It’s been quite a while since I last posted anything here.
However, I’d like to start posting again and I hope it will be consistent again this time 🙂
Thank you for your patience 🙂
It’s been quite a while since I last posted anything here.
However, I’d like to start posting again and I hope it will be consistent again this time 🙂
Thank you for your patience 🙂
This week I talked with a good and holy Franciscan priest while I was spreading the pro-life message on a college campus. He suggested that we have fewer abortions under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. He was very bold in stating that: “It’s a fact.”
Now, I’ve heard the idea before that since Democrats tend to favor federal social programs that those programs reduce the need for abortion. But, for some reason, the words of this priest stirred me to investigate further. What I found will surprise a lot of Catholics…
It should be quite easy to prove this preist right or wrong since we have statistics on abortion since before Roe. So, we should be able to match those stats up with the years of Democrat presidents and Republican presidents and see pretty clearly which ruling party has fewer abortions on their watch.
So, I looked up the reported number of abortions and the abortion rates since 1974 (the year after all abortion restrictions were removed by Roe v Wade) up until 2008 the latest year that has complete data. I then matched that up with the different presidents that we’ve had. Finally, I calculated the total number of abortions under each party and divided by the number of years that party held the executive office. I also averaged the abortion rates under each party. You can download my calculations here. I got the data from here and here.
You can replicate this yourself, it’s a simple calculation.
It turns out that Republican presidents average lower abortion numbers and lower abortion rates than Democrat presidents. On average, under Democrat leadership, there were 70,172 MORE abortions per year than under Republican leadership. According to this data, a Democrat president leads to an average increase in the abortion rate of 5.29% more than a Republican.
So, the ‘Fact’ that this preist was telling me turns out to be a myth. Why was he wrong?
I think it’s because in the 90’s there were fewer abortions under Clinton than there were under Bush the elder. So, people at that time justified voting Dem because it appeared that Clinton brought abortions down. But, there were fewer abortions under GW Bush than there were under Clinton. So, this myth has persisted for nearly 20 years!
Did you believe it too? Well, it’s not your fault. You were misled into believing this myth. But, now you know 🙂
But wait, there’s more…
There are a lot of factors that influence the number of abortions in our country. To leave the numbers where they are could be misleading. I don’t think these numbers tell the full story. Let’s go deeper…
First of all, these are US abortions. Democrat Presidents (including Obama) promote abortion throughout the world through funding population control at the UN, expanding taxpayer funding for abortion providers abroad and other such policies. The Obama Administration supported pushing for the legalization of abortion in Kenya, for example. These increases in abortions are not accounted for in the numbers analyzed above.
I still think there’s more to the story.
Take a look at this graph.
You can see the blue line increase up until 1990 and then start to decrease thereafter. (It’s a little clearer on the chart here.) What do you think happened in the early 90s that started the downward trend in abortion numbers. Maybe it was a new democrat social program?
It was a Supreme Court case.
After Roe v Wade, there were basically no regulations on abortion whatsoever. States started passing reasonable regulations and Planned Parenthood sued to get those regulations declared unconstitutional. The result was the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision of the Supreme Court.
Planned Parenthood v Casey allowed states to finally regulate and restrict abortion. Most of the regulations to abortion that were challenged in PP v Casey were upheld and allowed to go into effect. This gave the green light to other states to start passing more restrictions on abortion. Looking at the data, it’s clear that the drop in abortion numbers and rates came as these restrictions went into effect. Once pro-lifers were able to pass restrictions on abortion, the abortion numbers started to decline and have continued to do so for the last 20 years.
This lines up perfectly with the numbers. Abortion numbers peaked in the US in 1990. I’m no lawyer, so I’m open to correction here, but PP v Casey was already coming up through the courts and the lower court actually lifted the injunction in 1991 which is the year that abortions started to decline.
Coincidence? I think not and nor does Dr. Michael New who’s research shows that restrictions like those allowed by the Casey decision do in fact reduce abortions.
It appears that the reduction in abortions in the US comes not from Democrat social programs, but more from Republican restrictions on abortion. In fact, Democrats fight tooth and nail to block these abortion reducing restrictions in every state and at the federal level.
As you get ready to vote this November, remember that Barack Obama has never supported a single restriction on abortion. It’s clear from the data that these restrictions reduce abortions. In fact, he voted against the Illinois version of the most reasonable and bipartisan restriction known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He also does not support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. (Sound to extreme for Mr. President? Look it up. Sadly, I’m right.)
Furthermore, Obama fervently supports the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would basically nullify all restrictions on abortion and potentially bring us back to pre-1992 levels of abortion (That would be an increase of about 400k abortions per year!). On top of all that, Obamacare will fund abortion and if fully implemented will amount to the largest increase in abortions since Roe.
It may make you feel better to say that Democrats reduce abortions, but in the end, it just doesn’t add up.
“But Mitt Romney won’t do anything about abortion anyway!” you say?
Well, he will reverse Obama’s international abortion push. That’s been Republican policy back to Reagan. But let’s say you’re right. I’m not totally convinced that he will restrict abortion beyond those international measures either.
Even if Romney isn’t going to actively restrict abortion…
1 – Obama will do everything he can to stop any and all abortion reducing restrictions.
2 – Obama will continue to promote international abortions.
3 – Full implementation of Obamacare will cause the greatest increase in abortion in 40 years.
4 – If Obama gets his way with the Freedom of Choice Act and Obamacare, we would have at LEAST 400,000 more abortions per year than we do now.
As a Catholic, you have to ask yourself: Is voting for Obama really worth it?
I’ve always found it ridiculous to hear the dishonest manipulation of the English language that abortion promoters use to sanitize the dismemberment of pre-born human beings.
They dehumanize the little boy or girl who is not yet born by using words that erase all humanity.
“Clump of Cells”
“Blob of Tissue”
“Product of Conception”
When I first started learning about the abortion issue, I thought it was absurd that anyone would use these ridiculous terms. I didn’t really believe it at first. But, sadly, it’s true…
The humanity of the pre-born child is denigrated over and over and over.
It reminds me of learning about slavery in the United States. There were words used then in reference to African Americans that were meant specifically to dehumanize them.
They talked about slaves as if they were sub-human chattel so that it was easier to abuse their God given rights.
The same thing happens now with abortion. It’s much easier to support dismembering a human being (pre-born child) when you’ve convinced yourself that it’s not a human being. Just as it’s much easier to buy, sell, beat and kill a human being (slave) when you’ve convinced yourself that it’s not a human being.
So, people massage their consciences through semantic manipulation. This keeps their consciences from reacting fervently to the horrible act of abortion. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not horrible. It means their consciences aren’t working properly.
Our consciences should react with great fervor when we encounter great injustice!
The dishonesty in language is overwhelming sometimes. It’s often easy for people to miss it. But, what if it were used consistently?
What would the world look like if we used the dehumanizing terms above in all contexts?
It would be absurd.
My friend Kelsey, at SecularProLife.org, tipped me off to this great video. It shows the ridiculousness of the language used by abortion promoters by showing it used consistently… finally!
Can you think of other examples of dehumanizing or deceptive terms that are used to promote abortion? Please share in the comments below!
Here’s a great opportunity from Stand True for students!
If your Spring Break is between March 9th and April 17th we want you to spend it praying for the end of abortion. Stand True and Austin Coalition for Life are teaming up to provide a great pro-life mission opportunity for you during spring break.
March 9th marks the start of the spring 40 Days for Life campaign where pro-lifers from around the world gather to pray and minister outside of abortion clinics. Hearts and minds are change and hundreds of babies are saved during each 40 Days for Life event.
Former Planned Parenthood Director, Abby Johnson quit and joined the pro-life movement because of the efforts a 40 Days for Life campaign in Texas. One of the key figures in her journey into the pro-life movement is Elizabeth McClung who will be hosting this Spring Break Mission Trip in Austin, TX.
Elizabeth is organizing host homes and meals for any college student who wants to spend their spring break doing pro-life work. If you can make it to Austin Texas, we can provide you with food and lodging as you join us praying at the abortion mill as part of the 40 Days for Life and volunteering for Austin Coalition for Life.
If you are interested in spending your spring break saving babies instead of getting a tan, we would love to have you join us in Austin.
E-mail [email protected] for more details.
Austin Coalition for Life – http://austincoalitionforlife.com
Find out more about 40 Days for Life at – http://www.40daysforlife.com
Activism is the heart of every social movement. It is essential to change the culture. When speaking of human rights injustices, especially something as grave as abortion, activism is the natural and appropriate response to a deeper understanding of injustice.
I never thought I would be anything close to an activist. The term often engenders thoughts of people unreasonably screaming at each other and I, like many others, always wanted to be far, far away from that sort of activity.
In fact, when I first started learning about the injustice that is abortion, I resisted the urge to act. Being right was enough for me. Doing right was difficult, uncomfortable and quite frankly foreign to me. I started out by learning and researching about abortion and other life issues. I was immersing myself in reading and listening to talks and watching presentations to fill my brain with knowledge.
I was satisfied with just talking about it with my pro-life friends and learning about it in the safety of my dorm room. Among other reasons, I was turned off by the ‘crazy people’ caricature of activists to really do much.
Fortunately, this caricature is not true activism. In fact, it is an unhelpful waste of time that most reasonable people don’t want to have anything to do with. Pretty much all pro-life activists that I’ve ever met don’t operate that way.
According to Webster’s, activism is “…taking positive, direct action to achieve an end, esp. a political or social end.” When we understand the injustice that is happening, if we are honest with ourselves, our hearts cry out for a more just society. If we take this reaction seriously, we must take positive, direct action. We must become activists.
Often activism is thought to be a big and very impersonal thing. We hold signs, we protest, we write letters, we march, we hand out literature and occasionally engage someone whom we have never met. All of these things are generally (but not always) quite impersonal. All of these things are examples of activism, but they are not the full picture.
Along with such means of impersonal activism I think we need to all cultivate a sense of “Personal Activism.” That is, we must take positive, direct action in our personal lives. This action can start very small as a conversation with a friend or family member. In fact, I think that’s where it must start.
Although signs and protests are scary to some, I think personal conversations with people close to you or with your peers can be much more scary. There you have to open yourself up in a more intimate way. Standing on the street, while requiring courage, is in many ways much easier than having a difficult but constructive conversation with someone who is close to you.
Today, I issue a challenge to myself and to all pro-life people: Become an activist. If you are truly pro-life then you understand the grave injustice happening over 3,500 times every single day. If you understand that, then let yourself be moved to positive, direct action on behalf of those who suffer at the hands of the abortionists.
How are you going to become more active in this crucial movement? Put your comments below.
Image by mlinksva
I go to GrooveShark and type in Justin Beiber. GrooveShark’s autocorrect tells me that it’s actually spelled Bieber (out of a fear of millions of teen girls, I make a mental note). I click on “One Time” and press play (quickly checking to make sure the volume is turned down low). Then I sit back and listen to my first Bieber experience.
This was my experience after hearing about Justin Bieber’s interview in Rolling Stone Magazine. I’ve heard about this teen idol before, but I can’t say I listen to the radio much and I’ve never had any reason to seek out his music (I tend to stick to classic rock).
Imagine hearing those words… Sound ridiculous? I guarantee that they will be uttered. Whenever someone has a trusting audience, they have a great deal of power to save lives. Justin Bieber has great power.
That’s right, his boyish good looks and high pitched voice are powerful. This isn’t a review of his music but a statement of reality. There are thousands of raving fans, the majority of whom are young girls.
A number of these young girls are or could become pregnant in the near future. They will likely then receive all kinds of pressure and maybe even coercion to abort their baby.
Maybe their boyfriends will leave them. Maybe their parents will threaten to throw them out of the house. Maybe their friends at school will ridicule them. But…
But, what about Bieber? Their beloved teen idol has made a strong statement (undoubtedly heard by millions by now) that he doesn’t believe in abortion. He thinks it’s killing a baby.
That one shred of support amidst the overwhelming pressure to abort from all sides could be the thing that resonates just enough with what these girls know is true in their hearts. That shred of support will be the one thing that pulls some of these girls through their decision to give life to their babies against the pressures of a world that finds their choice to be unacceptable.
Given Bieber’s extraordinary popularity, hundreds of lives could be saved by this one interview. If only other people who have such power would use it for supporting life!
I hope Justin keeps his courage and stays strong against the backlash to his comments. I hope he grows in his pro-life views and expresses them often. I hope you thank him for them here.
I’m predicting a spike in the popularity of the name Justin for babies born in 2011. I also predict that in about 16 years there will be several teens who can say “Justin Bieber Saved My Life”
Do you like his music? Do you like his pro-life-ness? Disagree with me? Comment below!
Step 1 – Gain people’s trust as a source of information
Step 2 – Craft your agenda, but act like you have no agenda
Step 3 – Find bogus studies and experts and hope people don’t fact check
Step 4 – Tell a story to your trusting audience
Step 5 – Sit back and watch as your audience actually believes that your story correspond to reality
What we perceive affects what we believe to be real. This simple fact lends a huge amount of power to those who control the flow information to large groups of people.
Whether you run a blog, a newspaper, a radio show or a cable television program, the power grows with your audience. The power grows with your brand and the trust that people have in your brand. If people trust you, you can craft their perception of reality very easily.
NPR has a lot of trust built up with many people. Therefore, they have a great deal of power to shape reality for many, many people.
Decide what alternate reality you want to create in people’s minds and stick to it.
NPR is notorious for promoting ‘liberal’ ideas and agendas like abortion. They recently ran this story about the psychological after-effects of abortion. I found it, no surprise here, on Planned Parenthood’s facebook page. The story is a clear attempt to discredit Post Abortion Syndrome and put down any question of whether abortion could hurt women.
NPR acts like a neutral news source but, in this case, after a little digging, we see that they are far from it. They masters of step 2.
The study touts experts and scientists and a brand new study to prove that abortion doesn’t hurt women’s mental health. It is forceful and pretty convincing…
Step 3a -Hope No One Reads the Fine Print
It turns out that the main expert quoted in the article is Robert Blum. A man who used to head the Guttmacher Institute.
That sounds good right? Well, to the trusting reader it sounds great. They don’t know who the Guttmacher Institute is and there is little chance they would look it up. After all, they trust NPR…
The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of the largest abortion provider in the United States. That’s right, they’re buddy-buddy with Planned Parenthood. Remember this, if you want to alter reality, you need ‘experts’ who agree with your new reality.
If you have a study, follow NPR’s great example and be sure that there is as much conflict of interest as possible. (Be sure not to publicize that though) The study NPR cites is itself seriously flawed. The study was funded by The Susan Buffet Foundation. This foundation has given millions of dollars to, you guessed it, Planned Parenthood (and other abortion promoting organizations)!
There are other flaws with the study I won’t go into. But if you want to shape reality like NPR you’ll have to be sure the study comes out to agree with your agenda and your experts!
There must be no doubt in your story. There must be only the perception of straight fact and consensus.
NPR does a great job of this. The story comes across as if it is finally settling a debate. In fact, if you listen to the audio it comes across very forcefully.
Robert Blum’s voice is agitated as if he’s an unbiased expert who’s known the truth for a long time and finally everyone agrees with his ‘reality’. There is no doubt or competing ideas presented anywhere. This lack of doubt coupled with the trust many people give NPR makes for a very compelling perception by readers/listeners.
What the readers and listeners perceive through this piece of ‘journalism’ becomes their reality. Because they don’t have the time or background or mistrust to actually check the study or the experts, you have succeeded in creating an alternate reality in their minds.
It doesn’t matter what is real. If you follow these 5 easy steps, you can tell people what is real.
That’s why I recently set up this novena website. The inaugural novena is a novena for Christmas. I decided to create a facebook event to promote the Christmas Novena. I want to get at least 500 people to pray this novena together on behalf of unborn children!
Christmas is a great time to meditate on and pray about the dignity of the unborn children. Jesus came to the world through the womb. So, let’s pray together for an end to abortion!
Here are two images that make it clear that the government often get’s things backwards, particularly regarding abortion.
In this first case, the TSA is using preserving life to justify breaching the right to privacy…
The application of which has resulted in many stories of invasive full body scans and pat downs such as this TSA officer frisking a nun.
In this second case, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton used the ‘right to privacy’ to justify the taking of life by abortion in all 50 states for virtually any reason through all 9 months of pregnancy…
The application of which results in over 3,500 abortions committed every day in the U.S.
Here is my recent article on the Students for Life of Illinois website about Breast Cancer Prevention.
At the closing of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I feel the need to comment on the glaring disparity between many who promote this month and the necessary movement to prevent breast cancer.
This disparity became very obvious when reading two letters published in the Chicago Daily Herald. “Know the Facts on Breast Cancer Risks” By Karen Malec and “Cancer Prevention a Year Round Task” by Carole Brite.
Brite’s letter references prevention in the title, but then does not talk about breast cancer prevention at all. She talks about ‘preventative screenings’ but screenings do not prevent breast cancer from occurring. Screenings look for and find, according to Brite, 9 out of 10 cases of breast cancer. While screening for breast cancer is very important as a method of early detection, it does nothing to prevent the cancer from forming in the first place.
Brite’s letter seems to be nothing more than a PR piece aimed at making her organization, Planned Parenthood, look good. She touts Planned Parenthood’s accomplishments for women’s health three times in the short article.
In fact, when it comes to prevention, it turns out that Brite’s organization does the opposite. Planned Parenthood actively promotes chemicals and procedures known to increase breast cancer risk.
Malec’s letter, on the other hand, focuses on the breast cancer risk factors associated with ‘reproductive health.’ First, she talks about the impact of the artificial hormones in the birth control pill on breast cancer risk…
Last year’s study led by Jessica Dolle, which included National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton as a co-author, reported that recent users of the pill multiply their risk for the deadly, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) by 4.2 times.
Next, she discusses the increased breast cancer risk associated with induced abortion before a full-term pregnancy…
Scientists reported a 40 percent increased risk of breast cancer for women who have had abortions…
…Medical texts reveal that women with larger families, starting at an early age (before age 24), and who breast-feed their children for more months during their reproductive lives significantly reduce their breast cancer risk. Therefore, experts agree that the woman who aborts has a higher risk than does the one who has a full term birth.
She then quickly covers the mechanism by which this phenomenon works:
A first full-term pregnancy matures 85 percent of the mother’s cancer-susceptible breast lobules into permanently cancer-resistant lobules. The unborn child produces the hormones responsible for the maturation.
Do you see the disparity? Brite says she will talk about prevention and then talks about screening and boasts about Planned Parenthood. Malec points to scientific evidence of avoidable risk factors. All of which Planned Parenthood will likely deny because they make up a large portion of their business.
Finally, I’d like to call your attention to the relationship between Planned Parenthood and Komen. It seems an odd pairing that an organization that promotes as its core products abortion and birth control (both increase a woman’s risk for breast cancer significantly) and an organization devoted to finding a cure for breast cancer would have a financial relationship.
Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood, apparently to do more screenings. But what about PREVENTION? Komen’s website does mention the pill as a risk factor (it is listed last), but it gives no mention of abortion’s effect on breast cancer risk.
Komen is willingly and knowingly supporting an organization that actively increases breast cancer risk factors for millions of women. What could be the explanation for this?
I was going to give my opinions on why this is happening, but I will let people who are more familiar with these risk factors and with Komen do the talking. Here is a video I found with various interviews about the Breast Cancer – Abortion Link and Komen. Please watch it! Here.