception have a right to exist and that marriage has an intrinsic nature central to which is sexual differentiation. No more need for politically expedient rhetorical deception about tolerance and diversity. Carpe Diem, Tushnet proclaims. To the victors belong the spoils, which to “progressives” like Tushnet just might include the presumptive “right” to abrogate the religious liberty of conservative losers.

What accounts for Tushnet’s cocksureness? Tushnet makes clear that it derives from the current composition of the courts:

Several generations of law students and their teachers grew up with federal courts dominated by conservatives. Not surprisingly, they found themselves wandering in the wilderness, looking for any sign of hope. The result: Defensive-crouch constitutionalism, with every liberal position asserted nervously, its proponents looking over their shoulders for retaliation by conservatives….

It’s time to stop. Right now more than half of the judges sitting on the courts of appeals were appointed by Democratic presidents…the same appears to be true of the district courts. And, those judges no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if they take aggressively liberal positions.

Now that the judiciary is controlled by liberals, Tushnet argues that “Liberals should be compiling lists of cases to be overruled at the first opportunity on the ground that they were wrong the day they were decided,” and that they should “Aggressively exploit the ambiguities and loopholes in unfavorable precedents that aren’t worth overruling” [emphasis Tushnet’s].

Tushnet clerked for Thurgood Marshall and was instrumental in shaping and articulating Marshall’s position in Roe v. Wade which, in turn, influenced Harry Blackmun. Tushnet, in a  “significant letter” written for Marshall and sent to Harry Blackmun said this:

I am inclined to agree that drawing the line at viability accommodates the interests at stake better than drawing it at the end of the first trimester. Given the difficulties which many women may have in believing that they are pregnant and in deciding to seek an abortion, I fear that the earlier date may not in practice serve the interests of those women, which your opinion does seek to serve.

…

It is implicit in your opinion that at some point the State’s interest in preserving the potential life of the unborn child overrides any individual interests of the women. I would be disturbed if that point were set before viability, and I am afraid that the opinion’s present focus on the end of the first trimester would lead states to prohibit abortions completely at any later date.

Professor Tushnet, a prolific writer and non-observant Jew, is the father of Eve Tushnet, a prolific writer and theologically orthodox Catholic who identifies as a lesbian but because of her deep faith, has chosen a life of celibacy. Eve Tushnet was “raised somewhere between atheism and Reform Judaism,” and “entered the Catholic Church in 1998, during her sophomore year at Yale University.”

Is Mark Tushnet’s daughter one of the losers against whom Professor Tushnet seeks a hard line?

The Obama Administration’s executive overreach, criticized even by liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley, has alerted many conservatives to the imbalance of power between the legislative and executive branches which in theory should be co-equal. “Progressives” are taking their gloves off and putting their jackboots on. They’re hungry and seeking to devour whatever morsels of liberty conservatives yet retain. Perhaps Tushnet’s clanging voice will be the alarm needed to arouse slumbering conservatives before their plate is empty and progressives arrive at our church doors slavering at the cup and gnawing at the host.

Can you support our work with
a tax-deductible donation?

For the past two decades, America’s slide down the slippery slope of atheist-flavored secular humanism has accelerated at breakneck speed.

Once upon a time Dr. Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop were scorned and ridiculed when they suggested such a “slippery slope” existed in terms of the devaluing of human life. In retrospect, Schaeffer and Koop were radically prescient in their predictions.

Almost daily we are assailed with ever more cases of individual Americans strong-armed to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. In fact, the only belief system afforded respect by the Progressives (Socialists) is the secular, utilitarian and humanistic worldview.

Since the days of Dewey and Wilson, Progressives have schemed and plotted and maneuvered, relentless in pursuit of the goal: a secular utopia administrated by so-called “enlightened elitists.”

Add to the mix, the eugenicist depravity of Margaret Sanger, founder of  “the American Birth Control League, which would eventually become Planned Parenthood,” and the final concoction is a godless set of mores where humans are just another entity in the animal kingdom.

I wrote of Sanger in the 2014 article, Margaret Sanger’s Dream Come True: Eugenics by Abortion:

And like the modern day organization, cloaking its true agenda in palatable verbiage such as “family planning” and “choice,” Margaret’s goal was far more evil than the respectable facade she presented.

Sanger waged a crusade for legal and safe contraceptives, and for legal and safe abortions. The Left and Planned Parenthood would have you believe she was a paragon, an angel of mercy for women in desperate need.

. . .

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.

Think of this: Roe v. Wade pitted the right of privacy of the woman against the right to LIFE of her unborn child, and the Burger court ruled in favor of privacy.

I noted in my 2014 post, Roe v. Wade: The Shameful History of an Egregious SCOTUS Decision:

Justice Byron White wrote a stern dissent:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment.

The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand.

Now, 43 years and 57 million slaughtered babies later, our nation suffers under the corporate burden of guilt and the predictable loss of public virtue.

And somehow this wrongly decided “right to privacy” ruling, this right to terminate the life of the unborn for all or any reason, with no support whatsoever in our U.S. Constitution, supersedes all other rights and worldviews. So much so that taxpayers, in spite of their biblical objections and abhorrence of this infanticide, are forced to pay for abortions and abortifacients.

But even worse, those who object and refuse to take part in abortions, abortion referrals, or abortifacient prescribing, are punished.

A recent case in Rockford, Illinois, Mendoza v. Martell, is illustrative of the tyranny of the pro-abortion movement and its leaders.

Sandra Mendoza, a Rockford nurse and devout, pro-life Catholic, informed Public Health Administrator “Dr. Sandra Martell, of her conscientious objection to participating in any way in abortions, or the distribution of abortifacients.” Nurse Mendoza quickly discovered that the right to abortion trumps her First Amendment-guaranteed religious liberty:

Dr. Martell gave Ms. Mendoza two weeks to either quit or accept a demotion to a temporary job as a food inspector. Mendoza refused the demotion and was forced to resign in July 2015.

The suit seeks damages under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act which prohibits public officials from discriminating against a person in any manner because of their conscientious refusal to participate in any way in the provision of abortions.

Once again, the U.S. Constitution is being circumvented to bolster this hell-bent “right to privacy.”

The compelling argument in favor of Sandra Mendoza:

Mendoza’s attorney, Noel Sterett, a partner at Mauck & Baker, LLC, in Chicago, says, “Ms. Mendoza has spent her life serving children and protecting life. People disagree on whether abortions end human lives, but I’d hope we can all agree that pro-life doctors and nurses should not be forced out of employment on account of their faith or commitment to protecting life.”

Nurse Mendoza is to be commended for her pro-life conviction, even in the face of job loss. But the fact is, no American should ever have to face the loss of their livelihood because of their biblical convictions. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion (NOT worship, as the Left would try to assert), an inalienable right which cannot be absconded by government.

However, Illinoisans are now seeing an effort to strengthen the tyranny of the abortion lobby via Senate Bill 1564:

…lawmakers in the General Assembly passed SB 1564 in an effort to expand abortion services in Illinois. This legislation would force medical professionals and many pregnancy care workers to violate their conscience by forcing them to refer patients for medical procedures they find morally objectionable such as abortion, sterilization and certain end-of-life care.

People of faith in Illinois, people of biblical worldviews, must not relent; they must vote and vote in record numbers to send this bill directly to the paper shredder.

The Left has brought us to this slippery slope of dehumanizing people in the womb, people at the end of life, and people in-between birth and natural death. The journey toward this broad road to destruction was approached stealthily, circuitously.

The time has come for conservatives, for Believers, to stop the descent down the slippery slope predicted by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.

The Bible is clear: we are told to choose life. The U.S. Constitution is clear: the First Amendment, codifies our God-given religious liberty and freedom of speech.  The Illinois State Constitution is clear: Article 3 forever guarantees the free exercise of religion and religious opinions.

Now it’s time to stand on that truth, one bill, one case, at a time, and never relent in OUR pursuit of what IS intrinsically, morally right.

Take ACTION: Click HERE and ask Governor Rauner to uphold conscience rights for Illinois medical personnel.  Urge him to veto this ominous proposal. No American should be forced by the government to violate his or her deeply held convictions.

Please also call Governor Rauner’s office at:

(217) 782-0244 — Springfield
(312) 814-2121 — Chicago

Can you support our work with
a tax-deductible donation?

So many organizations and entities have noble and good beginnings. For instance “The Ivies” and the Seven Sisters colleges, most of which were either Christian schools or seminaries that, over the last century, have departed faith moorings.

Other organizations have nothing but evil inceptions; case in point Planned Parenthood.

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. As I wrote in the article, Margaret Sanger’s Dream Come True: Eugenics by Abortion:

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.

“To deal with the problem of resistance among the black population, Sanger recruited black doctors, nurses, ministers and social workers ‘in order to gain black patients’ trust’ in order ‘to limit or even erase the black presence in America’.”

Many Americans found the name, The American Birth Control League, anti-family and distasteful. Thus, the name was changed to The Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942, with Sanger as president.

Just think about an entity whose stated goals included:

• Children should only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health
• Sterilization of the insane and feebleminded
• To enlist the support and cooperation of legal advisers, statesmen and legislators in effecting the removal of state and federal statutes which encourage dysgenic breeding*

This was no family-friendly, baby-friendly organization; this was an entity designed from its inception to limit the breeding of inferior people, and to, inversely, encourage the breeding of “superior” humans.

Today Planned Parenthood performs approximately 300,000 abortions per year — about 1/3 the total number of abortions performed annually in the United States. Extrapolated out since Roe v. Wade in ’73, that would be approximately 13 million babies slaughtered by taxpayer-funded PP.

Present day Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards has remarked that “abortion is key to women’s opportunity.”

Opportunity? How is killing one’s own child the key to any opportunity?

The post-abortive women I’ve spoken to found abortion key to only guilt, overwhelming shame, and brokenheartedness, and only found reprieve via the grace and forgiveness of God.

Think on this; we are instructed in Deuteronomy 30:

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

But Planned Parenthood was founded and conceived as a means to choose death and cursing, and should not receive one dime of taxpayer assistance.

Unfortunately, currently the taxpayer moneys fund $528 million of PP’s budget per annum. Is it any wonder God’s hand of protection around America seems to be departing?

And contrary to the noisy, incessant arguments made by Planned Parenthood and the radical pro-aborts, there is a viable alternative, Community Health Centers, which actually help, rather than harm, women, men, and children.

there are over 1,200 Community Health Centers serving more than 24 million people at over 9,200 sites located throughout all 50 states and U.S. territories.

Every day, health centers meet escalating health needs and bring good health to needy communities, without regard to family income, health insurance status, race, culture or health condition. In communities fortunate enough to have a health center, fewer babies die, emergency room lines are shorter and people live longer, healthier lives.

Three words in the descriptive trump all else: “fewer babies die.”

The ancient Hippocratic Oath includes:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

Though physicians in the 21st century typically take the oath of their particular medical school upon graduation, and not a standardized oath, the content of such oaths points toward “healing arts” rather than ghoulish methods of death and dismemberment of innocents.

Planned Parenthood was, and is, a nefarious organization, conceived by wicked woman. Thanks to PP and other abortion providers, over 57 million babies have been murdered in 43 years: over 57 million infants are in heaven, and Margaret Sanger, barring a Paul-like, deathbed conversion, is paying the due recompense in hell.

Given the REAL choice of Planned Parenthood OR Community Health Centers, the former snuffing out lives, the latter saving lives, America should choose Community Health Centers.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send Governor Bruce Rauner an email or fax asking him to cease all state business with Planned Parenthood in Illinois.

Let’s demolish once and for all the Planned Parenthood facade of “health provider” and choose better: let’s choose life, and insist our elected officials understand the consequences of not supporting our choice.

*The belief that deterioration of the human gene pool occurs by the increased survival and reproduction of people with undesirable traits.

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left.

Please consider a gift of $10 or $20 to support our work.

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

Abortion and promiscuity. Planned Parenthood and “slut shaming.” I was reminded on this, the 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s disgraceful Roe v. Wade abortion-on-demand opinion, how inexorably linked are America’s abortion death culture and her ongoing sexual revolution.

As the story goes, Winston Churchill was talking with a socialite: “Madam, would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?” he asked. “My goodness, Mr. Churchill,” she replied. “Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course.” Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?” Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

Today’s “progressives” would accuse Churchill of “slut shaming.” That’s a relatively new euphemism wherein liberals paradoxically try to shame into silence those who call a spade a spade.

While she would certainly frame the demonstrable connection between abortion and promiscuity in different terms, feminist author and psychologist Valerie Tarico is well aware of the correlation. She boasts of it, in fact. In an October opinion piece at the Huffington Post, Tarico, who also served on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Advocates, writes:

“The most lasting effect of the smear campaign against Planned Parenthood may be this: Young women are done – beyond done – with being shamed for the fact that they are sexual beings, with sexual bodies that have t*ts and as*es and tw*ts and vaginas and uteruses … and they are done being forced to have babies when they choose to have sex.”

Pure class.

The “smear campaign” to which Tarico refers ostensibly denotes the groundbreaking investigative journalism of The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which exposed smoking-gun proof that Planned Parenthood intentionally and illegally profits, in the millions, by “crushing,” dismembering alive and otherwise torturing to death our most innocent fellow human beings, and then selling their body parts for Mengelesque “medical research.”

“I remember sitting in my psychotherapy office a few years back, listening to a mother complain about her teen daughter’s attire,” Tarico continues. “‘She looks like a prostitute,’ the mother said.

“‘Yes,’ I agreed. ‘Like a prostitute – or a teenager.’”

Tarico and many pro-abort feminists like her encourage young women to look like prostitutes, or “sluts.” These days “slut walks,” wherein scantily clad, topless or fully nude gals march together in courageous, slutty unity, are all the rage – and Planned Parenthood has a revolving door through which they stream. It goes “ka-ching!” with every spin. Indeed, the abortion/STD giant manipulates young girls into “values neutral,” “consequence free sex” – something that does not exist – and then, when they get knocked up, takes their money, slaughters their babies and coldly sends them on their way.

Mix and repeat.

In an article on her own website titled, “Thirty Signs You’re a Slut,” Tarico brags of inspiring her own middle school-aged daughter into “sluthood” (the URL ends with “proud-mom-of-two-teenage-sluts”). “These days, it’s getting rather hard to hold your head high as a female if you aren’t willing to be seen as part of the slut sisterhood,” she opines.

That’s right. In the upside-down world of secular-leftism, sexual promiscuity is a badge of honor – and abortion, a rite of passage – for the upwardly mobile babe. Tarico hammers this home with a score-based inventory of benchmarks needed to “hold your head high as a female.” Among them:

• I have condoms in my purse – or bra.
• I like sex.
• I am unmarried, and I’m not a virgin.
• I wasn’t a virgin on my wedding night.
• I stand with Planned Parenthood.
• My cat is a person; a fertilized egg isn’t.
• You can count me among the 1 in 3 women who have had an abortion.
• I told my abortion story at the 1 in 3 Campaign.
• I believe sex can be rich and intimate without marriage.
• I find people of my own gender sexy.
• Submission (except, maybe, in bed) is not my thing.

Only a dying culture lionizes women who publicly impugn – with pride – their own honor and virtue, and brag about killing their own flesh and blood. Yet, to the left, Valerie Tarico represents “progress.” She’s a hero – a bold voice for “women’s rights.”

This is by design. Secular-progressives have worked hard to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional Obamacare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, get with the postmodern program and capitulate to funding abortion homicide.)

Indeed, like other feminist radicals, Tarico demands that the rest of us underwrite her stated immoral practices by paying for her and other women’s birth control and child sacrifice. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception, but to anti-Christian liberals like Tarico, religious liberty and freedom of conscience are things of the past, and the First Amendment represents an obstacle to their dystopian future.

Seriously. Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman’s “right” to be promiscuous and snuff-out her resulting offspring is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” gals, why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango. It seems to me that public groveling for free contraception, abortifacients and surgical abortion reinforces the sexist stereotype that women can’t survive without welfare – without men. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal governmental dependency.

In another column last week on the “social stigma” surrounding abortion and female promiscuity, Tarico writes, “If the wall of shame and stigma ruptures, abortion foes may find themselves up against something even more powerful: Love.”

Yep, nothing says “I love you” like ripping your baby limb-from-limb.

“Slut shame” indeed.

You may have heard some in the media say that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage has finally settled the divisive issue of marriage. The courts have now determined that both genders are no longer necessary in marriage.  That assumption is probably just wishful thinking on their part.

I have been teaching a worldview class this fall at a home school co-op.  In setting the table to discuss the life issue, I went back to look at the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton court decisions which forced abortion on America in 1973.

The two issues of abortion and marriage are strikingly similar.  In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to rewrite the biological truth of conception upon the nation.  In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to rewrite the biological truth of gender upon the nation.  Over 40 years later, people still know the truth that when a woman gets pregnant she is pregnant with a human being.   Forty years from now, I believe people will still know that men and women are uniquely different and by design children innately need a mom and a dad.

Here’s some confirmation of this.  On February 5, 1973, TIME magazine wrote an article called “A Stunning Approval for Abortion.”  They described how, in a 7-2 decision, the court expanded abortion in all 50 states.  They stated that even those that allowed abortion already would have to expand it.  They also noted how Justice Harry Blackmun, under a “right to privacy” he found in the 14^th Amendment allowed abortion, and since a fetus was not human, it had no rights that trump this right of privacy.   (TIME totally missed the cruel irony of the 14^th Amendment being an amendment intended to prohibit the return of slavery because the courts and many states had thought slaves were not humans with rights.  This is why a judge’s view of original intent is so important.)

TIME underplayed the opposition to abortion as a weak movement made up mostly of some religious conservatives and Catholic priests.  They also did the exact same thing that is being done today to the opponents of genderless marriage.  They compared the opposition to the Roe v. Wade ruling with those who opposed court rulings on racial desegregation, implying that pro-lifers were similar to racists of the 50’s and would fade away.

However, in their very last paragraph, TIME did concede that according to a poll taken right before the court ruling, the nation was split right down the middle on the abortion question.  Those supporting abortion in 1973 had a 1% lead. TIME noted that it was “a lightning rod for intense national debate.”

How did the U.S. Supreme Court do in settling that divisive social issue with a ruling finally deciding the legality of abortion?  The answer is – not very well.    Forty-one years later, Gallup polling reported that 48% of Americans oppose abortion calling themselves “pro-life” and 47% say that they are “pro-choice.”

Likewise, numerous polls have found that Americans were evenly split on the issue of marriage.  A national poll in April conducted by the Associated Press found that 50% said the U.S. Supreme Court should rule in favor of same-sex marriage, 48% said that is should not.   In July, two weeks after the ruling, the AP surveyed again to find that 41% opposed the ruling, while 39% supported it.

Nazi monster Dr. Josef Mengele is known to have ordered the murder of over 400,000 Jews at Auschwitz from 1943 to 1945. Thousands more he kept alive and mercilessly tortured to death during experiments intended to create an Aryan super-race.

Much of Mengele’s “medical research” was conducted on children and newborns – especially twins. One witness described what happened after Mengele once delivered a Jewish “fetus”: “But when he saw that there was only one baby and not twins, he tore the baby right out of the mother’s uterus, threw it into an oven and walked away,” she said. “We saw this.”

Cryin’ shame. Were he alive today and working for Planned Parenthood, Mengele’s abortion could have easily yielded an extra $300 for this “intact specimen.” Sell baby’s body parts separately, and the profit margin goes up. That’s good money toward a Lamborghini.

Such a waste.

In 1990 attorney and author Mike Godwin coined the concept that has come to be known as “Godwin’s Law.” It holds that, “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” The first person to compare another to a Nazi or Hitler, as it goes, loses the argument.

But what of that rare occasion when the Nazi comparison is 100 percent accurate and the best available analogy for a given set of circumstances? In that instance, Godwin’s Law must properly be suspended.

That instance is now.

Indeed, there is nowhere else for Planned Parenthood and its “pro-choice” supporters to hide. No more “clump of cells” euphemisms, no more denials about Planned Parenthood’s human-chop-shop-for-profit schemes, and no more nonsense about “reproductive freedom” and “women’s rights” in the context of the wholesale slaughter of babies.

The jig’s up, you cold, calculating, modern-day Mengeles. The amazing investigative journalism of The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has exposed smoking-gun proof that you intentionally and illegally profit, in the millions, by “crushing,” dismembering alive and otherwise torturing to death our most innocent fellow human beings, and then selling their body parts for Mengelesque “medical research.”

These are babies, and you know it. You’ve always know it. Even so, and with a conscience seared black by the father of lies himself, you simply don’t care.

Neither did the Nazis.

To be sure, in CMP’s fourth video release, investigators reveal “undercover footage [that] shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.”

“When the actors request intact fetal specimens,” continues CMP, “Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, ‘Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.’”

Yes, you read that right. This is a high-ranking Planned Parenthood official admitting that they “sometimes” deliver live babies, murder them and then sell their “intact” bodies for “medical research.”

“It’s a baby,” Ginde admits to the undercover investigators while pointing at various body parts on a tray.

“And another boy!” jokes her medical assistant.

This is a holocaust no less real, no less evil than that perpetrated by the Nazi regime. We’ve simply moved from the gas chambers to the abortion chamber – from Auschwitz to Planned Parenthood.

To live under Roe v. Wade is to live in shame. To live under pro-abortion leadership is to live under the Fourth Reich.

Whereas the Nazis were responsible for the wholesale murder of more than 6 million Jews, those today who support the practice of abortion homicide are no less complicit in the systematic slaughter of 55-million-and-counting equally precious human beings post Roe v. Wade. The parallels are undeniable and the science unequivocal. Murder is murder whatever stage of development the human victim.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who famously faced the gallows for his efforts to end the Nazi holocaust and assassinate Adolf Hitler. He was likewise an outspoken abortion opponent and pro-life advocate.

“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life,” he once wrote.

“To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder,” he concluded.

Indeed, Psalm 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

If pro-life advocates like those at CMP are modern-day Dietrich Bonhoeffers, and they are, then what does that make abortion supporters and providers? In the years leading up to and during World War II, many Germans who were otherwise generally good people succumbed to Nazi propaganda and acquiesced to the horrific Jewish persecution that escalated from a slow boil to a red-hot torrent around them. In effect, they bought into exactly the same kind of dehumanizing, euphemistic, semantical garbage embraced by those who today call themselves “pro-choice.”

In the heart of Washington D.C. sits the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum. Someday, Lord willing, there will be an Abortion Holocaust Museum nearby, and on that day people will walk through it and experience the same sense of shame, sadness and disgust felt by those who today visit the Nazi Holocaust Museum.

There remains good and evil in the world.

Hitler, Josef Mengele, Nazis and Nazi supporters were evil.

Cecile Richards, Savita Ginde, Planned Parenthood and its “pro-choice” supporters are evil.

They are one and the same.

If you consider yourself “pro-choice,” you are woefully deceived. As did many of the German people before you, you support mass murder. You embrace a culture of death. History will not treat you well. Repent now and join the culture of life.

If you are an individual supporter or corporate sponsor of Planned Parenthood, then shame on you. Stop! You are helping to finance this holocaust. The blood of millions of innocents is on your head.

If you are an elected official, no more excuses. Immediately withholding all taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood is a no-brainer, but it’s only the beginning. These crimes against humanity must cease, and Planned Parenthood officials must be thoroughly investigated and, where supported by the weight of the evidence, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This is your Nuremberg, Planned Parenthood.

Download a Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet or a Church Bulletin Insert.

Join IFI at the
National Day of Protest against Planned Parenthood
Saturday, August 22, 9:00 to 11:00 A.M.
Planned Parenthood, 3051 E New York St, Aurora (map)
Initiated by the Pro-Life Action League

Anyone browsing social media or watching network news is likely to be familiar with #BlackLivesMatter, #ICantBreathe or #HandsupWalkOut. They are terms that express the angst fueling a continuing clash between minority protesters and law enforcement after the tragic deaths of Florida’s Trayvon Martin, Ferguson’s Michael Brown and New York City’s Eric Garner.

For the past several weeks, those hashtag terms have been splashed on protest signs as part of a nationwide outcry against racial profiling, social injustice and raw bigotry.

But while attention has focused on slain Black males, there has been little attention to the deaths of Chicago’s Tonya Reaves, Cleveland’s Lakisha Wilson or Miami Gardens’ Qualecia James. Reaves and Wilson died after surgical abortions. James and the baby she was carrying both died as a result of gang-related gunfire.

The demise of those young women was also tragic, but for the most part has been ignored, says Ryan Bomberger, founder of TooManyAborted.com.

“No riots. No die-ins. No protests. Absolutely no mainstream media converge,” Bomberger writes on social media with the BlackLivesMatter hashtag included. “The lives of black women, snuffed out by real injustice and violence, are completely ignored and treated with nothing but silence.”

Instead, Planned Parenthood purposely avoids acknowledging the number of Black females – both born and unborn – that have been lost to abortion. Instead, Planned Parenthood ironically tweeted their support for the #BlackLivesMatter.

“We are joining #Ferguson organizers and protesters in DC today – standing in solidarity with you! #HandsUpWalkOut #BlackLivesMatter,” Planned Parenthood tweeted in the heat of the Ferguson unrest.

But do Black lives really matter to Planned Parenthood?

Not only does Planned Parenthood ignore the tragic abortion-related deaths in the Black Community, they cover up the effect abortion has had on diminishing the Black population.

Nearly a thousand Black babies die in America every day at the hands of abortionists like Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Since 1973, 16 million tiny Black lives have perished in abortion clinics.

The latest U.S. Census figures show that among Illinois residents, 62 percent is white, 16.5 percent Hispanic and 14.7 percent Black.

The CDC reports that nationwide, 36 percent of women obtaining abortions are White, 25 percent are Hispanic and 30 percent are Black. That means Blacks have 60 percent more as many abortions than Whites and Hispanics – exposing them to abortion after-effects and abruptly cutting off the next generation.

Recent Illinois statistics show a steady decline in abortions over the past decade, but Illinois still remains one of the most aborting states in the nation, despite the fact 92 percent of Illinois counties do not have abortion clinics. Chicago is in Cook County, the state’s most populated county, and one that does host abortion clinics.

A comprehensive study by ProtectingBlackLife.org showed that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

“Planned Parenthood has dominated the urban landscape since its own birth in eugenic racism, but rates of unintended pregnancies, STDs, fatherlessness, and abortion have only increased exponentially since Roe v. Wade,” Bomberger writes.

Still, the #BlackLivesMatter movement says it is focused on stopping unfair treatment by law enforcement. Members of a group calling themselves “We Charge Genocide” released a report that held the Chicago Police Department responsible for a rise in the community’s violence.

They filed that report with the United Nations Committee for Torture, saying although Blacks make up 32.3 percent of Chicago’s population, they account for roughly 75 percent of police shooting victims from 2009 to 2013. The group claims that Black Chicagoans are 10 times more likely than Whites to be shot by the police.

While claiming law enforcement is involved in Black Genocide, these groups also defend abortion rights as “reproductive rights” or “reprojustice.”

“For one’s children to be random, unwitting blood sacrifices to the prejudice of faceless others is not freedom,” wrote Katherine Cross at RH Reality Check. “To have reproductive freedom means, among many other things, that your choice to raise a family will not be revenged upon by collectivized prejudice wielding batons and handguns.”

The media’s cooperation with the Left’s agenda has a lot to do with how the situation is being perceived by the public, a key Black conservative says.

“The liberal media looks the other way on this,” Priests for Life Pastoral Associate and African American Outreach Director Dr. Alveda C. King told MRC Culture.

The niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. called for prayer.

“Pray that people will see right through their propaganda,” she said, “The media has another agenda; if they really thought that Black lives matter they would be protesting abortion on demand.”

With the statistics clearly showing that the real threat to America’s Black community are abortionists much more than law enforcement officers, perhaps it is time for Black leaders to hashtag #DoTheyReally? to be added to “#Black Lives Matter.”

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

America has been at war over abortion for the last four decades and more. When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, the court’s majority attempted to put an end to the abortion question. To the contrary, that decision both enlarged and revealed the great moral divide that runs through the center of our culture.

Most Americans seem completely unaware of the actual contours of the abortion debate as it emerged in the early 1970s. In 1973, the primary opposition to abortion on demand came from the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals — representative of the larger American culture — were largely out of the debate. At that time, a majority of evangelicals seemed to see abortion as a largely Catholic issue. It took the shock of Roe v. Wade and the reality of abortion on demand to awaken the Evangelical conscience.

Roe v. Wade was championed as one of the great victories achieved by the feminist movement. The leaders of that movement claimed — and continue to claim — that the availability of abortion on demand is necessary in order for women to be equal with men with respect to the absence of pregnancy as an obstacle to career advancement. Furthermore, the moral logic of Roe v. Wade was a thunderous affirmation of the ideal of personal autonomy that had already taken hold of the American mind. As the decision made all too clear, rights talk had displaced what had been seen as the higher concern of right versus wrong.

Also missing from our contemporary cultural memory is the fact that many Republicans, as well as Democrats, welcomed Roe v. Wade as the next step in a necessary process of liberating human beings from prior constraints. Yet, we now know that even more was at stake.

Tapes recently released by the Nixon Presidential Library reveal that President Richard M. Nixon, who had been considered generally opposed to abortion, told aides on January 23, 1973 (the day after the decision was handed down) that abortion was justified in certain cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

“There are times when abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” said Nixon. President Nixon’s words, chilling as they are, are also a general reflection of the moral logic shared by millions of Americans in that day.

As a matter of fact, one of the dirty secrets of the abortion rights movement is that its earliest momentum was driven by a concern that was deeply racial. Leaders such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, argued quite openly that abortion and other means of birth control were necessary in order to limit the number of undesirable children. As she made clear, the least desirable children were those born to certain ethnically and racially defined families. Sanger, along with so many other “progressive” figures of the day, promoted the agenda of the eugenics movement — more children from the “fit” and less from the “unfit.”

President Nixon, speaking off-the-cuff about the Roe v. Wade decision handed down just the day before, did register his concern that the open availability of abortion would lead to sexual permissiveness and a further breakdown of the family. Nevertheless, he carefully carved out an exception for interracial pregnancies.

Nixon’s comment, made almost 40 years ago, was strangely and creepily echoed in comments made by Supreme Court associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In an interview published in The New York Times Magazine, Justice Ginsburg made her absolute support of abortion on demand unconditionally clear. She tied her support for abortion to the larger feminist agenda and lamented the passage of the Hyde Amendment which excludes the use of Medicaid for abortions. The Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment in 1980, surprising Ginsburg, who commented:

“Frankly I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Justice Ginsburg’s comments were made in the context of comments about her hopes for feminism and her anticipation of being joined at the court by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then about to begin confirmation hearings. The larger context of Justice Ginsburg’s comments do not provide much assistance in understanding whether she was speaking of her own personal convictions or describing what was being thought by others at the time.

Of greatest importance is the fact that Justice Ginsburg’s comments reveal the racial, economic, and ethnic discrimination that was at the very heart of the push for abortion on demand throughout much of the 20th century. Also revealed is Justice Ginsburg’s virtually unrestricted support for a woman’s right to an abortion. In the interview, she goes so far as to lament the fact that the language of Roe v. Wade mentioned abortion is a decision made by the woman and her physician. As Justice Ginsburg told The New York Times, “So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.”

The American conscience remains deeply divided over the question of abortion. Tragically, we have never experienced a sustained, reasonable, and honest discussion about abortion in the society at large. One step toward the recovery of an ethic of life would be an honest discussion about the actual agenda behind the push for abortion on demand. Proponents of abortion rights do everything they can to hide the ugliness of the agenda behind the comments made by President Nixon and Justice Ginsburg.  Nevertheless, the truth has a way of working itself into view.

Just take a good look at the comments made by the late President and the current Justice. Furthermore, ask yourself why there is such racial disparity in abortion. Those comments turn more chilling by the day.

Written by Mike Riccardi

“Never, never will we desist till we . . . extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country.”

These words were spoken by William Wilberforce, the British politician who worked tirelessly to end the slave trade in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Though Wilberforce penned those words in reference to the centuries-old and universally-condemned practice of slavery, they very well could have been written today in reference to our own national “disgrace and dishonor.” I am speaking, of course, of abortion. The constitutionally protected right to murder one’s own unborn child is the preeminent social injustice of our day. Should the Lord Jesus choose to patiently prolong His coming, the history books will surely regard such a moral atrocity with the same shame and outrage that we experience as we read about the African slave trade or Hitler’s Holocaust, bewildered that such miscarriages of justice could have been allowed to persist in a civilized and educated society for so long. 

Forty-One Years Too Long

And yet it was on January 22, 1973 that the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Roe v. Wade that a child in the womb is not to be considered a human person. Since that time, over 50 million babies have died in America under the sanction of the law. Statistics tell us that one in three American women will have had an abortion by the age of 45. This illustrates that the right to take the life of a preborn child has been woven into the fabric of our cultural consciousness for an entire generation. It is now time for a new generation committed to the sanctity of life to stand against this injustice. As followers of Jesus Christ, we should be leading the way in defending the defenseless (cf. Prov 31:8) and in honoring the image of God in all people (Gen 1:27; cf.9:6).

Now, if you’re reading this and you name the name of Christ—if you profess to follow Jesus as the Savior from your sin and the Lord of your life—I pray that you have not been so deluded as to need convincing that abortion is evil, and that supporting it in any fashion is repugnant to the Father, grieves the Holy Spirit and is antithetical to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. But if I’m not going to spend this post arguing for that, what do I have to say to you?

Well, even we who abhor this wicked practice need to be encouraged and exhorted. See, some things are just so horrible that it becomes difficult for us to think about them for too long. It’s the same reason we turn our eyes away from a terrible car accident, or can’t dwell for too long on a particular national tragedy like 9/11. Our instinct of self-preservation can tempt us to avoid thinking about such things for the sake of our own emotional comfort or peace of mind. But this is where we need to be strengthened. As grisly as it is, Christians must be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 2:1), and face such a discomforting reality head-on. We need to feel the injustice of abortion and mourn the loss of life long enough that we might be stirred to action.

So What Can We Do?

Our first response to contemplating such an evil should be to pray that God would eradicate it. We must recognize first of all that this battle is not merely one of flesh and blood—of partisan politics or competing ideologies. There is no question that a nation whose feet are so swift to shed innocent blood—sacrificing our own children on the altar of convenience—is under the judgment of God, given over to the deluding influence of Satan. We must come to the realization that our struggle is against spiritual forces of wickedness (Eph 6:12), and, as a result, the weapons of our warfare must not be of the flesh, but must be divinely powerful (2 Cor 10:3–5). God alone is sufficient for such a task, and so it falls to us to pray that He would mercifully change the hearts of a nation who calls evil good and good evil (cf. Isa 5:20).

Secondly, we can support our local pregnancy resource centers. In his book, Answering the Call, Pastor John Ensor writes, “In practice, the best way to bring this winsome invitation to abortion-vulnerable women and couples in our neighborhoods is to partner with local pregnancy help ministries.” These pregnancy centers often offer free services and literature, and usually provide ultrasound free of charge. When an abortion-minded woman is presented with ultrasound imaging of the life growing inside of her, it becomes much less likely for her to follow through with ending their pregnancy. Our church comes alongside our local pregnancy center by hosting fundraisers, sending volunteers, and encouraging members to pray for and give to this ministry as they discern the Lord would have them to do.

Finally, we must proclaim the Gospel faithfully in our circle of influence. James tells us that the root of murder lies in the sinful desires that enslave the human heart (4:1–2). Therefore, victory in the pro-life cause will not ultimately come from a change in policy or new legislation. Though we would happily welcome that, the only remedy for the sinful human heart is the Gospel of Christ. If we want to change the thoughts, desires, and behaviors of the unsaved, we must first change their hearts. And the Gospel is the only thing that can do that. At this point, our compassion to protect innocent human life and our compassion to see sinners saved from eternal punishment come together in the church’s mission to preach the Gospel to all creation.

Not Theoreticians, but Heralds

In January 1984, President Ronald Reagan designated the third Sunday of every January as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, to coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That’s this Sunday. So take some time this weekend to reflect, even if painfully, on the reality of this evil in our society, and mourn the loss of life that has been perpetrated in our midst under the protection of law. And along with praying for God to be merciful, prayerfully consider how you might strategically give of your time and talents in 2014 to bring the Gospel to bear particularly on the issue of abortion. As Ensor and Klusendorf have said,

“The world does not need highly developed pro-life theoreticians. It needs [Gospel heralds], people sensing the call of God on their lives and effectively appealing to the conscience of their generation. And it needs [those who will love their neighbors as themselves], ready to act on their convictions in practical lifesaving ways” (Stand for Life, 4).

May we who love Christ in this generation never desist until we have extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic.

 This article was originally published at thecripplegate.com blog.

By Matt Barber

The pro-aborts are losing. They know it, and they hate it.

As LifeNews.com reported in January: “CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited – a clear pro-life majority.”

Indeed, the winds of life are blowing free the foul stench of a pro-abortion culture of death.

This is why President Obama and his fellow pro-abort zealot, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, have unilaterally, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally forced, through Obamacare, every taxpaying American citizen to fund “free” abortion-on-demand.

This draconian overreach is in perfect keeping with the 2012 DNC platform, which, for the first time, admits without shame: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to … abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

Psalm 8:28 commands: “Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.”

To be sure, there can be none more oppressed than the tens of millions who, over four short decades, have been – and will continue to be – slaughtered within the safe haven of their own mothers’ wombs.

With its 1973 Roe decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put the government’s official stamp of approval on mass murder. Since then, the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. They, “pro-choicers,” are the bad guys, while pro-lifers are the good guys. It really is that simple – that black and white. It’s good versus evil.

History will reflect as much.

To the unenthusiastic mother, politically motivated abortion violence is deviously portrayed as an acceptable escape from what may seem a desperate situation. To the innocent child, it is – without fail and without due process – execution by torture.

Consider the horrific practice of Partial-Birth Abortion, innocuously tagged “Intact Dilation and Extraction.” This is a practice so brutal and so needless that even the liberal American Medical Association (AMA) admitted that it is never necessary under any circumstances.

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully “viable” child – often kicking and thrashing – feet first from her mother’s womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. This is so the abortionist can technically claim to be performing an abortion, rather than committing murder.

He then stabs the child through the base of her skull with scissors, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerks to a halt. Next, he opens the scissors to enlarge the wound, inserts a vacuum tube and sucks out her brains, thereby collapsing her skull.

Her now limp and lifeless body is then cast away like so much garbage.

Appalling, isn’t it? Infanticide by any objective measure.

So, naturally, Mr. Obama, reasonable fellow that he is, agrees with the AMA, correct? He and other “pro-choicers” were the first to applaud the high court when it upheld a ban on this Hitlerian practice, right?

Wrong.

Barack Obama unbelievably called the Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart part of a concerted effort “to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women.” In so doing, he revealed to the world that leftist support for abortion “rights” has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science or “health care.”

Moreover, consider Mr. Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It passed both houses of Congress in 2002 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is “born alive” – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to save her life.

Yet, incredibly, this president, while serving in the Illinois Senate, vehemently opposed the bill’s Illinois twin. He complained that requiring efforts to save the live victim of a botched abortion is “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Barack Obama’s solution? Finish off the little pest.

So prepare for Obama and other pro-aborts to go utterly berserk now that Arkansas has passed the Human Heartbeat Protection Act. It requires that when an abortion is performed at or after the 12th week, doctors must test for a fetal heartbeat before an abortion is performed. If a heartbeat is detected, a woman cannot have an abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or if a mother’s life is in danger.

This is common-sense stuff. The human heartbeat has long been indisputable proof of life both within and without the womb.

Still, and not surprisingly, even as the state legislature was overriding the Democratic governor’s veto of the new law – SB 134 – the ACLU and other pro-abort radicals were vowing to challenge it in court.

Mathews Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, has vowed to preserve it: “If asked, Liberty Counsel will defend this law without reservation, free of charge for the people of Arkansas, born and unborn,” he said.

“In keeping with medical advances, history and common sense, the Arkansas legislature has said that the life of a 12-week-old unborn child with a detectable heartbeat is protected under the law.”

And well it should be. SB 134 is just the beginning. Brave lawmakers in Arkansas have provided the template for other states to follow.

They’re on the right side of history.

Indeed, history has a way of repeating itself. The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation. Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Court’s shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision.

In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African-American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe v. Wade ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right: life.

As with Dred Scott, Roe’s fate, I believe, is certain. It’s just a matter of time. History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as Dred Scott.

Call yourself “pro-choice”? Shame on you. You’re no better than a modern-day slave master. Dump the garbage and join the right side of history.

There’s plenty of room over here.

Written by  Daniel K. Williams

Pro-lifers need to better understand the history of the pro-life movement and what Roe did to it.

On the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it has suddenly become fashionable in certain circles to suggest that the controversial Supreme Court decision was actually a blessing in disguise for pro-lifers, because it breathed new life into a fledgling right-to-life movement and put the abortion rights movement permanently on the defensive. Pro-choice activists have been “losing ever since” Roe, a Time magazine cover story proclaimed this month. Jon Shields pushed this argument even further in the January issue of First Things, declaring that Roe “crippled the pro-choice and energized the pro-life movement, creating one of the largest campaigns of moral suasion in American history.”

Unfortunately, most pro-lifers are unprepared to respond to claims like these, because for years pro-lifers have not really understood what Roe did. They have too often accepted the myth that neither legal abortion nor an organized pro-life movement existed prior to Roe. Although they have denounced Roe vociferously, they have justified doing so with the erroneous argument that Roe was the primary cause of the nation’s high rate of legal abortion, as though legal abortion did not exist in the United States before 1973.

Actually, Roe did not introduce legal abortion to the United States; it did something even worse. Prior to Roe, legal abortion existed, but so did a large, vigorous pro-life movement, and that movement was beginning to win the public debate on abortion. Roe deprived the pro-life movement of its legal victories and allowed abortion to become more available to poor and minority women. It subverted the democratic process and led to a partisan polarization that only grew worse with time. Perhaps worst of all, it nullified the pro-life movement’s constitutional arguments and enshrined in case law a constitutional interpretation that deprived the unborn of any constitutional rights.

Contrary to popular belief, legal abortion was widely available in the United States prior to Roe. Legal abortion for limited reasons had been introduced in Colorado and California in 1967. Abortion on demand (that is, legal abortion for any reason) was introduced to the United States in 1970, three years before Roe, when New York and three other states began permitting unrestricted abortions up to the twentieth or twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Because New York and California’s abortion laws lacked a residency requirement, some abortion providers began offering travel packages for women to fly to New York or Los Angeles to terminate their pregnancies. Hundreds of thousands of American women did so; in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, there were 586,760 legal abortions performed in the United States.

But prior to Roe, there was also a large, well-organized pro-life movement that was beginning to turn back the tide against abortion legalization. After losing numerous state legislative debates over abortion policy between 1967 and 1970, pro-lifers reorganized, and beginning in 1971, they experienced a string of uninterrupted legislative victories. By using fetal photographs to convince the public of the evils of abortion, and by making Protestants, Jews, and women the spokespersons for their movement in order to avoid charges of sectarianism or chauvinism, pro-lifers gained a hearing for their cause.

In the spring of 1971, pro-lifers defeated abortion legalization bills in all twenty-five of the state legislatures that considered them. The next year, their record was almost as successful: Only one state liberalized its abortion law, and it did so only under court order. Pro-lifers were equally successful at the ballot box. When Michigan and North Dakota introduced voter initiatives to legalize abortion in 1972, pro-lifers defeated both measures by wide margins. By the end of 1972, pro-lifers thought that they were probably within only one year of repealing New York’s permissive abortion law, and the director of Planned Parenthood’s Western Region division worried that pro-lifers would soon make abortion illegal in California too. “In the West we view ’73 as a difficult year for abortion,” he confided to a colleague in the summer of 1972.

Roe stopped a victorious pro-life movement in its tracks and deprived it of its gains through the democratic process. It forced dozens of states to legalize the procedure against the will of their citizens. When Roe was issued, only nineteen states had adopted liberalized abortion laws, and only four of those states had laws on the books that allowed abortion on demand. Roe required every state to allow abortion on demand.

In 1973, the first year after the Roe decision was issued, there were approximately 750,000 legal abortions performed in the United States—a 28-percent increase over the previous year. By 1980, after abortion clinics had been built across the nation, the annual abortion rate had doubled to 1.5 million.

Roe also made abortion more available to poor women, as the number of clinics quickly expanded after the decision. State and federal governments also funded abortions for poor women through Medicaid, prior to the Hyde Amendment. This availability led to higher abortion rates among poor and minority women. By 2008, 55 percent of the country’s legal abortions were performed on black or Hispanic women, while only 36 percent were performed on non-Hispanic whites. Forty-two percent of women who obtained abortions in 2008 were living below the poverty line. In 1973, by contrast, 75 percent of the women who obtained legal abortions were white. Many pro-lifers view this shift of abortion services to the poor and minorities as a sign that society has refused to offer substantive solutions to the problems that impoverished women face, and has instead simply encouraged them to terminate their pregnancies.

But what really made Roe an egregious decision, in the view of pro-lifers, was that it deprived a class of people of their constitutional rights by declaring them non-persons, something they thought the Supreme Court had not done since Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Prior to Roe, pro-life lawyers had found a receptive audience in some state and federal courts for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses protected fetal life, and that the legalization of abortion on demand was therefore unconstitutional. As the Fifth Amendment states, under the Constitution no person can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If fetuses were human persons, then their lives were constitutionally protected.

Pro-life lawyers believed that case law supported their argument that fetuses were indeed human persons, and that they therefore enjoyed the constitutionally protected right to life. Already, they pointed out, several courts had recognized fetal personhood in prenatal damage cases. In Smith v. Brennan (1960), for instance, the New Jersey state supreme court declared that because “medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception,” parents of an unborn child whose life was terminated in an accident had the right to sue for compensation for the loss of their child’s life. Similarly, in O’Neill v. Morse (1971), the Michigan state supreme court declared that the fetus was a “person” with an existence separate from the mother, and that “the phenomenon of birth is not the beginning of life; it is merely a change in the form of life.”

If fetuses were declared to be persons for the sake of prenatal damage claims, then the law could not deprive them of personhood in abortion cases, pro-life lawyers argued. Some courts accepted this argument. In 1967, for instance, the New Jersey state supreme court ruled in Gleitman v. Cosgrove that fetal birth defects caused by rubella did not constitute grounds for an abortion, because “the right to life is inalienable in our society.”

But the legal tide began turning against the pro-life movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s because of courts’ increasingly broad interpretations of the “right to privacy.” In 1965 the Supreme Court declared in Griswold v. Connecticut that the right to privacy gave married couples the right to use birth control without state interference. Citing that ruling, the California state supreme court declared in People v. Belous (1969) that “the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children” made restrictive abortion laws unconstitutional. Other state supreme courts adopted Belous’s reasoning. In 1972, courts in Florida, New Jersey, and other states struck down restrictive abortion laws.

Roe codified this new interpretation of the right to privacy in constitutional case law and prevented pro-life lawyers from ever again gaining a legal hearing for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fetal life. By a vote of seven members, the Court deprived the unborn of the most basic rights of personhood and made it legal to terminate their existence. “The horrible truth is, the Court’s decision put our nation officially in favor of killing by law,” pro-life activist J. P. McFadden declared in National Review.

When the Supreme Court rejected their constitutional argument, pro-lifers dedicated their efforts to passing a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would enshrine the protection of the fetus’s right to life in the Constitution. When the HLA failed to pass in Congress, after more than a decade of repeated attempts to bring it to a floor vote, pro-lifers began a campaign to reverse Roe by changing the composition of the Supreme Court. That campaign polarized the nation’s political parties, making each judicial nomination a battleground over abortion. After working for thirty years to change the composition of the Supreme Court, pro-lifers have not yet been able to find the five judicial votes needed to reverse Roe.

If Roe is overturned someday, its reversal will not end legal abortion in the United States, nor will it likely have an immediate impact on the abortion rate, because the states that are the largest providers of abortion have already signaled that they will continue to permit unrestricted abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Nor would Roe’s reversal end the nation’s debate over abortion; in fact, Jon Shields is probably right to argue that the reversal would result in a pro-choice backlash.

Yet if Roe is reversed, no state legislature or lower court will ever again have to accept abortion as a sacrosanct constitutional right, and pro-lifers will once again have the freedom to argue, without fear of contempt or ridicule, that the Constitution protects the right to life of the unborn child. Roe cut off public discussion of these questions; the reversal of Roe would open it up again.

Surely all pro-lifers can agree that Roe is a travesty of justice against the unborn child’s right to life. Still, they need to make the right criticism of Roe.The decision neither started legal abortion nor hurt pro-choice momentum, but instead set back a trajectory of pro-life progress that is still reviving after forty years.

A new national opinion survey reveals growing support for the pro-life viewpoint on the subject of abortion. That survey, conducted by the Gallup Organization, shows a decisive majority believe that unborn children should be protected under the law.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said they believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or legal only under certain circumstances. Thirty-seven percent of respondents believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances or most circumstances.

Under the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, abortion is currently legal in the United States under all circumstances.

Support for providing legal protection to preborn children was consistent regardless of age or gender. Sixty-one percent of men and 60 percent of women said all or most abortions should be illegal. Pro-life views were also expressed by 59 percent of those in the 18-34 age category, 58 percent of those aged 35-54, and 64 percent of those over the age of 55.

In its analysis of the results, the Gallup Organization provided this assessment: “The results make it clear that, despite their labeling of their own abortion views, a majority of Americans clearly not only oppose abortion and believe it to be a morally improper ‘choice,’ but they believe the legal status of abortions should change, and all or virtually all abortions should be prohibited.”

The Gallup organization even offered the pro-life movement some advice: “Pro-life groups need to educate Americans on what constitutes a pro-life position — and to encourage them to call themselves pro-life when they want all or almost all abortions made illegal.”

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

On March for Life, Eve of State of the Union, Pro-Life Leader Calls for Grassroots to Seize Momentum in 112th Congress

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — Today, in her first annual State of the Unborn video address, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called the 38th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision a unique opportunity for pro-life America. The address, available at www.sba-list.org/stateoftheunborn, coincides with the annual March for Life in Washington, DC.

“It’s not just a movement anymore. All the polls show this is pro-life America now,” Dannenfelser said. “It’s time for us to flex the muscle that we just flexed in this election and do everything we can in this Congress to protect human lives… I invite you to go to our website, www.StopAbortionFunding.com, and, if you’re not marching today, please take a moment to pray and act. Then, tomorrow night, watch that State of the Union message. See if the president decides to follow up on his promise [that tax dollars not be used to fund abortion in health care] because right now is the moment, a moment in time which we have not seen since 1973, where we have the momentum. We have the power. We have all the ability to save children’s lives by stopping the funding of their deaths. When he gives his State of the Union message, it should certainly include how he has or has not lived up to that promise.”

Dannenfelser’s address comes on the heels of the introduction of three bills aiming to end taxpayer funding of abortion – the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” sponsored by the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), the “Protect Life Act,” sponsored by pro-life champion Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” creates a government-wide statutory prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion. The bill also codifies the Hyde amendment which ensures that no federal funds pay for abortion under the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill along with several other pro-life riders that currently have to be considered every year. The “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act” ensures that tax dollars are not sent to abortion providers under Title X family planning grants. The “Protect Life Act” amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to ensure that no federal funds pay for elective abortion, prevents any federal agency from mandating abortion and protects the conscience of healthcare workers.

More than 40,000 pro-life activists have signed the SBA List’s Stop Abortion Funding petition lobbying to end taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion providers.

Dannenfelser will be available for comment on-site during the annual March for Life on Monday, January 24. Contact Kerry Brown at 703-470-1926 if you would like to speak with her.

The Susan B. Anthony List spent $11 million during the 2010 midterm election cycle. Overall, the SBA List was involved in 90 races including 62 wins and 28 losses. Successes included: defeating 15 of 20 so-called “pro-life” Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care reform bill; increasing the number of pro-life women in the House by 70 percent; filling the void of pro-life women in the U.S. Senate and increasing the number of pro-life women governors from one to four.

For further information, please contact Kerry Brown at (703) 470-1926

Introduce IFI to your friends, church or civic group

Serve as a contact person by receiving information from IFI and distributing it to others or posting it on bulletin boards. You can keep current by signing up for IFI E-Alerts and IFI E-Newsletters and be registering and checking in on our Take Action center.

Host a gathering of friends for a private evening with the IFI team.

Staff members are available to speak at your church or group function about IFI’s work at the Illinois Capitol, with parents working against liberal indoctrination at their public schools, and a variety of other issues including marriage, fatherhood, and current family policy initiatives.

Experts privately acknowledge abortion-breast cancer link, but say it’s too political to discuss publicly.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer announced that three experts will be available for interviews to discuss the impact of the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link on the Roe v. Wade generation during the month of January. Their contact information and their quotes are available below.

Karen Malec, the Coalition’s president, said, “During the last 21 months, four epidemiological studies and one review reported an ABC link. [1-5] One study included National Cancer Institute branch chief  Louise Brinton as co-author. [3] We count nearly 50 published epidemiological studies since 1957 reporting a link. Biological and experimental studies also support it.

“Experts proved in medical journals that nearly all of the roughly 20 studies denying the link are seriously flawed (fraudulent). Like the tobacco-cancer cover-up, these are used to snow women into believing abortion is safe.” [6-16]

Professor Joel Brind and his colleagues reported a “30% greater chance of developing breast cancer” in their 1996 review and meta-analysis of worldwide data. [17] He said recently:

“If we take the overall risk of breast cancer among women to be about 10% (not counting abortion), and raise it by 30%, we get 13% lifetime risk. Using the 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade figure, we get 1.5 million excess cases of breast cancer. At an average mortality of 20% since 1973, that would mean that legal abortion has resulted in some 300,000 additional deaths due to breast cancer since Roe v. Wade.”

Brind said his estimate excludes deaths from the use of abortion to delay first full term pregnancies – a recognized breast cancer risk.

In 2002, Angela Lanfranchi, MD testified under oath in a California lawsuit against Planned Parenthood that she had private conversations with leading experts who agreed abortion raises breast cancer risk, but they refused to discuss it publicly, saying it was “too political.”

Contact information:

Karen Malec – (847) 421-4000 (Available through January 23 only)

Joel Brind, Ph.D. – (914) 805-9215

Angela Lanfranchi, MD – 1-86-NO-CANCER