Pro-life blog buzz 7-11-14
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
- At ProLife365, Kevin Kukla shows how the redefinition of “pregnancy” and “conception” have changed over the years, by a deliberate choice on the part of contraception proponents. Kukla writes, “Did you know that the moment your life began depends on which decade you were born in?”
- Pro-Life in TN discusses the left’s newest hero, rising Democrat star Lucy Flores, who is running for lieutenant governor of Nevada. A young Hispanic, raised in poverty as one of 13 children, Flores reached her newfound fame by disclosing that she once had an abortion and has no regrets. But Slate, reports:
Her eyes welled up and her voice caught as she described how she’d convinced her father to pay the $200 cost for the procedure.
Sounds like Flores might need to work on her “I’m not sorry” demeanor.
- Suzy B unearths two decades-old videos in which NFL players boldly encourage women to choose life for their babies instead of abortion. Wow, how things have changed!
- ProLife NZ cross posts an article from Christian Answers, responding to the claim that pro-lifers are unjustly trying to impose their morality on others:
Although it does not seriously damage their entire position, it is interesting to note that many abortion-rights advocates do not hesitate to impose their moral perspective on others when they call for the use of other people’s tax dollars (many of whom do not approve of this use of funds) to help pay for the abortions of poor women.
- With the increased use of surrogacy and IVF, children seem to have become another commodity. Wesley J. Smith discusses how The View host Sherri Shepherd (pictured right, with estranged husband Lamar Sally) has decided she wants nothing to do with the preborn child who was conceived using a donor egg and her husband’s sperm – because her marriage is falling apart. She has appealed to the judge to release her from the contract, as she has no biological connection to the baby. Smith writes:
This is the culture we are allowing to emerge. If she wanted the baby, it’s hers by right of contract.
She doesn’t want the baby? Well, it’s only a purchased product anyway.
Per an article in the Daily Mail, Shepherd has booked herself for a gospel festival on the due date. She has also admitted to having “a lot of abortions” in her past.
- Stand True shares the heartwarming story of pro-life activist Brice Griffin, who kept the secret of her past abortion from her children. With the help and encouragement of pro-life leaders, she was able to release the secret and share her testimony with her children.
- On their YouTube page, CitizenLink shares a video in which they counter the liberal “Does this look like a person?” meme against the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XLvKNG-8Pko[/youtube]
[Photos via Lucy Flores Democrat for Lt. Governor/Facebook; Daily Mail]
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.
“Sounds like Flores might need to work on her “I’m not sorry” demeanor” – people well up at weddings. Do you think that’s because of regret? She was probably welling up with relief, or maybe happiness. Or over the fact that her father was supportive.
CitizenLink though treats is like some sort of given that some rights extend to corporations means all rights should be as it relates to personhood. He treats it as a given, which makes me wonder how much he researches his little videos before shooting them.
“Sounds like Flores might need to work on her “I’m not sorry” demeanor”
She probably does not meet the feminist criteria for a sociopathic post-abortive woman who never has and never will feel any regret.
But she doesn’t have to appeal to hard-boiled feminists…. they would vote for Satan, as long as he was running as a Democrat.
Lucy Flores may appeal to the great mass of post-abortive women who suffer in denial. They have all said, “I don’t regret my abortion” with that lump in their throats.
Pro-lifers need to start a dialogue with her. She may never be a pro-lifer, but she knows the pain that women suffer and the abusive practices of the abortion industry. She may help us yet.
“She probably does not meet the feminist criteria for a sociopathic post-abortive woman who never has and never will feel any regret.” – ah, if only such a creature existed. Then your argument might have some sort of basis to start with.
“But she doesn’t have to appeal to hard-boiled feminists…. they would vote for Satan, as long as he was running as a Democrat.” – vote for who? Well no one who supports freedom and equality for women would vote gop now would they.
“Lucy Flores may appeal to the great mass of post-abortive women who suffer in denial.” – another non-existent group!
“They have all said, “I don’t regret my abortion” with that lump in their throats.” – yep, happy happy joy joy lumps. Or at least immense relief.
“Pro-lifers need to start a dialogue with her.” – she may not be interested. Would that matter to you?
“She may never be a pro-lifer, but she knows the pain that women suffer and the abusive practices of the abortion industry.” – on what basis do you make such a non-evidential claim?
“She may help us yet.” – I very much doubt it.
Ex-GOP says:
CitizenLink though treats is like some sort of given that some rights extend to corporations means all rights should be as it relates to personhood.
Human rights belong to human persons. We hold this to be self-evident.
That is the basic premise of the pro-life movement.
The First Amendment right of free exercise of religion was protected for the Green family in the operation of the business that they own. It was not “extended” to corporations.
That claim is a lying confusion put forth by…. well, liberals. I hate to say it, because most liberals are honest and reasonable people. But the elitists in charge of doing the talking…. are bald faced liars. Hold them accountable.
“The First Amendment right of free exercise of religion was protected for the Green family in the operation of the business that they own. It was not “extended” to corporations.” – that’s not what happened. They were given license to impose their religion via a corpration.
Veto Del –
And if you read highlights of the decision, you’d realize you’re talking nonsense.
Give me a link to something useful, Ex-GOP. I will take a look at it.
I am not immediately afraid that corporations enjoy some human rights.
I am deathly afraid of legislative acts, executive orders and Supreme Court cases that deprive humans of human rights.
If there is a real problem, Obama could have avoided this by respecting our human rights in the first place. Now we all have to live with the Court decision that Obama’s stubborn hubris forced upon us, for good or for ill.
But the elitists in charge of doing the talking…. are bald faced liars.
Psst…no one here knows what “bald faced liar” means.
The First Amendment right of free exercise of religion was protected for the Green family in the operation of the business that they own. It was not “extended” to corporations.
Del, is the following statement true or false?
“The Supreme Court did not need to rule on the Green family’s First Amendment rights because it decided that the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act should be applied to the Hobby Lobby corporation.”
I am not a lawyer. If anyone has some links to educate me on the point you are trying to make — and why it matters — then I will be glad to look at it.
But there is a clue in LisaC’s post: The Hobby Lobby case was not about First Amendment rights for human persons or corporate persons. It was about the Obama Administration’s failure to comply with RFRA concerning their HHS Mandate.
If Obama and Sebelius had been in compliance with RFRA and the Green family were still being denied their human rights, then it could have become a First Amendment case. If the Senate bill exempting the executive order from RFRA were to pass (it won’t), then Hobby Lobby could come back as a First Amendment case.
The HHS Mandate was illegal from the beginning, failing to comply with RFRA. The nature of the offended party is not relevant — whether person, or church, or non-profit, or LLC, or S-Corp, or C-corp,….
I guess Lucy Flores’ father didn’t feel that $200.00 was used to abort his grandchild.
When my son’s girlfriend was pregnant he called me and asked me for money for an abortion. I said no of course. He asked his father and he also said no. The girl decided to continue the pregnancy but miscarried. My son and his girlfriend have been together for five years now and have two kids. I wonder if the relationship would have changed if she would have had that abortion?
If anyone has some links to educate me on the point you are trying to make — and why it matters —
This is not complicated, Del. Only someone who understands the ruling is capable of discerning whether someone else’s comments about it are truth or lies. You have asserted that a certain interpretation of the ruling is a “lying confusion” told by “bald faced liars.” Ergo, either you can answer a simple true/false question about the ruling, or you are falsely presenting yourself as someone who understands it. Which is it?
Del, the HHS mandate was unjust from the beginning (my opinion), and illegal because the Court ruled that “person” in RFRA includes corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Had the Court ruled that “person” didn’t include corporations such as Hobby Lobby, RFRA wouldn’t have been violated by the HHS Mandate.
Not sure how much time you want to spend on the issue, but tons of info here:
http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/
Wow phillymiss thanks for sharing. I am pretty sure their relationship would be totally different now, like probably nonexistent. I am so glad you did not pay for aborting your grandchild although she miscarried the baby. You nor your son nor his girlfriend have to live with the guilt, regret and pain of knowing you took the life of your own flesh and blood. I think there is a book from years ago by David Reardon “Silent No More” that gave a statistic that “over 80% of relationships break up after the abortion even when the man has told the woman “if you don’t abort I am breaking up with you”.
I will continue to pray for your son as you have mentioned in the past that he has had some problems to deal with. I hope he is doing better now. I am sure when you look at your beautiful 2 grandchildren you are so glad that you did not take the so-called “easy way out” of a difficult situation when their first pregnancy occurred. I have heard other parents in your situation say like BHO “I wouldn’t want my daughter to be punished with a baby” or ” I don’t want my son or daughter to ruin their life by having a baby”. God bless you for standing for life. Take care.
Del –
If that is your basic premise – I don’t know how you could cheer on the Hobby Lobby case, Citizen’s United – and other cases that are shrinking the rights of an individual as the rights of businesses get bigger.
You think it’s the opposite – it’s not.
Anyway, your repeated ties to try to tie this decision to the first amendment is simply wrong. Congress had an act they put in place for individuals, and this court decided oddly that a company fit the bill, and thus were protected under the act.
Again – an activist ruling – but we’ll see if it leads to a slippery slope, or if it’s quickly forgotten and doesn’t impact much (except the 2014 elections, which the Dems just got a nice boost for).
Ex, Hobby Lobby has always provided their employees health coverage (long before any government mandate), from what I understand pays above the minimum wage, and has given back to the community while upholding their Christian standards and beliefs. You want to talk about they are a business “shrinking the rights of an individual” because they had the backbone to stand up for their beliefs to not pay for 4 out of 20 things that they considered abortion inducing drugs or apparatus, that was cooked up and added after the Unaffordable Care Act passed (it never would have passed if it was in the original bill remember Bart “Stupid” Stupak?). The contraceptive mandate that was cooked up by the White House’s Valarie Jarrett, HHS’s Kathleen Sebellius (Tiller the Baby Killer’s fundraising party giver), Celeste Richards’ Planned Barrenhood-Dead Babies R Us-#1 Abortion Provider in the World CEO and “free abortion, no restrictions, no apologies” NARAL, then you want to tell us on this prolife blog that you are “prolife” and “a Christian”. Good grief man!!! I don’t believe that you are either one or you are totally deceived. I don’t agree with every prolifer who posts here about every issue, that is to be expected and a good thing, but I cannot remember anything related to the prolife cause posted here that you have ever supported really (I could have missed something). I will try to skip your posts in the future to spare myself the aggravation.
Wow Prolifer –
You sure do have that judgmental part down!
You have missed posts, you are being judgmental, assuming a lot, and reminding me a lot of that crazy lady on the video post the other day attacking somebody she didn’t agree with.
Yikes.
Have a better day.
I’m just checking–we have established that when it comes to the Hobby Lobby ruling, Del doesn’t know a bald-faced lie from a hole in the ground, right?