Noise intensifies as early voting on ABQ 20-wk abortion ban begins
Early voting on the first local ban in the country on abortions past 20 weeks began in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on October 30. It will run until November 15, with Election Day on November 19.
Albuquerque is currently a late-term abortion magnet, as it is home to abortionist Curtis Boyd’s Southwestern Women’s Options, where elective abortions are committed “through 28 weeks” and “later” for maternal/fetal indications.
This ban would set a dangerous precedent for abortion supporters. They are already fighting a losing battle in their attempts to extinguish pro-life fires among the states, but their troubles would grow exponentially were they also forced to deal with hundreds or thousands of local municipalities.
Perhaps this is why Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action has gotten involved:
Operation Rescue, which discovered this dalliance, has more details.
The other side should be worried. People overwhelmingly support a ban on late-term abortions. For the ban initiative to qualify, organizers gathered more than double the number required – 27,000 signatures – in just 20 days.
Meanwhile, an Albuquerque Journal poll on September 9 found wide support for the ban in all polled demographics – except Democrats. Click to enlarge:
Pollster Brian Sanderoff found the spread for support “a little surprising,” because “many Albuquerque voters are pro-choice; however, support for the pro-choice position evidently declines as the term of the pregnancy increases.” True. Even 1/3 of ABQ Democrats can’t stomach it.
In the growing furor to sway public opinion, pro-life drop cards even made their way into Halloween trick-or-treat bags, which a Jezebel writer found ”creepy and annoying.”
But it’s apparently not creepy and annoying to air pro-abortion ads on television featuring a mother who chose to kill her preborn baby.
In its fact check of the ad, sponsored by Respect ABQ Women, KOB4 found “that the woman in the ad is not from here and did not have her abortion here.” The mother is, in fact, from Virginia. She described choosing to have her preborn baby given a lethal injection rather than “suffocate” at birth, although no details were given.
I must say I always find these stories suspect, how many exaggerated to curry acceptance? Nevertheless, it is misplaced compassion to kill a sick baby in the only safe, warm, hospitable environment s/he will ever know. Here’s the ad…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/xkZ5WqUI7Mg[/youtube]Meanwhile, ABQ Voters for Late Term Abortion Ban has released a video for viewing in churches…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/mpVS4K0fpAE[/youtube]
The group’s campaign strategy is to get out the church vote.
To that end, Santa Fe Archbishop Michael Sheehan asked all parishes to read a message from him in support of the ban during all Masses this past weekend. He wrote, in part:
I encourage all the people of Albuquerque to support the proposed ordinance to ban late term abortion after the 20th week. These children are able to feel pain and suffer greatly when aborted….
Please join me in supporting this effort with energy, time, and resources. Together we can get out the vote on November 19, 2013.
Archbishop Sheehan also held a special Mass last night, which garnered lots of media attention. From KOB4:
At a special Mass at the Shrine of Bernadette, Archbishop Michael Sheehan gave parishioners a mission during his homily.
“Let us say yes to Jesus, let us say yes to the unborn child, and urge others to do the same,” Archbishop Sheehan said.
Amen.
Pro-life video creater extraordinaire, Ryan Bomberger, has also made a video in support of the ABQ 20-week abortion ban…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/le-AqfpE5gI[/youtube]
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.
These sorts of decisions — affecting the families and culture of our communities — are much better decided at the local level. The people of Albuquerque are more qualified to make decisions about life in Albuquerque than the legislature in Santa Fe or the Congress in Washington.
This goes for everything: Public school requirements, local safety concerns, etc. If the local families decide that they want to regulate themselves according to standards that are more or less stringent that the one-size-fits-all solutions offered by the state or federal legislation, then the local standards should be given a higher precedence.
In simple terms: Your city alderman is more likely to know you and care about your family than your representative in Santa Fe or Washington. Obama doesn’t know you at all — but he knows Cecile Richards. Our best chance to rule ourselves and to withstand the oppression of Big Business Abortion is to rule ourselves primarily at the local level.
This is the principle of Subsidiarity, a key part of Christian social justice. This is also the heart of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Planned Parenthood will appeal to their benevolent dictators in Washington. We need to keep reminding Washington that we do not accept them to be our dictators.
Babies at 20 weeks gestation do not “go peacefully” when you abort them. If they can respond to painful stimuli, wouldn’t they also react to a lethal injection? How is an imposed death more peaceful than natural death? What if the doctor is wrong and you ended your child’s life prematurely?
Del, I’m going to have to disagree with you because I think abortion is sufficiently evil that it needs to be stopped on whatever level it can be stopped at. By your logic, if the majority of people in ABQ oppose these procedures but the majority in a neighboring city support them, it should be legal for the abortionists to move their clinic one city over and continue business as usual.
To JDC:
The general principle of Subsidiarity is still true, but it must be applied in specific cases.
For example, the people of Albuquerque (or in your local village) are fully capable of deciding how they want to educate their children. So their vote on standards and curriculum should supersede any standards established by state or federal regulators.
On the other hand, the human rights to life and liberty are universal. So no level of government ever has authority to enslave or kill any innocent person. Government always has a duty to protect our human rights.
However, local governments deserve to have some authority in dealing with guilty persons. Suppose the State of Nevada imposes a two-year imprisonment (slavery, in essence) upon persons who steal cars. Albuquerque can let Nevada do this, if they wish. But if Albuquerque has a severe problem with auto theft, it is reasonable for Albuquerque to impose a sentence of four years upon auto thieves. (Or if this is too expensive for the city, the citizens of Albuquerque may compromise on three years’ imprisonment). The State and Federal courts only have the duty to ensure that the punishment is not “cruel or unusual,” as these would be violations of the prisoner’s human rights.
I know this is an ideal goal, and currently at odds with our current culture. (Our current culture favors consolidation of power at some higher, centralized level. People just automatically think that a federal law should overrule some state law — as if Washington always knows better than Santa Fe about how New Mexicans want to live.)
As Christians, it is important for us to know the Christian ideal of subsidiarity. And as citizens, it is important for us to seek the ideal good — and not to strive or settle for a wrong ideal, such as socialism.
Sounds like you might like to join the amish or something Del.
Some insular community’s ‘standard’ of education might not meet the necessary requirements to undertake higher study or work elsewhere.
20 week fetuses do not feel pain MoJoanne.
Am hoping and praying that is passes.
Forgot to add — it is encouraging to see many Latinos supporting the ban. They don’t seem as tied to the Party of Death as black folks are (I am an Independent, by the way, I try to vote for the person, not the party). It really is discouraging to see black ministers promote these pro-death Dems and even have them speak in their churches.
Okay, thanks Del. I see what you’re saying.
“Forgot to add — it is encouraging to see many Latinos supporting the ban. They don’t seem as tied to the Party of Death as black folks are (I am an Independent, by the way, I try to vote for the person, not the party). It really is discouraging to see black ministers promote these pro-death Dems and even have them speak in their churches. ”
I think it’s because many Latinos, especially recent immigrants, are very Catholic. There’s also a lot of anti-gay sentiment in many Latino communities because of the Catholic influence (and really strict gender roles).
I think it’s because many Latinos, especially recent immigrants, are very Catholic. There’s also a lot of anti-gay sentiment in many Latino communities because of the Catholic influence (and really strict gender roles).
You’re right, I work part-time in a facility that is located in a Latino (mostly Puerto Rican, but there are Dominicans and other groups there as well) community and on Sunday the churches are full. The music is beautiful — unfortunately I can’t understand a word, shoulda took Spanish in high school instead of French!
The anti-gay sentiment is not cool, though. There are just as many gay people in the Latino community as anywhere else.