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.”
On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Steve Crampton were particularly disturbed by the recent incident in Texas where some protestors facetiously chanted "Hail Satan" at a rally during the special legislative session called to pass the state's restrictive abortion bill.
While Barber saw it as evidence that "the pro-aborts are losing their minds," Crampton felt that it accurately reflected the contrast between the two sides in this legal battle where "you have the demons from the escorts and the pro-abortion side and angels from the pro-lifers."
And that made perfect sense to Barber, because "the first pro-choicer ... was Satan himself":
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.
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.
In an interview with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) once again expressed confidence that his bill banning abortion after twenty weeks will pass the House. The bill, known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is set to come to the floor today.
Franks framed the bill as a heroic attempt to protect mothers and children from “heartless monsters” like convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. While Gosnell was a criminal outlier, anti-choice activists have seized on his case to undermine reproductive rights. In an Akin-esque clarification, Franks stated “the medical community – that is, the legitimate medical community,” says that unborn children are able to feel pain twenty weeks. Franks’ source of “legitimate” medical knowledge appears to be a single 2007 paper that used rats as test subjects. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists actually opposes the bill, as well as the validity of the twenty-week pain threshold.
Franks: The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is very truly and simply a deeply sincere effort to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies entering their sixth month of gestation from these heartless monsters like Kermit Gosnell. That’s the simplest way I know to put it.
Perkins: And Congressman there’s a reason behind this where you have chosen this mark of twenty weeks. This is not just arbitrary but this is based on the testimony of medical and scientific experts that have talked about what takes place at this twentieth week of pregnancy.
Franks: Tony, that’s right. You know, the overwhelming consensus in the medical community, that is, the legitimate medical community, says that these unborn children feel pain at the end of the fifth month or earlier. And the real question here- this is the bottom line. The real question is not whether these unborn children entering their sixth month of gestation are capable of feeling pain. The real question is are we. That’s the big one.
The Obama administration announced Monday that it would drop its fight to maintain age restrictions on the sale of emergency contraceptives. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Anna Higgins of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity responded on yesterday’s Washington Watch by outlining the supposed consequences this decision will have on young girls.
Perkins lamented that “inappropriate sexual behavior,” such as “date rape” and relations between adults and minors, “can easily be dealt with” now that the pill is available to minors without parental consent, while Higgins warned that the pill will now “be available to people who are preying on young girls,” despite the fact that allowing minors to purchase Plan B has no relation to its availability to adult predators.
Higgins: This over the counter access is really- another health concern is it’s going to be distancing girls who are at high risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases or being sexually abused from accessing medical care or from talking to their parents about these issues.
Perkins: Let me zero in, Anna- Anna Higgins is my guest, you’re listening to Washington Watch, I’m your host Tony Perkins. We’re talking about a decision that came from the Obama administration last night to drop their appeal of a judge’s ruling out of New York that would require over-the-counter sale of Plan B, the one-pill version that’s sold by Teva. The issue of sexual exploitation, now that this drug is available over the counter, it’s easy if there is a case of inappropriate sexual behavior, whether it’s a date rape or something else, it can be, or an adult that’s having relations with a minor, that can easily be dealt with without any participation of a parent or other medical experts or guidance provided that could protect that child in the long run.
Higgins: Yeah that’s a grave concern that’s being glossed over by the proponents of this decision. You know they’re really not addressing this. It’s a very serious concern. Because what we have here is a way for this kind of emergency contraceptive or Plan B to be available to people who are preying on young girls and these young girls are avoiding their first line of defense which is parents and doctors, you know, and protecting them against people who would prey on them. So you know this is available like you said to any age, there’s no age limit now, so you know these young girls could be potentially eleven, twelve years old and the idea that they’re being preyed upon by sexual predators is a very real possibility.
When HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled an FDA recommendation to allow the sale of the Plan B morning-after pill over the counter to women without age restrictions, Religious Right groups weren’t able to come up with a coherent response. Several conservative activists alleged (without any evidence) that the move was intended to compel women to go to Planned Parenthood clinics instead of pharmacies, while Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel came up with the bizarre claim that the Obama administration actually opposed the position it had taken and even defended in court.
Now that the courts have sided with reproductive justice organizations that supported the FDA’s original assessment of Plan B, the administration has relented and agreed to allow sales of Plan B without a prescription.
Naturally, groups opposed to contraception are now enraged that the Obama administration is complying with the rulings.
Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance accused the administration of having “abandoned common sense,” saying she “fear[s] for the future health and wellness of women and children.” CWA senior fellow Janice Crouse warned that “it will not be long before we see girls and women forced to purchase Plan B for their abuser to keep them and others enslaved. This is a pimp, predator, and pedophile’s dream.”
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life asserted that the Plan B case was further proof the “President Obama is waging a War on Girls” and endorsing “child abuse.”
Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council said girls will now be forced to take Plan B “under coercion or without their consent.”
Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America told LifeNews: “Though President Obama himself has said ‘as the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine,’ his administration has abandoned common sense and will allow our nation’s teens and young girls to have access to a highly powerful drug forty times stronger than birth control. I sincerely fear for the future health and wellness of women and children, as doctors, parents, and pharmacists are eliminated from this very serious conversation about sexual activity, pregnancy, fertility, and overall health.”
Janice Crouse, also of CWFA, responded: “Once again, those who yell the loudest about caring about the nation’s children and youth applaud a decision to place our kids in a special interest experiment. Plan B, popularly called the ‘morning-after pill’ is a much-higher-dosage version of the regular birth control pill (which used to require a doctor’s prescription and continued doctor’s supervision). It is irresponsible to advocate over-the-counter use of these high-potency drugs, which would make them available to anyone – including those predators who exploit young girls. Mark my words, it will not be long before we see girls and women forced to purchase Plan B for their abuser to keep them and others enslaved. This is a pimp, predator, and pedophile’s dream – unlimited access to Plan B.”
She added: “This is a political decision, made by those who stand to profit financially from an action that puts ideology ahead of the nation’s girls and young women. Where is the scientific data and solid reasoning behind a decision that endangers minors?”
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America also weighed in on the decision.
She told LifeNews: “President Obama is waging a War on Girls by allowing young children to get Plan B without a physician or parent’s care or knowledge. The morning after pill is a megadose of the birth-control pill, which has been categorized by the World Health Organization as a Group I carcinogen. That’s the highest possible ranking – cigarettes are also in Group I. So why are drugstores required to put cigarettes behind the counter and ask for a photo id to stop minors from purchasing them, but President Obama is now ordering the morning after pill be sold over the counter, next to candy bars and packs of gum? This is not reproductive justice, this is child abuse.”
“There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today’s ruling removes these commonsense protections,” concluded Higgins.
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 the Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court ruling blocking an Indiana law that would have stopped Planned Parenthood from receiving federal Medicaid funding for preventative health screenings.
Rev. Brendolyn Jenkins-Boseman of Aiken, South Carolina, chair of the African American Ministers Leadership Council, released the following statement:
"Today’s decision is a victory for Indiana women and should be a signal to conservative legislatures across the country that are trying to limit women’s access to health care. Our courts have stopped many of these measures, but with proposals to defund Planned Parenthood surfacing across the country, we must remain vigilant.
"Why do conservative politicians still think that playing politics is more important than women’s access to cancer screenings and other vital health services? While these politicians push for wasteful and unpopular attacks on reproductive justice, many faith leaders and our allies remain committed to fighting for access to safe, affordable, and compassionate health care for all women. All women deserve dignity and autonomy – over their own bodies and their own futures."
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.”
On today's "WallBuilders Live," David Barton and Rick Green interviewed Frank Pavone of Priests for Life where they discussed the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Following the interview, Barton asserted that the Gosnell case "the biggest mass murder trial in American history" before declaring that activists should not be afraid of placing the blame on the Democratic Party because the Democrats "have wrapped Gosnell around themselves":
The news has done a very, very, very poor job of covering the Gosnell trial which is one of the mass murder trials, the biggest mass murder trials in American history. You know, just basically decapitating a hundred babies or sniping the spinal cords and all the screaming, it's just unbelievable.
Democrats are the ones who have owned the abortion issue. In their platform they proudly proclaim [it,] so why do I feel like I have to tread on neutral ground and not call out Democrats versus Republicans? Hey, the Democrats are the ones who have wrapped the flag of abortion around themselves, they have wrapped Gosnell around themselves. Gosnell is a product of the Democrat thinking and philosophy ... If you're in the Democrat Party, this is what your party believes, this is what your party platform says, this is what you've wrapped yourself around, this is what you promote as president, this is it.
Barton went on to proclaim that the key to winning the abortion battle is to educate people about the graphic nature of what abortion entails ... just like they should do with the issue of homosexuality in explaining how truly "reprehensible" it is:
Bill Dannemeyer, a Lutheran guy, he said "you Democrats, you're wanting to fund all this homosexual activity, let me describe to you what homosexuality is." And he just took a homosexual handbook that described the different types of homosexual sex and it grossed all the congressmen out. He said "why are you grossed out, this is what you're funding" and he literally read it into the [Congressional] Record and they wanted to purge the record. But once you get education, you go man, this is gross stuff, whether it's homosexuality, whether it's abortion.
You know, even my grandad, when I got involved in the Republican Party ... he had been a lifelong Democrat, he said "why'd you do that?" And I said "well, Grandad, because of where they are on abortion and where they are on religious expression and where they are on homosexuality." We were building a fence at the time and I vividly remember it, we were putting the barbed wire up and nailing it on the post and he just listened to me and for about five minutes, he didn't say anything and about five minutes later he said "sometime you're going to have to tell me what homosexuality is. I hear people use that and I'm not sure what that is."
And there's a guy who has been in the Democrat Party his whole life but because of the reprehensible nature of what it is, he didn't know, it had never been described. The Founding Fathers called it the crime not to be mentioned, it was that reprehensible.
Back in 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled a recommendation made by the Food and Drug Administration to make the morning-after pill, known as "Plan B," available without a prescription and without restrictions.
Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that the restrictions put in place on Plan B by the HHS were "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable" and struck them down.
And to Matt Barber, this all smacks of "collusion" between the judge and the Obama administration (starting at 3:23):
It seems a little redundant to me, in fact, that this Federal District Judge Edward Korman that he required, ordered, the Food and Drug Administration to lift any age and sale restrictions on Plan B.
Well, this is the Obama FDA, so that's in perfect keeping with what this radical, pro-abort president is trying to do. You know, you even have to wonder what kind of collusion is going on. So I'm sure this is a "don't throw me in that briar patch" kind of situation in terms of this judge ordering the FDA to do something that President Obama would be inclined to do and has shown he's inclined to do in the first place.
Barber's theory, literally, makes no sense.
It was the Obama administration that placed the restrictions on Plan B, overruling the recommendations made by the FDA. And those restrictions, put in place by the Obama administration, have now been struck down by a Regan-appointed judge. So obviously, the Obama administration was not inclined to do this in the first place.
Maybe Barber ought to do a bit of research before filming these daily commentaries so that he might actually have an idea what he is talking about instead of incoherently spinning out illogical conspiracy theories.
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.”
South Dakota’s state senate today passed a bill that would extend the mandatory 72 hour waiting period women face when seeking an abortion in the state to specifically exclude weekend days and holidays from counting towards the 72 hour period. Apparently, South Dakota’s Republican lawmakers think women aren’t able to think as well on weekends.
The South Dakota Senate has given final legislative approval to an extension of what is already the nation's longest waiting period for a woman to receive an abortion.
Senators voted 24-9 Thursday to approve the bill, which has already been passed by the House. The measure will become law if signed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.
Women seeking abortions in South Dakota currently must wait three days after seeing an abortion clinic doctor before they can have the procedure. The bill would make it so that weekends and holidays do not count in calculating the three-day waiting period.
The state House of Representatives approved the anti-choice legislation earlier this month, and it now heads to the governor’s desk.
Brooklyn’s Roman Catholic Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio is out with a column arguing that voters who supported President Obama’s re-election have brought America a “step deeper into the culture of death” and aided “the forces of death.” He claims that Obama “has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God” and is behind “an assault on the people of faith in our country” through his support for a woman’s right to choose.
DiMarzio concludes that unlike Abraham Lincoln, Obama has not “stood on the side of freedom for all” but instead “stands on the side of political expediency.”
On Jan. 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This Executive Order freed the slaves in the 10 states that were in rebellion. It was not until 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that slavery was abolished in the United States.
How far we have come as a Nation that 160 years later we will celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.
Yet, we also commemorate the 40th anniversary of our national shame: the lamentable Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy.
The so-called “pro-choice” movement has its roots in the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who understood her call to be one who would “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” Of course, a young Barack Obama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate.
Tragically, the President has not been an advocate for those young children faced with similarly difficult circumstances. He has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.
The forces of death press on from every side in contemporary American culture. It is clear there is an assault on the people of faith in our country. For instance, there are the current health insurance reforms that were imposed on our Nation obligating Catholic institutions to provide employees with medical procedures and services we believe to be in defiance of the will of God.
In my view, those who voted for President Obama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death. Under the cover of women’s issues, we now see an assault on religious freedom and personal conscience.
In our own state, Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed the largest expansion of abortion rights in New York State history. The irony is that our leadership is proposing this at a time when increasingly more Americans oppose abortion and support greater restrictions upon abortions. New York State, which already holds the record for the most abortions in our country, is now expanding this culture of death. We may lose, but we will stand up for what we believe.
Some may think my tone a bit strident and even un-nuanced. Maybe the time has come for more direct conversation on these matters, if we hope to preserve what is left of our God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights.
Abraham Lincoln was a man who understood the intersection between politics and nobility. He never would have been able to pass the Thirteenth Amendment in 1863. But he started by freeing “slaves” in the Confederate States with his Emancipation Proclamation.
I would have hoped that the first African-American president of the United States would have stood on the side of freedom for all. Instead, he stands on the side of political expediency. Mr. Lincoln, with great difficulty, put out into the deep and paid with his life. Would that our political leaders today would have some of the same courage.