Star Parker - The Abortion Alternative

With the convictions in the case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell – three counts of murdering live babies and one count of involuntary manslaughter – abortion is back in the national discussion.

It’s pretty clear from the Grand Jury report that, during Gosnell’s thirty plus year career, he likely murdered hundreds, if not thousands of babies. But because of the difficulty in documenting it all, he was just convicted of three.

Reports now are coming in from around the nation indicating that more Gosnells are out there.

The abortion lobby claims that as long as we have tight regulations on abortion, a black market will exist. Abortion, they argue, is like any product or service that consumers want and government prohibits or overregulates. If they can’t get what they want legally, they will get it illegally.

We also hear that we get Gosnells when government refuses to pay for the abortions of poor women. The Hyde Amendment, they say, which prohibits Medicaid compensation for abortion, makes unsafe abortion inevitable.

Poor women, according to this reasoning, desperate because of an unwanted pregnancy, pressed because regulations and costs make abortion difficult to get, turn to sleazebag doctors, who will do it cheaply, with no regard for the woman, the law, or safety.

But it is ironic that those who call themselves “pro-choice” argue that the only alternatives facing low-income women are unsafe abortions done by sleazebags or government subsidized abortions.

There is another choice, but those who call themselves “pro-choice” don’t want women, particularly poor women, to consider this option.

This option is called birth.

When conservatives talk about a culture of responsibility, we’re not just talking about the personal responsibility of the individual in trouble. We’re talking about the personal responsibility of the rest of us toward that individual.

There are now thousands of crisis pregnancy centers operating nationwide. Over 2000 are affiliated with either Care Net or Heartbeat International. I maintain a regular active speaking schedule for and consult with these centers.

They work with pregnant women in trouble and provide them the services they need to have their child. They provide ultrasound, parental counseling, life management counseling, help with the physical needs of the mother and child, and, if need be, help with adoption services.

Unwanted pregnancies often are the result of loneliness, fear, and lack of information. Crisis pregnancy centers deal with all this

The left, so called “pro-choice” activists, have an interesting concept of a culture of responsibility. That is to promote a culture that detaches sex from love and responsibility, that minimizes the central importance of family, that justifies youth sex, promiscuity, and the “hook-up” culture. In short, a culture which encourages people to relate to each other in the same callous way as it encourages women to relate to the unborn children that often result from it all.

Then they want taxpayers, other people, to foot the bill.

Is it any wonder we live in a country in which we are drowning in debt directly as a result of this culture of entitlement?

Planned Parenthood, which rakes in hundreds of millions in the abortion business, actively discourages women from going to crisis pregnancy centers.

On the Planned Parenthood website, they call these centers “fake clinics…that have a history of giving women wrong and biased information”.

These crisis pregnancy centers are financed and run by committed Christian Americans where women often, for the first time in their lives, experience love and meaning.

The information they get, that Planned Parenthood calls “wrong and biased,” is that life should be chosen over death and that responsibility is a community affair.

It is not a given that we must live in a country of promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion. We do have choice.

We can reprogram the destructive culture that we have created and in which we now live.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - ‘Pro-Choice’ Slave Masters Losing War

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.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - What the Bible Really Says About Abortion

People who support abortion sometimes argue that there is no reference to abortion in the Bible. Zo refutes these arguments. Hear how on this ZoNation.

19 ...I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Roe v Wade - Forty Years After

The number forty has great significance in the Bible.

Perhaps best known is the forty years that the Israelites were condemned to wander in the desert before being permitted entry into the Promised Land.

Maybe this mystical quantity will bear significance as we note, this month, the fortieth year since the Roe v Wade decision legalized abortion in America.

Forty years we have lived with the silent, and sometimes not so silent, holocaust in our midst as the lives of 55 million innocent and unborn children have been killed, plucked from their journey to enter this world.

Who were they? Who would they have become?

The unmarried graduate student who gave birth to hi-tech impresario and co-founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, may well have aborted this child had her pregnancy occurred in 1973 rather than 1955.

This past week former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, recovering victim of a crazed gunman, visited, along with her husband Mark Kelly, Newtown, Connecticut, site of the latest horrible shooting incident.

In their public remarks, they expressed concern that our society has become “desensitized to acts of violence.”

Appropriate words, I think, that certainly should be considered in the broadest possible sense in our effort to grasp our willingness to tolerate, even nurture, the open and flourishing presence of evil in our society.

It takes a deadening of the soul to permit this, a state of being “desensitized.”

We know it because when those senses are awakened, our indifference and willingness to tolerate evil is pushed back.

When William Wilberforce fought to abolish the slave trade in England, he moved a boatload of the elite into proximity of a slave ship to smell the stench. Their senses were awakened and a major step forward was achieved to end the horror.

Reformed slave trader John Newton composed “Amazing Grace,” with the unforgettable line “Was blind but now I see.”

If there is good news, it is that, slowly, America seems to be coming to its senses regarding destruction of unborn children.

This week’s Time Magazine cover story announces “40 years ago abortion-rights activists won an epic victory with Roe v Wade: They’ve been losing ever since.”

But in noting that ultrasound has reduced the willingness of Americans to tolerate abortion, author of the story Kate Pickert misses the key point when she writes, “Thanks to prenatal ultrasound, Americans now understand what a fetus look like and that babies born as early as 24 weeks can now survive.”

The key point is that the graphic ultrasound picture, showing the growing and moving fetus, has raised awareness that this unborn child is alive and that abortion is murder.

Ultrasound is sensitizing a desensitized American public that has been willing to tolerate this horror over these forty years.

Wars are not won overnight. Victory is achieved battle by battle.

Wilberforce did not stop slavery, but he stopped the slave trade.

Lincoln’s first aspiration was not total abolishment of slavery in America, but making it illegal in new entrants to the Union.

A battle before us now, as the American soul awakens to the evil of abortion, is to end the expropriation of US taxpayer funds, which now provide almost half the budget of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

According to Rep. Marsha Blackburn(R-Tenn), Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows receipt of $542 million from US taxpayers. This is outrageous, particularly when every other day we witness a new confrontation in Washington to find ways to cut our trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Rep. Blackburn has introduced legislation to end this funding to large abortion providers. Every American should support this and help win this battle.

And we must continue to work to win the war and awaken the American soul, so that forty years after Roe v Wade we bring an end to the scourge of legal abortion in America.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Stand For Life

Editor’s note: Dr. Adams will speak at Christ Church Lutheran Church in Phoenix, AZ on January 19. The speech, which is part of the Voices for the Voiceless "Redefine" Conference, will begin shortly after the conference opens at 8 am. Dr. Adams will then go to Minneapolis to speak at the Minnesota Youth for Life Conference on January 21. The all-day conference will be at Sacred Heart Catholic Church.

A former student recently emailed that she was disappointed that I had gotten so heavily involved with the student pro-life movement in recent years. She said she could remember a time when I had a love for defending free speech rights. Her email was somewhat unfair as I am still defending First Amendment rights (did she read my last column?). Also, I have been involved in pro-life advocacy since I became a columnist in 2002. In fact, my very first published column was on the topic of abortion.

In the event my former student is reading this expression of anti-abortion advocacy, I would like to enumerate the reasons why she - a pro-lifer herself - should have been involved in the student pro-life movement when she was in college. The following are also reasons why all pro-life students should be actively pro-life:

1. The Societal Diminution of all Human Life.
   The pro-abortion choice movement has produced a general devaluing of human life that can only be corrected by a strong pro-life movement among students. How many of you were shocked by the acquittal of Casey Anthony? I was certainly angry but I was not shocked. She wanted to party and to date without being weighed down by the responsibility of motherhood. I believe she killed her little girl in order to live a life of convenience. The evidence clearly points toward her unmitigated guilt. But tens of millions of women have done the same thing since Roe v. Wade. No wonder the Anthony jury seemed bored throughout most of the proceedings. No wonder she walked despite the evidence. Her kind of guilt is commonplace.
2. The proximity of the threat.
   The culture war is raging in America. There are battlefields everywhere but none as large or contentious as the university campus. This is where the immensely profitable non-profits make a lot of their money off abortion. They are marketing their services to your fellow students. Therefore, simply by virtue of where you are, you can make a greater difference if you are willing to cut against the current.
3. Momentum.
   A May 2009 Gallup Poll found 51% of Americans calling themselves pro-life. Gallup began asking that question in 1995 and this was the first time a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life. Pew Research Center did a survey around the same time showing that only 46% believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That was down from 54% the previous year. Therefore, I would urge pro-lifers to become activists because they would be joining a winning team. In so doing, they could help accelerate these positive trends.
4. State and Individual Neutrality.
   The state cannot be neutral on abortion. It either a) recognizes that the unborn are human and have a right to life or b) permits killing them. Since our government has taken the public policy position that the unborn are not afforded the same rights as toddlers - including the right to be free from dismemberment - you need to take a public policy position, too. That means becoming an activist, not being a pacifist in the midst of a war on the unborn.
5. Propaganda and Passivity.
   Pro-choice arguments are so bad that they cannot survive scrutiny. They must be confined to soliloquy, rather than subjected to debate. For example, the "back alley abortion" argument suggests that we must make killing children safe or else adults might be killed in the process. Abortion choice advocates warn that "thousands" would be killed in back alleys if abortion were once again illegal. This is the way they justify legalizing the murder of millions. The logic is twisted and the facts are wrong. The Centers for Disease Control reported that only 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Put simply, propaganda is activism. And it is only effective when repeated endlessly in the presence of the passive. So we must all be active in combatting this deadly information.
6. Men's Liberation.
   Men tend to be more supportive of abortion than women. That is why it is more accurate to call the so-called abortion rights movement a men's liberation movement - as opposed to a woman's liberation movement. Abortion liberates men by allowing them to sleep around without fear of consequences. It frees men from fatherhood and allows them to exploit women. So we need more male activists. Next time someone says "men have never had abortions, so they should not be commenting on it" say this: "women have never played in the NFL, so they should not be sportscasters."
7. Underlining Causes.
   People will tell you that you should never become an activist seeking to make abortion unacceptable or, heaven forbid, illegal. Instead, they say you should focus on underlying causes. Rape has underlying causes. Should we make it legal and instead try to treat its underlying causes? Come to think of it, spousal abuse has underlying causes, too. We would never elect a politician who ran on a platform of making it legal for a man to beat his spouse. But we routinely elect politicians who run on a platform of saying it should remain legal for a woman to kill her baby. As you young people would say, "that's messed up." Indeed, it is. That's why we need activists.

Reading this column, you may have noticed that all of my observations to this point have been brilliant. I'll have more brilliant observations in my next book, "Up from Humility." But the brilliant observations in this column have not been mine. In fact, each and every one of them was stolen from a new book called "Stand for Life" by John Ensor and Scott Klusendorf.

I highly recommend John and Scott's new book. You can pick it up on Amazon for less than the price of two tall skinny lattes or a single ticket to the late show. By the time you are finished reading, you’ll be ready to take your first steps as an activist fighting for the right of the unborn to take their first steps.

Stand for Life is more than just aptly titled. It's a real life saver (and I mean that literally). Of course, that's just my humble opinion

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Zonation - Conservatives - Win the Culture and You Win the Country

Liberals argue that the pro-life movement is an effort to increase the white race. Zo tells you why this is yet another example of why liberals make little sense, and should lose the culture.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - Liberals Will Raise the Abortion Issue as Sure as They Will Raise Taxes

Zo is grateful to the Democrats for making Republicans face their stance on abortion. Hear why on this ZoNation.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PJTV Trifecta - Legitimate Issue: Should Akin Abort Run for US Senate?

Missouri Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) is struggling for his political life after making comments about rape, abortion and miscarriage. He is finding few friends in the GOP and some are encouraging him to drop out of the race. Will Akin drop out of the race? Should he? Find out on this Trifecta.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Arguments Do Not Have Testicles

Recently, a student asked me whether I had a right to speak out on abortion given that I am a man and could never experience pregnancy. I countered by asking him whether arguments have testicles. The question drew laughter from other students who were listening to the exchange. But my point was serious and worth addressing at length.

The idea that men are ineligible to speak out on abortion has at least six flaws, each of which should be understood and articulated by men who desire to speak on the issue. Those argumentative flaws follow in no particular order of importance:

1. The argument is sexist towards men. There have been 26 million males aborted in America since Roe v. Wade. Men have every right to speak out on behalf of those millions of males who were victims of violence at the hands of women. To accept that men cannot speak up for them because they could never choose to have an abortion would have dangerous implications. Could a woman not speak up for a young female rape victim because she could never choose to commit a rape? Would they be prohibited from speaking because they were not members of the gender ultimately responsible for carrying out the crime? Surely not. Furthermore, the argument reinforces the dangerous idea that rights belong to groups and not to individuals.

2. The argument is sexist towards women. We must also consider the effects of male anti-abortion advocacy on unborn women. An unborn woman has a right to choose simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman. Or so the argument goes. If a woman is persuaded to let her unborn female child live then she too can hear the evidence on both sides of the abortion debate. If she dies, she is not at liberty to hear arguments on either side of the issue from either a man or a woman. And she cannot make a decision concerning what to do with her body if she is dismembered in the womb. Ironically, a woman’s so-called right to body autonomy, when exercised, defeats another woman’s right to bodily autonomy (in roughly one out of every two cases of pregnancy).

3. The argument defeats Roe v. Wade. Feminists would like to see the two dissenting Justices in Roe v. Wade silenced because they are men. But the same argument would silence the seven Justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade. They were also men. In other words, if a man’s opinion on abortion is invalidated simply by virtue of the fact that he is a man then Roe v. Wade would also be invalidated.

4. The argument would also apply to other medical procedures. Women usually decide to let their male offspring live. When they do, they usually have their male offspring circumcised. As Francis Beckwith points out, a woman can never know what it is like to have a portion of her penis removed. So how can she be allowed to participate in both the abortion and circumcision decision while a man is excluded from the former?

5. The argument assumes the male pro-life speech is directed toward women. People simply assume that the pro-life male is trying to control women when he argues against abortion. But oftentimes he is not even speaking to women. He is often motivated by a desire to change the hearts of men. This is because he knows that men often coerce women into abortions by threatening to leave them if they have the baby. Therefore, by entering the debate, the pro-life man may be reducing coercive control over women’s bodies. If women are better suited to speak to women, then it stands to reason that men are better suited to speak to men.

6. The argument also applies to slavery. No one could reasonably argue that abortion only affects women. A better argument would be that it affects women disproportionately. But that does not mean women are the only ones who can address the issue of abortion. Historically, slavery has affected blacks disproportionately. But it does not lead to the conclusion that non-blacks are disqualified from commenting on a moral issue that clearly spills over to all segments of the human population.

Liberals are constantly trying to reduce the marketplace of ideas by reducing the number of voices that are eligible to participate. They have already silenced 52 million voices with the blade of a sharp knife. We cannot let them do further damage with dull ideas. Sharpening arguments requires vigorous debate. And vigorous debate requires acceptance of the idea that arguments are not gendered. Neither is the right to speak on matters of profound moral consequence.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Equal Rights For Unborn Feminists

When you’re on the wrong side of Planned Parenthood, you’re on the right side of history.

The left’s disingenuous and intellectually lazy “war on women” talking points have blown up in its face. Most polls show Mitt Romney fast gaining on President Obama with female voters. Some polls even show him pulling ahead.

Still, it’s the multi-billion dollar abortion industry that may just give Romney the boost he needs to take a permanent lead. Just days after pro-life investigative group Live Action released devastating evidence that Planned Parenthood systemically engages in the grisly practice of sex-selection abortion – a charge to which it now admits – the cash-flush abortion Goliath has done Obama an ironic disservice by endorsing his re-election bid. The group has additionally launched a $1.4 million advertising campaign to smear Mitt Romney.

Let’s put aside for a moment the scandalous disclosure that while Planned Parenthood receives over 350 million per annum in your taxpayer dollars, it nonetheless spends millions engaging in partisan politicking for the DNC. Troubling as that may be, utterly horrific is the revelation that this extremist organization – which absurdly presumes to defend “women’s rights” – has been caught red-handed torturing little girls to death in mamma’s womb, simply because mamma wanted a boy.

This discovery – eerily reminiscent of Communist China’s forced one-child sex-selection policy – has shocked the conscience of an entire nation. So disturbing are the facts that on Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 354, introduced by Republicans in Congress. Unbelievably, because the bill required a two-thirds majority for passage, Democrats were able to narrowly abort the measure by a vote of 246-168.

The legislation, which would have outlawed sex-selection abortions altogether, was also opposed by President Obama. This comes as little surprise when you consider that, while a state senator, Obama repeatedly fought Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This law simply required that when a baby survives a botched abortion – when she is “born alive” – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to save her life.

But according to our president – leader of the “civilized” world – a law preventing the abortionist from finishing her off is “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

This, coupled with Democratic support for sex-selection abortion (now on record), represents the true “war on women.” This is misogyny at its deadly worst. Take note, America: Obama and Democrats have officially endorsed the Mengelian practice of explicitly targeting little girls – over boys – for live dismemberment.

Still, there is good news here. This entire saga has placed in the national spotlight the irreconcilable incongruities central to our nation’s ongoing policy of legalized abortion on demand.

Consider, for instance, that under current federal and state law, if an off-duty abortionist – if any man, for that matter – physically assaults a woman and her unborn daughter dies, that man has committed murder. Yet if mom walks into Planned Parenthood and authorizes that same man to rip her baby girl limb-from-limb, it’s her “choice.” First case: murder. Second case: “choice.” Both cases: dead baby girl.

Furthermore, consider that – as established by a 2006 Zogby International poll of over 30,000 Americans in 48 states – 86 percent support a law banning sex-selection abortion. Doesn’t it stand to reason, then, that since the vast majority recognize the objectively reprehensible nature of sex-selection abortion, they, too, might recognize that it’s equally reprehensible for mom to have baby killed for no reason at all? This is what current law allows, without restriction, through the ninth month.

Indeed, incongruities abound. Still, it is the indefensible nature of empty “pro-choice” rhetoric that, I believe, will ultimately end legalized abortion in America. Truth, even when buried for decades, eventually has a way of rising to the surface.

It’s inevitable. Roe v. Wade will, in time, be tossed, alongside the slavery-justifying Dred Scott decision, exactly where both shameful scars on Lady Liberty belong: in the trash heap of historical inhumanity.

Just as those who excused slavery are reviled by history, so, too, will be those who called themselves “pro-choice.”

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - America Now a “Pro-Life” Nation

Do House Republicans risk being branded as extremist and out of touch by bringing abortion back into the national spotlight when supposedly the economy is all Americans care about today?

Last Thursday, Republicans brought to a vote in the House a bill introduced by Arizona Republican Trent Franks that would have criminalized abortion based on sex. Although the bill received healthy support, 246 – 168, including 20 Democrats that voted for it, it was not enough to pass. The floor rule under which the bill was considered required a two thirds vote for passage and it fell short of that.

New Gallup polling shows that bringing abortion back into the national debate may not be a bad political call for Republicans.

Whereas public opinion has moved in recent years against the conservative position opposing same sex marriage, the opposite is true on abortion. On abortion, Americans have become decidedly more pro-life, moving in the direction of conservatives.

A just released Gallup poll shows that now 50 percent identify as “pro-life” compared to 41 percent as “pro-choice.” This is a complete reversal from sixteen years ago in the mid-90s when 56 percent were “pro-choice and 38 percent “pro-life.”

Moreover, 51 percent now say abortion is morally wrong compared to 38 percent who say it is morally acceptable.

Also of political interest is that Independents are now on the “pro-life” side of the ledger, 47 percent identifying as “pro-life” compared to 41 percent “pro-choice.”

Years of relentless work by pro-life conservatives raising public awareness about the horror of abortion, coupled with the reality of unborn life being graphically conveyed by ultrasound, is making a difference.

This most recent House initiative to ban sex selected abortion came in the wake of two notable events bringing public attention to this issue.

One was the recent arrival in our country of blind Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng.

Chen miraculously escaped prison in China, seeking asylum in the American embassy in Beijing. He had been imprisoned for over four years for his work bringing to public attention the horror stories associated with forced abortion and sterilization in China associated with China’s one child policy.

According to data reported in 2009 in the Shanghai Daily, a state operated newspaper in China, abortions performed in China annually exceed 13 million.

Also capturing public attention to the issue of sex selected abortion was the release by pro-life activist group Live Action of an undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood counselor in Austin, Texas providing counseling for doing a gender selected abortion.

The young woman posing as a client seeking advice told the counselor she wanted to abort if the child she was carrying in her pregnancy turned out to be a girl. “….we want two, I already have a girl, and we want a boy and a girl.”

The Planned Parenthood counselor advises her to wait 5 months into her pregnancy when she can be assured of the sex of the child, and if it is a girl, abort her. The counselor also advises her how she can scam Medicaid to pay for her pre-natal care under the guise that she intends to birth the child.

Those who insist that social, moral issues constitute an agenda separate and apart from economic issues should consider why socialist societies are secular, atheist societies. We need not be limited to looking at China and the former Soviet Union to appreciate this. On display today is the tragic collapse of Europe, now largely secular, under the burdens of the unsustainable welfare state it has created.

It is societies that respect both life and property, societies in which the mystery of life is revered and respected, that nurture a culture of personal responsibility that make a free and prosperous nation possible.

Latest polling indicates good news that a majority of Americans are waking up to this fact.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Dennis Prager - In-Depth Interview - What Are American Values?

Conservative radio host, lecturer and author Dennis Prager joins PJTV to discuss his new book, Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. What is the American value system? What animates the left? Should America maintain its dominant position in the world? Find out the answers to these questions, and much more, with one of America's most prominent Jewish thinkers.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - A Murder of One

Some years ago, I was sitting in a tree stand in Sampson County, North Carolina. Less than an hour after ascending into the stand, a beautiful doe stepped into my field of vision. I raised my 30/30 and set my sights just behind her right shoulder. Just as I was about to pull the trigger, I saw something moving along the outer perimeter of my field of vision. I glanced to my right and saw a young fawn grazing just 25 yards away from its mother – the doe I had nearly shot. I had to draw my weapon down for a moment and reassess the situation.

After I took a second careful look at the doe and the fawn, I made a decision. I took the shot and watched the doe run about fifty yards until she rolled over under a tree and died resting in a bed of leaves. As I turned around and got ready to step down out the tree stand, I saw the fawn stop and turn around to look for its mother. Seeing nothing, the young deer turned and ran off into the distance.

When I came upon the fallen doe resting in the bed of leaves, I was relieved to see that my assessment of the situation was correct. She was no longer nursing. That meant her young fawn was ready to survive on its own. That is important to me because I would never want to see the fawn left to fend for itself and try to survive on its own unless it was ready to do so. I try to show a concern for helpless young fawns that exceeds our president’s concern for helpless young humans. It isn’t hard to do.

I’ve never met a pro-abortion liberal who disagreed with my assertion that the young fawn is living and fully a deer even before it has the capacity to survive on its own. But many liberals view the unborn as less than persons simply because they lack the ability to survive on their own. This strange deference to the deer (but not the human) is symptomatic of a deeply confused worldview – one that refuses to see man as made in the image of God.

Several weeks ago, I ran across one such person. I assume she was a person though she may well have been dependent on the government for her survival. She argued vigorously that the unborn are not persons until they are capable of surviving on their own. She was somewhat emotional as she argued with me. So I struggled for just the right example to come to my mind – one that would convince her that dependency did not undermine personhood. I wanted to plant a stone in her shoe by making her think deeply without deepening her defensiveness. Within seconds, it came to me.

Because I teach law courses, I am forced to illustrate points by using hypotheticals, which I must often think up on the spur of the moment. In the middle of our discussion of dependency and personhood, I asked the young women to consider the following hypothetical:

I am a member of a gang that has just decided to retaliate against a rival gang for a drug-related murder. While driving by the home of the rival gang member, I fire ten shots into what I thought was his bedroom window. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The room housed two of his siblings. Consequently, the bullets struck and killed both of his twin sisters. How many counts of murder should I face in court?

Without hesitation, the pro-choice woman said “That’s easy. Two.” Then I asked her the $64,000 question: “Would it change your answer if they were Siamese twins?” Without hesitation, she replied, “Of course not.” Checkmate.

I followed up by reminding her that the twins were not only physically connected to one another but also dependent on one another for survival. If depending on another for survival does, in fact, undermine personhood then I was responsible for zero, as opposed to two, counts of murder. In other words, the dependency argument that gives license to kill unborn babies also gives license to kill Siamese twins. And that is no mark of compassion.

Shortly after we ended the conversation, the woman stood up and thanked me for talking to her. When she stood, I noticed a bulge around her waistline. About a minute later, her pro-life friend approached me and thanked me, too. It was then that I learned she was five months pregnant. In other words, as she was making the dependency argument she was carrying a baby that was not “viable.”

Ideas have consequences so we must be prepared to answer them with both logic and evidence. The stakes are always high. Abortion season lasts twelve months out of every year.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - Gypsies, Tramps and Tea - Cher Shares Her Hateful Ignorance of the Tea Party

Is Cher not only a hateful liberal, but a homophobe to boot? Hear the answer as AlfonZo Rachel tells you about Cher's intolerant Tea Party rant.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - I Used to Love Her but I Had To Kill Her

Author’s Note: I will be speaking in Still Hall Auditorium at Clarion University in Clarion, PA this Thursday, March 29th. The speech will begin at 7 p.m. and will last about 75 minutes unless it is aborted before it comes to term. I’ll let you guess the topic.

My recent engagement lasted only a few days and has resulted in some unfortunate rumors spreading across the internet. It is therefore necessary for me to take a break from the usual subject matter of my columns in order to shed some light on a most unfortunate turn of events.

Anna and I met a few years ago and formed a quick friendship. We both enjoy running, reading, and listening to live music in some of the local establishments in Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach. Our time together was often limited by my hectic travel schedule.

Back in September, however, we began to spend a lot more time together. Just a couple of weeks ago, while we were hanging out on the south end of Wrightsville Beach, I proposed marriage. In a fit of temporary insanity, she accepted. We began to make plans for our wedding until things changed drastically just a few days ago.

After we became engaged, Anna revealed a secret to me. I always knew she was adopted. But I did not know that when she was 32 years old she embarked on a mission to locate her adoptive mother. She did this so she could learn the reasons why she was given up for adoption. She did it for peace of mind but the result of her research was unsettling: Anna found out she was a product of rape.

When I found out the news, I acted immediately. I killed Anna while she was sleeping and then dumped for body off of Johnny Mercer’s pier at Wrightsville Beach. And now I face a long legal battle in which my lawyers will attempt to argue that Anna, as a product of rape, does not have the same rights as other persons. In fact, whatever rights she may possess are outweighed by a compelled need to destroy evidence of rape, which might remind a rape victim of a past sexual assault.

My argument will be simple: I believe that Anna was no more or less of a person as an adult than she was as an unborn child. Therefore, it would have been permissible to kill her at either stage of development so long as that killing was motivated by compassion for the victim of rape.

I anticipate four rebuttals to my argument. Accordingly, I present my counterarguments to all of them below:

1. Size. Some say that the unborn are not persons simply because they are smaller than those who have been born. This is a dangerous argument. If we accept it, we destroy both racial and gender equality. Asians are smaller than blacks. Women are smaller than men. Are we really prepared to say that Asian women are not fully persons? What fraction of a person are they in relation to black men? Are they three-fifths of a person?
2. Level of development. Some will say that personhood is attained at a certain level of development or that it varies with development. This is also a dangerous argument that destroys human equality. A twenty-two year old woman has a fully functioning reproductive system and, in many cases, a college degree. A two year old girl has neither. Is she therefore a non-person? Or is she just a partial person? Could she be killed legally? Or would her killing be considered a lesser form of homicide?
3. Environment. A woman in Los Angeles had her baby two months before it was due. Her sister in New York had an abortion one month before it was due. Could the woman in Los Angeles have killed her baby one month after it was born? Why not? There is no difference in size or development between these two East and West Coast cousins. Are we prepared to say that moving eight inches down a birth canal makes one a person? Since when does where you are determine what you are? Be careful before you answer. And be careful before you take your next step.
4. Degree of dependency. The older I get, the worse this argument seems to become. If we are prepared to say that we become persons when we become independent then we must also be saying that we can lose our personhood. This can happen due to a car accident, a serious illness, or simply due to old age. Regardless, this just doesn’t work. Besides, I know some 16 year olds that could be killed according to this logic.

It should be evident from the foregoing that it is high time that we stop playing games with human equality. We all know the unborn are persons. And we’ve been killing them in the womb for years. In fact, we’ve been enshrining the practice in the constitution since 1973. If we say that the reason we have been doing so is that the unborn are only “potential” persons then we must be prepared for some pretty broad implications.

I propose instead that we carve out a narrow defense to homicide that allows us to kill products of rape because they remind us of a painful violent event. That is the best way to deal with things from my perspective. It will make the world appear to be a better place. Of course, there will be more murder. But it will seem like there is less rape. And that will make all the killing worth our while.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - Killing Six Birds with One Stone

Author’s Note: Every summer at Summit Ministries (see www.Summit.org) I give a speech that goes by the same title as this column. It is meant to equip young pro-life students with proper rebuttals to pro-abortion choice arguments. I have been asked to reprint the speech in my column (in condensed form). I am doing so in two parts. I hope you find this – the first of two installments – both beneficial and informative.

Whenever I find myself in an extended argument about abortion I find that there are about six arguments I can expect to encounter before the argument has come to term, so to speak. But, fortunately, the six arguments all suffer from one fatal flaw, which makes them somewhat easy to rebut as long as the proponent of life stays focused on the central moral question of the abortion debate, which is “Are the unborn human?”

I’ve listed the six arguments – in no particular order of importance – along with specific common-sense rebuttals to each. I hope they will be helpful to those who wish to defend the weakest among us (the unborn person) against those who wish to deny their humanity (the already born who cannot be aborted).

1. “It’s my body, my choice”. This argument is extremely easy to dismantle because the unborn baby has its own distinct genetic code that is generating growth from conception. Not only is there unique DNA but in 100% of abortions the baby already has a detectable heartbeat. Doctors will not even perform abortions until six or seven weeks into the pregnancy – in order to protect the health of the mother. The doctor wants to be able to account for and remove all of the baby’s body parts. If some small portion of the baby remains in the mother it could cause a deadly infection. The irony is lost among most of these so-called health care professionals.

So the woman who says “my body, my choice” is in the absurd position of arguing that she has two noses, four legs, two brains, two skeletal systems, and on average one testicle and half a penis. This kind of absurdity requires no further elaboration. It is nothing more than feminist foot stomping to assert the “my body, my choice” argument. In fact, it is unbecoming of anyone above the age of two who is similarly inclined to argue “my toy, my toy.”

2. “Back alley abortions will increase if abortion is illegal.” This argument simply assumes, like the first, that the unborn are not persons. If they were not then the abortion choice advocate would be in the awkward position of arguing that someone has a right to commit murder in a safe and sterile environment. This hardly survives the straight-face test. But if, for some reason, your opponent can’t see its absurdity tell him the following: I’m planning to rob the Wells Fargo Bank across the street but there is fungus all over the sidewalk. I’m afraid I might slip and fall during my escape. Could you call them and tell them to power-wash the sidewalk some time before I commit the robbery? And hurry up. I need the cash!

They may try to lie at this point and say that when abortion was illegal 10,000 women died per year using coat-hangers on themselves in back alleys. But those numbers are both false and irrelevant. Within a few years after abortion rights were constitutionalized the number of annual abortions went up at least six fold – and that is a very conservative estimate. That means over a million more babies were killed per year within just a few years after Roe v. Wade (compared with pre-Roe numbers). The fact that they were killed in a sterile, well-lighted environment did not make them any less dead. Please review argument #1.

3. “It is wrong to force a woman to bring an unwanted baby into the world.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an “unwanted baby.” If a baby is unwanted by its mother there is always, and I mean always, someone else who would want to adopt the baby. People cannot easily adopt in the country because so many children are unnecessarily aborted. But there is something even more sick and twisted about the “unwanted baby” excuse; namely that it insinuates that abortion prevents child abuse. But we have already established that abortion is child abuse. Please review argument #1 before reading further.

The very idea that we would murder children to prevent child abuse, which usually takes the form of simple battery, elevates intellectual laziness to a Zen art. It is the intellectual equivalent of promoting arson in order to prevent burglary. It is true that burglary will go down when we burn down everyone’s house but by now you get the point. And hopefully the pro-abortion choice advocate gets the point, too.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that abortion has not been an effective means of stopping child abuse (even if we exclude abortions). In 1973, there were 167,000 reported instances of child abuse. By 1982, reported instances of child abuse rose to 929,000. That is an increase of over 500 percent in less than a decade. When will so-called liberals take responsibility for this unmitigated disaster?

4. “It is wrong for a woman to be forced to bring a handicapped baby into the world.” It is frequently suggested that abortion is morally permissible when doctors discover, prior to birth, that a baby suffers from certain physical handicaps – such as Down’s syndrome or cerebral palsy. My response usually goes something like this:

“I agree that there are far too many handicapped people in the world. Every summer I take busloads of people who are wheelchair-bound on a trip to the Grand Canyon. We enjoy the view for a few minutes before I roll them off the edge of the Canyon. They are usually dead long before they hit the bottom. That is a good thing for them and for society as a whole. It is better to be dead than to be handicapped. Their lives are not worth living whether they realize it or not”

This provokes a strong reaction – as it should. After all, I am accusing the abortion choice advocate of gross insensitivity. That is usually when they argue that they are not killing a handicapped person but rather preventing a handicapped person from ever being born. Please review argument #1. Your opponent is trapped once again.

The last time I gave this speech at Summit Ministries a handsome, intelligent, and athletic 6’2 African American student approached me and said the following: “I was misdiagnosed with cerebral palsy before I was born. The doctors were wrong. I am so glad my mother had me. Thank you for your speech.”

To be continued …

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---