Judges have blocked two laws restricting abortion rights in Arkansas and North Dakota, but the anti-choice group Bound4Life says that through dreams they have received a “divine prayer assignment” to hold a “strategic prayer gathering” in St. Louis, Missouri. The organization’s Red Riders Tour will lead a “silent siege” on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is based in St. Louis, to pray that the court will uphold the stringent new laws and “reverse the pollution in the land, which is the shedding of innocent blood.”
Anti-choice activists gathered in front of ABC studios in Washington, D.C. today to draw attention to what they say is the “real” war on women.
The March on the Media rally claimed to be exposing the media’s supposed censorship of the realities of abortion and the lionization of pro-choice advocates like Wendy Davis. The rally was organized by Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, who previously equated the anti-choice movement with the abolitionist movement and the Revolutionary War.
Rose wasn’t alone in her questionable historical comparisons. Jill Stanek, an anti-choice activist who previously accused Obama of supporting infanticide while a member of the Illinois Senate, stole the show today by comparing abortion to the brutality of the Vietnam War, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the atrocities committed by the Taliban.
The Alabama Public Service Commission kicked off a meeting on power rates last week with a prayer against gay marriage and reproductive rights. John Delwin Jordan, who was at the meeting to testify on behalf of the Prattville Tea Party, opened up the meeting in prayer after receiving a laudatory introduction by Twinkle Cavanaugh, the head of the PSC.
After asking attendees if they believed in the power of prayer, Jordan concluded his prayer by lamenting, “We’ve taken you out of our schools; we’ve taken you out of our prayers; we’ve murdered your children; we’ve said it’s OK to have same-sex marriage, God. We have sinned.”
Birmingham News columnist John Archibald writes that the sectarian, political prayer may have helped Cavanaugh frame the debate over the PSC’s pro-corporate bent:
She gets – and Alabama Power gets – exactly what they want. They want the issue lost in passionate belief, an ideological tussle designed to pit tree-huggers against coal miners, conservationists against those concerned with jobs, liberals against conservatives.
Which is the best reason to remember what these hearings are about.
They are about Alabama Power's rate structure. Period. It is a structure – though debated to near incomprehension at these hearings – that is high for residential customers and low for industry. It allows the company to write off an $8 million salary for CEO Charles McCrary as Operations and Maintenance, at a government-regulated monopoly.
It lets the company take a return on equity 30-40 percent higher than the national average, according to testimony today that was not disputed, and allows it to take hundreds of millions in higher profits that could be saved by ratepayers and pumped back into the economy.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) is slated to appear at an upcoming anti-gay summit in St. Charles, Illinois, with African-American conservative activists including Harry Jackson, Star Parker, Ben Kinchlow and Ken Blackwell. Sponsored by groups such as the Heritage Foundation, World Congress of Families, Coalition of African-American Pastors and Illinois Family Institute, the “Black Conservative Summit” plans to train activists in how to fight the “homosexual agenda,” legal abortion’s “black genocide” and “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.”
The summit has also invited Herman Cain, Allen West, Ben Carson, Jesse Lee Peterson, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), former Rep. JC Watts and Fred Luter to appear. Its promotional video warns that “social engineering has ushered in the destruction of our roots” and promises new momentum in anti-gay activism in Illinois: “On May 31, a new coalition of Americans stood against the effort to legalize gay marriage in Illinois, and it failed, but the fight for the soul of America did not end there.”
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), who introduced several anti-choice bills in Congress including the recent 20-week ban, appeared on In The Market With Janet Parshall yesterday to warn about the deleterious societal consequences of not banning abortion. The congressman said if Americans “turn a blind eye” to the “horror” of legal abortion, “I wonder then what hope remains.”
“If we still let ourselves become insensitive at that point then I really am afraid for us as a human society,” he continued.
Franks then onceagain likened abortion rights to slavery and racism: “We wonder how our forbearers dehumanized African Americans, we wonder and say, ‘couldn’t they see the humanity in them?’ But they didn’t. And today we think they were so blind yet we are blind staggering blind in our own generation.”
Joe Pags did his best to fill in for Glenn Beck today on The Blaze, and while interviewing Rick Santorum he referred to abortion rights supporters as “nutcases” who have quite the agenda: “They’ve got a vast communist, socialist agenda; they’ve got a vast anti-freedom, anti-American agenda; they’ve got a vast anti-Christian, anti-Constitutional agenda.”
Santorum agreed that media outlets have “ignored” their nefarious agendas and crooked methods. “This is what community organizers do,” Santrum said, “these are actually tactics that Saul Alinsky and the rest for fifty years in this country have been using these tactics.”
Update 7/16: the story about protesters holding jars of urine and feces that Pags mention has not been verified.
Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas spoke about his role in the anti-choice demonstrations in Austin, Texas, yesterday with the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios, who in turn shared with Jeffress the real force behind abortion rights: promiscuous men.
“It is generally, from my opinion, the promiscuous white men who are pushing abortion,” Rios said. “I would even say the promiscuous black ones like our president, oh forgive me I shouldn’t say that, but they’re the ones who want sexual license, they do not want responsibility; abortion has always helped men more than it helps women.”
Jeffress predicted that the Supreme Court might take up a new challenge to Roe and claimed that “Roe v. Wade was the Dred Scott decision of our generation.”
The megachurch pastor maintained that abortion rights opponents will “buy a little more time for our country before God’s judgment” comes to America for decriminalizing abortion, just as God punished Israel and Nazi Germany: “He raised up the Babylonians and the Assyrians to judge Israel for engaging in child sacrifice; he raised up the Allied forces to crush Nazi Germany for taking kids to the gas chambers by the trainloads.”
As Texas lawmakers debate a bill that would shut down most of the state’s abortion providers, Texas Americans for Prosperity state director and GOP activist Peggy Venable yesterday tweeted that pro-choice women should “choose sterilization” as they are “nasty” and “simply should not procreate.” The Texas Freedom Network grabbed the tweet before she took it down:
Venable has since called the tweet a “lame attempt at humor” and apologized.
Generally, anti-choice activists defend TRAP laws by claiming that they are merely looking out for women’s health and safety. But in an interview with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins yesterday, Ohio Religious Right activist Phil Burress admitted that the goal of Ohio’s new law is in fact to force abortion clinics “out of business.”
Perkins, recognizing that Burress had strayed from the anti-choice movement’s talking points, tried to get things back on track by insisting that “these agreements are generally good health practices.”
Burress: Not only did we pass pro-life legislation, but in Ohio $1.4 million in federal money that will be diverted from Planned Parenthood to many of the crisis pregnancy centers.
Perkins: That means President Obama’s going to have to go out and do another fundraiser for Planned Parenthood.
Burress: Exactly. They’re reeling, aren’t they, they’re really hurting for money. But, you know, $1.4 million is a lot of money, but in terms of the amount of money that Planned Parenthood spends, it’s a drop in the bucket. It’s a statement. And we praise Gov. Kasich and the Republicans that put this through. And they also have passed legislation called a transfer agreement, that every abortion clinic has to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but they are prohibited from signing one with a public hospital. So we can put pressure on hospitals to not sign agreements, and we may see some abortion clinics go out of business.
Perkins: Yeah, and these agreements are basically good health practices.
Last week on Generations Radio, Colorado pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner addressed the forest fires hitting their state. They wondered why God was punishing Colorado with the fires, and specifically targeting the heavily conservative city of Colorado Springs.
The two ultimately determined that the forest fires were linked to the state’s liberal abortion laws and the recent success of civil union legislation. Swanson added that a Denver Post photograph of State House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino kissing his partner also played a role in inviting God’s wrath.
Buehner: Why Colorado Springs? Understand that Colorado itself is a state that has been begging for God’s judgment. How did we do that? Well, we were the first state to make abortion legal; you could murder your baby as long as it’s in your womb.
Buehner: Gov. Love, a Republican.
Swanson: Two ironies there, not just one, the man’s name was Gov. Love and he’s responsible for killing more babies than probably anybody in the history of this country because he’s the guy who started it.
Buehner: Our legislative session opened up this year and their very first order of business, their most pressing order of business—
Swanson: They could hardly wait, they could hardly wait.
Buehner: Like the very first day, was to pass a civil union bill, which is an uncivil bill.
Swanson: When you have a state where the House leadership is performing a homosexual act on the front page of the Denver Post two months ago? Does God read the Denver Post? Do you think He picks up a copy of the Denver Post? He gets it. God gets the Denver Post.
Buehner concluded that Coloradans should be glad God “hasn’t destroyed the whole state yet” as “an act of grace.” But why were the fires concentrated in Colorado Springs, Buehner asked, “Why not wipe out Boulder or Denver” where all the Democrats live? He answered his own question: “Judgment begins in the House of God.”
Later, Swanson elaborated on the point, saying that Christians have not done a good of a job resisting cultural trends pushed by television shows and fashion. He described a particularly disturbing plane ride he took back from Australia, in which he was forced to look at other people’s airplane TV sets. “I’ve never seen so many breasts in all of my life,” he reported. “Every form of aberrant sexuality and women’s breasts are shown in front of me almost nonstop for fourteen hours.”
After saying that he was a victim of “oppressive” breast exposure, he criticized young men for “doing the metrosexual thing with the skinny pants and the little fairy shoes” and not growing out their facial hair as God commands. But feminism is also to blame, he said, as too many Christian women have embraced feminist fashions like hats and pantsuits.
Buehner: Colorado is asking for judgment and God is delivering it in little pieces. He is very gracious that He hasn’t destroyed the whole state yet; I think that’s an act of grace. But then the question is: of all of Colorado, why Colorado Springs? I mean, Colorado Springs is the Christian mecca. Why not wipe out Boulder or Denver? I mean those people are in more radical rebellion.
Swanson: Oh yeah, they’re Democrats up there.
Buehner: And the answer is: judgment begins in the House of God.
Swanson: Coming back from Australia, I’m stuck in fourteen hours of these visual presentations, sitcoms and stuff, on seventeen screens in front of me and I’ve never seen so many breasts in all of my life. The immodesty going on in our society is far worse than it was back when Cheers, Family Ties and The Cosby Show was playing. I mean every form of aberrant sexuality and women’s breasts are shown in front of me almost nonstop for fourteen hours. It’s just such an oppressive, horrible, horrible world and so many of our young girls in our Christian churches are running down to Wal-Mart and buying the same clothes. These are the sorts of things that I’m bringing out in front of God’s people, I’m saying: how are we going to repent of the sexual sin that is paraded in front of us in the wider culture? Why do we have to submit to theses sexual sins again and again?
I brought up androgyny and how many young boys are running out and doing the metrosexual thing with the skinny pants and the little fairy shoes. They’re working on the gender blender for themselves and they don’t want to look like a man and God is just so upset, He hates it when man are not manly in their approach. 1 Corinthians 6 speaks about homosexuality and feminine behavior and feminine dress for men. God does not want men to be androgynous and feminine like in their approach; He gave them facial hair for a reason.
These are the sorts of things that I preached yesterday because I said, you could just say, ‘well all of the unisex, homosexual, metrosexual stuff that’s out in the world is so bad but we’re not going to repent of anything, we’re not going to look any different, we’re not going to bear any fruits of repentance in the way that we dress and the way that we interact.’ Then I brought out the whole thing on feminism and how feminism has corrupted our women today. I brought out this quote from Forbes magazine, July 27, 2012:
It’s hard to deny the key role that fashion has played in the women’s movement…Ms. Magazine points to New York City women garment workers in the early 20th century who wore hats to signify that they were earning their own money, and thus financially independent. Women in the 1980s adopted a male style of dress—ties, tailored skirt suits, shoulder pads—in order to gain a foothold in the male dominated world of business. And Carol Moseley Braun, the first African American woman elected to the U.S. Senate, wore a pantsuit on the Senate floor in 1993, ending the Senate’s ban on women wearing slacks there.
My question was: Do you resist feminist trends? Do you argue with it? Do you find ways to oppose it? Or do you just succumb to it and just kowtow to feminism? Dave, I’m afraid this stuff is all over the place in our nice little evangelical, reformed, conservative, fundamentalist churches.
Buehner: Kevin my main text this last Lord’s Day: God is a consuming fire.
Texas Republican state senator Dan Patrick is not impressed by Wendy Davis. Despite Davis’ all day filibuster of an anti-choice bill, Patrick thinks he is the one that deserves the praise. Patrick, the sponsor of the bill, told Mike Huckabee today that he urged his fellow Republicans to break Senate tradition and stop the filibuster.
He compared his action to Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees for placing too much importance on “laws and rules.” Patrick went on to encourage other senators to similarly cast off the law, asking, “Are we going to become the modern day Pharisees as Republicans of the Senate?”
Patrick also criticized the crowd that turned out to support Davis, calling it an “organized mob” carrying out an attack on the government. He blamed their behavior on the fact that they were Democrats, because “a tea party would never do this.”
Televangelist Pat Robertson warned today that America will face divine punishment if it doesn’t recriminalize abortion, telling 700 Club co-host Wendy Griffith today that only anti-choice laws can “avert the wrath of the Lord, but it will come upon this nation unless we do something.” Robertson and Griffith discussed a puff piece about a Pennsylvania program backed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbertt to fund anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers,” which frequently offer misleading and inaccurate information to women.
Robertson hailed Corbett and hoped that his leadership could end the “holocaust” of abortion, which he said is worse than anything done by Adolf Hitler. Griffith called legal abortion “insane” and Robertson warned “we’re going to have to pay a price one of these days for what we’re doing.”
Robertson: Wendy, we have fifty-five million babies that have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade, fifty-five million, that is a holocaust. You figure, Hitler at the height of his monstrous evil killed six million people, six million; we have in this land of the free and home of the brave, we have killed fifty-five million.
Griffith: And we’re doing it legally, you know, it’s insane.
Robertson: Exactly. The Supreme Court says, hey you have a right to, constitutionally. We’re going to have to pay a price one of these days for what we’re doing. Let’s hope that governors like Corbett and others, the tide will begin to turn and we can avert the wrath of the Lord, but it will come upon this nation unless we do something.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has been making the rounds on conservative talk radio to promote his new anti-choice legislation that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. On Friday, the congressman spoke to Janet Mefferd about the bill’s chances of passing and about the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which failed last year.
Franks warned that “truth [is] totally disinvited from the debate” over abortion rights in Congress and seemed baffled as to why anyone could disagree with him: “The fact that it’s even debated here is beyond my comprehension.” Franks blamed opposition to his legislation on “evil” forces and warned that if his bills don’t succeed then “we may never find or regain the will and the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone.”
The fact that it’s even debated here is beyond my comprehension. Sometimes the hardest thing for me in Congress is to see truth totally disinvited from the debate and see some of the boldness that evil seems to have gained in our discourse. If we after seeing Gosnell cannot find the will and the courage as a people to protect these innocent babies, I am afraid we may never find or regain the will and the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone.
Franks didn’t stop there, arguing that banning abortion “is central to the survival of our country and the civility of mankind.” He told Mefferd that his strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade includes ignoring the courts and doing what “Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union, he said we don’t have to defeat them, we will just transcend them.”
Franks: This issue as you know is one that I believe is central to the survival of our country and the civility of mankind. The other [bill] is the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act and between these two bills, one of them a legal conundrum and the other on just the human side, the notion that we make these little babies suffer this way, I believe that these two bills together, they have now made it into the Republican party platform, I introduced both of them some time back and a long time before Mr. Gosnell came along, but I believe that the two together have the most profound implications for Roe v. Wade. I’ll put it that way and drop it at that point.
Mefferd: Good, I’m glad to hear that. Of course, that’s a question on everybody’s mind, with Roe v. Wade in place as the law of the land, as the left always likes to remind us, how is it possible if you do pass this legislation, I’m sure you will get legal pushback, but a lot of people will be saying how could you even get this legislation passed if Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? How do you respond to that?
Franks: Well the same way I do as to how Roe v. Wade got to be the so-called law of the land. Someone passed a bill and it went to the courts and the courts made a decision. Unfortunately we put far too much focus on the courts. I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, I didn’t say ‘as long as the Supreme Court allows me to.’ The reality is that if this is upheld, if either of these are upheld, it presents an almost impossible conundrum for Roe v. Wade. We don’t know if they would overturn Roe or not and that’s true, but we can also do essentially like Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union, he said we don’t have to defeat them, we will just transcend them. They will fall on their own, you know, pressure themselves with their own weight.
Did you realize that the decriminalization of abortion is responsible for the creation of the NSA surveillance program? According to Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, because “killing children in the womb is a constitutional right,” there are now “no civil rights in this country” and “everything else can be stripped away from us.”
Newman told LifeSiteNews this weekend that he hopes that President Obama will be impeached over the program and that “the people who are monitoring my conversations will be impacted and turned to life.”
The American Life League’s Jim Sedlak had a similar take, arguing that the NSA program might be targeting groups like his that oppose Planned Parenthood.
Newman linked the administration’s disregard for the most vulnerable human life with its apparent disregard for privacy rights, saying, “If killing children in the womb is a constitutional right, then we have no civil rights in this country. Everything else can be stripped away from us. So, this ought not surprise anyone.”
But just because Newman is not surprised by the government’s spying does not mean he doesn’t want to see the people responsible punished.
Asked what he thinks is the proper response to the news of the NSA’s intelligence gathering efforts centered on ordinary Americans, Newman said, “I think Obama should be impeached.” “I think half of Congress should be thrown out,” he said. “We should fire everybody in the NSA, the heads of the FBI, the CIA, and force everybody to take a basic course on constitutional liberties.”
He admitted such an outcome was unlikely but nonetheless warranted.
Jim Sedlak of American Life League compared the NSA’s tactics to those used in dictatorships and communist countries. He told LifeSiteNews.com that such practices have no place in a free nation.
“We’ve been concerned the the [sic] government would try to regulate speech,” Sedlak said, “and that’s what listening in does, is it tries to put a fear in so that people will be hesitant to say what they really believe.”
“There’s no place for this in the United States of America,” he said. “ They do this in other countries, you know; if you’re in a Middle East country and speaking in the backyard to your neighbor and you say something against the government, you wind up in jail.”
Sedlak said that because his group is on Planned Parenthood’s list of top 15 “anti-choice” organizations, and because President Obama is very closely tied to the abortion giant, he wouldn’t be surprised if they were targeted by the administration for monitoring. But he said the threat of retribution wouldn’t stop him or his group from speaking up for unborn babies.
“What we’re going to do is, we going to do our work,” Sedlak told LifeSiteNews. “We’re going to speak out when we need to speak out, we’re going to write what we need to write in order to get our work done, and trust that if we do the right thing and we do it for the right purpose, which is God’s purpose, God will take care of us.”
He vowed, “We will not be intimidated.”
Newman went one step further, saying that he hopes the government not only listens to but thinks about the words he is saying. “I’m not going to do anything differently,” he said. “I hope that the people who are monitoring my conversations will be impacted and turned to life.”
In an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council today, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said he is confident that his bill banning abortion after 20 weeks will “pass with strong margins in the House of Representatives,” and warned that the US is doomed if the country doesn’t totally abolish abortion rights.
Even though the recriminalization of abortion would surely drive more women to dangerous, back-alley abortion clinics like Kermit Gosnell's, Franks told Perkins that abortion rights proponents want the country to “embrace the evil that Dr. Gosnell has displayed to all of us” and “send America over the brink.”
He went on to argue that President Obama, whom he once called an “enemy of humanity,” will “go down in history as the abortion president” and that his opposition to abortion bans will “shame” his administration.
If we embrace the evil that Dr. Gosnell has displayed to all of us, if we embrace that as a country, then I am afraid that we have not only lost the battle but we’ve lost the war. This generation would be the one that would send America over the brink. Even if it survived as a particular nation, everything that was in the hearts of the Founding Fathers when they dreamed of having a country where all of God’s children would be allowed to live and be free and pursue their dreams, that dream will die if we don’t have the courage to stand up for the weakest among us.
It’s my conviction that it will pass with strong margins in the House of Representatives. Then of course the equation is before people like the Senate Leader, will Harry Reid allow this to be voted on or to be debated fairly? That’s going to be the question. It occurs to me that over time we will probably win this. I hope that it comes to the point when we have a president that will sign it. This president will go down in history as the abortion president and of all the things that will besmirch his record, and there will be many, nothing will cast more shame on this administration than standing by and letting millions of children die in darkness because he simply refuses to see the light.
Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson said that Margaret Sanger “was the one who set the stage for Adolf Hitler, she didn’t copy him, he copied her.” After running a story about how President Obama postponed his speech at Planned Parenthood in order to attend a memorial service in Texas for victims of the fertilizer plant explosion, Roberston said that the group founded by Sanger is “evil” and targets black people.
“What they said was, they said ‘what we’ve got to do in order to get the black people in America to have abortions, we have to have some noted black leader who will come out for Planned Parenthood and we’ll give him the Margaret Sanger award and therefore he will be our poster boy showing the black people they should have abortions,” Robertson maintained, “it was strictly genocide.”
While Sanger was tied to the eugenics movement, the claim that she intended to exterminate black people and use black leaders to hide such a plan is based on a quote taken badly out of context.
As PolitiFact reports, the eugenics movement was widely popular at the time of Sanger’s work, but there is “no evidence that Sanger advocated - privately or publicly - for anything even resembling the ‘genocide’ of blacks, or that she thought blacks are genetically inferior”:
"I have never run into any serious academic reference of Sanger or others wanting to ‘kill black babies,’" Indiana University professor Ruth Engs, a eugenics movement expert, told PolitiFact Georgia in an e-mail.
The Washington Post also “found nothing to confirm these allegations” that Sanger targeted the black community for genocide and noted that even Martin Luther King, Jr. had praised her work.
The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org debunked the claim when Herman Cain made the same argument as Robertson:
Cain isn’t the first to believe that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) wanted to stop the birth of black babies. Just do an Internet search and see what happens. Sanger made more than her share of controversial comments. But the quote many point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” of African Americans has been turned on its head.
Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:
Sanger, 1939: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”
It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”
As a GOP state senate nominee in 2010, Leach suggested that HIV/AIDS was divine punishment for homosexuality. He was eventually defeated by Democratic incumbent Matt McCoy, but his candidacy did win the support of one leading anti-choice activist: Personhood USA board member Chet Gallagher:
Gallagher served as the field coordinator for Mississippi’s failed personhood campaign, led the Nevada Pro-Life Coalition, which worked with Personhood USA to sponsor that state’s personhood initiative, and worked on Personhood USA’s campaigns to outlaw abortion in Montana and Colorado. He also works for Flip Benham’s Operation Save America.
The Des Moines Registerreports today on Leach’s latest call to violence:
Leach posted the comments this month on YouTube. His posting includes a recorded phone conversation he had with another man, whom Leach identifies as abortion opponent Scott Roeder. Roeder is serving a life prison sentence for the 2009 shooting death of the Wichita clinic’s then-owner, Dr. George Tiller.
Leach has previously suggested that other men were justified in killing other abortion providers. He notes in the video that Tiller’s old clinic was recently reopened by a new abortion agency.
“If someone would shoot the new abortionists, like Scott shot George Tiller, … hardly anyone will appreciate it but the babies,” he says. “It will be a blessing to the babies. Everyone else will panic. Of all places to open up a killing office, to reopen the one office in the United States more notorious for decades than any other is an act of defiance against God and the last remaining reverence for human life.”
In the YouTube video, the man Leach identifies as Roeder laughs as Leach talks about the prospect of someone shooting the new leaders of the Wichita clinic. Then the second man wonders aloud about the clinic director’s motives. “To walk in there and reopen a clinic, a murder mill where a man was stopped, it’s almost like putting a target on your back — saying, ‘Well, let’s see if you can shoot me,’ ” he says.
Then the man quotes a fellow activist, who predicted that the abortion industry would end if 100 abortionists were shot. “I think eight have been shot, so we’ve got 92 to go,” the man whom Leach identified as Roeder says. “Maybe (the Wichita clinic director) will be number nine. I don’t really know. I’m not sure about that. But she’s kind of painting a target on her.”
His core argument is that the government can only recognize rights that are compatible with God’s law. Since he believes homosexuality is an affront to divine law, it cannot be approved of in the US.
Paul Fidalgo today noticed a speech Keyes delivered at a college in Michigan, where he made the case that the government can’t recognize gay rights, reproductive rights and the separation of church and state, just as we shouldn’t recognize the right of a person to pick their nose and eat their boogers.
Just because something “feels right” doesn’t mean it is a “fundamental right” in God’s eyes.
That’s what former presidential candidate Alan Keyes said while speaking to a group of 100 people Wednesday, April 10 at Spring Arbor University as part of the university’s Thomas H. Cobb President’s Leadership Speaker Series.
Keyes passionately spoke on the topic of basic fundamental rights that were first laid out in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States, he said.
“The Republic is near death and it will die if we don’t wake up," he said. "But wake up to what?”
He answered his own question when talking about fundamental rights, where they came from and how the country needs to recognize that rights come from God.
Abortion, same-sex marriage and separation of church and state are not fundamental rights, Keyes said. If God does not recognize them, they do not exist.
Keyes said while abortion, same-sex marriage and separation of church and state are not basic human rights there are leaders who are trying to “fabricate” rights.
“People who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court take it among themselves to argue that somehow there should be separation of church and state,” he said. “Nothing in the Constitution requires separation, nor could it because we cannot separate the country from its finding premise without destroying it.”
When arguing what a fundamental right actually is, Keyes gave an offbeat example of a young child who had a habit of “picking in their nostrils and “eating what came out.”
As the child grew up they noticed others were disgusted and did not want to be near him. As an adult the individual argued if others have the right to eat what they want, the individual should be recognized as having the same right.
“How many think that is a fundamental right?” he asked the audience. No one raised their hand.
“Nobody in their right mind would suggest it was,” Keyes said. “What makes something a fundamental right that actually trumps the Constitution of the United States? It can’t just be because you feel like it, or want to do it. It can’t just be that you feel badly about what you do because of the opinions of others, these are not arguments of rights...rights come from God.”
Sen. Rand Paul’s chief of staff Doug Stafford appears to be scrambling to explain the Senator’s recent comments during a CNN interview where he said there would be “thousands of exceptions” to his “Life at Conception Act,” a federal personhood bill that would ban all abortion by granting legal status to embryos. He added that “each individual case would have to be addressed” and that there will “be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”
Understandably, many people interpreted his comments to mean that the government shouldn’t be intruding on the medical decisions that are unique to each woman, or the opposite of what his sweeping anti-choice law would do.
But in an interview with LifeSiteNews, Stafford stressed that Paul’s mention of “thousands of exceptions” only “meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases.”
So the “thousands of exceptions” was only really one exception.
And when Paul said that women, their doctord and their families would be free from government interference during the early stage of the pregnancy, Stafford said that Paul was only referring to emergency contraception that prevents fertilization.
Stafford noted that such methods won’t be covered by the law because “it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” while stressing that Paul still seeks to ban RU-486.
Some pro-life activists were left scratching their heads after a recent interview Senator Rand Paul did on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show “The Situation Room,” in which the senator seemed to say he supported “thousands of exceptions” to his general belief that abortion should be illegal. But Paul spokesman Doug Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Wednesday that the senator’s remarks were misunderstood, reiterating that Paul is staunchly pro-life.
After the interview, the Atlantic Wire ran a story with the headline “Rand Paul Isn’t 100% Pro-life Anymore,” arguing that the language Paul used in his answer sounded remarkably similar to pro-choice rhetoric claiming abortion should always be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
But Paul’s chief of staff, Doug Stafford, said the Atlantic got it wrong.
Paul “was speaking medically,” Stafford said.
By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.
The senator is not in favor of the more nebulous “health of the mother” exception that pro-life advocates argue can be applied to any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.
But what about Paul’s statement that the Life at Conception Act may not be able to address early abortions? That, too, was a misunderstanding, according to Stafford. He said the senator was talking about things like emergency contraception pills, which may cause very early abortions, but since they contain the exact same drugs used in standard birth control pills, the senator believes they will be nearly impossible to ban.
Senator Paul “has always said it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” Stafford said. “It simply isn't possible to do so. The law will likely never be able to reach that.”
“You can legislate abortifacients like RU-486, and he would,” he said. “But you can’t legislatively ban artificial estrogen and progesterone.”