Thursday, April 24, 2014

Politician explains ‘epiphany’ that led him to oppose abortion even in cases of rape

LifeSiteNews reports that "Canadian Parliament Member Kyle Seeback openly admits that he was once 'fairly comfortable' with the viewpoint that a pregnant woman should have the option to abort in the case of rape. He also says that even though he saw abortion as okay for rape and incest, he still thought of himself as 'pro-life.'

But all that changed one day when Seeback was invited by Campaign Life Coalition to attend a talk by Rebecca Kiessling, a woman who was conceived in rape and adamantly defends the right to life for everyone conceived in rape.

'It just resonated with me right away. I kept thinking: ‘Why would someone get to choose that she would not have a life.’ It didn’t make sense to me,' he said earlier this month.

Kiessling was conceived in rape prior to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Kiessling’s mother would have aborted her had abortion been legal at the time, but was ultimately prevented from doing so by Michigan state law. Kiessling calls the pro-life legislators active at the time she was conceived her “heroes” for having laws protecting her life.

Seeback said that Kiessling’s talk transformed his view on being pro-life except in the case of rape.

'If life begins at conception then abortion is taking a life. I don’t think that [abortion] is an appropriate response to a terribly traumatic event (rape),' he said.

'To say that because you went through a very terribly traumatic event (rape) — of course it was — you can then end someone else’s life? To me it just didn’t make sense [anymore].'

One of the common points you'll hear pro-life advocates make is that, in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape, the unborn child should not have to pay with his life for the sins of his father. That's very true - and Rebecca Kiessling would certainly agree. But what you don't often hear is that many women who have chosen abortion under these circumstances often seek counseling not because of - or only because of - the rape, but because they're traumatized by the abortion.

Unfortunately in our country, abortion is seen not only as the most viable solution to a tragic situation, but in many ways it's pushed as the only solution. The truth is, though, that the evil of abortion does not erase the evil of rape - it only compounds the evil. And if even one rape victim is further traumatized by the ensuing abortion, shouldn't we at least consider the well-being of the mother before selling abortion as her only hope? Or has our country become so entrenched in the culture of death, that the mother's well-being is secondary to anything that promotes death over life?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

From LifeSiteNews

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Another anti-life woman to head our Health and Human Services

Replacing former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is Sylvia Mathews Burwell. Appointed by President Obama in what seemed like minutes after Sebelius’ departure, Burwell doesn’t seem like she will be much better than Sebelius – well, not if the sanctity of human life is important to you, that is.

A quick look into Burwell’s past reveals she spent a decade leading the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's population control efforts in the Third World.

For those who may not be familiar with what the Gates Foundation supports, here’s an overview:
Between 1998 and 2012, the Gates Foundation gave:
--  International Planned Parenthood Federation $41,876,150. This includes more than $20 million in 2007 alone.   
--  Planned Parenthood Federation of America $12,984,000.
      --  The UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) and Americans for UNFPA $56,681,272 in 2000. (The UNFPA is the same group that was in cahoots with China in supporting forced abortions, involuntary sterilization, kidnapping of “illegal” children, and other brutal tactics). 
  -- An indirect grant to UNFPA of $2.2 billion for “reproductive health.” 

Moreover, during Burwell's tenure, the Gates Foundation became a corporate partner of Pathfinder International, which “believes access to abortion services is not only a public health imperative, it is also every woman's right,” according to its website.

In July 2012, Melinda Gates raised $2.6 billion for population control measures at a London-based summit, offering more than half-a-billion of the foundation's own dollars. Yet Gates insists her agenda “is not abortion. It is not population control.”

If it’s not about abortion or population control, then what is it? But I digress.

Regardless, the new HHS Secretary Burwell was a dedicated supporter of the anti-life, anti-population initiatives of the Gates Foundation for ten years. Considering we’re losing at least a million of our own population here in America every year to abortion, and the fact that the Obama administration is being encouraged by the CDC to use Medicaid to pay for underage girls to get abortifacient contraceptives without their parents' knowledge or consent, is a pro-abortion, pro-population control woman the one we want in charge of the HHS? It gives me the chills.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Once again, liberals get it wrong on Church and State issue

A NYC Department of Education policy allows religious and other community organizations to use classrooms and other facilities for after-hours programs, but won’t allow the buildings to be used for actual worship. A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday to uphold this policy.

Many small religious congregations cannot afford their own houses of worship, so they rent public spaces to do so. But part of the appeals court decision was that the government cannot subsidize a congregation for their use of public facilities to worship, and therefore, they are banned from using such facilities.

Apparently the two judges deciding this way didn’t see the memo that the congregation in question – the Bronx Household of Faith – is not being subsidized by the government. They are paying for the space with their own money, and using the space only when nobody else is using it.

Somehow, though, the New York Civil Liberties Union sees the court ruling as “a victory for religious freedom.”

“When a school is converted to a church in this way, it sends a powerful message ... that the government favors that particular church. Our Constitution gives all New Yorkers the right to worship — or not — as they choose,” said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director.

So according to Ms. Lieberman, New Yorkers have the freedom to worship as they choose, they just don’t have the freedom of assembly to do that worshiping. How is that a victory for any freedom?

Ms. Lieberman is also fantastically wrong in saying that allowing the school to be used for worship signifies government’s endorsement of that religion. No, it only means the government is endorsing the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the free exercise of religion and assembly.

The government would be erring on the side of religion if it established an official religion of America. That’s what the founders of our country were escaping from in England, where it had established the Church of England as its official church – and that is why our First Amendment is worded to say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Allowing free Americans to worship in an empty building for which they are paying rent is hardly forcing religion on anyone. Shame of the NYCLU and the judges for saying otherwise.

It’s amazing how many Americans seem to forget that our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. While Muslims are allowed to use public schools in NYC, I wonder if anyone is monitoring them to make sure they are not worshiping Allah while there. I doubt it. As usual, it’s the Christians being singled out and bullied by an increasingly intolerant, tyrannical left.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.