Skip to comments.‘Pro-Choice’ Slave Masters Losing War
Posted on 03/18/2013 8:11:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
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?
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.
Abortion is the legal killing of nascent human life.
Its what happens when you kill their voter base and why they’ve come to rely on the entitlement crowd for votes. Its their only bloc that renews.
Most “pro-aborts” are “had-aborts” seeking to justify their decision.
Thank-you for getting the truth out. Even Obama’s numbers are begining to go down according to Drudge.
*** Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Courts shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision.****
One GOOD thing the Dred Scott decision did make, which has since been ignored, was the pre-Civil War concept of rights.
In the listing of rights that blacks would have if they were citizens was....”The right to go about armed where ever they went.”
As for Roe V Wade, SHAMEFUL! I knew a pro abortion woman who took her cat to be spayed. Inside, the vet found partially formed kittens, took them out and spayed the cat.
The woman cried over the loss of the kittens.
People’s pocketbooks must be being effected. Money always talks.
Preaching to the choir and wishful thinking, I am afraid.
My children are all anti-abortion and found their classmates in high school to be nearly all pro-abortion.
The youngest is 11 and in Catholic school - many of her classmates don’t really know what abortion is, as their parents want to shelter them. Her best friend can’t and won’t believe Obama is pro-abortion, despite my daughter trying to show her websites laying out his abortion policy, because the President is good and he wouldn’t do that and her parents support the President and they are good.
Our area is professional, educated and affluent - it’s in bad taste to oppose Holy Choice here. These children will many of them grow up to be the Elite who shape the discourse of our country. They will have relatively few abortions themselves but Choice will be their idol.
Get the vote of the pro-abortion crowd and eliminate the possibility of a born child becoming a conservative, replace the aborted child with an illegal alien who will vote for their "understanding and compassion."
Still wondering how many abortions there would be if unborn children were allowed to carry arms.
No, we are not "forced." If every pro-life taxpayer stood up, put it on the line, put the money where the mouth is, taxpayer-funded abortion would end immediately, as would just about anything else we didn't want afoot in this nation. We need only to notify the govt that we intend to deprive it of revenue. This can be done without breaking any laws. Just be ready to break some nest eggs.
The Lord had a recipe for following Him, divest oneself of income. But like some 60 million babies, it simply isn't convenient.
I might add that back then, Caesar's face was on the coins. Today, it's Moloch.
Majority oppose abortion but still vote for democrats. I’ll never understand.
Done it and been doing it for the last 12, 13 years. ‘Depriving them of revenue’, fine by me. :)
To begin with, activist justices wrongly ignored that not only have the states never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate abortion, evidenced by the Constitution's silence about the issue, but that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that government powers to regulate things like abortion are automatically reserved uniquely to the states.
Next, outcome-driven justices were also wrong to put on their "magic glasses" to find abortion rights in the 9th Amendment and apply them to the states via the 14th Amendment. Their folly is evidenced by John Bingham's official clarification that 14A applies only enumerated constitutional protections to the states, John Bingham the main author of Section 1 of 14A.
"Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution (emphasis added)." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See bottom half of third column.)
In other words, based on Bingham's statement, in order for the Supreme Court to be able to apply constitutionally protected abortion rights to the states via 14A, the states would have had to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which expressly protected abortion rights before the Court decided Roe v. Wade imo.
Finally, given that each state has the unique, 10th Amendment protected legislative power to say yea or nea to to abortion rights, what activists justices actually did in Roe v. Wade was to not only legislate abortion rights from the bench, but to breach the constitutionally enumerated division of federal and state powers to usurp state legislative powers to do so.
What a mess! :^(
Again, activist justices get away with these things thanks largely to constitution-ignorant patriots who are clueless about the Constitution's division of federal and state powers and the differences between legislative, executive and judicial powers.
I don't think that's true (considering that less than 50% of the population would be biologically capable of having an abortion), but it would likely be true if you extended it to those seeking to justify the behavior of friends or loved ones. What conservatives need to do is directly challenge the notion that a wrong thing will cease to be wrong if enough people do it. Many people know that abortion is wrong, but think that if it can somehow become "not wrong", then they or their loved ones will be "okay". The message such people need is that it's possible for someone who has done something bad to become a good person, but the first step is to stop trying to pretend that what they did wasn't bad. There's no need to invoke religion. Even from a secular psychological standpoint, if one knows one did something wrong, the only way to free oneself of guilt is to confront the fact that one did something wrong--painful as that might be.
I wonder how liberals would react if some of the "had-aborts" started wearing shirts that said "I regret my abortion"? I can't think of any possible answer liberals could effectively put forth against that message.
I am firmly convinced that many of the most strident advocates of abortion--like Kate Michelman--push abortion so ardently precisely because of that. They really believe that promoting as many abortions as possible somehow makes their own abortion(s) okay. It doesn't, of course. It compounds their crime and their guilt.
Really? Was the abortionist truthful and straightforward when selling her the abortion service? Did the abortionist fully inform the woman as to what happens during an abortion, and explain that the drugs given to make the abortion more comfortable for her do not cross the placenta, so that the baby is able to feel the entire process, whether it is being dismembered, crushed, or poisoned to death?
Unless all of that was explained prior to the abortion, then the woman did not make an informed decision. That fact alone negates the pro-"choice" aspect of pro-abortion.