Louie Verrecchio is one of Catholic News Agency’s longest running columnists. He wrote an oped this week, reposted by American Life League, that contained several strong  statements and one profound one, underlined. Verrecchio was writing to Catholics but Protestants could certainly be included in much of his denouncement.

If the Second Coming of Obama is evidence of anything, it is the godlessness of a nation, the majority of whose citizens worship an idol who not only grants free license to practically every immoral impulse that one can imagine, but who also evidently demands human sacrifice to the tune of more than a million innocent souls each year.

This culture of depravity is the result of an underlying spiritual malady that has been allowed to fester and spread over the last five decades virtually unopposed by the only force capable of overtaking it.

The United States – a land wherein class-envy passes for compassion, same-sex “marriage” is accepted as fairness, and contraception is considered a matter of healthcare – is about to reap the just rewards, not so much of a nation that has abandoned the principles of its Founding Fathers, but of a Church that has abandoned its founder and the mission He has given her….

As difficult as it may be to accept, the anti-Christian oppressor and purveyor of evil extraordinaire, Barrack Hussein Obama, is precisely what the American people and the Church that has failed to properly form them deserves. Yes, deserves….

To be clear, while I considered my own ballot for Mitt Romney a vote in favor of a step in the right direction, I do not wish to imply that such a vote was a de facto vote for Christ.

What I do wish to state in the strongest terms possible, however, is that invincible ignorance aside there isn’t one single solitary person who worships the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who cast a vote in favor of Barrack Obama.

At the end of the day, America’s woes can be boiled down to good old-fashioned godlessness; either the majority of the electorate is with the Lord or against Him. In the case of election 2012, the latter prevailed and the reason is simple: The Church has gone astray.

Perhaps the dark days ahead will jolt the sacred hierarchy out of its collective slumber, emboldening them to set aside all worldly preoccupations to carry the light of Christ into the world and to proclaim His Kingship once more. This must be our prayer.

Do you agree that no one who worships the God of Abraham could possibly have voted for Obama? Also take the poll.

[L]ast February… the national Susan G. Komen Foundation initially announced it would stop funding Planned Parenthood, but then reinstated that funding within a few days….

We understand that your silent auction donations are intended for the Nebraska affiliate of Susan G. Komen which may not have any funding going to Planned Parenthood, but the fact remains that the state affiliate has ties to the National Susan G. Komen Foundation.

[T]his does not send a consistent message when the Republican National Committee just voted at its meeting last week to promote legislative avenues to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

~ Julie Schmit-Albin (pictured right), executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, bowing out of participation in the Nebraska Republican Party’s Senators’ Recognition Dinner, as quoted by JournalStar.com, February 1

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.

• Abstinence Clearinghouse happily reports that the controversial Oxygen show, “All My Babies’ Mamas”, is being cancelled before its debut and is no longer in development. The show would have showcased rapper Shawty Lo’s relationships, which resulted in 11 children with 10 different women. Many pro-family groups – including several in the African American community – expressed disgust with the concept of the show. Star Parker remarked:
  

  The destruction of the black family in only 40 years is not normal and it should not treated as entertainment for vulnerable children and young women. The consequences of living without responsibility perpetuates poverty and it’s cruel.

• Matt Clinger pens a guest post on wife Kelly Clinger’s blog after watching MSNBC’s Touré claim abortion “saved” him. A post-abortive father himself, Matt’s message is a must-read:
  

  If you are in a relationship that you KNOW isn’t going to work out, why continue to call it a committed relationship and stay in it?… Men, hear me. This is one of the root problems of abortion: disrespectful, childish men who couldn’t truthfully admit “I know we are not going to get married, but let’s have sex and possibly conceive a child that neither of us are ready for.”…

  Abortion will end when BOYS can become MEN who respect women enough to not have sex with them until they are in a REAL “committed” relationship… called MARRIAGE.

• Americans United for Life supports Missouri legislation introduced by Republican House Rep. John McCaherty, which would prohibit abortions due to sex selection and diagnosis of a disability. AUL’s Dr. Charmaine Yoest writes:
  

  It is wrong to discriminate against unborn children, targeting them for either their sex or a perception of their abilities and potential. We can do better.

• Big Blue Wave notes that the Canadian press continues to spin the facts on abortion:
  

  Canadian Press reports that three MP’s are trying to get post-viability abortions investigated as homicides… without mentioning the fact that these babies were born live, as per their letter.

• Fletcher Armstrong shares a video of Center for Bio-Ethical Reform executive director Gregg Cunningham’s pro-life presentation in a church, which included graphic abortion images. The serious question that remains for the church is, “Are we taking abortion as seriously as God takes child sacrifice in the Old Testament?” The answer is most likely “no.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/wxt5sX-tKvs[/youtube]

[Graphic via Facebook, Designs by Birgit]

by LauraLoo

In commemoration of last month’s 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade… 

Eclipse of Reason, produced 25 years ago in 1987 by the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is a gruesome video that features a preborn baby boy being aborted via dilation and evacuation (D&E).

I have watched this video multiple times over the years and cry my heart out for this poor little boy.

D&E procedures are not as popular as they used to be.  According to Jill, the preferred method of late-term abortion currently is the induced labor abortion procedure, a two- or three-day process that involves dilating the cervix to deliver the preterm baby. The baby is either killed beforehand by lethal injection or anticipated to die during or shortly after birth.

WARNING: EXTREMELY graphic, with female nudity:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nff8I2FVnI[/youtube]

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: My PCC]

UPDATE 6p: Well, the plot of this blog post has certainly thickened.

Abolish Human Abortion founder Russell Hunter has posted a YouTube video (see also below) responding to my weekend question, because, he said, “Jill Stanek actually used a Facebook status that I wrote as the conjecture or the inspiration for her survey,” and “Jill Stanek uses this Facebook status as evidence that Abolish Human Abortion thinks all marches are worthless.”

Russell in his video said I misinterpreted his FB post, because he meant to say the meteorite he thought God might launch at Tulsa pro-life marchers was not because of the march itself but because of the prayer at the end.

Let me start by saying I didn’t know Ian John Philoponus, whose FB status I posted, was Russell. I don’t track AHA or Russell that closely. A couple days ago someone sent me the screen shot of the status with a link to the post, and I set it aside to pose as a weekend question because I thought it was worth discussing. I was interested in the thought, not the random guy posting it.

I didn’t originally include the Dallas AHA quotes in my post either. If you read my comment at 10:12a, I added them later when I remembered them as further corroboration that Ian’s FB thought wasn’t random.

I can see why AHA might think I was scrutinizing it, not knowing these things, but I wasn’t.

I’ll add that I don’t think Ian/Russell’s FB post was very clear. I’m sure Russell knew what he meant to say, but I think if he reads his post objectively he will agree my interpretation wasn’t over-reaching. I’ll also add I’m not sure Russell’s (secondhand?) portrayal of events at the Tulsa march were as he stated. From audio proudly posted by an AHA member, I would say it was AHAers, not marchers, who behaved disgracefully. There’s also news video of the march.

Russell finished his YouTube thoughts about me by saying, “But what she’s actually demonstrating is that she has no comprehension just how much God hates pluralism and idolatry.”

I must say that one hurt, because I do know how much God hates pluralism and idolatry, so much so that – never mind Ra or Buddha or other idols that can be seen – I pray against the idols of my heart, like food and that computer game I liked just a little too much and deleted off my iPad January 1. And I pray Psalm 51:10 quite a bit, because I know I fall terribly short on a minute-by-minute basis of Mark 12:30. Just so you know, Russell.

Russell ended his video by calling on his supporters to vote “no” on my poll, not because AHA opposes marches per se, but as “a demonstration to Jill that fidelity to Christ is actually more important than pluralistic marches to save the babies,” adding on Facebook that “[i]f we can get 200 ‘No’ votes we will release the second video, which is much cooler than this one.”

If that were my actual poll question, Russell, I would vote “no,” too.

Russell’s video…

[youtube]http://youtu.be/jGbe9iawvco[/youtube]

9:17a: I spoke last night at a wonderful fundraising event for Wabash Valley Right to Life in Terre Haute, Indiana, and I will be driving home this morning and not able to blog (although look for Friday’s Pro-life blog buzz this afternoon!).

So following is an early weekend question. I’ll post another tomorrow. Also be sure to take the poll at the bottom of this blog.

Do you think pro-life marches, which are now held in hundreds of locations around the U.S. and world, are helpful to the movement or a colossal waste of time? The latter conjecture is based on this Facebook post:

At the Dallas march, Abolish Human Abortion reps accused pro-lifers (video at link) of conducting a “photo op,” adding:

What have you done? What have you done for the unborn but march?…. Marching does not help end abortion…. One sermon a year is not enough. Marching is not enough.

What do you think? How do pro-life marches help the movement, or how are they so unproductive marchers should fear God striking them with meteors?

[HT: Andy Moore]

At WBEZ, we tell interesting stories that appeal to interesting people.

And just by navigating to this website you’ve proven that you’re an interesting person. A seeker. A member of the Curious Class. And we want more of you. That’s why we’re asking you to do the city a solid, and begin to procreate immediately.

We’re asking you to do it. For Chicago. And for the next generation of WBEZ listeners.

~ Ad campaign for listeners of Chicago Public Media radio station WBEZ, Go Make Babies, encouraging its listeners to be fruitful and multiply, via Legal Insurrection, January 29

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• A Lima, Ohio abortion clinic has closed. Note the hilarious bias in the article:
  

  A pregnancy services provider that lists non-surgical abortion among its services has shut its doors in Lima, but as of now, it’s unclear whether the closure is temporary or permanent.

  The Capital Care Network Lima office had its front door locked, lights off and curtains pulled shut Wednesday afternoon.

  Several calls made to the Lima and Columbus offices went unanswered — many of the calls would not go through.

  The wide range of pregnancy services that “pregnancy services provider” Capital Care Network Lima provided included abortion, abortion, abortion, emergency contraception, pregnancy testing and abortion counseling.

• Avik Roy attempts to imagine what a middle ground on abortion would look like.

• Mark Tooley discusses the United Methodist Church’s position on abortion and his hope that they’ll eventually change:
  

  Last year’s United Methodist General Conference was prepared to accept a committee recommendation to withdraw from the abortion coalition until a legislative logjam and liberal maneuvers prevented a floor vote. In 2000, the United Methodist Church did oppose partial-birth abortion and has over the years backed other limits on abortion. But the church agencies belonging to the abortion coalition remain uncompromisingly pro-abortion rights. For Roe v. Wade’s 40th anniversary, they expressed no sadness over the more than 50 million abortions since 1973.

• Gregg Cunningham responds to an essay calling on pro-lifers to stop using graphic images of abortion:
  

  Of course pictures are not a panacea. Many women so harden their hearts that no influence can reverse their decision to abort. But attributing their abortion decisions to abortion photos is a contention for which there exists not a shred of credible evidence.

  I have never heard anyone say “I never accepted abortion until I saw a picture of it.” I have heard countless people say “I always accepted abortion until I saw a picture of it.” The pro-life movement is sadly ignoring the lessons we should take from multiple studies which have repeatedly shown that stomach-churning, nightmare-inducing pictures are an effective means of reducing smoking. We know experientially that abortion photos also reduce abortion.

[Graphic via akroncentenaryumc.org]

It’s clear by now Planned Parenthood didn’t consult its friends before announcing plans to drop the term “pro-choice” from its lexicon.

Seems like a huge deal to me, particularly since Planned Parenthood offered no replacement.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t make marketing missteps, but I think it just did.

Certainly Planned Parenthood must have alienated groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Feminists for Choice, Catholics for Choice, Rock for Choice, Medical Students for Choice, Republicans for Choice, Center for Choice, 4000 Years for Choice, Clinicians for Choice, Voice of Choice, Choice USA, yadda yadda.

It took a week for NARAL to gather its wits, but finally on January 17 it issued a response, digging in its heels to expand the meaning of the term wider than ever:

[I]t’s important that NARAL Pro-Choice America also see “choice” in much broader terms. Choice means having access to birth control and choosing when to make the personal and financial commitment to bring a child into the world. It means taking steps to ensure you can provide for and protect that child to the best of your ability.

Of course, it makes perfect sense to protect children “to the best of your ability” you didn’t kill yourself. But I digress.

Last week abortion supporter Whoopi Goldberg became so confused on The View she decided pro-choice is pro-life…  but that people who say they are pro-life are not that at all but are anti-abortion… but actually, we’re all pro-life…. Um… jump to 1:21…

[youtube]http://youtu.be/4VdeMgnZXtw?t=1m21s[/youtube]

On January 22, A. B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill newspaper, responded to an October Fox News poll indicating that 50% of Americans called themselves pro-choice and 42% pro-life:

But you know, though, those people would argue that using those terms is not really accurate polling. Everyone’s pro-life, even if they support the right to an abortion.

Um again… jump to 4:01…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2spb_Pe1wg – fox[/youtube]

Note that despite the insane mash-up of terminologies, the left lean now is toward life: Abortion proponents want to be considered pro-life. Strange times indeed.

Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute was interviewed on Issues, Etc., on January 29 regarding his thoughts on why PP is abandoning the term “pro-choice.” He said:

Here’s the classic thing. Whenever you’re losing an argument, there are five things you want to do:

1. Make the debate personal rather than objective: Determine right and wrong by your personal circumstances, not some objective standard.

2. Make the debate complex.

3. Offer no rational arguments, only labels.

4. Appeal to the majority.

5. Reduce the entire thing to personal circumstances that no one else has a right to understand or judge.

PP is five for five on this particular video clip. You couldn’t have done it better.

Let’s watch that ad again, with Scott’s points in mind…

[youtube]http://youtu.be/2hVSFh__xss[/youtube]

Scott continued:

What does it tell you that they are publicly trying to reframe the debate? It tells me a couple things:

1. They’re terrified of images of abortion being widely distributed in the public. Feminist Naomi Wolf put it well in a 19[97] New York Times article, when she said, “When someone holds up a model of a six-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say, ‘choice,’ and we lose.” “Choice” holds no power against the power of the backdrop of an unborn human that has had his skull stabbed and brain sucked out. “Choice” just doesn’t work. The images convey the truth the language attempts to hide.

2. The other thing it conveys is PP is afraid that the pro-life movement is increasingly a younger and more motivated movement. The other side of this debate is dealing with an aging population of activists who have made no real arguments to advance their cause, and now are trying to reduce everything to labeling and personal circumstances. They’re in trouble.

Which is not to say we are in the clear. Scott again:

On their side they have the law and the political establishment, and that isn’t going to change any time soon. And we’re going to have to work a whole lot harder to get involved politically. But for now they have the upper hand politically, but they don’t have the upper hand in terms of where their movement is going, and the argument. They have no argument.

As for the terminology flux:

I can think of article that argued in 1995 that they needed to switch from “choice” to “consent” – that “choice” was empty and did not compete well in the marketplace. This argument against the word “choice” is not new. This is just a typical cyclical thing for them, a test balloon to see what happens.