Tag Archives: pro-life

Analysis Orca mother grieves for what humans fight for the right to throw away

Originally posted at Live Action News

Currently, a grief-stricken orca mother is in the news. The aquatic mammal has spent weeks dragging a dead calf through the ocean off the coast of Washington. Like it or not, it appears nature is sending a visual message, not only to Washington State but the world, about what constitutes maternal instinct and how mothers should feel about the loss of offspring.

On July 25th, an orca named Tahlequah (J35) gave birth to an orange-tinted 400-lb calf that survived a half hour. Since that day, Tahlequah has refused to let go of the calf and has transported her dead offspring through the Pacific Ocean assisted on occasion by other members of her pod.

Allyson Chiu of The Washington Post explained:

[t]he pod of killer whales that roam between Vancouver and San Juan Island has dwindled to 75 members over the decades. The cause is no mystery: Humans have netted up the whales’ salmon, driven ships through their hunting lanes and polluted their water, to the point that researchers fear Tahlequah’s generation may be the last of her family.

In response, biologists and government officials are currently working on a plan to save Scarlet (J50), a starving member of Tahlequah’s pod. In an attempt to rescue the whale, the critically ill 3-1/2-year-old is being tracked and fed antibiotic-laced salmon. Meanwhile, in America, there is another group at risk. According to an Abortion Surveillance Report issued by the CDC, in 2011, “black women [made] up 14% of the childbearing population, yet obtained 36.2% of reported abortions.” At the time, “Black women [had] the highest abortion ratio in the country, with 474 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

In other words, environmentalists and animal rights activists address diminishing pods and malnourished killer whales but seem unconcerned about the disproportionate number of Black children denied the right to live in humanity’s pod.

According to Chiu, as America aborts its unborn, this orca mother was “forever picking up the [calf’s] body as it sank, hoisting it out of the water to take a breath, and repeating.”

Deborah Giles, a University of Washington killer whale biologist, said that based on the whale’s unusual behavior, “You cannot interpret it any other way. This is an animal that is grieving for its dead baby, and she doesn’t want to let it go. She’s not ready.”

Thus, according to TIME Magazine, Tahlequah has not been forced to release the corpse of the dead calf because scientists deem that “her emotional bond is simply too strong.” In turn, researchers have discontinued calling the whale’s treatment of her dead baby “rare” and are now calling it “unprecedented.”

It’s indeed telling to witness an inconsolable whale grieve for what human beings fight for the right to throw away.

Nevertheless, Giles told TIME Magazine that “Even if her family is foraging for and sharing fish with her, [she] cannot be getting the… nutrition she needs to regain any body-mass loss that would have naturally occurred during the gestation of her fetus.”

And while large numbers of unborn humans are destroyed, primarily for convenience’s sake, it’s interesting to note that Tahlequah’s pod is dwindling and finding it difficult to forage for food, with many orcas starving — and yet, each life matters to the pod. Although “the effort of pushing her calf – for about 1,000 miles by now – is probably making her weak and keeping her from finding enough food,” Tahlequah puts her life at risk for the sake of her child.

In fact, when reflecting upon Tahlequah’s plight, one can’t help but wonder whether supporters of the right to abort can see the cognitive dissonance in assigning an animal “a sense of interspecies kinship…[with]… mothers who … also lost children.” Many are grieving right along with this orca, with one scientist reportedly weeping over the whale, with people writing poems and drawing pictures of Tahlequah, or any of those who “lost sleep” lamenting over the heartsick orca. Yet they will dismiss the idea of human post-abortion grief.

Killer whale expert Peter Ross, vice president of research at conservation group Ocean Wise, said, “One of the reasons the story is rather heart-wrenching is the fact that we’ve grown to truly marvel at this iconic species and… we see a little bit of us in them. We look for things that we might understand or explain on the basis of our own experiences.”

With that in mind, as the whale funeral procession continues, pro-choice individuals who justify animal rights above human rights — and do so by assigning human virtues to animals — really should ask themselves how Tahlequah’s conduct toward her dead offspring reflects on the treatment 60 million human beings have suffered at the hands of their mothers.

The orca’s actions provoke a powerful image that should incite heartfelt response in both science and government and send a strong message to those who support the unfettered slaughter of the 51,000 babies who were aborted in the U.S. in the 17 days since Tahlequah’s calf died. Moreover, if it is true that whales are highly intelligent and exhibit similar emotions to humans, this ora mother’s behavior conveys a lot about those who march for the right to abort what a killer whale cherishes.

Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco

Originally posted at American Thinker

Once again, the confused logic of liberals is almost impossible to comprehend.  Take, for instance, the multi-million dollar steel suicide barrier about to be constructed in San Francisco.  After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.

What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.

San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America.  Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice.

In other words, by erecting suicide barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco liberals, who, for the unborn denounce the right to life, and, for the sick and dying support the right to die, want to inflict life on those who prefer death.

Even still, liberal Californians would probably argue that jumping off a bridge is different because, according to state law, to qualify for death with dignity one must be succumbing to physical, not mental, illness.

Sorry to have to be the one to say it, but, especially in a liberal bastion like San Francisco telling one group, they have a right to die while refusing another that same right smacks of the sort of discrimination liberals usually pride themselves on avoiding.

Nonetheless, if the rationale behind the Golden Gate Bridge safety net were to thwart ‘back alley suicides,’ maybe a better idea would be to gather up distraught bridge jumpers and shuttle them to a clinic where the downcast could be administered the legal End of Life Option drug secobarbital.   After all, ending one’s life in a less public place would be tidier, would shield the iconic reputation of the bridge, would spare the U.S. Coast Guard having to spend hot afternoons fishing bloated corpses out of the celebrated city bay, and, most importantly, would safeguard the left’s highly-prized right to choose.

Either way, except for when it comes to limiting things like guns and junk food, liberals typically insist that deterrents fail to work. As a matter of fact, it was San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi who once said that if the GOP denied funding ‘safe and legal’ abortion, via Obamacare, women would have to resort to rusty hangers and, in turn, “die on the floor.”

So, if banning abortion doesn’t keep women out of back alley clinics, how does Nancy explain her contention that curtailing the legal Second Amendment will save “90 lives a day?” Or, more germane to the Golden Gate Bridge conversation, how does steel suspended from a bridge keep those desperate enough to end it all from finding another bridge?

Notwithstanding the belief that gun control and suicide nets impede fatalities, when it comes to building a wall on the border, liberals like Pelosi argue that physical restrictions do nothing to prevent dangerous immigrants from entering the US illegally.  Meanwhile, in 2015, a woman named Kate Steinle died on a San Francisco pier after she was shot to death by an illegal felon named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who, despite being deported five times, repeatedly snuck back across the southern border.

The stunning contradiction here is that this tragedy took place in a Sanctuary City where liberals who claim that walls do not stop illegal felons are now stringing up a steel barrier to stop suicides.

That’s why, even though San Francisco has strict gun laws, and thanks to their backing of open borders, a bullet from a .40-caliber handgun, stolen from a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger, ricocheted off a sidewalk, entered Steinle’s back, and severed the 32-year-old’s aorta.

Recently, at the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent Commemoration Ceremony, Democratic Leader, Catholic-abortion-supporter, and open-borders-advocate Nancy Pelosi had this to say about the steel suicide barrier:

What a bittersweet day. The joy of the prospect of saving lives, the sadness of those we’ve lost. The Golden Gate Bridge is a source of immense pride in the Bay Area, but for far too many families it has also been a place of pain. We are honoring a deep moral responsibility to save lives whenever and wherever we can.

Likewise, for those yet to be born, Nancy Pelosi also ‘honors a deep moral responsibility’ to ensure pre-born bridge jumpers never make it out of the womb alive.

Under the banner of choice, when not hindering suicide, San Francisco continues to feverishly abort human beings and dispense legal euthanasia drugs and does so while refusing to enforce laws necessary to protect the likes of those who, if given the choice, would have chosen to live.

Colorado Cop Killed In PP Shooting Shows Everyone What Pro-Life REALLY Means

swasseyOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

By now most people know that psychopath Robert Lewis Dear shot up a strip mall “in the vicinity” of a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic. Thus far, authorities are still not sure why. What is clear is that based on the location, the shooter not only killed three people, but in the process also handed the #ShoutYourAbortion crowd a textbook tragedy to exploit

That’s why, in the aftermath of the shooting, to deflect attention from a scandal involving the abortion provider getting caught peddling baby body parts for profit, Planned Parenthood opportunists and apologists are choosing to focus on how inflammatory rhetoric is causing the pro-choice movement to be victimized.

How are they doing it?

Allegedly, after being taken into custody, Mr. Dear mumbled something about “no more baby parts.” A deranged man with an automatic weapon, uttering those four words is all the left needed to confirm that the hermit’s actions represent the secret intent of anyone that opposes abortion.

What the media has not disclosed yet is whether Robert Lewis Dear was also talking to his dead grandmother, or receiving a top-secret transmission from outer space.

Granted, Dear did have suspect twig crucifix nailed to the side of his canary yellow cabin, but according to his neighbors the recluse never mentioned religion, nor did he ever voice opposition to abortion. Yet despite having nothing to base the allegation on, some on the left have elevated this mentally ill recluse to the position of pro-life poster boy.

And even though no one knows, with any degree of certainty, what Robert Lewis Dear really believes, what we do know is that one of the three people who died in the shooting, pastor/cop Officer Garrett Swasey, was a proud pro-life Christian.

And to prove it, despite probably knowing about the videotapes that exposed Planned Parenthood dismembering of human babies, Officer Swasey still chose to rescue more pro-choice women from the jaws of death then Dear managed to blow away.

What liberals conveniently forget to mention is that, despite Dear’s two other victims being there to “support friends”, the patients Garrett Swasey saved were at the clinic to submit their unborn babies to a violent procedure that contradicted his core religious beliefs.

With that in mind, instead of speculating about what motivated Robert Lewis Dear, why not change the subject to Swasey who, by not hesitating to put the safety of pro-choice women above his own life, demonstrated the entirety of what it truly means to be pro-life?

While we wait for that to happen, the #ShoutYourAbortion crew will continue to exploit any thing they think can distract from the carnage that takes place daily in Planned Parenthood abortion clinics all across America.

But, try as might, what the left will never be able to undercut is the power of the message an unselfish pro-life Christian man named Garrett Swasey relayed to Pro-choice America when he freely laid down his own life so that women planning to abort unborn babies — whose body parts might even be sold to the highest bidder — could live.

In the end, it wasn’t a twisted murderer named Robert Lewis Dear that demonstrated what it means to be pro-life; it was the impartial, mindful sacrifice, on behalf of the sanctity of life, exhibited by Garrett Swasey.

Dumpster baby in Texas saved by hero maintenance man

dumpster26n-2-webOriginally posted at Live Action News

Texas maintenance worker Carlos Michel heard faint whimpering sounds coming from a dumpster at a nearby apartment complex. Michel said that what he thought he heard were the muffled cries of a kitten or perhaps a dying animal. As he neared the dumpster, the man was sure that whoever or whatever was whimpering inside was struggling.

Leaning into the blue dumpster, Carlos grabbed hold of a white plastic trash bag, pulled it out, placed it on the ground, and ripped it open to find a newborn baby boy inside. The infant, with umbilical cord still attached, was cold and purple, but still alive. “I almost had a heart attack,” Michel said.


After this modern-day Moses was plucked from the oversized ashcan, paramedics arrived to take him to Houston’s Memorial Hermann Hospital, where the small babe was reported to be in good shape.

Seems the baby’s 16-year-old mother, a student at South Houston High School, gave birth and then placed her newborn son in the plastic bag and hurled him into the dumpster, which in some circles could be considered exercising after-the-fact freedom of choice.

Since then, Child Protective Services have taken custody of the baby boy.

Describing what happened as he placed some garbage into the dumpster, Michel said that he heard the faint cries and took the bucket he had just emptied and used it to stand on to see if he could locate where the noise was coming from. Then, in a pile of empty pizza boxes, homework papers, soda cans, and scraps of half-eaten food, he located the bag and lifted it out of the dumpster. Once outside, he noticed that the bag had an outline of what looked like an upside-down baby. Carlos ripped open the plastic, and inside he found a whimpering, cold, purple newborn.

Carlos Michel, the man that saved this little one’s life, shared that it was a “shock to find a human being inside a trash bag. An indefensible [sic] baby.”

Caring more for the child than whoever the mother was, Michel wrapped the “wet,” “sticky” baby in his gray work shirt. Then, in an attempt to warm the trembling newborn with his body heat, Carlos drew the tiny boy close to his chest. According to Michel, once inside the truck’s cab with the heat turned up, the hiccuping boy warmed, and his little cheeks grew rosy.

A hero for sure, Carlos said, “I didn’t want him to die in my arms.” Michel, a grandfather to his own two-month-old grandson, instinctively cradled the baby, who never opened his eyes, and gently poked him to keep him awake until paramedics arrived on the scene.

It is unclear why, instead of tossing her son into a dumpster like a bag of garbage, the baby boy’s mother didn’t leave her newborn at a safe haven per the state of Texas’s “Baby Moses” law, which was instituted in 1999.

Then again, seeing as how 3,000 babies are aborted and tossed into red biohazard bags every day in America, maybe Mom thought putting her son into a white garbage bag and flinging him into a dumpster a few minutes after birth, in the overall scheme of things, didn’t make all that much of a difference.

Victor Senties, a spokesperson for the Houston Police Department, said that officials at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office will “determine what, if any, charges will be filed.”

“If any”? Is it now debatable as to whether it’s a crime to stuff a baby, shivering and wet with afterbirth, into a plastic bag and chuck his frail body into a dumpster to suffocate and be hauled away like trash?

Although ending fairly well, this incident is just another example of the throwaway society America has become, where the commonplace sentiment is that children are now things we have the right to throw away.

Nonetheless, thank God for Carlos Michel, a maintenance man with a huge heart, who, rather than ignore the sound coming from a smelly pile of trash, lifted a helpless little miracle out of a dark dumpster of death and placed him back into the light and warmth of life.

Pro-life signs torn down ahead of speech by Secular Pro-Life President Kelsey Hazzard

ProLifeSignTrashedOriginally posted at LiveActionNews

Along with pro-choice sentiments usually comes vitriol from those who harp on the legality of abortion and sometimes do it by denying pro-lifers things like First Amendment rights.  This is especially true on college campuses.

Recently, at the University of Georgia, pro-choice miscreants did just that.

Vandals attempted to block a pro-life club from advertising an event featuring Kelsey Hazzard, the president of the national organization Secular Pro-Life.  Hazzard is an anti-abortion activist known for presenting nonspiritual arguments against abortion.

The name of the scheduled event: “Pro-Life Without God.”

The University of Georgia’s Students for Life had hoped bringing Ms. Hazzard to campus would stimulate discussion with secular pro-choice students. Rebecca Stapleford, president of the University of Georgia’s chapter of Students for Life, had this to say:

I am bringing Kelsey Hazzard to campus in order to shatter stereotypes about who is pro-life. I also want to make people realize that abortion, as a human rights issue, can be opposed on secular grounds.

Somebody on campus disagreed with Ms. Stapleford’s idea to “shatter stereotypes” through intellectual debate, so they took it upon themselves to make the decision for University of Georgia students who might otherwise be interested in attending.

In hopes of thwarting attention, the posters advertising the pro-life event were destroyed.

Sophomore Elizabeth Ridgeway, a writer for the student publication go site The Arch Conservative, expressed her frustration http://kariewilliams.com/?rqa=What-Is-Prescription-Prilosec-Used-For&47a=15 about the pro-life group being denied the right to exercise their freedom of speech and expression to follow site Does Accutane Require Prescription The College Fix.

Ridgeway explained that while waiting at a bus stop she saw a “hooded figure” tear down one of the posters.  Ridgeway said, “He tore the banner down, crumpled it up, threw it in a nearby trashcan, and walked away.”

Let’s remember, crumpling up and throwing in trashcans is what pro-choicers like to do.

When asked about the vandalism, UGA spokesperson Tom Jackson said that while he did not know the facts about pro-life posters being sabotaged, “it is apparent that no one should be destroying notices properly posted by someone else.”

For context, damaging pro-life displays is not unique to the University of Georgia.  Similar incidents have taken place at other bastions of free speech like University of Chicago, USC, Ohio State, Princeton, and Harvard.

There must be something about the sanctity of life that inspires some of those who want the right to destroy the unborn to also display vicious behavior.

Student’s for Life president Rebecca Stapleford also took time to  speak with source site The College Fix, a publication that prides itself on providing “A Daily Dose of Right-minded News.”

Rebecca said that she kept “putting the posters up … and someone [kept] taking them down,”  she would  “put them up, go to class and within an hour [they’d be] gone….put them up again, and within five minutes…gone.”

That’s why it’s no surprise that the Secular Pro-Life event posters have disappeared from all over campus, including dorms and bus stops, which means that more than one person had to see the “hooded figure.”

Ms. Stapleford told ‘ source The Fix’ that in the past her group put up “graphic image displays” that also were  “targets of vandalism.”  Those displays were “almost always stolen,” so Rebecca said Students for Life doesn’t bother with the displays anymore.

Discouraging pro-lifers from exposing the truth is exactly what pro-choice hooligans hope will happen.

The “Pro-Life Without God” speaker Kelsey Hazzard said this is the first time such widespread defacement has preceded her appearance at an event, but she’s not surprised.

Hazzard believes that:

The abortion movement is frustrated that the pro-life message is gaining ground, particularly among college-aged people. Some have, unacceptably, let out that frustration by attempting to censor their pro-life classmates.

Either way, what the University of Georgia situation proves again is that whether it’s the message of the God-given sanctity of life or an argument in favor of human rights, persons determined to destroy the unborn will go to great lengths to prevent those who might be swayed from hearing the truth.

Liberals are Pro-Life on Obamacare

ProlifeLib2Originally posted at The Blacksphere

At least when it comes to Obamacare, even the staunchest pro-choice liberals are suddenly pro-life.

Emanuel Cleaver, former mayor of Kansas City and chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in the 112th Congress, took to MSNBC in defense of America not aborting Obamacare. Mr. Cleaver even rationalized keeping the unmitigated disaster by making an apt comparison using his baby granddaughter as the example.

An enthusiastic defender of the unaffordable Affordable Care Act, Cleaver used hyperbole to stress the point that just because Obamacare has jettisoned five million happily insured Americans into the uninsured category, and just because the website doesn’t work, has no system installed for paying insurance companies, and has secret code embedded that says that those that log have “no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system,” doesn’t mean the law should be aborted.

Mr. Cleaver, who was senior pastor of Saint James United Methodist Church for 36 years, used his baby granddaughter as an example of how having “glitches” isn’t justification to throw something away.

Cleaver said: “I’ve got a one-year-old granddaughter, and on Thanksgiving Day she had a number of little glitches, but we’re not ready to throw her away because of a glitch here and there.”


First of all, Cleaver did not define what kind of glitches his baby granddaughter had.

Were the tot’s glitches diaper-related? Because needing a diaper change would definitely describe the overall Obamacare rollout.

Did the darlin’ grandbaby burp, whine, drool, take a tumble while trying to walk, or need a nap in the middle of dinner? If Grandpa Emanuel was referring to those types of glitches then yes, he could make the comparison between a one-year-old and Obamacare.

There is one problem though: this object lesson came from a pro-choice quasi-Christian who supports a woman’s right to “throw…away…a glitch here and a glitch there,” especially if the glitch happens to be conceived at an inopportune time, which definitely applies to Obama’s baby, the ACA.

So it’s a bit hypocritical to now argue that the American people do not have the right to choose to throw away a glitch. Moreover, if the mother of that granddaughter of his had exercised her Cleaver-supported reproductive right to choose, then the good pastor would have had to come up with some other lame example to convince America that ‘a couple of glitches do not a health care reform bill make.’

Defending Obamacare, Cleaver said, “Most things in the beginning stages are going to be difficult to pull off.”

How true! The problem is that when it comes to enduring Obamacare, Emanuel Cleaver and many other liberals are contradicting their standard rationale for justifying the disposal of unborn babies.

The question that needs to be posed to the left  is: How come you’re now saying we don’t dispose of babies just because they have a few glitches?

And more importantly, why does a non-viable healthcare reform bill in its early stages have the right to grow, develop, and live even though most Americans want it aborted?

Beyoncé’s pro-‘life is but a dream’


Originally posted at Live Action News

Superstar songstress Beyoncé Knowles, aka Mrs. Shawn Carter, probably doesn’t realize it, but her new documentary,  go to link Life is but a Dream, is doing a serious disservice to Barack Obama’s pro-choice agenda. During the 2012 campaign, pop star/Obama BFF Beyoncé hosted a $40K-a-plate campaign fundraiser for the president at Jay-Z’s exclusive 40/40 Club. She and stage mother Tina Knowles even designed a t-shirt to raise money for Runway to Win.

Then, barely a month after she proudly lip-synchedher way through The Star-Spangled Banner at the president’s inauguration, Beyoncé debuted in a self-directed, self-produced 90-minute “look at me, I’m Queen B” HBO documentary about herself http://yotayard.com/?pla=Seroquel-Online-Overnight-Delivery&e9d=e5The two things the HBO Beyoncé-mentary confirmed were that Beyoncé thinks very highly of herself and that although she identifies with the likes of Barack Obama, when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, she doesn’t toe the liberal pro-choice line.

In fairness, it is possible that Beyoncé isn’t aware of how her lamenting a miscarriage and admission that hearing a baby’s heartbeat in the womb is “the most beautiful music [she] ever heard in [her] life” could negatively affect Barack’s anti-Born Alive Act ideology. After all, Beyoncé did dance up a storm in a Michelle-inspired “Move Your Body” video and then went on to sign a $50-million deal with PepsiCo, apparently without a thought as to how becoming the face of Pepsi could undermine Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move”-away-from-sugar initiative.

America knows where Barack Obama stands on the issue of abortion. However, it is confusing when a superstar like Beyoncé says things about pregnancy like “It is the most powerful creation for you to be able to have life growing inside of you. There is no bigger gift, nothing more empowering” – and then endorses a president who believes that saying when life begins is “above [his] pay grade.”

After the 2012 birth of Mr. and Mrs. Carter’s daughter Blue Ivy, in an interview with U.K.’s  http://dustycartridges.com/?kas=Depakote-Prescription-Information&719=fb Star Magazine, Beyoncé said, “You have the instant connection once you know your child is growing inside you…from the time I knew I was pregnant we have been parents.” Sentiments like those indicate that Beyoncé didn’t read the Planned Parenthood talking points memo prior to the interview.

And it gets better. According to Beyoncé – one of Barack Obama’s biggest celebrity supporters – if you’re pregnant, you’re carrying “a child” and are being granted “an opportunity to bring a life into the world.”

In  Life is but a Dream, Beyoncé continues the pro-life theme when she shares her sadness over the loss of her first baby in the early stages of pregnancy. The young mother said that when she first heard the baby’s heartbeat, she immediately picked out a name and “envisioned what [the] child would look like.”

In a prior interview, the megastar had already discussed that devastating loss. Beyoncé said that upon learning that there was no longer a heartbeat, she went to the studio and penned and then sang a song she called “the saddest [she had] ever written.” The words to the unnamed track are those of a bereaved mother telling a baby that would never to be born, “I’m longing for your heartbeat, heartbeat.”

By being such a staunch supporter of Barack Obama, and then sharing  maternal feelings toward an unborn child with a name and a face,  Beyoncé certainly does nothing to reinforce the “blob of cells” argument that liberals depend upon when justifying abortion.

Beyoncé also expressed the strong belief that a miscarriage teaches a woman things about pregnancy – “Especially after losing a child, the pain and trauma from that just makes it mean so much more to get an opportunity to bring a life into the world.”

Two years after her miscarriage, Beyoncé was blessed when she conceived Blue Ivy. In the documentary, the 17-time Grammy-winner rubbed and cradled her swollen belly on camera and showed clips of her announcing her pregnancy on the MTV Music Awards show in 2011. It was there that Beyoncé looked into the camera and said that the “baby wants to introduce herself.”

With all the heartbeat talk and the black-and-white sonogram popping up on the TV screen, one would think Planned Parenthood would request that the documentary be removed from prime time for supporting “informed consent” and promoting what the abortion-backers refers to as an “invasive procedure.”

The documentary even included intimate footage of Beyoncé preparing to give birth and husband and rapper Jay-Z awaiting the baby’s arrival. After the precious Blue Ivy Carter was born, Beyoncé said that “I felt like God was giving me a chance to assist in a miracle.” He certainly was!

A Murder Worth Committing?

marybeth-williams-for-excerpt1Originally posted at Live Action News

Prolific columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams describes herself as a “writer, consultant, and radio commentator with about a thousand years experience, give or take a century.” The sassy Mary Elizabeth, author of the memoir Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream, is also a staff writer at Salon.com. Almost daily, Mary, or MEW for short, churns out an opinion piece or two where she rants on about whatever is current in Hollywood, politics, breaking news, and religion.

Although Williams describes herself as a “practicing Catholic,” she recently wrote a piece with the provocative tag line: “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” The article that followed was entitled “So what if abortion ends life?”

Based on the subject of that article, and judging from her Catholic-school name of Mary Elizabeth, there’s a good chance that although the columnist rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of life, she still believes that there is merit in going to confession.

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Ms. Mary managed to do what pro-choice people have simply refused to do, and that is to admit that abortion is killing. Not only that, but Ms. Williams also had the chutzpah to admit that executing a pre-born child on a whim is a perfectly acceptable option.

In the article, it seems that Williams’s goal was to defuse what she sees as a pro-life ploy. Mary E. maintains that the reason why pro-life advocates try to convince pro-choicers that a baby is alive from the moment of conception is to prove that having an abortion takes a life. MEW thinks pro-lifers believe that once the “life” aspect is acknowledged, that realization has the power to morally sway those who devalue life to rethink the pro-choice position.

Mary suggests that pro-choicers intrinsically know but won’t admit that a fetus is a living being because they believe that if they did, they’d “flub it for the cause.” Therefore, Williams takes it upon herself to exhort pro-choice America to go ahead and admit that a fetus is alive, and then admit that the knowledge that a fetus is living in no way impacts their decision to have an abortion.  Williams contends that by admitting to those beliefs, the word “life” is thereby neutralized and the “anti-choice lobby” disarmed.

Amazingly, it took Catholic-girl honesty to explain to the abortion-happy left that the 40-year-old “fetus is not a life” argument has been “illogically contradictory.” Mary brings up the irrational inconsistency often exhibited in liberal women when their wanting a child is what magically transforms material for a red bio-hazard bag into a precious cuddly baby. Williams also points out, and rightly so, that “[f]etuses aren’t selective[.] … They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.”

In her column, Ms. Williams also chides the death-culture faithful for allowing “archconservatives [to] browbeat” them with the concept of life and use “scare tactics” and “indefensible violation[s]” such as “forced ultrasound[s].” To Mary Elizabeth, it matters not if the ultrasound shows a dimpled baby hiccuping or sucking its thumb. So what if the screen proves that the child is alive, feels pain, and winces? In Williams’s opinion, it’s time for those Americans who believe in “unrestrictive reproductive freedom” to stop hiding behind words like “choice” and “reproductive rights” and buck up and admit that to them, slaughtering 60 million defenseless babies is really no big deal.

Liberal Mary Elizabeth confesses that her philosophy comes from her conviction that “[a]ll life is not equal.” Therefore, a human being growing inside a woman’s womb, based on location alone, is at its mother’s mercy, and well it should be. According to Williams, “[Mom’s] the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

To further underscore the “a life worth sacrificing” argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams plays the moral equivalency card. According to the Salon.com writer, Americans kill people all the time, or what she clinically calls making “choices about life.”

Williams contends that Americans make “choices about life” concerning “men and women in other countries” when we bomb them; “we make them about prisoners in our penal system” when we execute convicted murderers; and “we make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims” by ending their lives when we accidentally trip over the cord to Granny’s respirator and unplug it from the wall. Therefore, killing a baby shouldn’t be viewed as much different.

Despite her macabre argument, Mary Elizabeth Williams herself is sick with Stage 4 distant metastatic melanoma that has spread over her body by spreading from her scalp to her lungs and bloodstream.

Ironically, the woman advocating for taking the lives of the helpless is desperately trying to save her own life; she is currently at the mercy of an experimental Phase 1 immunotherapy trial at Sloan-Kettering in New York City. If doctors were to consider Mary’s life “a life worth sacrificing,” she’d probably already be dead (we hope she recovers). Yet even now, if she learned she was with child, Mary would still say, “You bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.”

Abortion or no abortion, the motivating factor for MEW writing the coldly candid abortion-rights advice column might be that as cancer stalks her mid-life years, being a penitent Catholic/“non-extreme Christian” and all, she may have felt moved to come clean and admit that abortion is indeed ending a life. And as shocking as that admission is, kudos to Mary Elizabeth Williams for stepping forward on behalf of pro-choice Americans and confirming that for some, butchering the unborn, partially born, or a baby born alive during a botched abortion is a murder she and they consider well worth committing.

Questioning Michele Bachmann’s Foster Parent Claims

Originally posted at American Thinker

In order to understand liberalism, all one needs to do is take note of what the left applauds versus what they attack.  Case in point: Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann – wife, mother to five biological children and foster mother to 23 teenagers – has now become the focal point of left-wing attacks as they prepare to diminish her stature by attacking her family.

Michele gave a stellar performance at the Republican debate.  It was in that forum that she announced her decision to “seek the office of the presidency of the United States of America.”  The only woman on the platform, Michele voiced strong convictions, attacked government regulation, called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill “over-the-top,” and promised if elected to repeal Obamacare.  Michele praised the Tea Party and described it as a “wide swath of America coming together…to take the country back.”

Yet, despite articulating strong opinions on varied subjects, Michele’s gutsy and possibly prophetic proclamation that Barack Obama is a “one-term” president wasn’t nearly as courageous as a pro-life statement she made with unabashed personal conviction and commitment to truth.

What could be worse for pro-choice America than a woman with a brood of children, smiling and firmly proclaiming without obfuscation, wavering, or uncertainty the following belief: go “I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.”

Michele Bachmann bore five biological children and didn’t stop there – she and husband Marcus welcomed into their home the at-risk offspring of other mothers who also chose to grant their babies the gift of life.  Not only that, but the Minnesota congresswoman also shared her commitment to the “dignity of life from conception until natural death,” which is a view that – especially on the cusp of Obamacare, the costs of which are sure to run over budget – is not only ill-timed, but most assuredly unappreciated.

Moreover, Bachmann openly proclaimed as “sacred” and “holy” something which, after almost 40 years of unrelenting indoctrination, many Americans have now come to accept as a clump of cells – another statement sure to be considered unconscionable in pro-choice circles.

Michele placed a target squarely on her own back when she dared to tie the right to life to the Declaration of Independence, demoted government from bestowing “inalienable” rights, mentioned the Creator, and emphatically declared “only God can give [life] and only God” should take it away.

In conclusion, Mrs. Bachmann even managed to inject sanity into the conversation when she noted that 2% of rape/incest abortions “get all the attention” while 98% of convenience-based abortion is “where the real battle” lies in the fight against the unfettered slaughter of the unborn.

As it turned out, the Republican debate provided a public forum for a conservative woman to school enlightened society on what many believe to be the reproductive attitudes of a troglodyte. If Mrs. Bachmann continues to voice such extreme opinions, she will fast become as distasteful to liberals as Sarah Palin, the pro-life mother of a Downs Syndrome son, whose presence and principles – especially when toting around what the world deems less-than-perfect offspring – have made her an object of unrelenting mockery.

For years, Palin has struggled against cruel rumors that Trig, her special needs baby, isn’t her and husband Todd’s son, but rather daughter Bristol’s.

Taking a page from the Demean the Maternal Claims of Pro-Life Women playbook, Michele Bachmann’s motherliness is also now being called into question by those who wish to undermine her foster parenting claim, saying “She makes it sound like she got them at birth and raised them to adulthood, but that’s not true.”

Following the debate at the Republican Leadership Conference, a CBS News reporter broached the foster parent subject with Michele in what appeared to be an effort to coax the Minnesota congresswoman, who claims she “raised” 23 foster children, into admitting she hosted most of the kids for a limited amount of time.

Those who accept “the right to privacy” as the right to destroy innocent life suddenly have become sticklers on the proper definition of the word “raised.”

Although Michele Bachmann has never once implied that she cared for 23 children simultaneously, with grace and poise the congresswoman responded to the inquiry in the following way:

Well in the situation we were in we took children as teenagers. Their family was facing a challenge and they weren’t gonna be able to be at home with their parents and we took them in as teenagers and our job was to see that they graduated from high school and were successfully launched into the world.

Challenged further for precise time frames, Michele, who said she considered having each and every child in her home a “privilege,” calmly expanded her clarification: “It really varied depending on the children and we’ve never got into specifics about the children because we always wanted to observe their privacy and that of their families, as I’m sure you can appreciate.”

It seems that when pro-life women promote motherhood, those who defend abortion as a “privacy” issue feel more than justified in prying into their personal lives if doing so provides a solid platform upon which to falsely portray a female conservative Christian politician as a fraud.

It’s almost certain that Michele Bachmann’s parenting experience wouldn’t be a topic of discussion if instead of “raising” unwanted children, she shared the opinion that women “facing challenges” would be better off exercising their right to choose in an abortion clinic.

And so, the debate over whether Michele Bachmann raised or did not raise foster children proves once again that liberalism exposes its dark underbelly not so much by what it applauds as by what and whom it attempts to tear down.

Indiana Leans Towards Life

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Pro-lifers are notorious for stirring up trouble.  In an effort to save unborn babies, anti-abortion activists are always looking for new and inventive ways to upset unsuspecting women just trying to exercise a guilt/worry-free Constitutional right to choose.

Take for example the Senate Health Committee in the Hoosier State of Indiana.  Legislators had the audacity to vote 6-2 in favor of a pro-life bill that the state House of Representatives approved by a 72-23 vote in March.  The bill requires abortion practitioners to tell women considering abortion that “the baby” (did they say baby?) is a viable, living being.  Ouch!

Those merciless life-zealots didn’t stop there. The bill also mandates that women seeking to flush a fetus from their womb be told that the life of “the baby they could otherwise give birth to begins at conception and that scientific evidence reveals the unborn child will likely experience significant pain during the abortion at or before 20 weeks of pregnancy.”

What a way to throw a wrench into a casual outing to the local Planned Parenthood clinic.

What gives Indiana legislators the right to bring up “life,” “scientific evidence,” and “significant pain?”  Aren’t pro-life buzzwords better left unsaid? Especially when women seeking abortions would rather concentrate on things like: “nonviable blobs of tissue,” sipping juice out of “Super Uterus” mugs, and receiving “There’s no life without freedom and no freedom without choice” complimentary T-shirts.

The bill bans abortion after 20 weeks, “compared with the current state law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy,” when babies can feel pain, smile, hiccup, and suck perfectly formed thumbs.

So that the trip to the abortion mill won’t be a total downer, “lawmakers removed … a requirement that abortion practitioners tell women about the risk of breast cancer.” Besides dead babies, induced abortion “has been proven to be linked” to breast cancer.  Therefore, destruction of preborn infants brings with it the potential for cancer to rear its ugly head down the road, grimly reminding Mom of an innocent life extinguished before its time.

On the upside, besides the mention of malignancy being eliminated from the bill, the Senate Health Committee “also removed language that would have allowed Indiana to opt out of paying for abortions under the Obamacare health care law.” This means that when health care reform is enacted, Indiana cannot opt out of paying for and causing the excruciating death of defenseless babies.  Thankfully, abortion and end-of-life counseling will still be available in Indiana for women determined to expose themselves to abortion-induced breast cancer.

The legislation also requires that abortionists retain “admitting privileges at nearby hospitals,” because besides tumors, abortions frequently “pose medical problems for women and sometimes result in life-threatening injuries that would require them to be transported immediately to a legitimate medical center that can properly treat them.”

Indiana’s pro-life community sure has a lot of nerve. First, they insist on upsetting women by telling them that the child they are about to exterminate would live if not subjected to saline, suction or scalpel. After that, if a woman’s conscience is so immune that she goes through with the procedure anyway, and if she isn’t rushed to a nearby hospital hemorrhaging and on life support, heartless pro-life radicals insist that poor women pay for cancer-causing executions of the unborn with money better spent elsewhere.

All-in-all, Indiana’s unrelenting pro-life activists, together with meddling legislators, have been successful in forcing carefree abortion-bound Hoosiers to acknowledge that when it comes to expense, anguish, and untimely death, unborn children are certainly not the only victims of abortion.


%d bloggers like this: