This information from Focus on the Family Action:
In the aftermath of Roe v. Wade on January 20, 1973, radical feminists and other pro-abortion advocates told preposterous lies to get Americans to embrace the decision. They and the liberal media claimed that a "fetus" (never a baby) is simply "a blob of tissue" or "meaningless protoplasm." They insisted that legalized abortion would signal an end to child abuse because "every child would be a wanted child." In fact, it was only the beginning of the horror. Gradually, people became desensitized to the increased brutality of killing human babies.
Now, because of the development of ultrasound technology, those lies are exposed. A new mother can vividly see that she is carrying a precious baby. She can understand for the first time that the "blob of cells" has a heart that beats, and little fingernails on the hands. The child sucks his or her thumb and "swims" and cavorts in the amniotic fluid. Other characteristics of humanness are right there to delight his or her mother. That understanding is slowly turning the tide against legalized abortion.
Still, support for abortion remains formidable. After the Court's narrow decision, angry politicians rose to defend the procedure, even the killing of full-term babies in the final moments of delivery. Consider these direct quotes:
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."5Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."6Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)
A shocking new development has occurred. Liberal Democrats in the Senate have introduced a bill to override the Supreme Court's decision on partial-birth abortion and to outlaw any measure designed to restrict abortion in any way. On April 19, one day after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on partial-birth abortion, the usual cadre of pro-death legislators—Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and others—introduced a bill entitled the "Freedom of Choice Act."18 If passed, this bill will bar any state from limiting abortion in any form or fashion, including bans on partial-birth abortion, parental notification or any other type of life-affirming protection.
"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake—starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."7
There are other initiatives being considered in Congress intended to muzzle conservative communicators. One is called "the Fairness Doctrine," aimed at Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others—including, perhaps, yours truly. According to two members of the House Democratic caucus, Nancy Pelosi has said she will "aggressively pursue" its reinstatement. They are quoted as saying, "Conservative radio is a huge threat," and that "We want to make sure the GOP has no advantage going into 2008." A Democratic source has indicated that Salem Radio Network, which airs Focus on the Family's program, will be a target of the investigation.
Similar attacks on traditional morality are truly coming in waves at this time. Liberals smell blood in the water, and they're in a feeding frenzy. Suffice it to say that you and I are given a choice about how to respond. We must either fight for what we believe, or tuck our tails behind us and watch as this great nation goes the way of other Western countries, especially in Europe.
So what will you do? It's a hard place to be, to know what to do and say, and what to teach our children. Pray for our great nation.
4 comments:
It's a shame that my favorite verse of America the Beautiful tends to be left off:
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
Those pro-choice liberals don't KNOW WHAT this practice is. There is NO reason for it. NEVER. I don't even see why they feel it's a reasonable bill or even debatable. It's a SICK procedure banned in so MANY countries all over the world.
I just pull my hair out over this!
Thanks for the heads up...I've posted on this stomach churning practice not too long ago.
When I had my first baby, the nurses in the hospital confirmed that there was NEVER a reason for partial-birth abortion....
Maybe with our little blogs, with letters to the editors, prayer and fasting, we can defeat this horror and let's pray that none of these whom you quote in your post win the election...
Post a Comment