Pro-life Plank Denied by DNC Platform Committee

This is a follow-up to my previous post, It’s Not About Politics, It’s About Who You Are.

Well folks, it’s almost official (of course, it won’t be official until the final platform is adopted in convention). The platform committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has rejected any notion of supporting human life as a plank.

Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) proposed the following plank for inclusion of the party platform (as reported by LifeNews):

“We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

“However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term.”

Some pro-abortion politicians have to stated that they want to reduce the number of abortions and that any abortion that occurs should be safe and legal. Well, that sounds like what DFLA’s proposed plank is saying but we don’t hear any pro-aborts supporting it. In fact, the plank didn’t say anything about overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortions illegal, yet the staunchly pro-abortion platform committee dismissed it out of hand.

In fact, something that should worry the radical pro-abortion forces in control of the DNC is the decreasing numbers of pro-life office holders. Since the population usually polls around a 50-50 split in terms of pro-life or pro-abortion, with one side taking the lead and then the other side reclaiming it, it should concern the DNC that pro-life Americans are abandoning the DNC.

According to DFLA, in 1978, the Democratic Party has seen the number of pro-life Democrats shrink over the years.

“In 1978, the Democratic Party, held a 292-seat majority in the U.S. House, with 125 pro-life Democrats. Increased partisanship over the pro-life issue—including the rejection of pro-life candidates within the Democratic Party—caused many of the pro-life Democratic districts to elect Republican candidates. In fact, the number of pro-choice Democrats in the House has essentially remained around 167.  It is the number of pro-life Democrats that decreased from 125 to only 17, leaving Democrats overall with only 184 Members,” it said.

As I have stated over and over again, it would be great if ALL political parties in the U.S. believed in and upheld the sanctity of human life. Then we could actually talk about the differences between the various parties. Until then, human life needs to be held as the first human right that needs to be defended; for without it, all other so-called “rights” are meaningless.

To find out more about Democrats For Life of America, click here.

Pro-abortion Writer Says, “I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me”

On August 6, 2012 a pro-abortion writer using the pseudonym Lynn Beisner wrote an online article entitled “I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me.” The writer comes to this conclusion because of her personal experience of abuse as a child and the struggles she has had to overcome.

Beisner recoils at stories such as the one belonging to Rebecca Kiessling, a woman who was conceived in rape–a situation where many people, including pro-lifers, would say it is okay to abort the baby–and is now a wife, mother, attorney, writer, and pro-life speaker. Beisner believes that “if we want to keep our reproductive rights, we must be willing to tell our stories, to be willing and able to say, ‘I love my life, but I wish my mother had aborted me.'”

In recounting her own story, Beisner states, because of her mother’s own experiences of traumatic brain injury, rape, parental suicide, and an unplanned pregnancy due to coercive sex:

With that constellation of factors, there was a very high statistical probability that my mother would be an abusive parent, that we would spend the rest of our lives in crushing poverty, and that we would both be highly vulnerable to predatory organizations and men. And that is exactly what happened. She abused me, beating me viciously and often. We lived in bone-crushing poverty, and our little family became a magnet for predatory men and organizations. …

If this were an anti-choice story, this is the part where I would tell you how I overcame great odds and my life now has special meaning. I would ask you to affirm that, of course, you are happy I was born, and that the world would be a darker, poorer place without me.

It is true that in the past 12 years, I have been able to rise above the circumstances of my birth and build a life that I truly love. But no one should have to make such a Herculean struggle for simple normalcy. Even given the happiness and success I now enjoy, if I could go back in time and make the choice for my mother, it would be abortion.

The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done—including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner—could have been done as well if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.

As I read these words, my emotions didn’t turn to hate or anger or (even) disgust. Instead, I could only pity her and those who hold her views.

I felt pity because the writer lives in a totally utilitarian world in which the only value a person has is measured by what she contributes to society. And if she doesn’t contribute as much as she takes out, then her life is totally useless and she considers herself so valueless that she believes it would have been better if her mother had aborted her years ago.

I felt pity for the writer because she can see no other reason for her life than to make a difference in this world, and even then, the differences she makes as a mother and as an academic (as stated in her bio) don’t really seem to matter because she thinks that her mother’s choice to not abort her ruined the fractured life of her mother even more.

I felt pity because Beisner’s thoughts portray a life that doesn’t seem to understand that all life is precious, no matter the circumstances of the beginning of that life, the past or current state of that life, or the way that life will end. She misses the point that all human life is precious and valuable because of God’s creative work and Jesus Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Because there is something beyond what we can see before us, our lives have value and meaning beyond measure.

And though Beisner and I don’t agree on this topic, I would have to say that, yes, the world would be a darker and poorer place without her because it would be missing one more of God’s children due to our sinful human nature.

That’s why we must never give up this fight. We do it not only for the temporal lives of the babies saved, women and men healed, handicapped cared for, and elderly honored. We do it because these are opportunities to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with others. We do it because God “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV).

Lynn Beisner–whoever you may be–you are in my prayers.

It’s Begun — Onerous Regulations Under PPACA

It’s begun. My healthcare provider didn’t wait until our new plan year, it has implemented new coverages immediately starting August 1.

I just received an email from the HR director at my secular job (I have a “regular” job in addition to my position at the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod) regarding the new mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that requires all health insurance plans, except grandfathered plans, to cover things that are considered women’s healthcare such as contraceptives and sterilization.

It’s amazing how words are thrown around to make ideas look good and most people don’t take the time to actually read the words and question what’s really happening. From the email I received:

Under the Affordable Care Act, women will now have access to life-saving preventive care, such as mammograms and contraception, without paying any more out of their own pockets.

I took issue with this sentence in the email for several reasons. Firstly, it should be noted that mammograms were always covered under our health plan as preventative care. Secondly, when did contraception become a “life-saving” medication? Finally, to make things sound really good, they added “without paying any more out of their own pockets”? Really? Because the last time I checked, nothing is free…oh that’s right, the woman will pay for it in increased premiums, as will everyone else in this plan.

On the first page of a newsletter from the health insurance provider attached to the email, there’s a table showing all the wonderful new coverages under women’s healthcare. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for healthcare that benefits people, but here are some new provisions that should make everyone pause and think:

1. Counseling and screening for sexually transmitted infections for females only beginning at age 10.

2. Counseling and screening for HIV for females only beginning at age 10.

3. Coverage for contraceptive methods and counseling:
a. Counseling, females beginning at age 10;
b. Oral contraceptives as prescribed;
c. Injected/implanted contraception as prescribed; and,
d. Sterilization, females only.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t males also get STIs? Why does the mandate, and my health plan, only cover counseling and testing for females? And why beginning at age 10? And why should my health plan, to which I pay premiums, cover a personal choice like sterilization? The plan doesn’t cover elective plastic surgery, so why should it pay for elective sterilization?

My really BIG question is this: doesn’t this amount to gender bias or gender discrimination? Females can get all these services provided for free (on the surface), but males have to pay for them? Why is there no outrage over this discrimination? Where’s the ACLU to protect me from this bias?

As for those who crafted and supported this legislation, I can’t speak for their motives, I can only question them as I look at what we’re being forced to do. For more on why it is wrong to start “counselling” 10-year-old girls about STIs and contraception, read a series on sexuality on Ezerwoman’s Blog starting with “Sexuality & the War on Women.”

The pro-aborts claim that pro-life folks are waging a war on women, but let’s look at the real facts. They want to sexualize children by 5 years old, they want to make contraception available (to females only) by 10 years old and have all of us pay for it, and they want no limits on abortions such as parental consent or notification (and also make us pay for it–don’t forget that there’s a $1 monthly charge on every health plan participant to pay for abortions under PPACA). And one final truth for everyone to consider: 50 percent of the 1.2 million babies aborted every year in the US are female.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like the pro-aborts are the ones who are really waging a war on women. Unfortunately well-meaning folk are being used by them to promote this war and it’s our mothers/wives/sisters/daughters who will pay  the consequences.

It’s Not About Politics, It’s About Who You Are

Yes, I stood in line yesterday (August 1, 2012) at Chick-fil-A to show my support for the company and for the owners. Yes, I had hoped to make a statement that, in this country, it is okay to make a statement based on our religious beliefs and you shouldn’t fear being vilified by the liberal media and those who don’t agree with you. Yes, I hope the elected officials who showed their intolerance towards those who disagree got a message that THEY are the closed-minded bigots.

However, here’s my biggest fear: the people who showed their support will not show it again when it comes to other decisions; for example, at the voting booth on election day. I’m about to make statements that almost everyone will call politically motivated. I disagree, it’s really about who you are and who you support.

There were some supporters of the presumed Republican candidate for president at my Chick-fil-A, and while some were happy to take bumper stickers and voiced their support, there were others who didn’t. Now I’m not sure which candidate or political party those who weren’t receptive are supporting, I didn’t ask and there are other parties and candidates other than the two major ones, but it’s a good chance that you’re supporting either the Republican party or the Democratic party and their respective candidates.

The question I have for those who supported Chick-fil-A yesterday is this: who are you voting for in November? I’m not here to sway your allegiances one way or the other. I’m here to ask you to take a look at yourself and who you are, then consider your actions and why it was necessary to even have a special day to support Chick-fil-A in the first place; or why it’s necessary for Christian businesses and organizations to spend time, money, and resources fighting to preserve their freedom of religion against a law that will force them to do something contrary to their beliefs.

You see, the Democratic National Party has for many election cycles showed it’s official support in it’s party platform for abortion-on-demand  and it appears it will continue to do so as this year’s committee is headed by a strategist for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US.  But a new revelation appeared a few days ago: apparently, the platform committee will insert into the party platform official support for same-sex marriage.

A message that needs to get out to everyone is that your vote has consequences. Some people would call me a one issue voter (pro-life), but that’s wrong. I have many opinions on many topics; such as military and war, science and technology, the poor and needy, public school education, and on and on and on. But there are primary issues, basic paradigms, and first things that need to be considered…well, first. For me, that’s the sanctity of human life. If you don’t start there, I won’t consider voting for you. If you do start there, then let’s open a dialogue about some of the other issues we face in our nation.

I have often stated that it would be great if every political party in this nation began with the sanctity of human life as its basis, then we can continue to dialogue about other issues like education, military spending, or social security. But as long as we continue to support party platforms that demean human life and stifle freedom of religion, then nothing else matters.

Who are you? And what do you stand for?

Did you stand in line yesterday at Chick-fil-A but will be an ardent Democrat even though the party will officially stand against your beliefs and what you hold dear? Or will you send a message to the elitist leaders of that party that you won’t be used anymore and they need to align the party’s platform with your beliefs?

Maybe it’s just me, but I think this year’s presidential elections will say more about us as persons than us as a nation.

See a follow-up post on this topic, Pro-life Plank Denied by DNC Platform Committee.

The Nazi Plan Step 2

This is part 4 of my thoughts from The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton (click here to see it on  Click here to read part 3.

The second step of the Nazi plan that Dr. Lifton identified was the killing of “impaired” children in hospitals. It started innocently enough, midwives and physicians were asked to completed reports at the time of birth. The first reports asked for information where “‘serious hereditary diseases’ were ‘suspected’: idiocy and mongolism (especially when associated with blindness and deafness); microcephaly; hydrocephaly; malformations of all kinds, especially of limbs, head, and spinal columns; and paralysis, including spastic conditions.”(52)

Children who were labelled with a hereditary disease were continually evaluated until they eventually arrived in special wards “whose chiefs and prominent doctors were known to be politically reliable and ‘positive’ toward the goals of the Reich Committee.'”(53) The children were eventually killed in those wards.

Why did parents allow this to happen to their children? How can someone convince a parent that it would be better to kill his child than to let the child live? They used the idea where healing and killing were reversed. Lifton writes (54):

A doctor could tell a parent that “it might be necessary to perform a surgical operation that could possibly have an unfavorable result,” or explain that “the ordinary therapy employed until now could no longer help their child so that extraordinary therapeutic measures have to be taken.” Dr. Heinze, who used such phrases with parents, explained in court testimony that there had been truth to what he said: “A very excitable child . . . completely idiotic . . . could not be kept   quiet with the normal dose of sedatives,” so that “an overdose . . . had to be used in order to . . . avoid endangering itself through its own restlessness.” At the same time, “we physicians know that such an overdose of sedative, for children usually luminal . . . could cause pneumonia . . . and that this is virtually incurable.”

“Horrible,” you think to yourself. “Unconscionable,” you suggest. What if you were told that this happens everyday today in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom? What if you were told that anywhere between 85 to 92 percent of the babies diagnosed with Downs Syndrome in the U.S. were aborted? (Click here, here, or here for more information.) What if you were told that during the in vitro fertilization procedure, preimplantation genetic diagnosis is conducted on the embryo and those with Down Syndrome or some other genetic disease were discarded? (Click here for a recent article.)

Make no mistake, step 2 of the Nazi plan is alive and well as we abort babies or discard embryos just because they have some sort of genetic disease.

And don’t forget about making killing sound like healing. For example, how do pro-aborts talk about abortions and abortion-inducing drugs? They are considered as part of women’s healthcare. Opponents of abortion or mandatory insurance coverage for possible abortion-inducing drugs (e.g. Ella, Plan B, morning after pill) are vilified by the media and by pro-aborts as not caring for women’s health.

And how do the supporters of physician assisted suicide get it legalized? By saying this is a medical treatment that will help end the suffering of the patient. In physician assisted suicide, the person wanting to die gets a prescription that basically is an overdose of painkillers or sedatives. Does that sound familiar?

Yes, the tactics that the Nazis employed are still in use by those who want society to embrace death as a cure.

Update July 19, 2012.