Pro-life news brief 1-4-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Paul Ryan will be the keynote speaker at the SBA List’s dinner in April.
- At National Review, Michael New points out the statistical flaws and faulty assumptions in a recent New York Times op-ed (written by a pro-lifer) on the supposed need for pro-lifers to become more contraceptive- and Title X-friendly.
- The New York Times has an article on an abortion hotline in Chile which is straddling the law in a country where abortion is illegal:
In a country where abortion is entirely illegal, even in cases of rape or when a woman’s life is in danger, the hotline is a risky endeavor. Operating in a legal gray area, volunteers face a daunting prison sentence if a conversation veers too far from a lawyer-approved script. The hotline already has had three lawsuits brought against it, though all were eventually dropped.
- Oregon businessman Mike Fink, who was angry with pro-lifers for protesting outside a Portland Planned Parenthood located next to his businesses, has organized a pro-abortion counter-protest:
The anti-abortion protesters held large full-color signs which they say depict aborted fetuses, while other protesters loudly recited religious admonitions against abortion.
That was largely drowned out by the group gathered in front of Guitar Grave and Mike’s Restaurant, Fink’s businesses, who chanted slogans like “Abortion is health care and health care is a right.” Fink used social media to rally support and offered free sandwiches and coffee to the counter-protesters.
The video shows some graphic images and includes comments by an abortion proponent who thinks pro-life protests violate a woman’s right to have an abortion:
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
As usual…Pro-aborts showing just how IMMATURE and ILL-INFORMED they really are.
In what way does abortion constitute healthcare?
Is he post abortive?
So when we are out there with signs women lose their right to walk in and pay for an abortion?
Sweet.
Exactly how would scraping out my developing baby take care of my health? Please explain Mike.
Just to correct this story its Portland, MAINE NOT OREGON.
I realize that the shop owner thinks that he is being victorious by outnumbering the pro-lifers, but that’s not really what matters in this issue. What matters is that the pro-abort side is wrong. I am actually GLAD that they came out and got to interact w/ the pro-lifers and got to see their signs.
Also, I bet that the pro-lifers will persevere and outlast these pro-aborts by their sheer dedication. Pro-aborts are just not that dedicated to come out and defend the killing of children. They may come out for one big day, but their hearts are just not full of the love and the passion that pro-lifers’ hearts are full of. In the end, too, God is the judge and the victor. The gates of hell will not prevail against the kingdom of heaven, and someday abortion will be illegal, and the rights of children, no matter their age, will be defended from the moment of conception. The pro-lifers should be chanting, “We defend babies, and their rights”. What the pro-aborts are really saying is, “We defend the right to kill a child whenever and however we want, prior to, during, and after birth”. Really, when you ask a pro-abort to define his/her borders of just when does it become wrong to kill a child – at what point in the process of the birth or even after birth, the person squirms, and will not give an answer! The truth is, that the person KNOWS he/she is wrong, but does not want to admit that this killing is a grave evil!
Leslie, I caught that too from the video. Portland, Me. A nice place I’ve visited, but wouldn’t want to live there.
Thank you, Leslie. Fixed.
Amen Julie!!
Leslie, I caught that too from the video. Portland, Me. A nice place I’ve visited, but wouldn’t want to live there.
Interestingly, it was a stop on the Underground Railroad.
It looks TOO COLD! I guess I’m getting old, but I can’t stand the cold anymore. In fact, I am about to hop into my BMW and ride down I-95 until I reach my luxury condo in Florida.
Both the BMW and the condo appear regularly in my dreams!
phillymiss,
Have a nice time in Florida. Too humid for me. And Portland is cold. I have an aunt there. She lives on an island that’s very nice in the summer.
Jill,
I was there. It was awful but it is not Portland, OR. It is Portland, ME. New England. Great pro-life folks there fighting a very difficult situation. They need a closeby CPC.
Rod
I would like to point out important benefits from reviving the custom of chaperoned dating. The most obvious is preventing problem pregnancies. Another obvious benefit is stemming STDs.
But there is something more subtle — that might be just as important as the aforementioned benefits. When young people follow nature and start “necking” or “making out,” it short-circuits the process of actually getting to know the other person. Human beings, both male and female, are more than their genitalia. Indeed, it is not even physically possible for the human male to engage in sexual relations throughout the day. Thus, they must have other interests. Because a chaperone prevents “making out,” the chaperone encourages learning about the other person: their non-sexual interests, their attitudes, their values, their fears, their weaknesses, their insecurities, their strengths, and overall belief system. This might lead to healthier and stronger marriages. Paradoxically, the knowledge and trust developed because dates are chaperoned might lead to more satisfying sex within marriage.
Again, we must remember that even when married, most of what the couple does together cannot be sexual.
Please consider chaperoned dating!
Please protect America’s young people from sex-related scars!
Why is it that you repeatedly run negatives about contraceptives even though going off contraceptives could lead to abortion but object to negative truths being told about adoption?
I noted how the woman defended the “constitutional right” of women to get an abortion and not the constitutional rights of pro-lifers to free speech and assemble peaceably. The pro-lifers were exercising rights that have long been recognized since the Bill of Rights was ratified. Abortion was not made a “right” under the Constitution until 1973, and it is not even directly written into the Constitution. It was manufactured as a right to privacy within the penumbra of the Constitution. Even liberal Constitutional scholars say the reasoning and argument behind Roe is shaky.
@ Joanne: Why does our culture have such a confused, schizophrenic attitude toward privacy? It is jealously guarded in a legal sense and routinely sacrificed with “reality” shows and pornography.