From Magic City Morning Star

Protect Mothers & Babies With Faith, Law & Adoptions; Not Abortions, Lies & Euphemisms

Milloncockt, Maine

By Doug Wrenn
Feb 27, 2006

According to a February 25th Associated Press Report, state lawmakers in South Dakota have boldly and bravely approved a bill that would ban all abortions in that state, with the only exception being in deference to the health of the mother. Exceptions of rape and incest are excluded from the bill. South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has indicated that he intends to sign the bill into law. The report quoted the Guttmacher Institute, a "reproductive rights" organization in New York and Washington as saying that similar proposals are now also being considered in Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Such legislation comes as a refreshing surprise, since the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska partial birth abortion ban in June of 2000, in the case of Stenberg vs. Carhart. That case was struck down primarily because it did not provide an exception for the health of the mother.

According to Father Frank Pavone, who heads the pro-life group, Priests For Life (www.priestsforlife.org), he asked the attorney representing the pro-abortion side of the argument in that case if any evidence existed to show that the health or life of the mother would be an issue in partial birth abortion. The lawyer admitted that there was no such evidence. The court's decision remained anyway. I also distinctly recall a live US Senate debate once on CSPAN between Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), in which Sen. Santorum cited a study from the medical school at Northwestern University in Sen. Durbin's state of Illinois, that there is no such sound medical reason for the sake of the mother to perform a partial birth abortion. I recall similar claims being made in debates in the House of Representatives. I believe I also recall hearing Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), himself a practicing doctor who has performed 4,000 deliveries in his practice, state the same fact. Father Pavone also interviewed Dr. Martin Haskell, who claimed to have performed 700 abortions and wrote a 1992 paper on the procedure for a risk management seminar for the National Abortion Federation in 1992. Dr. Haskell also confirmed that no sound medical reason exists to perform a partial birth abortion for the sake of the mother. Dr. Haskell also cited in his paper on the procedure that in 80% of the cases, partial birth abortion was "elective," that is to say, decided for reasons other than the health of the mother. Despite these statements and those of similar support from other doctors, proponents of partial birth (or "live birth abortion") now are stretching the issue to include the mental health of the mother in terms of mental anguish, depression, etc, not necessarily life threatening conditions. These same proponents also continually try to stifle the staggering amount of documented information pertaining to the physical and mental negative affects of women who have had an abortion. The South Dakota legislation is inclusive of all forms of abortion, and with the health exception included in the language of the bill.

Already, the pro-abortion faction is moving into action. They are utilizing the same tactics from the same tired, old, playbook. These proponents, who mask their cause with warm fluffy euphemisms like "choice," "women's health," and "reproductive rights," are making the redundant claims that women will have to travel further to abortion mills, and may again be subject to self imposed and highly dangerous abortion procedures. So often these same proponents who often, but not always, are from the left invoke the impactful talking point of "the children" in so many other issues, yet couldn't care less about "the children" on the abortion issue. With more willing parents than babies to match to, pregnant women do not have to resort to driving far distances or self-imposed abortion attempts. Somehow, the adoption issue is never on the table with this faction. Many organizations like Planned Parenthood have been alleged to refuse to report cases of child rape, on behalf of their underage clients, impregnated by adults. Such organizations also go out of their way to not mention alternatives to abortion, such as pro-life organizations like Birth Right, which will give support, in terms of food, clothing, counseling, etc.. to indigent mothers. It is also such pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood that fight the showing sonograms of fully developed babies in the wombs to their mothers who are contemplating aborting them. So much for "the children." The only "planning" Planned Parenthood does is to "plan" infanticide, the dirty and very real word which that organization avoids at all costs.

Supposedly, there is a connection between the abortion faction and those promoting embryonic stem cell research, which is erroneously, if not falsely, attributed to providing potential cures for some chronic diseases and afflictions. Potential cures have been attributed to adult stem cell research, which does not take conceived life, like embryonic stem cell research. One leading scientist in embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Hwang Woo-suk, of South Korea, has already had much of his allegedly fabricated findings of potential cures debunked, and is being investigated for the alleged forged research and false claims.

Since the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, an estimated 42 million babies have been aborted, a much higher figure than previous estimates, as many women now use the procedure repeatedly as a means of birth control. From there, we have seen the advent of partial birth abortion, and as exposed by pro-life hero, Jill Stanek, a nurse from (ironically) Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL, babies slated for abortion are often induced to birth prematurely, and left uncared for to die in what is called "live birth abortions." In these cases, the cause of death on the death certificate is often "premature birth," despite the fact that the premature birth was induced. In a Nov. 15, 1999 article by Frank York on World Net Daily (www.wnd.com), entitled, "Fetal Profits Promotes Partial Birth Abortions," a revolting report cited babies who survived live abortions were drown in a pan of saline so that their fresh body parts could be harvested for research. This was one of many such articles on the ghoulish multi-million dollar industry. Abortion is like any other political issue, it starts out small, and expands gradually. Such is the point of the riddle: "How do you eat an elephant?" Answer: "One bite at a time."

Abortion proponents also frequently cite "women's rights," or "reproductive rights." Rights stop at the point at which they endanger someone else's life, the foremost right of all. I have the right to free speech, but not to exercise a twisted sense of humor by falsely yelling, "Fire!" in a dark and crowded movie theater. During his questioning of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn, (R-OK), mentioned in his statement that we now know that babies in the womb can feel pain at 12 days after being conceived. Dr. Coburn also questioned the rationale that any practicing doctor must certify the absence of both a heartbeat and brain waves before pronouncing a person dead, yet no such standard applies to a doctor performing any kind of abortion, in which the baby still has both functions. It is irrefutable that women most certainly have a say in "their bodies," and in their "reproductive rights." However, that "right" to an abortion, falsely created by Roe vs. Wade, ends at the taking of another human life, which is to say, the baby, not the fetus. With our newly increased knowledge of life from studying DNA, there is now more evidence from scientists to support what religious leaders have known and stated all along, life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. Appropriately, the proposed South Dakota law makes it a crime for any doctor (those medical professionals who swear an oath that includes, "First, Do No Harm..") to perform an abortion, unless the mother's life was endangered.

I will take South Dakota's law one step further. Like it or not, more than ample documentation proves that our nation was founded on Judeo/Christian beliefs and principles, not necessarily any specific denomination. Thus, the erroneous and unconstitutional "separation of church vs. state" argument would not apply, even if it were valid. In criminal law, (at least in my state), duress is not a valid reason to murder. In other words, if someone holds a gun on you, gives you a knife, and tells you to stab the other person standing next to you or you will be shot, you are guilty of murder if you stab that innocent person. Based on that principle, how can the endangered health of the mother justify the taking of another innocent human life, that is to say, the baby? This is the reason why several faiths prohibit abortion, even under this scenario. The belief is that it is best to allow the birth to occur naturally, without human interference, while simultaneously trying to protect the lives of both mother and child. The rest is up to God and His wisdom. However, that requires faith, a taboo in the current and morally relative American lexicon. I know what many of you are thinking, "Easy for him to say - a man." Yes, I suppose that is true, but I didn't make that rule, God did, so take it up with Him. Besides, what loving mother would not run into a burning building to rescue her baby from a fire? So then why is it so preposterous to accept the notion that childbirth is a dangerous and risky endeavor, as it always has been?

Actions speak louder than words. In our present day society, what does it say about us, when we wantonly kill our most innocent and vulnerable for no better excuse than lack of want or convenience? Some federal laws impose severe fines and possibly even imprisonment for disturbing the eggs of certain protected and endangered species of birds and other animals. How can rampant human infanticide be not only legal, but seemingly in vogue? We extend more protection of rights to convicted prison inmates and animals than we do the unborn. Talk to any person who survived a planned abortion because his or her mother changed her mind at the last minute, and ask what "choice" the survivor would have picked, given the opportunity. At what point do we remove the last masking vestige of trendy, cowardly, hypocritical political correctness and reveal the underlying and genuinely barbaric and literal butchering of babies that too many have camouflaged and defended for far too long?

The pro-abortion crowd also cites instances of rape and incest to justify abortion. Why should the innocent and defenseless baby be slaughtered because of the wrongdoing of his or her father? These advocates also cite that in cases of rape and incest, the issue expands to the father's parental rights. Change the criminal code! Deny parental rights to the father in both circumstances, and make impregnation by either means a life sentence without parole. A death sentence for the perpetrator would not be justifiable if the victim wasn't killed, and any sentence less than life without parole would give the father a chance to be later released and then able to harass and threaten both mother and child. Given the adequate protections for both mother and child from faith and improved law, abortion need not be an option. Those guilty of rape and incest are predators, and society has a right to be protected from them. As the mother is victimized in such cases, and her life forever altered from this intrusive crime, so then should the life of the accused and convicted father also be drastically altered, with permanent incarceration without hope for release.

I know that some of you may be taking umbrage to my usage of the term, "pro-abortion." Too bad. While I know that you are morally dishonest enough and lacking of confidence and conviction to label and define what you really mean, what "choice" are you talking about? The mother had the "choice," barring a case of rape, to not have sex or to take more precaution, and Heaven forbid, to not have sex outside of the prescribed boundaries of marriage. The mother had a choice. There once was a time in which actions went beyond a now obsolete term called "the point of no return." Such a mind-set is now barely visible, as no one any longer wishes to assume personal accountability for his or her actions, and every poor "choice" must now have an out-clause, no matter how heinous. In short, "Do it if it feels good," and "The ends justify the means." In most cases, the mother did have a choice, but she chose the wrong one. The baby never has any choice at all. The entire inception of the abortion movement was based on alleged "choice," so that impregnated women in abusive relationships or in financial duress could have an "out-clause" to preserve their marriage or be saved from a beating. Yet, no evidence has shown such to be the case. Spousal abuse is now epidemically prevalent, and according to Dr. Robert Shaw, in his book, "Epidemic," abuse is now even increasing among dating teenagers. Divorce is now at about 50% in our country, and now, men are as demanding for abortion as women, so that they will not have to be accountable for their negative behavior. As usual, such liberal, utopian theories that usurp years, decades, and even centuries of established moral codes of decency are at the very least, just hot air, and at the very most, another corrosive to our already drastically eroding, sordid culture. Meanwhile, a ministry within the Catholic Church known as "Project Rachel" offers grief counseling to suffering mothers and fathers, after enduring the all too common post-abortion emotional trauma that occurs when a woman exercises "choice" for her "reproductive rights." (Hush - you're not supposed to know about that!) Abortion is also a significant factor of our diminished and ever shrinking western culture, now literally at a "point of no return," due to significantly decreased procreation.

On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion. While this bill only addressed partial birth abortion, unlike the South Dakota bill, which addresses all abortions, the President's bill was a small step, but nevertheless a step in the right direction. However, within less than five months after the bill was signed and it's ink barely dry, court trials contesting the ban were beginning in New York, California and Nebraska. Many pro-lifers now pin their hopes on Roe vs. Wade being overturned, due to the recent appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Supreme Court. I am more skeptical. I watched the nomination hearings of both men, and did some reading about them as well. Chief Justice Roberts gave me cause to question his pro-life stance, based on his statement to Judiciary Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), that Roe vs. Wade was "settled law." For his part, Justice Alito has previously ruled in favor of abortion in some cases in the lower courts, in spite of his alleged "pro-life credentials, so often touted by many on the right. To effectively overturn Roe vs. Wade, one more pro-life justice should be appointed. With that in mind, it is highly doubtful that any of the pro-abortion faction of the bench will retire before the 2008 presidential election, although, I would be very happy if I am proven wrong in that prediction.

Many on the right are seeking a fast and easy solution, like putting the definitive decision of the abortion issue into the jurisdiction of the individual states. I disagree with that idea. While I am a strong supporter of states' rights, and the 10th Amendment, abortion is the taking of innocent human life, thus it is a civil rights issue. Was it a civil rights issue when the FBI took charge of the murder investigation of civil rights workers in Mississippi in the early 1960's? Yes it was, and this is a civil rights issue, too, and thus a federal, not a state matter.

If science, religion, and common sense can all agree that life does begin at conception, then abortion is denied by our Declaration of Independence, which states, "..We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, the 4th Amendment denies unreasonable searches and "seizures." (Presumably, even seizures of a defenseless, innocent baby from what was previously the protective, and safe womb.) The 5th Amendment denies any person from being deprived of life without due process of law. Even murderers get a trial before sentencing or execution. When do aborted babies get their "day in court"? The 8th Amendment denies "cruel and unusual punishment." Considering how first trimester and partial birth abortions are performed in babies over 12 days old, (Research it for yourself. Trust me, it is graphic, and gruesome.) I would call such procedures outright torture, which no adult of sound mind and the ability to defend his or herself would willingly ever be subject to. The 14th Amendment, which the pro-abortion crowd hangs their hat on to protect women, can be equally applied to protect babies. It states, like the 5th Amendment, that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but expands that prohibition to the states, in addition to the federal government. In one of the world's youngest, yet most advanced nations, which in it's 200 + year history, fought a revolution to be free from tyranny, a civil war to be free from slavery, and two world wars to be free from domination, it astounds me that we still continue to take and forsake the most significant liberty of life from our most innocent, and vulnerable with such incessant regularity and callous impunity. Is this still the same United States of America, the champion and pinnacle of freedom and virtue, which I read about in history books?

Civil rights are often invoked by, or on behalf of minorities, such as blacks. Specifically now, in the month of February, dubbed, "Black History Month," we are often reminded about civil rights. Yet, many blacks support the abortion issue, as they tend to march in lock-step with the Democrat Party, which continually preaches "free speech" and "tolerance," while vociferously denying few, if any of its members to be overly vocal on pro-life issues, such as pro-life Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey at the 1992 Democrat Convention. In later years, civil rights activist Rosa Parks championed abortion. She was a member of the Board of Advocates for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Obviously in Rosa's mind, civil rights and diversity ended with blacks, and specifically, adult blacks. That is as tragic as it is ironic because as many as 14 million, or roughly 1/3 of all babies aborted since Roe vs. Wade have been black, as per a February 7, 2005 article by Randy Hall on CNSNews.com, entitled, "Abortion Causes Black Genocide Activists Say." (That is one aspect of black history you typically won't hear about in February!) In fact, Margaret Sanger, who formed the American Birth Control League in the early 1900's, which later became Planned Parenthood, was reputed to herself be a civil rights activist for minorities, despite the fact that she also proposed theories such as eugenics, sterility of minorities, and birth control to allegedly "purify" the white race, in much the same way that Hitler wished to create a "perfect race." Considering how they have been oppressed, blacks should especially be sensitive to civil rights for the unborn, as well as for themselves. But just like how black activists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton see racism everywhere in the US, and create its perceived image where they don't see it, these two concerned "African-Americans" are somehow deaf, dumb and blind to the genocide, famine, oppression, and various other mass atrocities continually befalling blacks in Africa. These two self-appointed leaders of the black community are also noticeably silent regarding the ongoing genocide, here in their own country, of the 14 million of the youngest and most defenseless members of their own race, who need defending more than anyone. Suffice to say that in the history of the past century, the acorn has not fallen far from the tree.

Whiles some notable progress has been made, many disturbing questions remain unanswered for the future of the pro-life cause. The pro-abortion side claims they represent the majority of Americans. The pro-life side claims that they have the majority by slightly more than half. Whatever the true numbers are, one thing is for certain, despite their bravado, pro-abortionists clearly want to keep this issue out of the grasp of the voting public, and for that matter, even away from that voting public's elected representatives. Instead, the pro-abortion crowd prefers to take the dictatorial route, via a legislating from the bench judiciary, or at least, one that once was. Meanwhile, the abortion activists, like many on the left, distort facts, hurl insults, avoid real debate, and replace facts with euphemisms and knee-jerk emotions. In the end, it is those whom they are allegedly defending, who ultimately get hurt, along with the aborted, of course. That's the quirky thing about death; it hasn't yet received the memo that "the point of no return" no longer exits in modern, "progressive" society. On a daily basis, we see less and less hope of that ideal ever returning. But to their credit, some courageous, daring, and moral folks (who some of you call "rednecks") in South Dakota and a few other states might just be beginning to turn that tide real soon, for the benefit of all, including "the children, "and for that matter, all of "the children."

Doug Wrenn

News from 2006