Kevin M. Nelson
I love those times that I am sitting at the computer and BAMM! – A new idea for an article or image edit hits me like a ton of bricks (but in a good way). There are just times you know that what you are about to create is going to be special, something that will touch someone or silence the forked tongue.
Occasionally, when a moment like that strikes, I drift off temporarily and wonder if maybe, just maybe, I could actually do this for a living. You know, actually support my family and reach our financial goals by writing, creating, and speaking on some of these issues I am passionate about. Then I think about that issue I am most concerned about, abortion, and I am forced to look at the reality of what full-time paid activism, if focused on one issue alone, would mean in the long term scheme of life- If I am truly successful, if I accomplish all that I set out to do, I would then be out of a job, and left hoping that my skills would be requested elsewhere. Now I know there are people who do it, and this is the part where I have to qualify everything I just said or else be accused of insinuating all full-time pro-Life activists are corrupt, so take a deep breath and read on.
For me personally, I do not have the resources necessary to be fully vested in a type of employment where the goal is to become unemployed and obsolete as soon as possible. It would be like trying to make a living selling Bumper Stickers that say “Ban Bumpers”. Unless you are doing so as an attorney, knowing that you can always practice law in a different forum, or possess the financial resources for that day that winning the battle means having no job, I don’t know how people do it, and I will go so far as to say- I don’t think everyone that does it does so with the purest intentions. Even still, I know there are likely some that simply look to the Lord as their source of provision, as they should, and really fight the good fight with a pure heart. However, with so many pro-Life organizations, whose sole stated purpose is to end abortion, whose very livelihood comes from donations and bumper stickers and t-shirts designed to end abortion, it begs the question- are there some that only take it so far, who refuse to join forces with other like-minded efforts, because doing so successfully will mean there is nothing left to do? I know that’s sounds a little cynical, but think about it. How many stories have you heard about an important cancer drug study being scrapped and a new project started so that grant money would keep flowing? If we give any credence to those allegations, knowing that there are several types of cancer that must be individually cured, and considering that the act of intentionally aborting a child is viewed as one act that could one day be wiped out completely, and knowing that human nature is flawed and subject to temptations of greed, am I really far off in my skepticism?
There are some great people I know who live a very modest existence, and within their arsenal of advocacy is the abolishment of abortion. I know they are fighting on so many battlefronts that if abortion ended tomorrow, they would still have plenty of fighting left to do. My friend and mentor Tom Hoefling is an example of that type of diverse advocacy.
There are still others, like all those who call themselves Abortion Abolitionists A//A, which I very much consider myself a part of, who have regular jobs, but make abolition a part of their daily lives.
And still there are undoubtedly others that fight full time with the sincere hope of winning the fight and losing their job.
But I think it is time for the paid segment of “the industry” as a whole to come together and take a long hard look at their goals, their progress, and their motives, and start considering the possibility that maybe pushing for incremental legislation that protects some and codifies the deaths of others is just a form of self-preservation. Maybe there are a few among us that don’t really want to stop selling bumper stickers just yet. I agree that we cannot become so fragmented and divided that we lose our voice, but I also know that I don’t want to unite with or associate with anyone who is not completely committed to doing everything possible to end abortion immediately.
The thought of one day getting paid to do what I do, which is inclusive of but not limited to fighting to end abortion, admittedly that is appealing. But don’t ever offer me a job that amounts to getting paid to fight against just one evil, unless you have a new business in mind or one heck of a retirement plan, because I’m fighting to win.
Cal Zastrow: “Come on, Church! It’s your responsibility to stop the killing.”
Jackson, Mississippi – Three Christians in Mississippi were hospitalized this morning after being incapacitated with pepper spray by a guard as they sang hymns outside of the last abortion facility in the state.
The incident took place at approximately 8:30 this morning as the Christians stood on the public sidewalk outside of Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the state capital. As previously reported, the location, being the last abortion facility in Mississippi, may possibly close this year as it is unable to comply with state law.
Cal Zastrow, one of the men that was struck by the pepper spray this morning, told Christian News Network that the guard, Roy Benjamin, did not want the Christians anywhere near the facility.
“He came off the abortion mill property and put an oscillating sprinkler on the sidewalk to get all the pro-lifers wet,” Zastrow explained. “My 15-year-old held his boot over the sprinkler, so the bottom of his boot was getting sprayed but he wasn’t.”
However, just moments later as Zastrow and the others were singing hymns on the sidewalk, Benjamin began to unleash pepper spray on those gathered.
“He sprayed me in my mouth,” Zastrow said. “So, it went into the back of my mouth and into my throat and up to my eyeballs.”
He immediately fell to the ground. Zastrow’s 15-year-old son, Jim, and a third male, Doug Lane, were also incapacitated by the spray.
Although an ambulance came to the scene, Zastrow states that he ended up having a family member take him to the hospital because the ambulance staff treated him unkindly.
“[T]he guy wasn’t very cooperative or friendly about the matter,” he explained. “So, I called for my daughter to come and drive us to the hospital.”
He outlined that ambulance staff then told him that he would need to sign a form stating that he did not wish to ride in the ambulance. However, when he refused because he could not see anything, they became angry.
“A man who’s taller than me comes and starts yelling and screaming at me,” Zastrow said. “My friend said he was jumping up and down and screaming.”
Zastrow then spent most the day at the hospital, where his eyes and mouth were flushed, and suction cups were placed over his face to drip saline solution into his eyes. He will also need to see an optomologist following the incident as well.
After being released from the hospital, Zastrow went to the police station to file a complaint, but continued to experience difficulty as the station computer systems were down. Police would not accept a written report.
Although Diane Derzis, the manager of Jackson Women’s Health Organization, told reporters that Benjamin used the spray because he needed to “protect himself” from the Christians, Zastrow said that Benjamin’s actions were unwarranted.
“Nobody was threatened,” he said. “We were on the public sidewalk peacefully singing.”
Zastrow has been a part of a group of Christians that are working and praying for the shutdown of Jackson Women’s Health Organization in an effort to make Mississippi the first abortion-free state in the nation.
“My children and I have been having church on the sidewalk,” he explained, noting that they have participated in a 40-day “church on the sidewalk” effort. “We’ve been there for every single one of them.”
“Yesterday, we [participated in] a memorial service for the unborn and we showed the baby Daniel, who had been killed by abortion,” Zastrow continued. “We also went to two high schools to pass out pro-life literature.”
He further noted that on Sunday, the group went to several of the abortion facilities in the state that have closed over the years and began to share testimonies about how God is working to save lives.
Despite today’s adversity, Zastrow remained undeterred in his commitment to stand for the unborn. He stated that his desire is for the Body of Christ to be pro-life not in name only, but also in deed.
“Being pro-life doesn’t save any babies, acting pro-life does,” Zastrow declared. “Come on, Church! It’s your responsibility to stop the killing.”
THE PASSIONATE PRO-LIFER
All eyes are on Mississippi this week, as the last abortion mill in the state is in its death throes and America will commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade ~ the most egregious U.S. Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott.
Pro-life Mississippi and Personhood Mississippi have worked tirelessly for decades to proclaim the God-given, inalienable right to life of every human being and to reestablish legal protection at every stage of development. Their efforts helped elect a Godly governor, whose heart is to protect every innocent child, in the womb.
Governor Bryant ran on a Personhood platform and fortuitously just last week, Alabama’s Supreme Court issued a historic ruling stating, “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition, that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”
Recently, Governor Phil Bryant eloquently expressed his strong desire for Mississippi to be abortion free. As America’s founders intended, every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortionists have hit a brick wall in attempting to obtain hospital privileges in Jackson, MS. Therefore, Governor Bryant now has the opportunity and duty to interpose himself between Diane Derzis or any other individual who thinks they have the right to kill innocent children in the state of Mississippi.
Reverend Flip Benham, of the States of Refuge campaign explains, “The people of Mississippi placed a man of God in the Governor’s office, for such a time as this.” “Governor, Bryant, seize this historic juncture to put an end to legal child killing in your state, so that other leaders will rise up and follow your courageous example. No innocent baby boy or girl should ever be intentionally killed in the womb on your watch, from this day forward.”
Like another courageous Republican, Ronald Reagan, who previously stood up to communism by proclaiming, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”, all God fearing Christians in Mississippi and across the nation urge Governor Phil Bryant to rise to the occasion by standing up to the child killing industry in his state and tearing down the last high place in Mississippi, making it the first abortion free state in America.
Passages of Right
Kevin M. Nelson
While there is no perfect way to attempt creating analogies or arguments that will properly reflect the sanctity and indescribable value of an innocent human life, I am always searching for new and better ways to unlock the closed minds of those who would rather put the convenience and circumstance of one human, above the God-given unalienable right of another, completely innocent human, to live.
Two questions come to mind when attempting this difficult task of unveiling the motives behind people’s casual willingness to destroy innocent human life:
1. Does the inability to see or fully understand something truly diminish the value of the unseen or mysterious- and/or- does not seeing something give people a calculated self-justification as a defense mechanism for deniability?
2. What do You value, if not innocent Human Life of another- your own life, the lives of wild animals or pets, inanimate objects, or philosophical concepts?
1. The Unseen and Misunderstood.
I am often amazed at the uninformed assumptions people hold regarding children at the fetal stage or what “terminating” the child actually involves, but even more so by those who become enraged by graphic images that do nothing more than depict the very same act they claim to condone, support, or advocate for.
The most staunch supporters of abortion never seem to address this hypocrisy, most notable on social media sites where one minute Miss Pro-“choice” is ranting and raving about the “fetus” being a blob that a women should not be “forced” to carry for nine months, only to absolutely freak when faced with an image of that “blob” with its torn limbs and pierced torso, all of which is followed by this staunch supporter “reporting” the image as “inappropriate” to the site’s governing powers, who most certainly seem more concerned about protecting liberal agendas and hate, while censoring truth and reality.
On the other end of the “unseen” spectrum is the first part of the question- is there a diminished value? Perhaps better stated- is it easier to classify the child as “less-than” when the world has not seen the baby’s face, or has not come to terms with understanding their own human prenatal development- several years or decades before holding a pro-abortion philosophy?
Consider, if you will, these imperfect analogies that inadequately, but hopefully at least somewhat effectively, describe things similar to the unseen forces of life:
The sun does not cease to exist simply because there is night.
(The baby does not cease to be a baby because it is hidden in the womb)
The sun does not cease to burn brightly because of a rain storm.
(The baby does not cease to be a baby because of an external circumstance)
Lightning is no less powerful simply because you cannot hold it or explain it.
(The baby is no less alive because it cannot yet be held in one’s arms or does not yet possess the features it will develop before birth)
A young White Oak (Quercus alba) sapling, uprooted by the wind and left to whither in the sun, does not, by definition, instantly become anything less than a dead White Oak (Quercus alba) sapling, no longer able to become the towering tree it might have been.
(Killing a Human (H. sapiens) baby in the womb does not cause it to suddenly become anything other than a dead Human (H. sapiens) baby. Often stated as- “abortion doesn’t make you un-pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead baby”- author unknown)
2. What You value, or suddenly- Don’t value.
Is there anything more hypocritical than a self-described pro-abortion advocate (though they still often hide behind the popular term “Pro-choice”) being seen holding a baby, or attending a baby shower?
I submit to you that such actions are evidence of a selfish ideology that does not value innocent human life, at all, for anyone, but rather simply values people’s ability to have what they want, when they want it.
Their actions reflect this clearly, if you observe and listen carefully, though they may or may not actually say the following out loud:
“I want to focus on my career or education right now. I shouldn’t be forced to put those things on hold with a pregnancy”
Translation: My career or diploma/degree is more important than an innocent Life.
“My body- my choice. The government shouldn’t tell me what to do with my body”
Translation: My body is more important than the other body growing inside me. Government can tell people not to kill other people, unless the other person is a living preborn human baby.
“No Man is going to tell me I have to stay pregnant”
Translation: No one (not even one of those “brain-washed” Pro-Life women)can tell me killing a baby is wrong, but since men can’t give birth, I will target them. This makes me sound like a strong independent woman, and a champion of feminism. My independence to do what I want is more important than protecting the innocent human life I want to destroy.
“I’m still young. There are so many things I want to do before becoming a mother”
Translation: I planned the sex part, but didn’t plan on the getting-pregnant part. My personal freedom to have fun is more important than the innocent Life of the human baby that, by definition, means I’m already an expectant mother.
“Everyone is different. It’s a complicated issue. What’s right for you is not always right for someone else”
Translation: Morality is subjective. Dismembering and extracting a living human baby from the womb is only wrong if someone thinks it is wrong, or if personal desires and circumstances are conducive to motherhood at this time. My desire to avoid motherhood is more important than the fact that someone will die as a result of my personal moral standards.
“I am personally pro-life, but think others should have the right to decide for themselves”
Translation: I would never kill one of my own babies, but someone else’s freedom to decide whether or not to kill their baby is more important than the Life they may decide to destroy.
Career, Education, Fun, Independence Vs. An Innocent Human Life
If you’ve read down to this point, you probably fall into three categories:
Pro-Life, Undecided and seeking answers, or Pro-Abortion seeking a reason to change or to find the best line to formulate an angry response with.
Whoever you are, please bear with me just a little longer.
At the end of the day, some would rather focus on perceived “viability” of the human babies being discussed, rather than letting go of everything other than the simple fact-
It is an innocent, Human Life.
Unfortunately, the “viability” argument is deceptive, as it most always focuses on “Viability in the absence of any other assistance”.
Webster defines ‘viability’ a few different ways. Strangely, when describing humans, the term means such things as “able to exist as an independent unit” or “capable of survival outside of the womb”. Yet when discussing other life forms such as eggs or seeds, the meaning somehow suddenly changes to “capable of growing or developing”.
I challenge the notion that seeds or eggs should be categorized in a way that transcends the discussion of human life, but will work to address both views.
If we continue to base the sanctity of life on concepts like “viability” we are destined to become even more murderous than we have been in allowing 55,000,000 babies to be murdered since ‘Roe V. Wade’. There will be countless Terri Schiavo-like court-sanctioned dehydration murders at the behest of adulterous spouses. The dark society in which we live is only a degree away from allowing the “Viability” argument to justify murder of the elderly, the mentally or severely physically handicapped, or infants.
Do not these other groups of people require some sort of assistance that prevents them from living as an “independent unit”?
I know beyond reasonable doubt that my precious two year old little girl simply cannot survive as an “independent unit”. Though a completely healthy child, without assistance to eat or drink or bath or use the “potty”- she would die of starvation, dehydration, or disease. Does this mean that she therefore does not meet the “viability” standard and consequently does not have the same right to life as her eleven year old sister?
Now let’s look at the other definition of “viability” that more accurately describes the preborn baby in the womb, and my two year old daughter. Both are “capable of growing or developing”. The baby in the womb only loses that type of viability when outside forces including the deadly procedure of abortion, ends the baby’s life- which obviously ends all potential for growth or development.
Sadly, many severely disabled people do not meet most of these “viability” definitions.
Though not dependent on the womb, they are dependent on others to feed them, sometimes machines to help them breathe, and cannot survive as an independent unit, and depending upon their age and disability, may no longer be capable of growth or development. Does this mean that the severely disabled, not meeting the “viability” standards that many use, are lawfully or morally subject to neglect or execution?
In closing, I’ll leave you with a few words from a man who was there for the
‘Roe V. Wade’ ruling, Supreme Court Justice Byron White:
Senior Dissenting Justice, Byron R. White, called ‘Roe V. Wade’:
"a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it."
Also saying the Court: "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries."
“Our fathers, recognizing God as the author of human life, proclaimed it a ‘self evident truth’ that every human being holds from the Creator an inalienable right to live … If this right be denied, no other can be acknowledged. If there be exceptions to this central, this universal proposition, that all men, without respect to complexion or condition, hold from the Creator the right to live, who shall determine what portion of the community shall be slain? And who shall perpetrate the murders?”
-- Joshua R. Giddings, abolitionist, 1858
Colorado 2013 March for Life
Denver, CO - Colorado Right To Life notes that this Sunday's March for Life in Denver is forty years after the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion, 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and nine days after the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously held that the word "child" in a state child abuse law applies equally to an unborn child. This Sunday, January 20, at 12:30 p.m., CRTL is hosting our annual March for Life on the west steps of the state capitol. Abortion is wrong because it's a baby, and it's always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent baby. Historically, the media, government officials, and many institutions despised those who fought for abolition of slavery, and in Germany, for equal treatment under law for Jews. Today, mainstream journalists, politicians, and our state institutions despise those who fight for the personhood and right to life of every innocent human being, no matter how small. God and historians will judge today's anti-human rights coalition of "pro-choicers" as harshly as they judge the slave traders and racists of the past. We are encouraged by Alabama's life affirming ruling this month acknowledging what everyone should realize, that a baby in the womb is as precious and deserving of protection as a baby out of the womb. Meanwhile, more than 50 million children have been dismembered in the forty years since the crime against humanity known as the Roe opinion, whereas those who advocate the continued dismemberment of unborn children do so at the peril of their eternal soul. And it's been 150 years this month since the Emancipation Proclamation, which event Colorado's biggest newspaper then used, ironically, to mock and condemn those advocating for abolition of slavery (kgov.com/emancipation). Colorado's media have not changed.
Speakers include spokesmen and spokeswomen from Colorado Right To Life, American RTL, Priests for Life, Personhood USA, Personhood Colorado, and Silent No More including Gualberto Garcia Jones, Jane Brennan, Gregg Jackson, Julie Averill, Rev. Rocco Porter, Rev. Scott Daniels, Rev. Michael Walker, and Rev. Walter Hoye. And with the Tebow-less Broncos losing their playoff game, there will be no Denver schedule conflict.
Contact Donna Ballentine
Colorado Right To Life
Michael W. Chapman
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in a case on Friday that “unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”
The case involved two women who had been charged under a “chemical endangerment” law because they had ingested illegal drugs—one, cocaine, and the second, methamphetamine—while pregnant. …
In its concluding remarks, the Alabama Supreme Court said: “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law. Today, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.” …
Read this story at cnsnews.com ...
1 707.1 Murder defined.
2 1. A person who kills another person with malice
3 aforethought either express or implied commits murder.
4 2. “Person”, when referring to the victim of a murder,
5 means an individual human being, without regard to age of
6 development, from the moment of conception, when a zygote is
7 formed, until natural death.
8 3. Murder includes killing another person through any
9 means that terminates the life of the other person including
10 but not limited to the use of abortion-inducing drugs. For
11 the purposes of this section, “abortion-inducing drug” means a
12 medicine, drug, or any other substance prescribed or dispensed
13 with the intent of terminating the clinically diagnosable
14 pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the drug will
15 with reasonable likelihood cause the termination of the
16 pregnancy. “Abortion-inducing drug” includes the off-label
17 use of drugs known to have abortion-inducing properties,
18 which are prescribed specifically with the intent of causing
19 an abortion, but does not include drugs that may be known to
20 cause an abortion, but which are prescribed for other medical
22 4. Murder does not include a fetal death as defined in
23 section 144.1 or the spontaneous termination of pregnancy as
24 defined in section 144.29A.
25 Sec. 9. REPEAL. Sections 232.5, 702.20, 707.7, 707.8,
26 707.8A, 707.9, and 707.10, Code 2013, are repealed.
27 Sec. 10. REPEAL. Chapters 135L and 146, Code 2013, are
29 Sec. 11. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act or
30 the application of this Act to any person or circumstances is
31 held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions
32 or applications of the Act which can be given effect without
33 the invalid provisions or application and, to this end, the
34 provisions of this Act are severable.
35 Sec. 12. EFFECTIVE UPON ENACTMENT. This Act, being deemed
1 of immediate importance, takes effect upon enactment.
3 This bill defines “person” in the context of the victim of
4 the crime of murder to be an individual human being without
5 regard to age of development, from the moment of conception,
6 when the zygote is formed, until natural death.
7 The bill provides that murder includes killing another
8 person through any means that terminates the life of
9 the other person including but not limited to the use of
10 abortion-inducing drugs, and defines “abortion-inducing drug”.
11 The bill also provides that murder does not include a fetal
12 death as defined in Code section 144.1 or the spontaneous
13 termination of pregnancy as defined in Code section 144.29A.
14 The bill makes conforming changes throughout the Code to
15 eliminate any reference to allowing abortions or terminations
16 of pregnancy in keeping with the definition of “murder” under
17 the bill.
18 The bill amends the termination of pregnancy reporting
19 section (Code section 144.29A) to only include the reporting of
20 spontaneous terminations of pregnancy.
21 The bill amends a Code section relating to unfair employment
22 practices (Code section 216.6) to eliminate references to
23 disabilities caused or contributed to by legal abortion.
24 The bill amends a Code section relating to discrimination
25 relating to health insurance abortion coverage (Code section
26 216.13) to eliminate the reference to abortion coverage.
27 The bill strikes and repeals Code provisions that relate
28 to allowing abortions under certain circumstances. The bill
29 repeals Code section 232.5 (abortion performed on a minor —--
30 waiver of notification proceedings), Code section 702.20 (the
31 definition of “viability”), Code section 707.7 (feticide),
32 Code section 707.8 (nonconsensual termination —— serious
33 injury to a human pregnancy), Code section 707.8A (partial
34 birth abortion), Code section 707.9 (murder of a fetus aborted
35 alive), Code section 707.10 (duty to preserve the life of the
1 fetus), Code chapter 135L (notification requirements regarding
2 pregnant minors), and Code chapter 146 (abortions —— refusal
3 to perform). The bill also makes conforming changes to strike
4 references to Code provisions stricken or repealed in the bill.
5 The bill provides for severability of any provision
6 or application of the bill that is held invalid from the
7 provisions or applications of the bill which can be given
8 effect without the invalid provisions or application. The bill
9 takes effect upon enactment.
What is the most dangerous place in America? Is it the mean streets of the south side of Chicago? Well, it's very dangerous there, more dangerous than Afghanistan, apparently. But no, that is not the most dangerous place in America.
Is it Detroit? No.
South Central LA? No.
Is it the war zone we call our southern border? No.
Those are very dangerous places, unfortunately. But the most dangerous place to be in America is in the womb of your mother. Abortion is the leading cause of death in this country.
Think about that. What should be the safest place on the planet, protected to the greatest extent possible by all, is now the most perilous.
Pray for America. Then act to end this barbaric war on the weakest and most helpless among us. Stop supporting any politician, party, or group that aids and abets the carnage in any way. Sign the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution today. Then follow through on it.
The Posterity you save might be your own.
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
U.S. Taxpayers are giving Planned Parenthood $1.5 million each and every day - 11% growth in 2 years
American Life League
Special Issue: STOPP analysis of Planned Parenthood 2011 and 2012 finances
Planned Parenthood getting more taxpayer money
"The data show that federal and state officials elected by the American taxpayers have increased the millions of dollars going to Planned Parenthood by 11 percent in the last two years. We now provide $542.4 million (over a half-billion dollars) to the nation’s largest abortion chain. That’s $1.5 million per day, each and every day.
Since 1964, our government has given Planned Parenthood $6.8 billion of our hard-earned money.
Most people know Planned Parenthood gets taxpayer money for its clinic services. Although it does, in fact, get millions for these, Planned Parenthood is also receiving tens of millions of dollars for other things. Its chief “other thing” is for its shocking sexuality education programs. Two years ago the federal government committed to spending over $75 million a year for sex education, and Planned Parenthood is getting the lion’s share of that money.
Planned Parenthood continues to make huge profits
In the last two years, Planned Parenthood reports that it had profits of $242.9 million. That is $242.9 million of our taxpayer money that has gone into Planned Parenthood bank accounts.
Over the last 40 years, Planned Parenthood has made a total of $1.2 billion in profits. A whopping $643 million (over half) has come over the last eight years. Clearly, Planned Parenthood has learned to tap into all the available government programs and uses them as its private slush fund.
Planned Parenthood’s non-government paid services stagnant
The non-government paid clinic income of Planned Parenthood hovered around $310 million over each of the last three years. It went up to $320 million in 2010 and then fell to $305 million in 2011 before rebounding to $311 million in 2012.
As we will show you in detail in next week’s Wednesday STOPP Report, this stagnation is caused in large part because the number of unduplicated clients reported by Planned Parenthood has stayed constant for the last seven years. It is not growing its clientele. Planned Parenthood’s overall business is in big trouble—except for its taxpayer money, which continues to increase at an astounding rate.
Taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll the nation’s largest abortion chain. Planned Parenthood cannot survive without the government funding that currently provides—according to Planned Parenthood’s own 2011-2012 annual report--45 percent of its total income."
The highest duty of the States...was to protect the unalienable rights of all persons within their boundaries
"The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.'"
-- U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Israeli Chief Rabbis Yona Metzger, left, and Shlomo Amar. The Jewish Press
JERUSALEM - Israel’s two chief rabbis have again issued a letter to all synagogue and community rabbis urging them to condemn abortion and to support the work of Efrat, the country’s pro-life organization.
In stronger language than they have used in their previous messages, Chief Rabbi of Israel Yona Metzger and Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Amar called the killing of the child in the womb “murder.”
“As in past,” the letter reads, “we call on all rabbis in Israel” to “raise in their words and sermons in synagogues…the severe prohibition of abortion.”
The chief rabbis called for an increased effort in “making the wider public aware of the extreme seriousness involved in killing fetuses, which is like actual murder.”
The chief rabbis time their letters condemning abortion to coincide with the reading of a portion of the Torah (Parashat) known as Shemot, which describes the genocidal attack on Hebrew newborn boys by the Egyptian pharaoh, and the efforts of the Hebrew midwives to save them.
Last year the rabbis wrote they were working to “encourage births among the Jewish people and to prevent unnecessary abortions.”
In previous years, the chief rabbis focused their letter on a passage of the Talmud, which states, “The redemption does not take place until all the souls are brought out of their storing place.” This, they say, means that widespread abortion in Israel is delaying the coming of the messiah.
Abortion in Israel is “a real epidemic, as tens of thousands of Jewish souls are being lost each year,” they wrote. “In addition to the enormity of the transgression, it is also delaying redemption.”
Abortions in Israel are authorized by hospital committees, but their approval criteria is quite broad: Abortions are allowed in cases of rape, incest, adultery, if the woman is under 17 years of age or over 40, if the woman’s health is at risk, or if the baby is suspected to have a physical or mental handicap. Such broad parameters have essentially established abortion on demand.
Such a view is possible, because most Jewish teachers do not teach that the inviolable right to life begins at conception but varies according to development and circumstance.
Dr. Eli Schussheim, director of Efrat, has pointed out that the demographic implications of abortion in Israel make it one of the nation’s greatest dangers.
“Israel has lost more than one and a half million Jewish children to abortion since 1948. In a country of about 5.5 million Jews, this number has great demographic significance. Imagine how much stronger Israel would have been today with one million more Jews,” a statement from Efrat says.
Rabbis Metzger and Amar praised the efforts of Efrat to help women contemplating abortion by providing emotional and material support.
“We see great importance in the work of the Efrat association to save the lives of Jewish children,” the rabbis wrote. “Over its 30 years of activity, tens of thousands of fetuses were saved, and in the past year alone, the lives of 4,000 children were saved.”
They also urged that, “every rabbi who holds a conference on abortion or birth, or acts on this issue in any forum, should invite Efrat chairman Dr. Eli Schussheim to participate in the event, or consult with him as the country’s leading expert in this field, since it has been proved that [Efrat] actually saves lives.”
"We the People
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom...”
-- Abraham Lincoln