Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Pro-Life

25 Apr

By

3 Comments

Be Not Afraid

April 25, 2014 | By | 3 Comments

Here’s the speech I gave earlier today at the Building a Global Culture of Life: The Legacy of St. John Paul the Great at the UN conference in Rome.

In the airport on the way to this conference, a group of students were wearing t-shirts proclaiming “Be Not Afraid.”  If we are to talk of being inspired by Pope John Paul II, there can be no better tribute than that of young people carrying forward his inaugural admonition on their backs.  Be Not Afraid.  It is a simple anthem.  A powerful one that has particular resonance for our conversation today about Pope John Paul II’s legacy in defending life.

The Pope’s first words to the faithful were these:

Be Not Afraid! Open up, no; swing wide the gates to Christ. Open up to his saving power the confines of the State, open up economic and political systems, the vast empires of culture, civilization and development… Be not afraid!”

One of Pope John Paul II’s great legacies was his focus on the nature of the State and its potential to confine – even destroy – human freedom, human dignity and, at its worst, human life.

And so his inaugural words to us here, coming from Isaiah, are intrinsically words of comfort appropriate to a weary movement looking for courage to persist and endure in the face of entrenched opposition:  Fear not, for I am with you, I will strengthen you with my strong right hand.

But in this context, in which the Pontiff goes on to indict the State, the words challenge us as well.  Be Not Afraid! Do not fear to challenge the state when it works to destroy life.

This simultaneous comfort and challenge provides particular inspiration for the prolife movement as we are confronted with established and powerful regimes that are committed to advancing the right to abortion and other anti-life practices like euthanasia.

Pope John Paul II’s emphasis on the importance of the State is an antidote to those who would like to see the fight for life constrained within the boundaries of “culture.”

Pope John Paul II’s emphasis on the importance of the State is an antidote to those who would like to see the fight for life constrained within the boundaries of “culture.”  It is a gentle rebuke to those who view a politically-oriented confrontation as somehow intrinsically tainted and less holy.

From the very start of Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II sets aside this narrow view that diminishes the scope of the defense of life.  In fact, he writes that “every human community and the political community itself are founded” on the “recognition of the sacred value of human life.”

And he puts a particularly fine point on the essential tutelary effect of the law in shaping the political community and informing the governing values of a civilization.

“Although laws are not the only means of protecting human life,” he said, “nevertheless, they do play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.” 

I find this straightforward defense of work in the law inspiring because Americans United for Life was founded two years before Roe v. Wade was decided, out of concern for the increasing hostility to life that was even then becoming entrenched in American law.  As the legal architects of the prolife movement, Pope John Paul II’s recognition of the key role of the law has been a true source of inspiration and encouragement.

His explication of the foundational importance of human dignity provides the antidote to the pernicious idea that abortion is a purely personal and private act.  In fact, he argues that a “collective conscience” – one that is ennobled by an understanding and a recognition of the imperatives of natural law –  this conscience is the protector of the dignity of the human person. Without this societal mooring, peace becomes “illusory” and democracy itself becomes “an empty word.”

It is here that Pope John Paul II is speaking directly and prophetically to a culture whose conscience has been deadened by millions of lives lost by abortion.  The skeptic asks:  why should we care?  The weary warrior asks:  why should we persist?  Pope John Paul II answers both simultaneously when he reminds of us the words of Paul VI who said, “Every crime against life is an attack on peace.”

Without the defense of the least of these, we have a defense of none.  And in a beautiful and stirring passage, he calls the influence of the moral law on civil law “part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.”

Pope John Paul II was not just bold and consistent in speaking out in defense of life, he was also penetrating and rigorous – confronting the shallow twin platitudes of choice and privacy with a powerful explication of why the law must engage and oppose abortion.

“To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law,” he said, “ means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance:  that of an absolute power over others and against others.  This is the death of true freedom.”

He goes on later to draw the logical conclusion, arguing that a state that sanctions the destruction of innocent human life has crossed over into tyranny.  A tyranny that no “democratic” majority can legitimize.

Let us pause and linger a little on Pope John Paul II’s connection between the aggrandizement of sheer power and the death of authentic freedom.  This is a piercing indictment of the feminist mythology surrounding their advancement of the right to abortion.

We now live in a world where abortion is posited as essential to feminine freedom.  In fact, the absolute power over others that Pope John Paul II cites as the perverse outcome of abortion is, in fact, embraced by feminist ideology as “bodily integrity.”  Our Bodies, Our Selves. . . to hearken back to a classic from the feminist canon.

But this formulation of “rights” by necessity stringently avoids the duality inherent in pregnancy.  An ideology that prides itself on respect for The Other averts its eyes.

In Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II looks directly where they will not, and sees the power they miss.

“A mother welcomes and carries in herself another human being, enabling it to grow inside her, giving it room, respecting it in its otherness.  Women first learn and then teach others that human relations are authentic if they are open to accepting the other person:  a person who is recognized and loved because of the dignity which comes from being a person and not from other considerations, such as usefulness, strength, intelligence, beauty or health.  This is the fundamental contribution which the Church and humanity expect from women.  And it is the indispensable prerequisite for an authentic cultural change.”

Abortion destroys not just the new life, it destroys something that Pope John Paul II called “the feminine genius.”  He called on women to promote “a new feminism” which he described as “unique and decisive.”

For many women, Abortion comes at the end of a desert of fear.  It shimmers for them as a false oasis in a parched land of desperation.

In laying out this vision and making this call, he brings us back to “Be Not Afraid.”  He acknowledges that motherhood, while sacred is also scary.  Pope John Paul II reminds us that the angel Gabriel began his greeting to Mary with these words:  “Do not be afraid, Mary.”

For many women, Abortion comes at the end of a desert of fear.  It shimmers for them as a false oasis in a parched land of desperation.

Be Not Afraid.

Be Not Afraid.  These three simple words signify the triumph of hope over death.

Pope John Paul II reminded us that “life is always at the center of a great struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness.”  Being at the pivot point of such a titanic struggle, we might be forgiven a certain trepidation.  But Pope John Paul II’s simple admonition rings sure and true, and inspires us still today to remain strong and courageous in defense of life.

An Historical Perspective: I’m Pro-Life Because…

March 2, 2011 | By | No Comments

Following is a reprint that deserves a wide audience. Robert Morrison is a senior fellow at Family Research Council. This column first appeared on www.frcblog.com.

I’m Pro-Life Because…

by Robert Morrison

January 20, 2011

I’m pro-life because Thomas Jefferson was. What’s that, you say? Jefferson never spoke about abortion. Of course not. Surgical abortion was so dangerous prior until about 1800 that it killed the mother as well as the unborn child. But Jefferson was assuredly pro-life.

“The care of human life and happiness is the first and only legitimate object of good government,” he wrote when he was president. They had a balanced budget then, because the president had his priorities straight.

In 1774, young Jefferson had written “the god who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” That was his ringing phrase in the Summary View of the Rights of British America. God gives us life; God gives us liberty. Pretty clear. Later, of course, Jefferson would give us his best lines: “…all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Under the misrule of Roe v. Wade, 52 million Americans have been denied their inalienable right to life. It is, as it has been from the beginning, wholly illegitimate. Jefferson thought there should be more Americans, not fewer. When he purchased the Louisiana Territory, he said there would be room enough on those fruited plains for Americans to the hundredth generation.

I’m pro-life because Benjamin Franklin was. Well, if you were the tenth son of your father, you’d probably be pro-life, too. Franklin, we know, was not always chaste. He had a child out of wedlock. And he immediately brought him into the family circle, where he raised his son as his own. When that son also had a son out of wedlock, Benjamin loved and cherished this grandson and kept him close to his heart. I don’t recommend this as a way of enlarging a family, but it is surely a pro-life sentiment to love and guide your flesh and blood. Franklin, too, welcomed more Americans. In 1762, before we were even a nation, he calculated what our population might be one hundred twenty years thence.

He predicted that America would be home to 162 million people in 1882. The U.S. Census of 1880 showed Old Ben to have been off by less than one percent! When Dr. Franklin served in Paris, he rode out in his carriage to see the first manned ascent in a hot-air balloon. Fashionable French women fainted to see the balloon rise high above Versailles. (Well, maybe it was those tight corsets or those heavy hairpieces.) Four hundred thousand Frenchmen had come out to see the great event. Someone in the crowd was skeptical, however. They asked Dr. Franklin of what practical use the manned balloon was. With a twinkle in his eye, the most practical man in the world replied: “Of what practical use is a newborn baby?” Now, that’s pro-life!

I’m pro-life because George Washington was. He spoke often of his hopes for America, for millions yet unborn. He noted, in words that were not included in his First Inaugural, but which revealed his heart, that he and Martha had not been blessed with children.

One of Washington’s successors seems to think of children–at least those born out of wedlock as Franklin’s son and grandson were–as “punishments.” Washington knew that children are a blessing from the Lord, and said so. Washington looked West, as Jefferson did, so that America could have room to expand, room to become “the haven for the oppressed of many lands.” No one comes to America to do away with their unborn children.

In signing the Constitution, Washington joined with the childless James Madison in seeking “the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” Now, just who might these men have been thinking about if they did not have children of their own? Us. They thought of us as their posterity. Pro-lifers care about our posterity. We welcome every child in life and work to see them protected in law.

I’m pro-life because Lincoln was. He rejoiced that America’s population was growing–even in the dreadful days of civil war and slaughter–Lincoln welcomed the swelling chorus of the Union. He had put the slavery issue in this context: “Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon.” FRC welcomed President Obama to Washington with those words and this most civil and respectful question: Are not unborn children so stamped?

I’m pro-life because Ronald Reagan, my great chief, was pro-life. In fact, Reagan was the first president to use the term pro-life. He wasn’t just anti-abortion, as the liberal media constantly said. He understood that being pro-life inspired us to oppose abortion and euthanasia–as well as standing up to an evil empire that killed to keep itself in power.

It was Reagan who said “abortion is a great wound in the soul of America.”

And, yes, I’m pro-life because, more than any of these, Jesus is pro-life: “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly.” His Word tells us “therefore choose life.”

Do we need a better reason?

###

Thank you (foot)notes,

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Lila Rose and Charmaine Yoest at Planned Parenthood

February 16, 2011 | By | No Comments

Lila_Rose_Planned_Parenthood_Charmaine_Yoest.JPG

Lila Rose, Left; Charmaine Yoest, Right

Photo Credit: Tom Strode

From the Baptist Press, Posted on Feb 15, 2011 | by Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP)–The country and Congress may be nearing a “tipping point” in the struggle to eliminate federal funding of Planned Parenthood, a young nemesis [Lila Rose] of American’s No. 1 abortion provider said Feb. 14 outside of one of its center…

The result has been renewed and intensified calls for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts in the 2008-09 fiscal year…

Charmaine Yoest, a pro-life, public-policy veteran of two decades, said this “is the best opportunity we’ve had in memory” to defund Planned Parenthood. “[F]inally people are starting to understand how grossly our tax dollars are going to Planned Parenthood, and that awareness is really critical” in the defunding effort, said the president of Americans United for Life.

Read the entire article here.

###

Thank you (foot)notes,

On Twitter,

Cut budget w $363.2 mil to #PlannedParenthood then sex traffickers can pay for their own abortions http://bit.ly/hTgEf3 #exposePP #ProChoice

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

In the Land of Conservative Women: The Fetus Beat Us

September 18, 2010 | By | No Comments


The central issue is not privacy–a woman’s right to control her own body–but rather the reality of visibly moving fetuses that they believe to be fully human.

“You can’t appeal to us through our wombs,” Kellyanne Fitzpatrick says. “We’re pro-life. The fetus beat us. We grew up with sonograms. We know life when we see it.”

Kellyanne_Fitzpatrick_Conway.jpg

Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway

Smart women and technology and open debate are moving the country to consider the life of the unborn baby. The Atlantic Monthly magazine took note of the shift back in 1996.

Excepts from The Atlantic Monthly, Politics, September 1996

In the Land of Conservative Women

A diverse group of woman

activists, including many young people

and small-business owners, are bringing

new energy to the Republican Party

by Elinor Burkett

NO one had ever before tried throwing a big party for young conservative women.

But even before the RSVPs started coming in, April Lassiter was certain that the Eighteenth Street Lounge, the club she and some friends had rented in Washington, D.C., would be as packed on their Thursday night as on any Saturday night.

The invitation–an entreaty to “Merge Right”–had been an immediate hit.

When the Republicans swept into power on Capitol Hill, scores of young conservatives were suddenly emboldened, sure that they now represented the cutting edge–socially as well as politically.

These were Hill rats–that horde of ambitious, idealistic, and underpaid young people who work as press secretaries and floor assistants in congressional offices, as researchers at think tanks and public-relations companies, and as rising associates at law firms and in special-interest lobbies. They see themselves as a generation wresting the Republican Party away from the country-club set.

“For us, there’s been no galvanizing event to connect us to the government; therefore we don’t trust or need it,” says Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, who at twenty-nine runs her own firm, The Polling Company, and sees herself as one of the nation’s only truly conservative pollsters.

She is also a regular election commentator for CNN. “We grew up in car seats while Ma and Dad pumped gas on odd and even days. We watched Challenger blow up. We were the children of no-fault divorces. When I was seventeen, I watched Geraldine Ferraro accept the vice-presidential nomination at the Democratic convention, and thought it was interesting.

Then I listened to Ronald Reagan and saw someone four times my age, of a different gender, and from a different coast, who was communicating a message that appealed to me as a young adult.

Being a liberal is no longer fashionable. It went out with bell-bottoms. We’re never going to be Stepford Democrats. Most of us make Ayn Rand look like a leftist.”

Continue reading at the jump.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Full Disclosure: Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., served on the Board of Advisors on the Independent Women’s Forum.

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., has retained The Polliing Company to research attitudes on abortion.

Read More

Abortion & Life by Jennifer Baumgardner Selected Quotes Photographs by Tara Todras-Whitehill

September 6, 2010 | By | No Comments

I had an abortion.

I_had_an_abortion_baumgardner_abortion_and_life_2010.jpg

Abortion & Life

Jennifer Baumgardner, pregnant on Left

Gillian Aldrich, producer/creator of I Had an Abortion

“By creating a T-shirt so many would see as offensive, the pro-choice movement has intentionally sought to outrage the Christian Right.” p. 174.*

Front: I had an abortion.

Abortion & Life by Jennifer Baumgardner, a pro-abortion feminist, was written in 2008 and published by Akashic Books.

The book begins with a pull quote from Loretta Ross,

The defensiveness that the pro-choice movement has is well-earned. We’ve been shot at, picketed, fought every step. But I’m very glad that the conversation is changing.

Image and imaging are important. The coat hanger “doesn’t evoke memories of barriers that women faced.” P. 10

The book is presented as an even handed “conversation” but devolved by page 10 to ad hominem argument, of, “The fleshy pink faces of Senator Jesse Helms and Representative Henry Hyde…”

The “current symbol of reproductive freedom…?” Could be, “Angels’ wings, to indicate the thousands of women who have abortions and yet believe that a fetus has a soul and is watching over them?” p. 10. Baumgardner is suggesting that the unborn baby might be an eternal being ushered from this world into the next by the “choice” of the mother. This fits with Candace C. Crandall‘s assertion that “The Fetus, Beat Us,”* where pro-aborts had to deal with the pain and loss of the “baby.” This is, of course, merely a tactic to remove or deflect the ‘harm to women’ argument advanced by the pro-lifers.

The author lists “after-abortion counseling groups like Backline and Exhale…the zine Our Truths/Nuestra Verdades to the films Silent Choices and The Abortion Diaries?” p. 11. Baumgardner could have added Racheal’s Vineyard and Silent No More to pro-life counseling services of women who suffer from the trauma of abortion.

“I’ve visited abortion clinics around the country and observed what happens to the remains of eight-week, twelve-week, and fourteen-week aborted fetuses.” P. 12 Baumgardner is silent as to what was seen. Were the remains stuffed down a garbage disposal? Treated as medical waste? Or given a decent burial?

Baumgardner asks herself, “How do women experience abortion?…Why aren’t there more after-abortion resources? And: If you admit you are sad about your abortion, does that mean abortion is wrong?” p. 13. The author asks but does not fully answer the question: If a women feels remorse after an abortion, is it possible the woman now understands that there was a living baby involved? And that the mother regrets her abortion? Polling suggests that women are concerned. Rasmussen reports that 58 per cent of women feel abortion is immoral.

“The number [of abortions] has gone down slightly in recent years…possibly linked to the virginity-abstinence movement…Lack of access and affordability have also been factors.” p. 19. This is confirmed by academic research. Abortion has an elastic demand, where the demand for a product or service is directly tied to a variable: price, 24-hour waiting periods, proximity, viewing a sonogram. (See Michael New, 2010.)

“Although it’s shortsighted, when faced with a slim deadline to raise money and make this decision, some women simply miss the window in which they can have an abortion. P. Baumgardner’s wording is misleading. A woman in the USA can have an abortion at any time even when she goes into labor. She can have an abortion with her child’s feet out of her body with only her child’s head not visible; the child can still be “terminated.” P. 19.

“Abortion is the U.S. is safe. The death rate at all stages is 0.6 per 100,000 abortions…and [is] nearly ten times as safe as carrying a pregnancy to full term.” p. 20.

“Sherri Finkbine, a young mother and television star…host of Romper Room…wanted to warn other women about the dangers of thalidomide to their pregnancies…Finkbine [traveled] to Sweden for her [abortion] procedure. P. 23 Baumgardner is silent on whether the drug thalidomide was a greater danger to pregnancy [re: baby] than abortion.

“My friend got the abortionist to agree to (re)do the procedure–this time for an additional price above his regular price, which was agreeing to his f$cking my friend right after the abortion was performed on her sister.” P. 24. Bumgardner seems to settle the debate that abortion harms women: The mother gets rid of her baby by pimping out her sister-prostitute to the abortionist. All three are without honor and, as a result, there is one less baby in the world. Ramesh Ponnura first wrote of the ‘character’ of the type of person that does the actual abortion baby-removal, “What mother rejoices in proclaiming to the world, loudly, proudly announcing, “Meet my son, The Abortionist!”…?

“The Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act…except to save the life of the mother. This marked the first time any medical procedure was banned, as well as the first time an exception for a woman’s health had been overruled.” P. 34. Baumgardner fails to note that there is no medical justification for a Partial-Birth Abortion, as C. Everett Koop, MD, has written.

“Restrictions [cause] women [to] rarely change their minds about having procedures just because they are forced to jump through hoops.” P. 34. This has been superseded by peer reviewed studies demonstrating that commonsense abortion regulation such as waiting periods reduces the numbers of abortions, suggesting that women, in fact do change their minds. (Michael New, 2010.)

“There is not a link [between having an abortion and breast cancer] at least not according to the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, or major research universities.” P. 37

“Nada L. Stotland, MD, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association [writes] that “meticulous research shows that there is no causal relationship between abortion and mental illnesses.” P. 37.

“I started allowing myself to understand what is true for me: that I think of pregnancy as “life” but this doesn’t have to mean abortion is murder.” P. 47. This is a non sequitur and reveals the twisted backwards logic pro-abortion-choice advocates must fabricate to justify the taking of innocent human life. Indeed, the killing of a baby by the mother. Note Bumgardner’s odd use of ‘truth.’ Truth to her is not transcendent but dependent on her personal interpretation or perhaps her feelings at the moment…

“[A woman who had an abortion] realized that she…actually needed some help with the aftermath of what had turned out to be a profound experience. She began looking for after-abortion resources…All she could find to offer support were thinly disguised antiabortion groups. As a feminist, she says, “I didn’t see anything that reflected my experience” of having and sad feelings around her abortion, but not wanting to make abortion illegal.” P. 50. It is not disclosed if this woman contacted Rachel’s Vineyard or not. This group does non-judgmental post-abortion counseling.

“[A woman who had an abortion] interned at NARAL Pro-Choice California…But when she raised the issue of the lack of emotional resources for women, she was confronted with blank faces. It was, she says, as if admitting that she was struggling with her feelings meant that she wasn’t really pro-choice.” P. 50.

“Aspen Baker…in 2000…created Exhale, a nonjudgmental post-abortion talkline. In 2007, Exhale created a series of Hallmark-like e-cards that people could send to loved ones who’d had abortions–not to celebrate the abortion, but to acknowledge it and offer comfort.” P. 51.

“This shift in focus in the national conversation from “Keep your laws off my body!” to “Let’s talk about feelings and whether fetal life has value” has bee tough for the pro-choice movement…” p. 51

“Peg Johnston…operating Southern Tier Women’s Services, an independent abortion clinic [would] sit in a counseling session with a woman who’d say, “I feel like I’m killing my baby.” Johnston believes that women were genuinely struggling with the value of life and how to do the right thing and be a good person…using words like “loss” and “baby” and “killing”…” p. 53.

Baumgardner asks but does not answer, “What do you do if a patient wants to baptize the remains?” p. 54, emphasis in original.

Women who had abortions would write, “Don’t think of it as losing a baby, but as gaining a guardian angel. These were women who clearly felt relationships to their pregnancies as children, not as masses of cells.” p. 55 Italics in original.

“Emily Barklow [a college student] “struggled with feelings of deviance, selfishness, and loss [after her abortion]…Four years, lots of counseling [led her to] preparing a presentation about her experience [at a NARAL event]…I was disappointed with the lack of depth in the other presentations–all recycled coat hangers and We’ll never go back signs. I would cite this experience as my first real disconnect from the mainstream abortion rights movement.” p. 59.

“Perhaps younger women, in their own entitlement, will begin to make blasphemous statements even more loudly. The most profane is this: Why are feminists so obsessed with abortion? Some of this lingering fascination is [that] we focus on this right because it is fundamental; having the right to control our bodies is directly associated with the right to control our lives.” p. 59.

The author Baumgardner was five months pregnancy and giving a speech at Barnard College’s Students for Choice when she referred to the contents of her uterus as a “baby” instead of “fetus.” “If I said “baby” [referring to her unborn baby] that meant i wasn’t pro-choice, or with the program, or knowledgeable.” p. 60.

“Hillary Clinton…asserted her belief in [Roe v Wade] but also admitted that abortion can be “tragic” for some women…NARAL President Nancy Keenan confessed that “our community tends to run away every time somebody talks about the many emotions that come with this choice” and “we have not done enough to make people who are ‘pro-choice but struggling’ feel like they are part of this community.” p. 60.

“In March of 2007 Aspen Baker…wanted to celebrate the fact that Exhale was sending out 2,500 e-cards every month.” p. 61. Charmaine and Baker debated on CNN; pull quotes here.

“[Democrats for Life] executive director Kristen Day cites a December 2003 Zogby poll finding that forty-three percent of Democrats oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest or to save the live of the mother…” p. 64.

“The need for abortion will never be totally eradicated, according to health activist Barbara Seaman, unless society commits to giving vasectomies to all boys after freezing their sperm, and only allowing procreation through in vitro fertilization after demonstrating sufficient income and maturity to support a child for eighteen years.” p. 65. The Alert Student would be tempted to dismiss Baumgardner for including this passage. But Seaman’s concept was advanced by Margaret Sanger who suggested, without humor, that licenses to marry and procreate be awarded to only those deemed “fit” by your local Planned Parenthood affiliate. The late Barbara Seaman is little known outside academic women’s studies programs and should remain so.

“Norma McCorvey [Roe in Roe v Wade] never actually had an abortion…” p. 70.

Baumgardner is concerned about forced adoptions, “I cried for the many women who were conned into relinquishing their children…

I cried remembering how intense it was to be pregnant and to give birth–how hormones and pain and extreme physical duress combined into what felt like a near-death experience [for her as mother-no mention of an aborted baby]. I recalled how I really understood–in my loosened pelvis, my stretched-out ribs, and the kicks to my cervix from tiny limbs–the sensitive factory that is our bodies, arduously creating another human. p. 70.

Baumgardner is lamenting the “choice” women endure when giving up a child for adoption but come precariously close to advancing a pro-life argument. This defines the schizophrenia of the abortion movement: The baby is human, the baby is a person-and the mother can terminate on a whim.

“So, can you be a feminist and pro-life? The answer is a resounding “yes.”” p. 71.

“With many of the women…giving birth seemed to preclude an investment in their own lives; it meant saying goodbye to a fellowship, to a career of their choosing, or being forced to stay in a relationship they didn’t want with the baby’s father.” P. 74. One could wonder that terminating a baby could indeed terminate a relationship: between mother and child(ren) and father(s).

“Gloria Steinem, born March 25, 1934, [could] not see any way that I could possibly give birth to someone else and also give birth to myself.” P. 79. In Steinem’s search for self, “someone else” — her baby — was sacrificed. To advance women.

Baumgardner quotes Barbara Ehrenreich, “Women do use abortion as backup nowadays, but they often don’t acknowledge it. I’m referring to women who get pregnant purposefully, for instance, but assume that legal abortion will be available as a backup should the child they’re carrying have Down’s syndrome or another abnormality they decide they can’t handle.” p. 87

Baumgardner quotes a Marion Banzhaf, a lesbian (Why do I need to know this? Why does she need to tell me?), “[After the abortion] I was thrilled…I was so happy to see the blood. I felt like my life was beginning over again…I saw a little baby in a carriage and a mom and I thought, Oh, I’m so glad that’s not me…I felt like I had control over what I was going to do with the rest of my life.” P. 90. Italics in original, bold emphasis mine.

Baumgardner quotes Giliian Aldrich, “I called my mom and said, “How could you have done that? I could have had this older brother or sister and you killed them…” p. 98. She later decided she was pro-abortion-choice.

At age 30 Gillian Aldrich was pregnant, “I had zero sentimentality, and didn’t want to even open that door [of keeping the baby]. I thought: If there is a baby in here, It’s not staying. I knew it would destroy our relationship [even though boyfriend wanted the child]. p. 99. Italics in original.

“We went to this…[abortion] clinic…The place was kind of a factory. The counseling session was a joke. I thought that there would be more of an emotional support system in the clinic itself, but there wasn’t.” p. 99.

“That Sylvia Ann Hewlett book came out [Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children]…There was something retrograde about her attitude, but her facts [demonstrating fertility declines precipitously throughout your thirties] were correct…” p. 100.

Baumgardner quotes Amy Richards, “I was…pregnant with triplets…and made the decision to have a selective reduction…a stand-alone fetus…would continue to term…[the] identical twins were aborted…instant death. After I went through the procedure, my boyfriend Peter was much more traumatized than I was, even though hospital policy didn’t allow him to witness the procedure.” p. 104 The Alert Reader might wonder, What’s to be traumatized about? It’s not a baby. It’s not human. It’s not a person. Or is it?

Richards continues, “I…speak at colleges…I meet so many girls who are trying to make sense of abortion. They really want to support abortion rights…but at the end of the day [they] just can’t say, “I’m pro-choice,” or, “I support abortion,” p. 105.

Men quoted in this book are as ambivalent about abortion as the women. A George is quoted, “For me, I think the abortion [with my girlfriend] will stand as a symbol that I thought of myself as this open, loving guy, but I wasn’t.” p. 110. Emphasis mind.

Baumgardner quotes Ani Difranco, “I want to tell women and men, “You are an animal and it is a beautiful thing.” p. 113. The pro-abortion-choice argument is revealing: human personhood is not transcendent from lower animals. Most religions hold that only humans are eternal beings with a soul. It appears that the human with the religion of feminism (where abortion is a sacrament) would have no soul.

Where do pro-abortion-choice women find these men: “He was an activist and a poet…he was having sex with me, and sometimes choking me. It was horrible.” p. 117. I am sure that the choking was terrible, I guess. But begs the question: How many times did the pro-abortion-choice poet choke you? Sometimes? Just a few times?

Baumgardner quotes a Robin Ringleka, “The doctor was very rushed and didn’t have much of a bedside manner. I was pretty terrified and I began to cry when he entered the room. This seemed to piss him off and he demanded to know why I was crying…[later] The one-year anniversary of my abortion was approaching and I was having bad dreams.” p. 125. Why do these pro-abortion-choice women have bad dreams? Why do they remember the dates of the abortion and “birthday” of the baby terminated? Can a clump of cells, a mere fetus cause so much anguish? Or is the death of a baby painful even to a woman in denial?

Ringleka continues, “I have come to believe that having an abortion can be a very motherly decision.” p. 125. Except for, maybe, her baby.

Baumgardner quotes, Jenny Egan, “I went with my boyfriend…to Planned Parenthood…I had assumed that I …would finally be able to tell someone or talk to someone about how freaked out I was, but I didn’t get to…My boyfriend started the breaking-up process the day after the abortion. He said he wanted to date other people.” p. 127.

Baumgardner wonders, “I recognize that is serious [an unborn baby might be a person], but my own life is too important to sacrifice for an unplanned pregnancy.” p. 133. This is understood to not be an act of selfishness to the pro-abortion-choice supporters.

“[A father] describes, bluntly, how a recent abortion felt “more like murder”…” p. 113.

“Inga Muscio, the author of the contempory feminist classic C@unt: A Declaration of Independence (1998) [available at bookstores everywhere]…said the surgical solution…”sucked.” After Muscio discovered herself pregnant a third time, she vowed not to go back to the clinic and “waltz with the abhorrent machine.”” p. 142.

“Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas…says: “Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart…[U]ntil one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all.” p.143. Indeed, abortion follows the emotion of the woman’s heart. The logic of the brain, less so.

Baumgardner closes Abortion & Life with a profound and profane quote from,

popular musician and activist Ani DiFranco, who has a strong appreciation of the taboos surrounding abortion, wrote a song lyric that refers to the single cell that is an egg: “To split yourself in two is just the most radical thing you can do.” Life begins in that split–transformative energy is released into the aperture. The Ani adds: “So girl if that sh!t ain’t up to you, then you simply are not free. p. 144. So there.

“By creating a T-shirt so many would see as offensive, the pro-choice movement has intentionally sought to outrage the Christian Right.” p. 174.

One wag suggested a tag line on the reverse of the t-shirt to Baumgardner,

Front: I had an abortion.

Back: Roe v. Wade–Eliminating Future Democrats One Choice at a Time. p. 174.

***

Baumgardner is not happy about restrictions that help make abortion rare, “Planning a Pro-Choice Event…is…one way to fight the gloom…make the Roe anniversary powerful–a day of consciousness-raising and fundraising.” p. 148. She seems unaware that hundreds of thousands from the pro-life community march in Washington, DC on the Roe anniversary, January 22, each year.

Baumgardner wants the reader to celebrate and to mark your calendars that “the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers is March 10.” p. 149.

Baumgardner refers to the Reproductive Health Blog: www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

*Baumgardner’s opening quote is from Rebecca Hyman’s essay Full Frontal Offense: Taking Abortion Rights To The Tees.

*”The fetus beat us” has been incorrectly attributed to Naomi Wolf. She writes us in an email, “I never said The fetus, beat us. I think it is an awful phrase, would never have said something so brutal and trivializing about this issue…Thank you! Take care, Naomi wolf.”

The book was funded by pro-abortion-choice individuals and groups, Amy Ray, Merle Hoffman and the Diana Foundation, Gloria Browning, Karen Burgum and the F-M Area Foundation Women’s Fund and Roberta Schneiderman…” preface page

Gillian Aldrich directed the documentary “I Had an Abortion”… preface page

Charmaine on CNN: Abortion Mourn or Celebrate?

See The Fetal Hand Grasp on Charmaine Debates Abortion on CNN.

Blessed Are The Barren, by Robert Marshall & Charles Donovan; Selected Quotes

July 31, 2010 | By | No Comments

Blessed Are The Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood, by Bob Marshall and Chuck Donovan represents one of the best scholarly works on Planned Parenthood. Forewards by Dr. Benard Nathanson and John Cardinal O’Connor; published by Ignatius Press in 1991.

Robert_Marshall.jpg Robert “Bob” Marshall

Chapter One, Margaret Sanger: The Founding Mother, the founder of Planned Parenthood frames the book. “Her magazine the Woman Rebel [has] “No Gods, No Masters,” below the masthead…[and] claimed the right to ‘be lazy…an unmarried mother …to create…to destroy…to love.’” p. 7.

“Sanger published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920)…” p. 9. The purpose appeared, as Sanger writes, to be “To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds…” p. 9.

“Human sexuality would increasingly fall under the sphere of medicine rather than morals, although it would soon be clear that the criterion of health was often little more than a convenient cover for hedonism.” p. 12.

Margaret Sanger wrote Gamble, a eugenics activist and an heir to the Proctor & Gamble fortune, on December 10, 1939,

While the “Colored Negroes” do respect white doctors, more trust would ensue with black physicians. She wrote that: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” p. 18.

All that is needed to succeed is “a clever bit of machination to persuade them to commit race suicide..” Marshall quotes Dorothy B. Ferebee addressing Planned Parenthood’s minority outreach efforts. p. 19.

“Abortion and sterilization on request should be certainly be introduced before family size by coercion is attempted.” [emphasis added] by Marshall quoting Alan Guttmacher. p 39.

Chuck_Donovan.png Chuck Donovan

Marshall and Donovan quote the founder of Planned Parenthood, “Sex was a natural part of life,” Sanger wrote, “I had always known where babies came from. My mother never discussed sex with us,” p. 58.

The “theme of Sanger’s thought is pervasive in Planned Parenthood’s history: liberality in all things sexual save procreation.” p. 59.

Planned Parenthood was relentless in the “aggressive merchandising of…abortion to children.” p. 65.

“Margaret Sanger believed in the inutility of a state-by-state strategy for legal change…” p. 113. Sanger did not hold for an incremental approach for changing American values.

“The collaboration between the sex industry’s most polished marketeers and the leadership of the sex-education movement occurred first on the level of principle: If to some feminists the objectification of women is offensive, to the harbingers of sexual freedom it is not.” p. 124.

“Margaret Sanger, the sixth child in a family of eleven…was baptized a Catholic. Her father was an apostate Catholic…described as “free-thinking.” Biographer Madeline Gray has written that Sanger sought “poise and surcease for her recurrent depression through astrology, numerology, sex, religious cults…” attended seances; and was a member of the Rosicrucian Society…Sanger believed she had undergone numerous reincarnations usually as a member of the social elite. One such nether-world inquiry placed Sanger…as the daughter of an emperor of Atlantis…” p. 131

“For Sanger the proper attitude toward her critics was difficult to distinguish from personal vilification, character assassination, and old-fashioned bigotry. Sanger, a constant fellow-traveler with anti-Catholics…” p. 133.

“Sam Saloman…who worked at the U.S. Government Printing Office, pointed out…

Appearing before congressional committees…its propagandists [for sexual freedom] appear as the benign, motherly type of women…

Before sex radicals, they appear as sophisticated women, demanding sex equality for women and men…demanding also that society safeguard sex from the inevitable consequences of indulgence…

Mrs. Sanger…was asked to join a group of 30 sex radicals in a symposium on sex…This is her conception of the new morality…”what they consider ‘morality’ we consider ‘moral imbecility’…our morality is an ‘ethics of the dust’…It is not a morality concerned with…absolute rights and wrongs, with unhealthy lingering interests in virginity and chastity…but…solve these problems with instruments of intelligence, insight, and honesty.” emphasis added p. 141.

The Catholic Church was on to Margaret Sanger early, “Archbishop Murray, sensing that Sanger’s real goal included abortion…likening [Planned Parenthood] to the Dillinger mob. Both groups, he said, were “organizing to commit murder.”” p. 143.

“[M]any nonclerical Protestants and Catholics could see through to the real goal of Planned Parenthood, namely abortion on demand and all that entailed.” p. 145.

Not only was Margaret Sanger better at marketing than the Catholic Church, but also better at organizing, “The string of Catholic successes in isolating Planned Parenthood from community support was stopped, largely due to Planned Parenthood’s persistent efforts at coalition building.” p. 157. “Aided by careful Planned Parenthood affiliate intelligence work in identifying sympathetic or friendly Catholics.” p. 162.

“Justice Felix Frankfurter, neither Catholic nor conservative…” rejected the health exception needed for contraceptives. P. 167.

“[Justice William O.] Douglas reached for the novel insight the Court would use repeatedly of the next few decades to strike down state statues affecting family life: “Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees, that help give them life and substance…various guarantees create zones of privacy.” p. 168. (There is no evidence Justice William O. Douglas was drunk when he wrote this decision.)

“Justice Potter Stewart dissented [from Douglas on 'penumbras formed by emanations'] noting, “With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution or in any case ever before decided by this Court.”” p. 168.

“The Oath of Hippocrates…embodied a “Natural Law” ethic compatible with orthodox Jewish and Christian thought and practice.” P. 175.

“Alan Guttmacher himself said in 1971 that it was a decided advantage for Planned Parenthood not to be tied down by a venerated document like the U.S. Constitution or the constraints of the outdated Hippocratic Oath which forbade doctors from performing abortions or assisting suicide.” p. 175.

“In 1866 the American Medical Association decided to issue a brief but comprehensive statement on abortion…Horatio R. Stone, obstetrics and medical jurisprudence and a leading antiabortionist of his day [wrote] “The Criminality and Physical Evils of Forced Abortions,”…quoted Percivil’s Medical Ethics to the effect that “to extinguish the first spark of life is a crime of the same nature both against our Maker and society, as to destroy an infant, a child, or a man.”‘p. 175.

“In addition, Storer cited a statement from 1653 that decried the putting to death of a being “in the shop of nature,” i.e., the womb, as “a thing deserving all hate and detestation.” With the full support of his colleagues, Storer declared that all “physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception…” p. 176.

“The Academy of Pediatrics also opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to mandate nondiscriminatory treatment of handicapped newborn infants.” p. 177.

“Dr. Leo Alexander, an official medical expert at the Nuremberg Trials of German physician-executioners of Nazi atrocities, has stated: “Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. It started with the acceptance of the attitude…that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.” p. 178.

“To retain the logical symmetry a physician is disposed to apply to his trade, it follows that the unwanted child must become the medical equivalent of a disease process…Mary Calderone…in the 1960′s… lamented that: “…we are still unable to put babies in the class of dangerous epidemics, even though this is the exact truth.”” p. 182.

“Planned Parent’s own journal has stated that pregnancy “may be defined as a disease…[and]…treated by evacuation of the uterine contents.” p. 182.

“Medical relativism…[is an]…acceptable goal of “health care”…Dr. J. Robert Willson of Temple University…stated: “We have to stop thinking in terms of individual patients and change our direction…the individual patient is expendable in the general scheme of things, particularly if the infection [that the patient] acquires is sterilizing but not lethal.”…Medical Director of [Planned Parenthood] Mary Calderone…said, “It thrilled me to hear a clinician like Dr. Willson talk in terms of public health applications as I, a public health person, would not have dared talk, particularly in this assembly.” p.183.

Marshall and Donovan quote Shakespeare,

King Lear: Hear, Nature, hear…Suspend thy purpose…To make the creature fruitful! Into her womb convey sterility! Dry up her organs of increase. (Shakespeare, King Lear, act 1, scene 4) p. 221.

“And research has shown that adolescents who believe themselves less responsible to parents, society, or God are more likely to indulge in premarital intercourse.” p. 231.

“It becomes easy to see why Planned Parenthood’s president [at that time] Faye Wattelton believes “it is a mistake to enter into debates on questions of morality.” Minimizing the guilt that accompanies the departure from the moral order is also a convenient way to dull one’s conscience.” p. 231.

“In 1971, Dr. George Langmyhr, Planned Parenthood medical director at the time acknowledged that, “…Planned Parenthood [has] accepted …the necessity of abortion as an integral part of any complete …family planning program.” p 239.

“When the topic of abortion came up, Sanger’s flair for the dramatic helped her draw a line just where her particular audience wanted it. This line was different for each new audience, a testimony to her ability to adapt her …crusade to the needs of the moment.” p. 239.

“[Margaret Sanger] had a long record of support for hygienic abortion performed by “competent” personnel. In March 1914 in a publication call The Woman Rebel, Sanger hinted at approval of abortion. She suggested that feminists would “claim the right to be lazy…an unmarried mother…to create…to destroy…”” p. 240.

So how does Planned Parenthood understand public law? In 1921 in a “conference in New York City sponsored by Sanger’s nascent Planned Parenthood group…Dr. Andre Tridon said, “…breaking the law is not a crime, but a public duty.” p. 241.

“A model abortion law was proposed at a May 1959 meeting of the American Law Institute (ALI). The model law allowed abortion until the twenty-sixth week of pregnancy if the doctor believed that the mother’s physical or mental health would be gravely impaired; if the child would be born with grave mental physical handicap…Judge Learned Hand [was a member of ALI and] Hand’s wife was a member of Sanger’s Birth Control League, and his daughter Mrs. Robert Ferguson, later became president of [Planned Parenthood] from 1953 to 1956. Judge Hand complained to Guttmacher that the ALI proposal was “too d@mned conservative.””p. 247.

“This Planned Parenthood-spawned ALI proposal added some interesting nuances to the meaning of “health.” First was the provision that if the child was not healthy, he could be put to death. Second, the child–and this was not explained–was held capable of causing the mother’s mental health to deteriorate, and therefore he could be killed.” p. 247.

Marshall and Donovan quote “Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortion provider and now an ardent pro-lifer…”How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal?…5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year…I confess that i knew the figures were totally false…The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated…”” p. 250.

“One…”benefit,” according to Guttmacher, was that “24 [percent] of the abortions in New York City were done on black women, who form 18 [percent] of the total population.” p. 257.

In the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of [Planned Parenthood] in New York, March 3, 1972, “changed its charter to “provide leadership in making effective means of voluntary fertility including…abortion and sterilization, available and accessible to all…This…should lay to rest any notion that [Planned Parenthood] was merely pro-choice and not pro-abortion” p. 259.

“Abortion as a “Medical Matter” Adolph Hitler wrote in his infamous tract Mein Kampf, “The great masses of the people…will more easily fall victims to a great lie than a small one.”…Because the physician is called upon to use techniques and instruments as tools to implement the abortion decision, abortion has been mistakenly thought by some to be simply a medical matter…But to conclude that abortion is purely a “medical matter” is like saying war is purely a military matter and that therefore only generals should decide…or that capital punishment is simply a concern of electrical engineers.” p.272.

“A doctor who preforms elective abortions is not acting as a healer. In short, he is not practicing medicine; he is merely a biological technician who seeks to bring about the death of the human fetus (a Latin term for “offspring”). p. 273.

As far back as 1859 the AMA understood the marketing of abortion where the baby is ignored, “A law which has maternal health as its sole or main concern is not likely to be worded in such a way that the human status of the foetus be given human rights protected by law.” p. 273.

“A 1970 editorial form California Medicine presaged the now partially completed slide away from the traditional sanctity of life ethic:

Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death…this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary…” p. 274.

“Margaret Sanger…had as one of [her] major goals the elimination of live births of those, and among those deemed inferior. [T]he cure for these evils is “proper breeding on a scientific basis.” p. 275.

The eugenicist Laughlin cited Justice Holmes’ words:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime…society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccinations is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes…Three generations of imbeciles are enough. p. 277.

“Mrs. Alva Myrdal…said that Sweden only wanted those children who were wanted by their parents.” p. 279.

Planned Parenthood has always been expert in marketing. “Borrowing sales techniques of striking while the iron is hot, social workers who identified women with possibly inferior offspring were told that “if the patient is in her 14th week or more, while you have the patient there, call in the referral immediately…Presumably delaying the testing too much longer would make the abortion of a possibly less than perfect child a bit messier than usual.” p. 287.

Planned Parenthood emphasizes the mother at the expense of the unborn baby and the humanity of the baby is ignored. “James Hoffman, a public health nutritionist employed by South Carolina [in]… 1983 observ[ed] that the more able the educator is at personifying the fetus, the better the mother will eat. “It seems very inconsistent to me to treat the fetus like a baby when one is interested in feeding him/her, bu to depersonify the fetus when the baby is ‘unwanted’ or has a genetic defect.”” p. 288.

“This policy of semantic gymnastics, successfully carried out over a period of decades, included efforts to redefine nearly every term in the lexicon of human reproduction: pregnancy, conception, abortion, and human being or person.” p.291.

At a Planned Parenthood symposium, “Bent Boving, a Swedish fertility researcher…said…”to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech.” p. 292.

“…Planned Parenthood’s redefinition …[of] the claim that no one really knows when human life begins. Yet…in 1933…Dr. Alan Guttmacher [said] “We of today know that man…starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells,,,This all seems so simple…” p. 295.

“However, after [Guttmacher] conversion to the “pro-choice” view [his] past knowledge seemed to vanish…And …in 1973 [he wrote] Does human life begin before or with the union of the gametes…? I, for one, confess I do not know.” p. 295.

“This view had its origins more in attitudes than knowledge…” p. 295.

“Dr. Sally Faith Dorfman …has noted that during an abortion, “a compassionate and sensitive sonographer should remember to turn the screen away from the plane of view. Staff too may find themselves increasing disturbed by the repeated visual impact of an aspect of their work that they need to partially deny in order to continue…” p. 297.

“Gaining public acceptance for the French abortion pill, RU-486, is in part a matter of contriving and using acceptable euphemisms.” p. 301.

“Notice that when Planned Parenthood uses the “wanted baby” phrase, that such babies have rights. Unwanted babies have no rights and are morally equivalent to disposable property. But under the wanted baby scheme, where do rights come from? From being wanted, of course. But who is it that does the “wanting” that results in the conferring of rights? Not the father, nor a couple seeking to adopt. No, it is the pregnant woman alone who gets to confer rights.

Planned Parenthood could never use the phrase, “Every child a valuable child,” because that would implicitly recognize the intrinsic worth of the child irrespective of whether the father, mother, etc., “wanted” the baby.” p. 310

“As a nation we were once respected and admired for our ideals; now, after the…sexual revolt, we are merely envied for our machines.” p. 316.

“Planned Parenthood sees certain children as a social disease or an epidemic. Barrenness is considered an affliction in Scripture…Planned Parenthood opposes even a twenty-four-hour abortion waiting period…” p. 317.

“Professor Harold J. Laski hinted hinted at some of the ultimate goals his ideological [pro-abortion] kindred had in mind. Laski wrote to Justice Holmes, after the Supreme Court decision upholding Virginia’s law sterilizing Carrie Buck against her will, advocating “steriliz[ing] all the unfit, among whom I include all fundamentalists.” p. 320.

“Those so at war with the order of creation eventually come to propound contradictions without the slightest awareness of doing so. Luke Lee, in a publication funded by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)…and the U.S. State Department would write:

But if a state can justify restrictions on the number of spouses on human rights grounds, it can similarly justify restrictions of the number of children each couple can have…[and] can it not be argued that “in allowing children that are born to live a higher quality of life,” compulsory sterilization may be considered as “reaffirming an individual’s right to procreate”?

Mandatory sterilization means freedom to reproduce. Up is down, good is evil, hatred is love. Big Brother, in George Orwell’s totalitarian novel, 1984, longed for this state of affairs. We have it now. What is to be done?” p. 320.

“French philosopher Etienne Gilson once said that “philosophy always buries its undertakers.” Applying this adage to the present situation, we might say that the Planned Parenthood movement in all its social manifestations is its own best funeral director. It believes in death, it inflicts death; let this movement have what it has given others.” p. 321.

***

Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, A pregnant single woman (“Roe”) challenged the constitutionality of a Texas statue forbidding abortion….Norma McCorvey, an astrology devotee…had already given birth…claimed that she had been raped, but much later acknowledged she had not been raped.” p. 328.

In Roe, “The Court need not “resolve the difficult question of when life begins” because “those trained in medicine, philosophy, and theology” were “unable to arrive at any consensus.” p. 329.

***

In “1981…[the courts decided that a twenty-four-hour waiting period and…a…parental consent provision were both constitutional.” p. 333.

***

Harris v. McRae, June 30, 1980, A lower court judge, “Dooling had asserted that, with respect to abortion, the courts, not Congress, had the power over the treasury because “poverty is a medical condition.” As it is known, “The Hyde Amendment was upheld.” This case was argued at the Supreme Court by legal counsel of Americans United for Life.

***

“The Roe v. Wade decision did not state that a woman had a right to an abortion per se…The “fundamental” right to privacy, which the Court ostensibly found in the Constitution, is surely one of the more curious constitutional rights. For example, it is the only constitutional right that must be secured by a licensed physician in good standing (Connecticut v. Menillo [1975]). p. 339.

“The Court in Roe and Menillo did not rule on the alleged privacy right of a woman to abort herself. So it can be said that, in fact, what the Court did create through its own-conferred legislative powers was not a privacy right of abortion for the pregnant woman, but a right immunizing licensed physicians against state prosecution for aborting women.” p. 339.

***

“Planned Parenthood Abortion Workshop–Business Principles inside the Killing Center; A “health clinic” that kills 50 percent of its patients at the request of the other 50 percent reduces to absurdity the profession and practice of medicine. But in a permissive, hedonist, neglectful society, the fondness–indeed, the need for euphemisms designates these killing centers as “family planning” clinics.” p.345.

“Potential [abortionist] entrepreneurs were told that if they had a large clientele they would “…be taking in a large, large volume of cold, hard cash” — and that the money would have to be dealt with sensibly.” p. 345. A cash business is the easiest on which to evade taxes.

“Costs could be kept down in several ways [in an abortion center]…”clean” [surgical] techniques were [substituted for] “sterile” ones in order to satisfy Planned Parenthood’s standards.” Planned Parenthood abortion workshop, 1973, p. 346

Marshall and Donovan close their outstanding book with direction from Planned Parenthood on abortion and money, “Though it hardly needed to be mentioned [during the abortion business seminar] it was dutifully pointed out that “[t]he cashier’s desk is the last stop for the patient before she leaves the center.” Patients are urged, management suggested, to bring a certified check, traveler’s check, or money order. Medicaid patients were served if they presented their Medicaid cards.” p. 347

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Full Disclosure: Charmaine Yoest used to work for Chuck Donovan. The Honorable Robert Marshall is a state delegate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Charmaine Debates Taxpayer Funding of Abortion on FOX

July 16, 2010 | By | No Comments


Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.,

Happy Warrior; Winsome Argument

Charmaine appeared on FOX today, Friday 16 July to debate against tax payer funding for abortion.

Charmaine taped this morning and the piece aired throughout the day. (Normally, ProLife talent should not tape – liberal media will use editorial-editing to win a debate. But FOX is, well, fair and balanced.)

Please let us know what you think.

Why you should watch.

No, not to check out Charmaine’s new hair cut and make-up. FOX in DC is expanding their make-up room next to the green room and the surface preparation was a bit rushed.

No. A viewer — especially those leaning toward abortion — should watch to learn why the ProLife position is winning in America; where 51 percent now self identify with Life.

Why?

Three reasons:

1) A compelling argument.

2) A winsome argument.

3) A healthy argument.

A compelling argument. Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart would say and every gif-jpg file is worth a thousand words. The science of the sono-gram has shifted the debate from the mother to the child. 85 percent of women who see Baby’s First Picture choose to let the baby live.

This is why Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood fights this scientific advancement. Too much information would change a woman’s choice. Science has not been good for abortion.

ProChoiceGal tweets “fetuses are humans. However, that doesn’t mean that pregnant women shouldn’t get basic human rights.” Re: abortion choice. Which brings us to,

Charmaine and Senator Orrin Hatch

charmaine_yoest_Senator_hatch_2010.jpgA winsome argument. We in the Pro-Life movement are in the persuasion business. The Alert Reader knows that Your Business Blogger(R) teaches Sales and Marketing at the local college and has researched and taught how Pro-Life sells.

Over the years, we have shaken hands with nearly every pro-choice leader from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander Sanger. They were not the happy people as one might expect and did not advance a positive, enjoyable debate. They do not smile. (Steinem has now married; I think she may have smiled since the honeymoon.) That’s why Charmaine’s Pro-Life message is selling so well: She smiles. A Happy Warrior. Who Wins.

The unfortunate Twitterer MsFetus makes as bitter a presentation as Eleanor Smeal (understand the subjective evaluation-not the person: the presentation). The first rule in debating is “whoever shouts or goes ad hominem loses.” The pro-abortion advocates are reduced to cussing in Caps Lock. They have lost.

UK Pro-Choice QueenCatherinex tweets, “In my personal opinion I wouldn’t call a zygote, embryo, then fetus a baby. So it’s not a case of dehumanising, it’s biology.” No, it’s not biology–it’s marketing: See your Baby; the Baby lives. Word descriptors-pictures are powerful.

Finally, the picture of health,

A healthy argument. Charmaine runs Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm. Her team of legal eagles has noted that the debate has moved from Roe v Wade. The Burger court wrote that the state has a compelling interest in the baby in the third trimester, but this was soon superseded by the health of the mother “exceptions.” Subsequent rulings have now asserted that abortion must remain legal on the “reliance” interpretation, where the mother’s financial health must be preserved as well as the perceived physical well-being.

(Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., as a case study, would refute this. She didn’t need abortion to become a President and CEO.)

But we have come back full circle to the mother’s health. Science is now telling us that abortion is a crushing psychological burden where women are now stating–in public–that they now regret.

Studies also demonstrate that abortion removes protections allowing women to have a higher risk of breast cancer.

Women are regretting and re-thinking thinking their abortions. Harms to women will be the next foundation in the future of the abortion debate.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Kagan Nomination

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor Nomination


Media Alert: Charmaine Yoest on FOX Debating Tax Payers & Abortion

July 16, 2010 | By | No Comments

Charmaine_Yoest_pubshot_2010.jpgCharmaine will be appearing on FOX today, Friday 16 July to debate against tax payer funding for abortion.

The tax and abort position will be argued by National Partnership for Women and Family.

Charmaine Yoest

Charmaine taped this morning and the piece will be aired throughout the day. (Normally, ProLife talent should not tape – liberal media will use editorial-editing to win a debate. But FOX is, well, fair and balanced.)

Please let us know what you think.

Why you should watch.

No, not to check out Charmaine’s new hair cut and make-up. FOX in DC is expanding their make-up room next to the green room and the surface preparation was a bit rushed.

No. A viewer — especially those leaning toward abortion — should watch to learn why the ProLife position is winning in America; where 51 percent now self identify with Life.

Why?

Three reasons:

1) A compelling argument.

2) A winsome argument.

3) A healthy argument.

A compelling argument. Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart would say and every gif file is worth a thousand words. The science of the sono-gram has shifted the debate from the mother to the child. 85 percent of women who see Baby’s First Picture choose to let the baby live. This is why Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood fights this scientific advancement. Too much information would change a woman’s choice. Science has not been good for abortion.

ProChoiceGal tweets “fetuses are humans. However, that doesn’t mean that pregnant women shouldn’t get basic human rights.” Re: abortion choice. Which brings us to,

Charmaine and Senator Orrin Hatch

charmaine_yoest_Senator_hatch_2010.jpgA winsome argument. We in the Pro-Life movement are in the persuasion business. The Alert Reader knows that Your Business Blogger(R) teaches Sales and Marketing at the local college. Pro-Life sells. Over the years, we have shaken hands with nearly every pro-choice leader from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander Sanger. They were not happy people as one might expect and did not advance a positive, enjoyable debate. They do not smile. (Steinem has now married; I think she may have smiled since the honeymoon.) That’s why Charmaine’s Pro-Life message is selling so well: She smiles.

The unfortunate Twitterer MsFetus makes as bitter a presentation as Eleanor Smeal (understand the subjective evaluation-not the person: the presentation). The first rule in debating is “whoever shouts or goes ad hominem loses.” The pro-abortion advocates are reduced to cussing in Caps Lock. They have lost.

UK Pro-Choice QueenCatherinex tweets, “In my personal opinion I wouldn’t call a zygote, embryo, then fetus a baby. So it’s not a case of dehumanising, it’s biology.” No, it’s not biology–it’s marketing: See your Baby; the Baby lives. Word pictures are powerful.

Finally, the picture of health,

A healthy argument. Charmaine runs Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm. Her team of legal eagles knows well that the debate has moved from Roe v Wade. The Burger court wrote that the state has a compelling interest in the baby in the third trimester, but this was soon superseded by the health of the mother “exceptions.” Subsequent rulings have now asserted that abortion must remain legal on the “reliance” interpretation, where the mother’s financial health must be preserved as well as the perceived physical well-being.

(Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., as a case study, would refute this. She didn’t need abortion to become a President and CEO.)

But we have come back to the mother’s health. Science is now telling us that abortion is a crushing psychological burden where women are now stating–in public–that they regret.

New studies demonstrate that abortion removes protections making women at higher risk of breast cancer.

Women are regretting and re-thinking thinking their abortions. Harms to women will be the next foundation in the future of the abortion debate.

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Kagan Nomination

Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor Nomination


Charmaine Speaks at CPAC 2010, Video and PowerPoints

February 19, 2010 | By | No Comments


Charmaine speaking at CPAC 2010Here’s Charmaine’s talk at CPAC 2010, the Conservative Political Action Committee annual meeting in Your Nation’s Capital.

Listen to her brief update on Pro-Life strategies.

“We are winning.”

Incremental legislative action at the state and local level works to reduce the numbers of abortion.

In those states that have two parent notification of a minor child’s abortion — the number of abortions goes down by 31 per cent.

If Obama really wants to reduce abortion, he will support parental notification legislation for the states.

Charmaine’s PowerPoint slide presentation, CPAC_CY.ppt

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.


Join Fight FOCA