Unplanned, the pro-life feature film that’s far outrunning box-office predictions this spring, will stir you and surprise you, says contributor Ellen Short.
To oppose abortion while supporting limited government is only logical, argues contributor Mark Shepard. For to let the state determine which human lives do or do not have value is the ultimate in unlimited government.
My wife and I sent this urgent email to all 100 members of the Colorado General Assembly today. The bill has cleared Senate committee and now awaits floor action. Please join Donna and me in raising your voice against Senate Bill 175. Dear Legislator:
We are gravely concerned about SB-175, "Concerning Freedom from Government Interference in an Individual's Reproductive Health Care Decisions."
Please oppose this unwise, unnecessary, ill-considered, extreme, and inhumane bill.
Persons of goodwill can disagree about how widely and easily available abortion should be under law. But a great many Americans would agree with the general approach taken by Bill and Hillary Clinton years ago - that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." SB-175 does not meet that standard.
With its simplistic, far-reaching legislative declaration and policy pronouncement, it ignores the millions of us who believe that two lives, not one, are in the balance when a woman is pregnant. It rules out any kind of reasonable regulation, restriction, or compromise seeking to make abortions safe and rare.
While it's true that one legislature cannot bind the next, and that a repeal or modification of SB-175 (were it to become law) is entirely possible a year from now, it's also true that the law is a teacher and that your vote on such a law is an index of character. To vote for this bill is to go on record for an extreme, intolerant, inhumane, and indeed brutal posture of government in our state. To vote against it is an act of courage and conscience.
Please vote no on SB-175.
The timing couldn't be more profound: just one day after California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown is caught on tape as a campaign aide calls Meg Whitman a "whore", the National Organization for Women announces -- you guessed it -- that it is supporting Jerry Brown for Governor. Proving that liberal orthodoxy trumps gender every time, NOW not only is endorsing a man over a woman in California, but it is apparently not concerned with Brown's acceptance of sexist, demeaning language being used against his opponent. In NOW's view, Whitman -- who is pro-life -- apparently doesn't warrant the kind of protection from mysogynist attacks that the group's charter is supposed to provide all women. But as it has proven time and time again, female conservatives are the wrong kind of women. Not that NOW can't be enraged by a politician's words -- just not those of Democrat politicians. Posted prominently on the NOW website, the group is vehemently denouncing Senator Jim DeMint's "dangerous comments" on gays and sexually active single women "being unfit to teach". According to NOW, DeMint's comments to a "conservative church group" make him a "sexist bigot" who is "ignorant, homophobic" and unfit to serve in the U.S. Congress. DeMint actually made these comments six years ago, and was only recently reflecting on the impact they had in the media in a speech he gave last week to the Greater Freedom Rally in Spartanburg, South Carolina. And he actually said that "gays and unmarried pregnant women" should not be public school teachers -- a statement that NOW extrapolated to mean "sexually active single women" -- as if every sexually active single woman gets pregnant. Leaving aside the wisdom of DeMint's views on these issues, is putting forward a value statement on public education really worse than calling a woman a "whore"?
For NOW -- which has never met a conservative woman it can support, a man who uses a sexist slur is still better than a self-made woman who embodies the very feminist values of hard work and female mobility that the group is supposed to stand for.
What sadness to learn that a Philippine woman gave birth to a baby on a flight from the Middle East and then left him in the trash on the plane. How could a mother do this? But wait! She said she was raped by her employer. Is it now OK to return the baby to the trash and let him die? Yet, isn't this the "choice" of those who advocate abortion? Their position is that it is cruel to force a woman to have a baby resulting from rape or incest.
When is the punishment of one person imposed on another person? Why is a baby in the womb killed because of someone else's sin of rape or incest? If the Filipino woman would have had an abortion before the flight, there would have been no story of a thrown-away baby.
Isn’t the real tragedy that our society approves of abortion while disapproves of babies in the trash? Vote for Amendment 62 as the baby in the womb is a person and not property to be disposed.