Skip to comments."It's Not a War on Women, It's a Massacre of the Unborn"
Posted on 06/28/2014 8:31:48 AM PDT by Dqban22
"It's Not a War on Women, It's a Massacre of the Unborn"
By Cortney O'Brien
This week I'm in Louisville, Ky. reporting from the 44th annual National Right to Life convention, where over 1,000 enthusiastic pro-lifers young and old have gathered to hear lifesaving truths and to gain materials they need to spread a pro-life message. The first session of this year's conference began by exposing the left's engineered "war on women."
As she introduced the panelists for "The REAL War on Women," NRLC President Carol Tobias offered a simple summary for what pro-abortion advocates believe: "If you think unborn children should be protected, you're against women." That's where the well-informed panelists came in.
Kathryn Lopez, the editor-at-large for National Review Online and a columnist for Townhall, solemnly remarked that 12 women went into an abortion clinic next to the conference hotel today, noting they "just needed someone to tell them they're there."
"So many women feel they have to have an abortion, that they have no choice. The narrative is we're taking away women's rights. I try not to entertain that narrative anymore."
Dr. Jean Garton, the founder of Lutherans for Life, told the crowd the truth about the link between abortion and health care.
"I believe it's a war on information, facts and truth. There's a different word for it: self factualization. The definition is when a person selectively chooses info to build their reality while refusing to acknowledge the existence of info that would ruin their carefully construed reality to be false.
"There are low information voters, people who don't have access to truth or who can't distinguish fact from fantasy. But, there's also those who manipulate language, redefine words."
The word "war," she insisted, is one that pro-choice advocates have seized.
"Merriam-Webster says war is 'a state of opened and declared armed hostility, a conflict between state and nations.' But war is not the word to define this issue.
The correct word is a massacre of the unborn -- an act or instant of killing helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity and cruelty."
Garton continued to use the English language to prove her point, this time referencing the Thesaurus.
"Abortion was listed back in 1960 as failure in an early Thesaurus."
But pro-abortion advocates, Garton remarked, are inventing their own language to push their agendas.
"Such semantic gymnastics we see being used by abortion supporters. They come from highly educated, the elite in Washington. George Orwell once said, 'some things only intellectuals are crazy enough to believe.'"
Joy Pinto, an EWTN radio host who is also a director of pregnancy medical center, joined her fellow panelists in exposing feminists' verbal engineering, which many women have unfortunately accepted as truth. She suggested an alternative:
"This government tells them it's okay to use contraception, that abortion can be used as backup. They have bit the apple, they believe the lie. We see how they're suffering and we love them back. I think the pro-life movement needs to come out waging peace on women.
Abortion doesn't have to be an option in the hearts and minds of our society. We want the bill of lies no more."
The left's manipulation, Lopez explained, also comes in the form of media bias. During the infamous Wendy Davis filibuster and subsequent pro-abortion protests in Texas last summer, for instance, Lopez pointed to the media's "total obscuring of the facts."
"Bills that would make clinics safer were ignored - it was all about restricting women's access to health care. Lopez did suggest, however, that pro-lifers could view the left's semantics in a positive way.
"I find it as source of encouragement that they have to manipulate words. They can't use the word 'abortion.'"
There may not be a war on women, but pro-abortion advocates are certainly waging a war on words.
I'll be reporting from the National Right to Life conference through Saturday. Stay tuned for more of the truth.
We need a definition - in law - giving the unborn personhood status from the time of conception. Then we can grant a lawyer to them to,defend their Constitutional rights that we all have under the law.
It’s a HOLOCAUST like NO other!!! these are MOTHERS KILLING THEIR CHILDREN!! NOTHING has EVER happened like this.
Not that I disagree with you, but how are we going to get such a law passed, when Americans are largely voting for this?
I do know that liberals get things done “in law” that the majority of Americans do not support. It would seem we could do some of that, too ... :-) ...
No other way.
Imagine the Easy Company guys saying, “no, I don’t see how we can do this. The German soldiers won’t agree to it. They’ll never change their minds. No, no...no. Can’t do it”
I believe a fetal personhood initiative was considered in Mississippi and it almost passed.
There was some panicked talk as usual among the “pro choice” set, but some valid points were also brought up that would suggest the idea needs refinement before becoming law. For instance, do we want the full panoply of modern negligence law to be brought to bear in the case of a “natural” miscarriage that was, however, partly due to malnutrition or disease or other carelessness.
My read: people are going to have to care about the love of God before they can care sensibly about other kinds of love. Our hearts have fallen closer to the gutter than we think. As an eternal optimist, I believe God may be poised to make a new address to the country, a new offer of love that will dawn on befogged souls. He certainly would not begrudge it to any willing person.
A personhood statute or amendment is intriguing, but the shock might be more than the country is currently willing to endure. Also it is unsatisfying in a sense, because if a law really can make someone a person, a law can also take that away. We might not want to pop open that Pandora’s box too quickly.
Love has been lost; or let us say that it has been supplanted by a narcissistic (self adoring) attitude.
Unless this attitude can be supplanted again by true love (the love from God and of God) there is no rock to grip here.
The stubborn thing about the love of God is that it insists on being universal. It won’t brook being restricted from a class, except for the case of the sin of refusing the love all one’s life. Are you willing to love the woman next door who has purposely aborted three times, as much as you do one of her present unborn children at risk? To be willing to endure the scorn of the shortsighted as you do so in either case? If the answer is yes, then yes you have picked up on the love of God.
We just have to remind anyone who says if they are granted by government that they can be taken away by government — about these words ...
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...”
And ... “There you go ... “
Americans who voted for Obama may not agree with everything he has done, but they still voted for him TWICE for what they thought he would do for them.
Since it’s reasonable to assume that at least half the unborn children murdered by abortion are girls, it most certainly is a “war on women”, just not in the way godless liberals assume.
That was the manifesto presented to King George; it never got into the Constitution.
And I don’t know what you are intending by “There you go...” but it really sounds smart alecky.
You get the right mix of legislators, the right President and maybe a good legal case ... and just about anything can happen ... :-) ...
It means that’s our foundation for anyone saying that government can take away those rights because they are the government. We maintain that right now and we can continue to maintain it for all “people” ...
How much case law ties back to the Declaration of Independence without an explicit anchor in the Constitution?
I haven’t heard of any.
I don’t say it isn’t a noble, even godly idea. It just ran into problems once the task of composing a Constitution fell at hand. That Constitution had some sin in it in the form of winks at chattel slavery; and Thomas Jefferson for one may have felt a little too conscience pinched to put something like that in.
That is moot without people believing in all the “creator bestowed” stuff in the first place.
The slavery issue is like this one ... in saying that those slaves were not property. They fall under those rights that cannot be taken away by government. It’s the same here ... these little ones are people whose rights cannot be taken away by government. We’ll do exactly what this Declaration of Independence says ... “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...
It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not, the Founding Fathers did and they formed this country out of that understanding. And I’m certainly glad they gave us that basis.