Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Friday, May 1, 2009

Abortion and/or Torture

Meredith Turney writes Thursday at Townhall.com:
    President Obama took the occasion of his 100th day in office to publicly denounce the practice of interrogative waterboarding as torture. During his primetime press conference, the President justified his administration's ban on "enhanced interrogation techniques" by citing Winston Churchill's refusal to engage in torture during World War II: "Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country."
    The "character of a country" - specifically America - is an issue every president grapples with. On the world stage, character - the ability to trust another nation's integrity - is critical. A country with inconsistent morals is a nation whose character cannot be trusted. Under the Obama Administration, America is perilously close to losing our moral integrity regarding basic human rights, especially the right to life.
    Obama has taken a seemingly unequivocal moral stand in favor of human rights by banning waterboarding, which he considers a form of torture. But juxtapose his moral outrage over torture with his nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to lead the Health and Human Services Department.
    During her twenty-plus years as an elected official in Kansas, Sebelius has forged strong ties to infamous abortionist George Tiller. For $5,000, Tiller will perform any abortion, for any reason - including late-term abortions. The horror stories that have emerged from Tiller's clinic describe callous acts of aborting almost-full-term children. At this point in a pregnancy, these children most certainly feel the pain and torture of chemical injections, cutting, ripping and stabbing used in the abortion process.
    In May 2007, Bill O'Reilly directed the nation's attention to Tiller's Wichita "death mill" when he exposed Sebelius' veto of a bill that would have required Tiller to provide a specific medical reason for the late-term abortions he performed on viable fetuses. O'Reilly also brought to light the thousands of dollars Tiller had donated to Sebelius' various campaigns and related political action committees. "Now America is a great country, but this kind of barbaric display in Kansas diminishes our entire nation," stated O'Reilly. Indeed, the way we treat innocent life says just as much about our moral character as how we interrogate terrorists.
    Legislative attempts to end the brutality perpetrated by Tiller and his ilk have been repeatedly thwarted by Governor Sebelius. In fact, just prior to her Senate confirmation, Sebelius vetoed legislation in Kansas that would have provided greater oversight of late-term abortions such as those performed by Tiller. Refusing to hold accountable those with young life in their hands is - in the words of President Obama - "taking short-cuts" that corrode "what's best in a people."
    It is the height of hypocrisy to ban interrogation techniques on militant enemies of innocent life while refusing to ensure innocent life isn't carelessly discarded by ruthless abortionists.
    A few moments after President Obama was asked about the torture issue at his press conference, another reporter inquired about the controversy surrounding his commencement address at the staunchly pro-life University of Notre Dame. Now in a much higher pay grade than when he was last asked about his position on abortion, the reporter asked whether the president still intended to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would effectively remove all restrictions on abortion nationwide. Once again, President Obama hemmed and hawed, rambling on about what a difficult decision abortion is for women.
    As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act - a legislative response to botched late-term abortions where babies were left to die by starvation.
    The President wants to appear unequivocal about his "moral" decision to ban torture because he considers it inhumane. But his equivocal response to the issue of abortion, and his votes against banning the barbaric partial-birth abortion - which constitutes true torture by any reasonable standard - reveal an inconsistency at best.
    Congressional Democrats have been quick to call for investigations of and possible criminal prosecution for "harsh interrogations" of terrorists. But many of these same politicians have remained mute on Sebelius' connection to a notorious abortionist engaged in abominable abortion practices.
    As the President explained the torture ban during his recent press conference, he observed, "In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy."
    Perhaps we walk a thin line in determining the definition of torture and its use in national security, but when it comes to preventing the needless pain and suffering of children, America should hold true to our ideal of protecting all innocent life.
It is indeed a sad day for our country when the elected government feels more compassion for those who would destroy America than for the unborn babies in our midst.
 

Monday, April 13, 2009

22weeksthemovie

What actually goes on inside an abortion clinic?
 
Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, talks about a film on abortion called 22 Weeks in today's BreakPoint article.
 

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties

Yesterday I pointed some friends to the subject article on Newsmax, written by Newt Gingrich.  Let me share a couple of troubling facts and conclusions from that article that might well give us pause as we consider the agenda of the current occupant of the Oval Office (but please read the entire article):
 
     "In 2007, Obama promised a Planned Parenthood gathering on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that, as president, he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). If enacted, FOCA would repeal all federal and state restrictions on abortion including the ban on partial-birth abortion. FOCA would force all public hospitals and health programs offering maternity services to provide abortions. Moreover, provisions in state constitutions that protect speech and the free exercise of religion of those whose conscience is opposed to abortion could be invalidated.
     Having no reason to believe that President Obama will not fulfill this radical campaign pledge, some Catholic bishops are talking openly about engaging in civil disobedience to protect Catholic hospitals and their doctors from being forced to perform abortions.
     The chilling effect of the Obama administration forcing doctors and nurses to choose between their losing their careers and being compelled to participate in abortions against their moral and religious belief is incalculable. Not only will pro-life doctors and nurses be driven from the professions, but patients will lose the ability to choose doctors who reflect their own religious and moral convictions, doctors who now help them to make healthcare choices based upon them.
     The fact is, there are doctors and nurses who have no moral objection to abortion. Why then, should some medical professionals be compelled to do something that compromises their conscience? It is one thing to hold fast to the pro-abortion position as a matter of a personal opinion, it is quite another to force someone else to compromise their moral integrity."
 
Once again I ask, Why is this president not content to take his House and Senate majorities and simply roll over the rest of us?  Why does he insist that we abandon our principles and join him in the evil work he espouses?  I can understand how a man with his postmodern worldview might call himself a Christian and still hold a pro-abortion view, although I can't concieve of a thinking Christian believing that profession of faith.  So why does he demand that those of us with scruples against abortion act against our principles?
"The difference between prejudice and conviction is that you can explain a conviction without getting angry."

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Pro-Abortion Agenda vs. Dissenters

Michael Gershon has an interesting article on Townhall.com this morning regarding the bulldozer methods used by the current occupant of the Oval Office in dealing with those who disagree with him.  Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, is a Roman Catholic and at the same time, strongly "Pro-Choice," exactly the same sort as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.  A couple of key paragraphs:
    It is the incurable itch of pro-choice activists to compel everyone's complicity in their agenda. Somehow getting "politics out of science" translates into taxpayer funding for embryo experimentation. "Choice" becomes a demand on doctors and nurses to violate their deepest beliefs or face discrimination.
    It is probably not a coincidence that Obama has chosen a Roman Catholic -- Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- to implement many of these policies as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama has every right to a pro-choice Cabinet. But this appointment seems designed to provide religious cover. It also smacks of religious humiliation -- like asking a rabbi to serve the pork roast or an atheist to bless the meal.
Why is it that Conservatives are being called upon to abandon their principles in a spirit of "Bi-Partisanship" but Liberals never are?