Planned Parenthood’s deadly argument from silence

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.

Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide rape, incest and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, they would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably, they commit Medicaid fraud, they teach kids the joys of BDSM, and so much more. Their leaders and abortionists get rich off* of death and misery, aided by your taxes.  They use some of that money to fund propaganda telling women that if they aren’t willing to kill their children that they can’t be equal in value to men.

But wait — they have found religion!  Rather, they have rehashed their “religious” talking points from their “chaplains.”  Their main argument is that the Bible doesn’t specifically mention the word abortion, therefore it can’t be a big deal.  And if you aren’t sure about that, they’ll refer you to one of their chaplains false teachers.  Via An Open Letter to Cecile Richards « Alliance Defending Freedom Blog.

Planned Parenthood has published a “Pastoral Letter” which tells women:“The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures—Jewish or Christian—and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision.”It appears that this letter is no longer available on your website, but an archived version can be found here for your reference page 3.

The argument that the Bible never said anything about abortion  (or homosexual behavior, etc.) fails on several levels. If a church leader uses it you can be confident that he or she is ignorant and/or malicious.  Just because it doesn’t mention every type of killing doesn’t mean that those forms are acceptable.  It doesn’t say it is wrong to bomb abortion clinics, but I think Richards would agree with me that no one should do that.

The Alliance Defending Freedom folks had a great suggestion for Richards.  I doubt she’ll take them up on it. But they did call her bluff.  Does she really want to refer to the Bible?  We’d love to have that conversation all day, every day.

While I disagree with Planned Parenthood’s exegesis of Scripture, I am not writing to debate that point. Instead, I write to express my agreement with Planned Parenthood, reflected in the publication of this pastoral letter, that for many women their religious beliefs will be very relevant to their decision about whether to have an abortion.On that common ground, on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom, I would like to offer Planned Parenthood one free copy of the Bible for every Planned Parenthood facility in the country. Planned Parenthood could place these Bibles in their waiting rooms and permit women the opportunity to explore for themselves what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures have to say about abortion.

There is no doubt that we are on opposite sides of this theological and moral question. But as we are in apparent agreement that Scripture and its teachings or lack thereof in your view on abortion would be relevant to many women’s abortion decisions, making these Bibles available to those women would certainly benefit your potential customers.

To allay any concerns you might have, the Bibles Alliance Defending Freedom would provide to Planned Parenthood would be new unmarked copies. For instance, we would not highlight Psalm 127:3 “Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward”, Psalm 139:13 “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…”, Psalm 22:10-11 “You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God” or Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart”.We would not dog-ear Exodus 20:13 “You shall not kill”. Nor would we even place a bookmark at Luke 1:41, 44 where the “baby [John the Baptist] … leapt for joy” in his mother’s womb when the baby Jesus was nearby in Mary’s womb.Rather, we would make these Bibles available, unedited and without emphasis of any kind, allowing those women visiting a Planned Parenthood facility to review them themselves.

* Cecile Richards, the leader of PP, makes over $500,000 per year.  Killing babies is a big business.

The ignored privilege: Life

The “check your privilege” nonsense taking over college campuses ignores a couple obvious things.  One is that anyone attending college in the U.S. is pretty privileged to begin with.  They are the 1%, especially when you look around the world.

Another is that they were actually privileged enough to be born.  This post from a secular pro-life organization nails it.  Via Check Your Born Privilege:

Chances are, if you’ve been exposed to the writings and ideas of the modern progressive social justice movement, you’ve encountered the concept of privilege—a common term used to describe the favorable treatment of certain groups by society as held in contrast to the discrimination faced by other groups. Common examples given of privilege are white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, heterosexual privilege, cisgender privilege, able-bodied privilege and class privilege.

Members of privileged groups are reminded of their favored status and encouraged to “check their privilege” by comparing their experiences to the average experiences of members of oppressed groups and recognizing the social, political, and economic inequalities that exist in the lives of the latter. Towards this end, activists write up privilege checklists that outline specific examples of privilege for a certain privileged group. Privilege checklists have been written for almost every possible group of people—except for one group.

The unborn have been left behind by progressive social justice movement. They aren’t even considered to be people. In an attempt to raise awareness of this injustice I have compiled a checklist for born privilege—the privilege experienced by individuals who are already born.

  • No one tells your bereaved parents that they can always try again, that you weren’t a “real baby”, or that it was a good thing that you died because you probably were defective anyway.

  • Society doesn’t believe that ending your life is the best solution to the problems and challenges that you might face in the future.

  • The law doesn’t deny you personhood based on age, personal appearance, size, level of development, degree of dependency, or current temporary lack of consciousness.

  • The law protects your life, even if your mother wants to end it.

  • Society doesn’t try to justify killing you based on the hardships experienced by your mother. Instead, we try to help both you and your mother through your hardships.

  • People who fight for your basic, most fundamental right to live are almost universally supported and encouraged. No one accuses them of being religious theocrats who just want to force their beliefs on everyone else and who want to oppress women. (Note: This privilege is obviously not experienced by death row inmates.)

  • Your right to live is almost universally acknowledged and respected by everyone, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof. (Note: This privilege is obviously not experienced by death row inmates.)

  • There is not a dedicated movement of people who honestly believe that only through having the right to kill you, an innocent human being, can women achieve equality with men and be liberated from the bonds of patriarchal oppression.

  • No one denies that you are, in fact, a human being.

  • The UN and various NGOs do not suggest that the killing of people like you is an important and acceptable way to reduce world overpopulation.

Freakonomics fail on “climate change”

I enjoyed Think Like a Freak: The Authors of Freakonomics Offer to Retrain Your Brain, as the authors once again show how the conventional wisdom can often be wrong.  But they ignored one of their own tenets — namely, the importance of incentives — when addressing “climate change.”  

While rightly acknowledging that people are universally influenced by incentives, they seemed mystified that so many conservatives would deny the scientific “facts.”  But they ignored the obvious: When the scientists benefit by advancing the man-induced climate change myth, either directly (i.e., Climahypocrite Al Gore) or indirectly (toe the line or get fired / lose funding / lose tenure / etc.), they are likely to lie.  The authors noted how people will distort the truth in many other venues but ignored it here.

For more details on one of the big lies of the “climate change” industry, see Behind the Lie That 97% of Scientists Back Global Warming Hoax.

A strategy useful for duping fools is to create a statistic out of thin air and repeat it until it is accepted as fact. After all, as a Founding Father of modern liberalism said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” One such lie is the preposterous but incessantly repeated assertion that 97% of the scientists of the world agree with the Obama Regime’s radical position on man-made global warming — or as they have been calling it since it stopped getting warmer, “climate change.”An actual scientist, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, teamed up with Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute to get to the bottom of where this 97% figure comes from. Apparently it is loosely based on various ideologically driven studies that made not even a token effort to achieve scientific vigor, but simply cherry-picked sympathetic scientists, many of whom had likely been pressured or bribed with government funding into backing the hoax. The view that human carbon emissions might conceivably contribute to warmer temperatures although this is not necessarily a bad thing is stretched into endorsement of the Regime’s apocalyptic hysteria, while dissenters are simply ignored.It would be easier to invent a statistic proving that most scientists say global warming is a lie.

 

Kermit Gosnell was not alone

The media and the pro-abortion lobby tried to pretend Kermit Gosnell, the worst serial killer in U.S. history, didn’t exist.  Then they tried to pretend that he was an exception.  But people who kill babies for a living are capable of anything.  Here’s another Gosnellt-type, via Douglas Karpen Snipped Babies’ Necks Worse Than Gosnell, Is Anyone Noticing?.

Edge continued to reveal even more mind-blowing information about Karpen’s actions:She described how some babies would emerge too soon and would be alive, moving, and breathing. She also told of how Karpen would sometimes deliver the babies feet first with the toes wiggling until he stabbed them with a surgical implement. At the moment the toes would suddenly splay out before going limp. Sometimes he would kill the babies by ‘twisting the head off the neck,’ according to Edge.But not all the babies came out intact. When there was difficulty, Karpen would dismember them, a process that was, according to the surgical assistant Deborah Edge, a bloody mess.‘Sometimes he couldn’t get the fetus out,’ she explained. ‘He would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize. And I’m talking about the whole floor dirty. I’m talking about me drenched in blood.’The U.K.’s Daily Mail describes the women’s tragic account of one baby who attempted to hold on for dear life at Karpen’s clinic, and failed.The women described one occasion where a fetus that Karpen thought was dead suddenly ‘opened its eyes and grabbed the doctor’s finger’ after he wrenched it from the womb. However, it met a similar fate to the other fetuses at the clinic, the women said.Breitbart also reported on the video expose of Karpen’s clinic which demonstrated that Karpen purposely risked the lives of women who came to him for abortions.Rodriguez also accused the abortionist of showing disregard for the safety of his patients. She indicated that he would sometimes insert the instruments through the woman’s stomach if it was the easiest way to kill the baby.Edge also claimed that she routinely observed Karpen ‘hurting patients on the table’ and not telling victims of botched abortions that he had lacerated their cervix or uterus.A third former employee, Gigi Aguilar, alleged, ‘If he had a patient that asked a lot of questions, he would prefer for them to be put to sleep.’‘The women who go there had no idea what they were getting themselves into,’ Edge said.The numbingly ugly truth about Douglas Karpen’s clinic demonstrates that, despite claims from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other abortion supporters, Kermit Gosnell was not alone. He was not an aberration. When women, doctors, and clinic workers are sucked into the lie that abortion is just a matter of simple “choice,” they are all too often blinded to the fact that it never ends there. Gosnell, Karpen, Nicola Riley, LeRoy Carhart – and others – demonstrate that abortion is nothing but the horrific taking of innocent children’s lives. Such a “choice” should never be allowed in a civilized society.

 

“Same-sex marriages” — redefining marriage and fidelity

Via Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret – NYTimes.com.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

Of course not!  That is the dirty little secret of the gay world: They will have literally hundreds of sex partners over the course of their lives, often anonymous.  How soul-crushing is that?  It does explain why gays have 40+ times higher rates of Syphilis and HIV, partly because 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive have unprotected sex with men  .  Meditate on that for a moment.  How evil and vile do you have to be to knowingly risk infecting others with a deadly disease, just because you don’t want to wear a condom when having sex?  That is one of the most profoundly selfish acts imaginable, yet the mainstream media and “comprehensive sex education” classes never tell you about these things.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

Yep.  You wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of the agenda.  Just go watch some more episodes of Modern Family, people.  Nothing to see here.  Whatever you do, don’t apply critical thinking skills or the Bible.

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

That is how it works for Chris and James. Over drinks upstairs at the venerable Twin Peaks Tavern in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, they beamed as they recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. “Even homeless people and bike messengers were congratulating us,” said Chris, 42.

A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

Oh, well if you have some rules and check in with each other before having sex with other people that’s fine.

Seriously, the NY Times title was ironic enough, calling relationships with built-in infidelity “successful.”   I guess if you are redefining marriage you can redefine whatever you like.

And the fact that the “pro-gay Christians” ignore this rampant infidelity while advocating for “same-sex marriage” because the unions are allegedly “loving” is just more proof of their being false teachers.

The mind-numbingly bad “gender pay-equity” myth

How many 2014 Democratic incumbents have gender pay-equity gaps? – Anyone promoting the “77 cents” argument should be ignored for at least one election cycle, because it means they are either wildly ignorant and/or malicious liars.  Republicans should fight back against this as Cruz is doing.

Cruz: “Under President Obama, 3.7 million women have moved into poverty.”

Earlier today, Glenn Kessler predicted that Democrats would find the 77-cent lie too irresistible to jettison. Perhaps a dose of their own medicine might cure them.

. . .

It turns out President Obama isn’t the only hypocritical Democrat, in fact Senate Democrats have their own problems when it comes to equal pay.  We pulled the official payroll records of various offices and calculated the average pay for men and women in each office for the most recent 6 month period available. Since some employees only worked a portion of the six month period, we calculated how much each person was paid per day in order to give an accurate representation.  Here’s what we found:

  • Mark Udall pays women 91 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Mary Landrieu pays women 88 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Mark Begich pays women 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Mark Warner pays women 75 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
  • Gary Peters pays women 67 cents for every dollar that a man makes.

That means on average, these five Democrats on the ballot in battleground states pay women in their office 79 cents for every dollar made by a male employee.  All Republicans support equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender or race for working families, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers. Democrats, on the other hand, don’t practice what they preach.  They’re hypocrites.

Assuming this is accurate, only Landrieu and Udall even make it to the White House’s level of failure on the issue [see update below]. Warner (D-VA) pays less than the 77-cent bogus metric derided by the White House (using their same calculation), while House Democrat Gary Peters — who has declared his candidacy for the retiring Carl Levin’s Senate seat — falls a full ten cents below the national average.

The answer to this is, just as it is in the rest of the country, that men and women have different priorities and desires in the marketplace.

 

 

The IRS scandal isn’t going away

It is stunning how deep this is, and how Elijah Cummings (D) tried but thankfully failed to get this investigation stopped (turns out he is a part of the problem!).  Via Timeline of Targeting: The Evidence Mounts Against the IRS’s Lois Lerner.

Today, the House Ways and Means Committee voted to recommend criminal charges against Lois Lerner.

The Committee’s letter to the Justice Department documents in detail the nefarious character of Lois Lerner’s actions.

The Committee pointed to three specific violations of federal law:

“Lerner used her position to improperly influence agency action against only conservative organizations, denying these groups due process and equal protection rights under the law.  She showed extreme bias and prejudice towards conservative groups.  The letter lays out evidence on how Lerner targeted conservative organization Crossroads GPS as well as other right-leaning groups, while turning a blind eye to similarly-organized liberal groups, like Priorities USA.

“Lerner impeded official investigations by providing misleading statements in response to questions from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

“Lerner risked exposing, and may actually have disclosed, confidential taxpayer information, in apparent violation of Internal Revenue Code section 6103 by using her personal email to conduct official business.”

The letter makes it blatantly clear how Lerner, influenced by pressure from the Left, cultivated a culture of bias and engaged in reprehensible behavior, violating the free speech rights of thousands of Americans.

Most stunning is her open political bias.  Not only does she clearly show animus toward conservative leaning groups, but when President Obama’s own campaign-committee-turned-advocacy-group, Organizing for America (OFA), applied for tax-exempt status, she remarked to one of her employees responsible for reviewing such applications, “Oh—maybe I can get the DC office job!”

If that doesn’t belie her true intentions, what does?  Angling for a job at OFA, using the power of the office for political gain, and putting the full weight of the most dangerously abusive federal agency on the neck of political enemies, but according to President Obama, there isn’t a “smidgen of corruption.”

The evidence to the contrary is mounting.

The House Ways and Means Committee has put together an detailed and damaging timeline of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives.

The timeline that follows is very detailed.  What adds to the insult is how Obama tries to pretend there isn’t even a “smidgen” of corruption and the media lets him off the hook.  Even Democrats should realize the problems of letting an organization like the IRS operate like this.