Tag Archives: right to life

Could the Zika Virus Open the Door to FORCED Abortions?

thOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

In one-child-is-the-limit communist China, population quotas on family size make forced abortion an accepted norm. In some provinces, if local family planning officials find out a woman is pregnant with a second child, even if the woman is late term, oftentimes, the baby is forcibly aborted.

In secular states like China, aborting millions of human beings, on behalf of the communal good, supersedes the right to life. In simpler terms, the Communist Party of China is authorized to make the decision that in the Chinese Republic, except in rare cases, a family larger than three is illegal.

Speaking of communist countries, in 1998, Brazil’s constitution stipulated that health care was a “fundamental right.” Since elected in 2011, lifelong socialist, President Dilma Rousseff has expanded state control over everything including the “fundamental right” to universal health care.

Now, the mosquito-borne Zika virus is epidemic in Brazil. Thus far, 4,000 infants with microcephaly have born to infected mothers. Furthermore, there is concern that the virus will spread to the rest of Latin America — then onto the Americas.

According to Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and renowned supporter of thwarting poverty via eugenic abortion, there’s no time to waste because Zika “is [already] spreading explosively” throughout the Americas.

Besides being deeply concerned about population sustainability, Dr. Chan is also very alarmed that the mosquito-borne virus corresponds to Brazil’s “steep increase in the birth of babies with abnormally small heads and in cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome.”

Add to that, the CDC saying that the virus can be transmitted during sex, or from a “pregnant mother to her baby during pregnancy or around the time of birth.” Now we have hysteria surrounding sexually transmitted viruses, dangerous pregnancies, disastrous childbirths, and the large-scale potential for deformed fetuses to be born in impoverished nations.

That’s why, right now, in pro-life Brazil, mosquito-hunting health officials have been given dispensation to invade private property, and women of childbearing age are being strongly advised to delay pregnancy.

Delay pregnancy? What about all the exposed women who are currently pregnant in a largely Christian country where abortion is illegal?

In Brazil, the plight of multiple pregnancies, rape borne of patriarchal oppression, and the need for women to prostitute themselves for food are the reasons some of those hoping to improve the human species by way of surgical feticide feel that birth control and abortion should be more readily available to the poor.

Abortion activists in nations where abortion is either banned or discouraged and where only 52% of the women have access to birth control, maintain that denying access to contraceptives and safe abortion is immoral.

Lest we forget, in certain circles, life loses value if a child is merely born into poverty. Imagine how devalued the life of a lowly person with microcephaly would be by those who look for any excuse to abort children? Yet thus far, Zika virus or no Zika virus, those types of arguments haven’t succeeded in convincing some Latin American countries to legalize abortion.

Meanwhile, as Zika continues to spread, pressure from the world community could find a way to circumvent those barriers.

For starters, although Brazil’s President Rousseff claims to be pro-life, her party, the Worker’s Party, supports legalizing abortion. Add to that, Christian doctrine and its romantic attachment to life’s being blamed for the Zika plague being unstoppable, and you have a potential progressive recipe for success.

Demonize Christianity and lionize abortion.

Then, if Brazilian women exposed to Zika refuse to terminate, for the well-being of other nations the global community could step in and argue that Christian ideology is putting citizens of the planet at risk.

If that happens, although purely guesswork, there’s a good chance Margaret Chan could see the day where, in response to a genetically engineered virus, population control will be furthered by intergovernmental organization’s like the U.N. mandating involuntary abortions.

In other words, under the auspices of international security, the current Zika crisis could very well be the vehicle that necessitates babies be killed in the womb in countries where the virus is present and abortion illegal.

Chinese communists forcibly abort babies. Brazil is not as far along the trajectory just yet. For now, in the hunt for mosquitoes, the Rousseff administration is only up maintaining the common good by kicking in doors.

The problem is that, if the truth were to be told, both the hunting and aborting are done under the guise of régimes attempting to rescue the unwashed masses the international higher ups view as a strain on both the environment and the worldwide system.

With that in mind, what more perfect opportunity for communist Brazil to please Rousseff’s abortion-promoting Worker’s Party then taking a page out of China’s book, on behalf of women and children, and allowing the government to foil the ravages of Zika via abortion?

Thanks to mosquitoes, there is now a window of opportunity to rationalize what 2,000 years of church doctrine have prevented in backward Catholic countries like Brazil. First, blame Christians for brain-damaged babies and then use the Zika predicament as a channel to introduce abortion and sterilization into a culture that largely rejects them both as an option.

Put simply, the world is at a juncture, where, in response to a crisis, population regulators may actually be one step closer to implementing the Chinese habit of having government officials decide who gets to live and who must die.

HEY, LIBERALS: Right to Healthcare Doesn’t Mean Right to Life

Screen-Shot-2016-01-20-at-8.54.16-PM-500x280Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Recently, an elderly relative had a routine procedure to screen for colon cancer. This particular relative is an active, healthy, vital 82-year-old that still works. Unfortunately, there is a family history of colon cancer, which, for prevention, requires bi-annual screening.

Two-years-ago a large pre-cancerous polyp was found and removed. Now, two years later, another pre-cancerous polyp found, which was thankfully also removed. Without the bi-annual screening, there is a good chance cancer would have developed.

This time, after the anesthesia wore off, the doctor was quick to inform her that, based on age, and despite a precarious looking growth being removed, this colonoscopy was her last. The procedure would no longer be covered nor would it be recommended.

Does this now mean that in America age now disqualifies some people from being eligible to locate pre-cancerous growths before they have a chance to turn into full-blown cancer?

The doctors reasoned that older people don’t handle chemotherapy very well. Therefore, even if malignancy were found, nothing would be done about it anyway – so why even bother to look for it?

In other words, for lack of any other fatal disease, why not embolden colon cancer cells to run wild in the lower intestines of old geezers?

The conversation between my family member and the doctor brought to mind the 2010 town hall meeting where a woman named Jane Sturm asked President Obama if he had been in charge five years prior would he have allowed her 105-year-old mother, who received a pacemaker when she was 100-years-old, to receive similar care based on zest for life?

Or would he have cut off care based on age?

Imagine, instead of healthcare decisions being a personal choice, Americans are asking a pro-choice president whether he would choose to allow an old woman who wants to live to receive treatment?

Obama, who had a virtual colonoscopy he’d deny to a WWII veteran, had an “end of life” answer for Jane Sturm. In order to cut down on waste and expense, Obama would have denied surgery, and instead of a pacemaker, would have granted “Granny Sturm a pain pill”.

Six years after that town hall meeting and my elderly relative is being told that at a certain age individuals will not only be denied the right to have cancer treatment, they’ll also be denied screening for cancer prevention.

With that in mind, as a nation, Americans are at a serious juncture.

What we have here are liberals who claim to believe in the right to healthcare proving once again that they don’t believe in the right to life.

Maybe someone should tell those meting out cancer screening approvals that being dead is unhealthy.

As for the living; our problem is that the right-to-healthcare party is deciding who has the right to healthcare, which ultimately puts those that argue there is no right to life in the position of determining who lives and who dies.

Barack’s Bible Quandary

Barack Obama is successfully utilizing newfound sincerity and political repositioning to turn an electoral shellacking into a standing ovation.  The President’s good fortune comes compliments of a nation populated with distracted Americans whose attention spans are so short that popular opinion vacillates from one 30-second sound bite to the next.

According to Slate magazine, Barack is the proud recipient of a recent uptick in the polls because: “Voters are pretty well satisfied with the thrashing they gave [him] two months ago. He had it coming, as far as they’re concerned; he’s got another chance to please or disappoint them.”

In an effort to please and not disappoint, a somber President recently positioned himself behind a plinth in a university basketball stadium and marked the occasion by reading to an audience of 14,000 from Psalms and the Book of Job. In a resounding voice, with conviction and reverence, Barack said this:

Scripture tells us: There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells. God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day. (Ps. 46:4-5)

But when I looked for good, evil came; and when I waited for light, darkness came. My inward parts are in turmoil, and are never still; days of affliction come to meet me. I go about in sunless gloom; I stand up in the assembly and cry for help. (Job 30: 26-28)

Thankfully, community organizers are never accused of hypocrisy when painting “cartoon fruit characters” on middle school cafeteria walls for Martin Luther King’s birthday. However, on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the President’s recommitment to continue to support abortion could place America’s newfangled Bible enthusiast in a bit of a jam.

To avoid being snagged in a quandary after the capacity crowd left the arena in Tucson and the endless media platitudes ceased, Barack should have invested time thumbing through the Bible before venturing out to make comments that contradict the temperate persona the President struggles to embrace.

If regaining the public’s affection is the goal, Obama’s timing is off.   The President should think before speaking because just days after quoting sacred text and just about the time the Right to Life march was due to descend on Washington DC, America’s moving-to-the-middle President exposed a questionable inner core by publicly vowing to defend legalized murder. America’s Bible thumping/pro-choice president lauded the benefits of a law responsible for the deaths of 60 million unborn children saying:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Barack Obama’s pro-abortion declaration juxtaposed against the words quoted at the Arizona memorial embodies what Job meant when he lamented: “I looked for good and evil came, and waited for light” only to find darkness.

Expressing support for feticide and even giving a thumbs-up to occasional infanticide, the President speaks of women’s health but fails to clarify that the promised protection applies solely to women living outside the womb.

Obama’s disingenuousness was on display when he attempted to justify a woman’s right to choose by citing privacy.  Isn’t the President also committed to enacting intrusive legislation that will pay for abortions with tax dollars, control and regulate everything from earnings to food choices, dictate what vehicle Americans are allowed drive, and push policies that inject themselves into intimate family decisions by way of government oversight of healthcare?

Following up reading Scripture with a supportive statement on behalf of Roe v. Wade indicates Barack Obama should return to the Book of Job.  In Chapter 31, verse 15, Job refers to God and asks the question: “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”

To avoid further inconsistency, Barack should also take time to plumb the depths of the Old Testament.  Before the President proceeds with his reinvention tour, he should revisit Psalms, where in Chapter 139, verses 13 and 14 the Psalmist also speaks to God, declaring:  “You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

Intelligent individuals usually don’t need to be told that holding a Bible in one hand while handing a scalpel to an abortionist with the other negatively affects a person’s credibility.

If presented in context, the Scripture Obama read at the Tucson memorial stated clearly that the God of the Bible is the One whose hand places all living beings within the womb. That profound truth imposes a thorny predicament for a President who reads Scripture referencing the God that gives life, and then supports policy that bestows mortal man the right to take life away.

With that in mind, maybe Barack should heed another pertinent verse in the Bible, which says “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” If the President of the United States continues to sloppily issue conflicting proclamations in a clever attempt to reinvent his image on the back of the God of Scripture, the result will not be improved poll numbers, but public shame and devastating defeat.

Missouri Lays Bare a Lie

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Missouri’s Senate Bill 793 has concluded, “The life of each human being begins at conception.” Not only that, the Missouri law contends abortion terminates “The life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

As a result, “Missouri abortion clinics will face new mandates to offer women ultrasound images and heartbeats of their fetuses because of legislation allowed to become law by Governor Jay Nixon.”

Presented with the bill, pro-abortion Governor Jay Nixon (D) withheld “both his signature and his veto.” Nixon’s neutral stance indicated agreement that life begins at conception, making way for the Missouri legislature’s answer to the “When does life begin?” question to officially become state law.

Missouri is mucking up the guilt-free abortion works by making it mandatory for providers to inform women that the children they plan to dispose of are, in fact, alive.  It is now legal to impose the burden of truth on Missourians trying to attain simple, guilt-free, morally relativistic abortions.

Presently, abortion clinics hand out pamphlets that pose questions in the following way:

Is having an abortion safe?

Yes. Statistically, it is nine times more dangerous to go through childbirth than to have an abortion. Surgical abortion in a licensed facility … especially in the first three months of pregnancy when most abortions are performed is the safest outpatient surgical procedure there is.

Not to worry, the opposition is raising the argument that saying “life begins at conception” is a Christian concept that many women don’t believe in.

Henceforth, in addition to offering ultrasounds of the unborn, it will be compulsory to “prominently” present women with “life begins at conception” information printed on abortion clinic brochures in Missouri.

Paula Gianino, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region argues that the belief “life begins at conception” is not a “sentiment that all the world’s religions, or all the people in the state, believe in.”  Good thing, because it’s a lot easier to end a life if you believe the target of a saline, scalpel or suction procedure isn’t actually alive.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke (R) contends the language on the new brochure “is not a religious,” but a “scientific statement.”

Lembke maintains that those with differing beliefs “will have to take all the information given to them and make an informed decision.”  Such as: “Scientists agree that when a sperm and egg unite, a living organism results,” or the beating heart of a living child indicates life?

Even if the scientific premise is accepted, the problem arises with the words that define fetuses as the “life of a separate, unique, living human being.” Those opposed to the bill claim words like that are based on a “religious” tenet. Debate rages over whether an entity possessing inimitable DNA being suctioned from the body of a woman in a manner that insures fetal death can be defined as ending a life.

Critics of the informational Missouri abortion bill, such as Kate Lovelady of the Ethical Society of St. Louis, maintain that the “new law imposes one narrow religious view on others.” Lovejoy argues, “A lot of our members don’t believe life begins at conception – it’s much more complicated than that.”

Is Ms. Lovelady saying that killing is considered killing based purely on religious belief?  Or could it be that the “You’re from Missouri and we’re going to show you” abortion bill’s opponents disagree with the law because truth makes it harder for those determined to obtain an abortion to do so without putting faith in lies?

Exposing Hypocrisy from within the womb – American Thinker Blog – March 22, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Obama says 30 million Americans are without adequate health care.  Who would have thought that the 50 million children aborted since 1973 would rise up and cry out from the grave exposing Obama and his minions for the hypocrites they are.

One-day prior to the landmark vote, Obama held a pep rally in anticipation of passing his health care reform bill in Washington DC.   In a speech full of exaggerations, half-truths and pompous self-promotion, Obama took the time to laud Democrat colleagues for impending victory in a contentious debate saying:

Something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves…we have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable.

Except of course if vulnerability exists in utero, or the neighborhood you live in happens to be your mother’s womb.

Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln saying, “I am not bound to win, but I’m bound to be true. I’m not bound to succeed, but I’m bound to live up to the light I have.” Obama’s words provide vulnerable human beings denied life past, present and yet to be conceived means to illuminate what is within the recesses of Barry, Harry and Nancy’s heart.

As the march to the vote continues, all along the triumphant parade route are is a cloud of witnesses made up of children’s faces. Democrats are laid bare under the sterile adjustable operating room “light” Barack Obama prides himself on providing every time Bart Stupak (D-Mich), Marcy Kaptur (D- Ohio) or ten other antiabortion Democrats step forward to say, “the document would be insufficient to bring the entire group…onboard.”

Good Catholic Nancy Pelosi prayed to Joseph, patron saint of expectant mothers, to assist in convincing legislators pass a “life affirming vote” for a bill that provides pregnant women the funds to purge fruit from the womb.  If Pelosi gets her way, answered prayer would have assisted an unwed mother named Mary the means to get rid of an inconvenience named Jesus.

Democrat Louise Slaughter chairwoman of the House Rules Committee moved health reform one step closer to the finish line, speaking the words, “We feel like we’ve been pregnant for 17 months, let’s get on with it already.” Louise obviously believes nothing spoils a party more than having pro-life Democrats mucking up the process by dragging out a red bio-hazard bag full of dead fetuses.

As Obama gasses up convertibles for the ticker-tape post vote celebration U.S. Catholic bishops also spoke out on behalf of the unborn by pleading with legislators to vote “No” on the bill.

U.S. Bishops argued , “health care reform must protect life and conscience, not threaten them…the abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions [through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers bypassing the Hyde amendment], and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions.”   Obviously, Catholic bishops overlook the compassionate “sense of neighborliness and community” Democrats pride themselves on evidenced in community centers performing abortions.

Crying out from the depths of a dark womb the unborn illuminate the heartlessness of the Democrat leadership.  Obama trumpets what he calls “game-changing measures,” which “for example, instead of having five tests when you go to the doctor you get one.” The bill plans to ration one mammography to high-risk women in danger of breast cancer, while financing, with taxpayer monies, multiple ultrasounds to ensure pregnancies are successfully terminated.

%d bloggers like this: