Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Unfortunately,
evil in America has triumphed in recent years. Since Roe v. Wade, 4000
children have been routinely slaughtered every day while millions of
Americans stood idly by, too busy to vote or too disenfranchised to care.
While both of these are real concerns, they must not prevent people from
answering the needs of the community. Register to vote now because Nov. 6 is
the time for good people to finally do something.
C. Abortion as the #1 Issue
C-1 -- 250 Words
In our nation's experiment in
self-governance, certain things need to be beyond the reach of the majority,
precisely because they embody values that a society needs to survive. No
majority can make what is wrong into something that is right.
People cannot govern themselves if they
have lost the sense of what is right and what is wrong. We govern the
country. If we exempt ourselves from that admittedly challenging process,
then we are letting someone else govern us!
Some call the right-to-life movement
"divisive." Our country was founded on the recognition of certain basic
moral principles, among which is that the right to life is unalienable, is
bestowed by the Creator, and is to be protected by the government. The very
greatness of America depends on her adherence to this truth. How, then, can
one consider "divisive" the very principle on which our unity as a nation
Some speak of "a pluralistic society."
There are many forms of legitimate pluralism in our society: there are
varieties of cultures, of art, of races, of schools of thought. Yet the very
phrase "a pluralistic society" indicates that it is one. The word
"pluralistic" here is modifying a singular noun. What holds this
"pluralistic society" together, keeping it from becoming a disconnected
chaos? There need to be certain basic, foundational principles to which
everyone in the society adheres if it is to survive. The right to life is
the first among them.
C-2 -- 220 Words
We who are pro-life do not say that
abortion is the only issue. It is, however, the foundational issue. Many
things destroy human life. Yet abortion goes beyond that. Our nation's
current abortion policy authorizes such destruction, by a direct denial of
the protections granted to persons under the US Constitution.
An example will clarify this. Sometimes
people are heard to say that poverty is a more important problem than
abortion. Certainly, the problems are related, and we must actively care for
But to make a truly equivalent parallel
between the plight of the poor and that of the unborn, one would have to
imagine a policy whereby a) the poor were officially declared to be devoid
of "personhood" under the Constitution (as Roe vs. Wade did to the unborn),
and b) over 4000 of the poor were put to death daily against their will,
while efforts to directly save them were prosecuted by the government (as is
the case regarding the unborn).
It is one thing to assert that a
particular policy does or does not advance the rights of the poor; it is
quite another to assert that the poor have no right to exist. Debates about
the poor are in the first category; the debate about the unborn is in the
C-3 -- 200 Words
As the election draws near, we are hearing
more and more about health care, education, the war on terrorism, and other
important topics. All of these are, to be sure, very important. The most
important topic, however, is the one that nobody wants to talk about:
abortion. "But how is abortion more important than quality education?" Easy.
A child cannot receive a quality education once he is aborted. It is
certainly a noble goal to see to it that every child receives a quality
education, but when one-third of children die before they reach
kindergarten, we have failed in providing them with a quality education.
The same is true for other issues.
Certainly children should have access to proper health care, but why is
health care important? Health care is important because we value human life
and seek to protect it from harm. Abortion, conversely, says that the
purpose of health care is to destroy life, not to nurture it. Every
humanitarian goal, and there are many of them, rests on the premise of the
value and protection of human life. It is for this reason that support for
life must be the sine qua non for your vote.
C-4 -- 200 Words
Deciding whom to vote for is like choosing
what to drink when you go out to dinner. There are a number of different
choices that look good, but none that seems to fit perfectly with what you
are looking for. You may desperately want to enjoy the luxury of what looks
like the best drink on the menu, but you must first consider where you are.
You know that you have to get home, and that you don't want to drive drunk.
So, you make the decision to have water. It's plain and might not be
everything you want, but it will not endanger you when you are driving home.
You placed life on a higher plain than luxury.
Voting for a candidate works much the same
way. There are candidates with different ideas, different priorities, and
different solutions to various problems. Some priorities are higher than
others, with life being the highest. Just like at dinner, even if you are
not pleased with your choice, you take the one least likely to bring about
the destruction of innocent human life. Like ordering water, the candidate
might not taste the best, but in the end you know what you must do.
C-5 -- 150 Words
Isn't it ironic that those who tell us to
"Never forget" have themselves forgotten so quickly? Indeed, many argue that
people may not be single-issue voters, at least not on the life issue. These
are usually the same people who spend their time talking about the horrors
of the Holocaust. If you asked them whether they would have thought
single-issue voting was permissible in Germany, they would rightly reply,
"Of course! How could anyone think that there is a more important issue that
the taking of innocent human life?!" Now it is time for all Americans to
realize that they too must become voters who protect innocent human life,
even if that means compromising on some of the other aspects of their
agenda. Every day, 4000 people are routinely put to death in the
concentration camps commonly known as abortion clinics. On Nov. 6, you must
C-6 -- 100 Words
The election on Nov. 6 is nothing short of
a life and death matter. It's not about war, terrorism, or anthrax. It's
about abortion. Candidates of both parties have various solutions to the
serious problems in our society, but only some will work toward ending the
biggest problem. Crime must drop, health care must be more widely available,
and education must improve, but all of these goals are worthless if we say
that they are off limits to one-third of our society. If these goals are
really important, then our first goal must be allowing all people to enjoy
Religious Beliefs and Politics
D-1 -- 225 words
Some politicians say they are "personally
opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on
This is a classic example of
fence-sitting--of trying to please both sides. This kind of politician says
what one side wants to hear, then does what the other side wants him to do.
This is called hypocrisy. It is a sign that somebody can't be trusted. As
the Indians used to say in the old Westerns, this sort of person "speaks
with forked tongue."
If a politician who engages in
fence-sitting believes what he says--that he really is opposed to
abortion--then he is publicly admitting that he can be bought. After all,
the major pro-abortion groups can be among the biggest campaign donors to
this sort of candidate. If a politician really is opposed to abortion and
accepts these contributions, he is willing to sell his own beliefs.
If he isn't selling out, then he doesn't
see anything wrong with abortion. That makes him a liar. It means that all
his talk about opposing abortion is a trick to avoid losing pro-life votes.
Either way, this sort of politician is a
snake in the grass. I believe he is untrustworthy, and I will impose that
belief in the ballot box next election. Unlike him, I stand up for what I
D-2 -- 220 words
Many pro-choicers say they are "personally
opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on
Are these people as tolerant on other
issues? Surely they are also opposed to holding up convenience stores,
running red lights, and wife-beating. Do they balk at imposing their beliefs
on others regarding these issues?
If one is opposed to abortion, he must
recognize that it involves taking life. It is possible to hold up a
convenience store, run a red light, and beat your wife without taking a
human life. It is not possible to practice abortion without taking human
Why are abortion rights advocates willing
to impose their beliefs on robbers, reckless drivers, and wife-beaters, but
not on women? Why are women entitled to a special grace pro-choicers won't
grant to others?
Pro-choice people seem to think that
masked gunmen, reckless drivers, and wife beaters can be held to a higher
standard than ordinary women. Masked gunmen, drunk drivers, and wife beaters
can be required to act civilized. Why do people who advocate women's right
to have abortions think women can't be civilized as well?
I suggest that these people hold women
just as accountable for their behavior as they do everyone else. Women
should refrain from harming others. It's not too much to ask.
D-3 -- 140 words
A congresswoman recently said that she is
"personally opposed to abortion." But she also said, "I cannot impose my
belief on others."
What she is really saying is, "I'd rather
be popular than honorable."
The primary reason someone would be
opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another
concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in
America's legal abortion clinics.
This congresswoman has never said why she
opposes abortion. She has just made it plain that whatever her concerns are,
she is willing to lay them aside for the sake of popularity. We have names
for people like that where I come from, most referring to a willingness to
lay one's lips on the posteriors of others.
So congresswoman, if the name fits, wear
D-4 -- 210 words
Recently, I heard a politician say he is
"personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't impose this belief on
It is hard for me to imagine a more
cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be opposed to abortion
lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another concern could be for
the women who are injured, killed, and raped in America's legal abortion
In either event, this person is willing to
look the other way while these things happen if doing so allows them to
avoid taking a courageous political position. I really hope that American
society hasn't fallen so low that statements like this pass for political
leadership. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Winston
Churchill saying they wouldn't stop someone from committing murder as long
as the person who did it said it wasn't murder? The real question is: What
will the long-term consequences be for a society that elects leaders who say
they wouldn't do anything to stop what they admit is wrong? That doesn't fit
any definition of courage or leadership I know. It's certainly not the kind
of political and personal courage this country was founded upon. In reality,
it's just your standard, garden-variety political cowardice.
D-5 -- 160 words
Recently, I heard a
politician say he is "personally opposed to abortion" but that he couldn't
impose this belief on others.
It is hard for me to
imagine a more cowardly statement. The primary reason someone would be
opposed to abortion lies in the belief that it takes a human life. Another
concern could be for the women who are injured, killed, and raped in
America's legal abortion clinics.
During the Second World
War, Oskar Schindler risked everything--his reputation, his business, his
life--to rescue Jews because he was opposed to what his countrymen were
doing. He pretended that he approved of dehumanizing the Jews in order to
divert attention from the fact that he was saving them. People like the
politician mentioned above do the opposite. They pretend to disapprove of
what their countrymen are doing in order to let them continue to do it.
If Oskar Schindler was a
hero, what does that make these folks?
D-6 -- 160 words
Some people say they are "personally
opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose this belief on
It is sickening how many people are
willing to embrace this cowardly philosophy.
French existentialist and Nobel
Prize-winning author Albert Camus wrote, "We shall know nothing until we
know whether we have the right to kill our fellow men, or the right to let
them be killed."
Have the "personally-opposed pro-choicers"
ever sat down and really thought about whether they have the right to look
the other way while their fellow human beings are killed? Do they have the
right to go about their business while their youngest brothers and sisters
are brutally torn limb from limb? Do they really have the right to allow
such barbarity against others?
When it comes to abortion, the question is
not whether others have the right to step in. It is whether they have the
right to remain silent while the killing continues.
D-7 -- 110 words
Some people express the notion that
although abortion is wrong, "it is not an area where one person has the
right to impose his beliefs on others."
Would they feel that way if they were in
the baby's shoes? I know that if someone was about to slice me up with a
knife, I'd want somebody to impose his beliefs on the situation for my
It's easy to take the "I shouldn't be
involved" attitude toward abortion because once you are born, you will never
be a target of abortion. If any other kind of killer were on the loose, I
imagine these people would have a different attitude.
D-8 -- 235 words
Some politicians say they are "personally
opposed to abortion." But they also say, "I cannot impose my belief on
What do these people think we elected them
for? Every time they vote for a law, they are imposing their beliefs on
somebody. Recently, environmentally conscious legislators imposed their
beliefs on motorists, requiring them to have emissions testing done on their
cars every other year. Many people believe this was a thinly veiled attempt
to keep poor people dependent by taking their cars away. That didn't stop
these legislators from acting on their belief that the emissions test is
more important than poor people having transportation to get to work. Many
people will no longer be able to afford their own cars, and will lose their
jobs as a result. This law will have a powerful impact on their lives.
Obviously these politicians were willing
to impose their beliefs on the working poor, regardless of how much their
beliefs hurt them. Why are they so unwilling to act on their beliefs when it
comes to abortion? They won't let poor people drive old cars, but they'll
let women abort their children.
Such legislators have some strange
priorities. They'll take away a poor mother's car, then tell her to take
heart--sure, she'll have to go on welfare, but she'll always be able to get
Small comfort that is. These lawmakers
should be ashamed.
D-9 -- 100 Words
Last week, Senator N. made the case that a
person's religious beliefs must not affect his political views. Quite
clearly, then, the Senator does not understand the nature of religion.
Religious beliefs are inherent to the individual, and a person's beliefs are
supposed to help determine what he thinks and does. Indeed, anyone who says
that his religious beliefs do not influence his political ideas has little
understanding of religion, or politics, or of both.
Government Should Not Interfere
E-1 -- 240 words
A political candidate recently stated that
although she considers abortion wrong, "the government should not interfere
with people's private choices."
What nonsense! The government interferes
with people's private choices all the time. That's why we have a government.
There is nothing intrinsically noble about
choice. There are many choices societies simply can't allow individuals to
make. Total freedom for each individual is anarchy.
The government has forbidden many choices,
both public and private. The choice to have sex with children and the choice
to dump antifreeze in the city reservoir are both forbidden. I have never
heard this candidate protest these limits on choices.
Restricting choices is exactly what laws
are meant to do. Every law ever passed--from speed limits to bans on insider
trading--were passed to deny someone the legal ability to make a particular
Many choices that we may not legally make
are not nearly as deadly and far-reaching as abortion. We may not legally
choose to fish without a license, sunbathe nude in our front yards, or pick
flowers in state parks. The decision of the government to interfere is based
on what is in the best interests of the community. Considering that abortion
results in dead babies, injured women, and damaged families, it is certainly
a better candidate for government interference than nude sunbathing. The
shame is that this candidate is too infatuated with abortion to see this.
E-2 -- 230 words
Some politicians say that although
abortion is wrong, "it is not an area in which the government has a right to
What do they think the government should
It is the job of the government to protect
the weak from the strong. To protect ordinary citizens from burglars and
carjackers. To protect children from child molesters. To protect consumers
from seedy con-artists. If one person or group tries to wrong another person
or group, it is the job of the government to intervene.
Is the government supposed to intervene
when no wrongdoing is afoot? Would these politicians rather have the
government control what color cars we drive, how many people attend baseball
games, or the amount of ice cream on pie a la mode? If the government won't
intervene when life is at stake, it has no business governing.
Abortion is an unregulated industry that
produces injuries, death, and sexual assault of women at an alarming rate.
One would think that of all industries, one that produces only corpses,
mutilated bodies, and rape victims would be the one held most
accountable--if not shut down entirely. The politicians I mentioned earlier
are probably not opposed to government regulation of the transportation,
manufacturing, and service sectors. What is it about producers of dead
babies and victimized women that these politicians consider them to be above
E-3 -- 120 words
A leader in the pro-abortion movement
quoted Richard Nixon as saying, "On abortion the state should stay out of
it. Don't subsidize and don't prohibit."
That's like saying that if we neither
subsidize nor prohibit lynching blacks, we're staying out of racism.
To permit something is to give it official
sanction. Imagine for a moment saying that the government was going to "stay
out of" domestic violence by taking this kind of hands-off attitude. No more
restraining orders. No more jailing abusive husbands. Are we supposed to
believe that this would solve the problem?
Allowing abortion is being involved. It is
promoting and protecting abortion.
Is that what we really want to do?
Court and Senate Races
F-1 -- 185 words
We face a crucial election this year,
since those who are elected to the US Senate may have the opportunity to
confirm the next justices for the US Supreme Court, as well as many
positions on other Federal courts.
For the passage of laws that favor the
right to life, and for the appointment of Justices who will protect that
right, the President cannot act alone. The Senate must vote in a pro-life
direction. That will happen only if we vote in a pro-life direction when we
elect our Senators.
A commitment to the right to life is not
identical to a commitment to any particular political party. No party
perfectly embodies the Gospel, nor is our loyalty to party supposed to be
stronger to our loyalty to our moral convictions. Candidates of any party
can be pro-life. Throughout the changes that occur from candidate to
candidate, election to election, and year to year, our message is always the
same: No government has the authority to allow the destruction of innocent
human life, and we have the solemn responsibility to choose leaders who
F-2 -- 150 Words
The Supreme Court hangs in the balance our
Senate race this year. The winner of the Senate race will have to decide
whether to support or oppose Court appointments made by the President in the
coming years. (Candidate A) likely will look at the criteria as originally
intended and use his best judgement when deciding whether to support the
nominee. (Candidate B), conversely, will look at his political agenda and
try to determine whether a nominee will help to bring about his political
agenda. If we elect (Candidate B), the judiciary will be nothing more than
an unelected political branch with no accountability at all, much like the
courts in the totalitarian regimes from which we are trying to free nations.
Incidentally, didn't we have our own war over that sort of thing a couple of
hundred years ago?
Judicial Appointments and Senatorial Elections
G-1 -- 200 Words
If it has been a while since you have
taken a civics class, you may think that a Constitutional amendment requires
the support of two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by
three-fourths of state legislatures. The requirements have since been
reduced to three extremist special interest groups. Planned Parenthood, the
National Organization for Women and NARAL Pro-Choice America have
blackmailed a minority of Senators, forcing them to filibuster federal
judicial nominees or face opposition, which would be financed by their fat
cat contributors, at the ballot box. Their actions effectively constitute
religious McCarthyism as they delve into the political and personal
backgrounds of nominees in search of support for the most moderate
restrictions on abortion, such as requiring a thirteen-year-old to notify
one parent that she is planning to have elective surgical abortion.
Obviously, this eliminates the vast majority of actual and potential
nominees from consideration. It also eliminates the possibility of a
practicing Christian from serving on the federal bench. One would think that
if Senators had learned anything from history it would be that those who
persecute the many to appease the few ultimately fail all. This November,
support a senatorial candidate who will not participate in this religious
G-2 -- 150 Words
Most people think witch-hunts are a thing
of the past, but in recent years the Senate has borne a striking resemblance
to Salem. A minority of members decided to oppose the President's judicial
nominations and then go searching for excuses to do so. Excuses for opposing
nominees have been that they did not strike down laws requiring children to
inform a parent of their decision to have an abortion, legislative attempts
to restrict abortion, and even personal opposition to abortion. It doesn't
take a theologian to see that this effectively eliminates practicing
Christians from the federal bench. There is no excuse for any member of
government in a pluralistic society to prevent a person of faith from
serving in government based solely on the fact that he practices his
religion. It is time to end the witch-hunt. Vote for a Senate candidate who
will give religious nominees fair consideration.
H-1 -- 150 Words
Parental rights took a severe blow last
week when Gov. N. vetoed a bill that would have required minors to obtain
the consent of at least one parent before having an abortion. Although
numerous studies have shown a correlation between abortion and breast
cancer, as well as an increase in the potential for problems in future
pregnancies, the Governor apparently thinks that thirteen- and
fourteen-year-olds are sufficiently mature and informed of the long term
consequences of abortion to obtain them on their own. Does it make any sense
that a school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin without asking the
parents permission while an abortionist can perform an invasive, and
potentially fatal, procedure on that same child? It's time that Gov. N.
stops pandering to extremists and starts looking out for young girls.
H-2 -- 125 Words
What would you do if someone called you
and told you that your thirteen-year-old daughter was in a coma? And what if
they then told you that she was in that coma because someone had performed
invasive, elective surgery that you did not know she was having? In 1985,
that is just what happened to the Ravenell's when their daughter Dawn died
three weeks later as a result of her botched abortion. This case is not
uncommon, yet Governor N. continues to oppose not only parental consent
laws, but also parental notification laws. It's time for Gov. N. to stop
listening to the extremist abortion lobby and start looking out for our
Abortion Safety and the Abortion Lobby
I-1 -- 200 Words
Most pro-choicers echo Bill Clinton's
mantra of making abortion "safe, legal, and rare". It is common for "rare"
to be disregarded, but what is less often noticed is that "safe" is now
being left out too. Last week, the state assembly passed a bill requiring
abortionists to have admitting privileges at their local hospital. Just the
fact that this is an issue raises questions about how safe abortion is in
the first place. That aside, abortionists themselves must admit that Roe,
even after thirty years, has not made abortion safe. Long term consequences
of future miscarriages and an increased risk of breast cancer have been well
documented, but short-term consequences are equally dangerous. There is
often uncontrollable bleeding and hemorrhaging, which in turn open the doors
to infection. Many members of the legislature last week callously voted
against the requirement, claiming that it was intended to make abortions
more difficult to obtain. Somehow, though, car safety standards have not
limited their sales. Maybe those who voted against the legislation simply
had not thought that through. Maybe. More likely, though, they were just
bowing to the pressure of fringe pro-abortion groups who are more concerned
with funding from abortionists than womens' health.
I-2 -- 150 Words
Think the abortion industry cares about
women? Think again. In 2000, the abortion industry made concerted effort to
get the Food and Drug Administration to approve RU-486, an abortion drug
used early in a pregnancy to avoid a surgical abortion. They celebrated
their success, but that's only half the story. Since then, the drug has
proven fatal not only to children but also to mothers. Complications from
use of the drug have resulted in multiple deaths and hundreds of other
health problems for abortive women. Why? A closer look at the FDA's approval
process reveals that standard practices for trial and study were ignored,
largely because of political pressure from elected officials and the
abortion lobby. If pro-choice forces were really interested in helping women
rather than helping business, wouldn't they have wanted the drug to meet the
highest standards of safety rather than require the minimum standard to be
lowered for approval?
Abortion Lobby and Its Money
J-1 -- 200 Words
Aren't there any pro-choicers left? No,
everyone has not become pro-life over night. Instead, the country seems to
have become more divided. Fewer and fewer people can honestly define
themselves as "pro-choice". More accurately, most of these people are
pro-abortion. They define themselves as "pro-choice" but prefer to offer
women no choice at all.
That is the case with State Sen. N. and
many of his colleagues who voted last week against legislation requiring
abortion clinics to provide counseling that includes alternatives to
abortion before performing the abortion. Such counseling would include
making patients aware of crisis pregnancy centers. These centers are willing
to meet all of the mother's and child's needs, including counseling and
legal and medical service.
If politicians were really pro-choice,
they would want women to make an informed choice with all their options on
the table. Unfortunately, radical feminist organizations that, not
incidentally, are funded by abortionists have shown that they will oppose
any politicians who want to allow women to have a real choice. Follow the
blood money and you will see that those who opposed the legislation are also
those who receive a portion of the proceeds from every abortion.
Coincidence? I think not.
J-2 -- 50 Words
Six years ago, Senator N. said that he
would give in to special interests. Since then, Planned Parenthood has given
him 100% voting record, thousands of dollars, and contacted supporters
throughout our state asking them to support him. This year, let's elect a
Senator to support our state's interests, not Washington's.
Call to Pro-Life Action
K-1 -- 200 Words
Many rightly lament the tragic disposal of
newborns in recent years. Whether left on the side of a road or in
dumpsters, these children are victims of selfishness. Unconscionably,
mothers and fathers have considered children an inconvenience and tossed
them aside as though they were garbage.
How, you may ask, can this happen? The
answer is simple. It happens every day. In fact, in most of those instances,
the children could have been killed legally just hours earlier and no one
would have noticed. Such is the status of human life in this country. Going
one step further, the parents, often teenagers, are well aware of the fact
that they could, just as easily and banally, have been killed themselves.
The acts of evil after birth cannot be
separated from similar acts of evil before birth. Whether drugs are used to
ensure a stillbirth or the child is literally torn limb from limb, children
are treated as inconveniences ready to be disposed of at the whim of the
parents. Those who dispose of their children after birth grew up in a
society that did not love them. The cycle of selfishness rather than
selflessness must end.
K-2 -- 125 Words
September 11th was a dark day in American
history. What few realize, however, is that a tragedy of equal proportions
occurs on our soil every day. "How can you say that?" you ask. "Have you any
idea how many lives were lost?" Indeed I do. 3,066. Have you any idea how
many lives will be lost tomorrow? 4,000. And yesterday? 4,000. Today? 4,000.
Indeed, abortion takes more lives daily than did the nineteen hijackers on
September 11th. There was, however, a bright light shining on September that
dark day. Passengers on Flight 93 banded together to win the first battle in
the war on terror. Isn't it time that we honor their lives by fighting this
battle in the war on terror?
L. Partial-Birth Abortion
L-1 -- 106 Words
Partial-birth abortion isn't just about abortion.
According to court testimony by doctors who perform the procedure,
partial-birth abortion involves grabbing a baby by his feet and pulling him
out of his mother's body, except for his head. At this point, his arms and
legs are moving, his toes and fingers are wiggling. The live baby is then
stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors. A tube is inserted into the
skull and the baby's brain is sucked out. After the child's skull is
crushed, he's then fully removed from his mother.
Let's be clear. Partial-birth abortion isn't just about abortion, it's also
L-2 -- 149 Words
There's a lot of talk about partial-birth abortion, much of it full of dry,
clinical words and euphemisms. I wish people would just be honest about it.
When a partial-birth abortionist talks about doing an "intact D and X
procedure," he means he's almost delivering a living baby out of her
mother's body, being careful to leave the head inside so he can still call
what he does an abortion.
When he talks about "evacuating the intercranial contents," he means he
stabs the baby in the back of the head and sucks her brain out as her once
wiggling arms and legs go limp.
When he talks about "compressing the calvarium," he means he crushes the
baby's skull before removing her head completely from the mother's body.
Maybe abortionists don't like to use plain language because if they did,
more people would understand exactly what partial-birth abortion is:
L-3 -- 125 Words
The first purpose of any government is to protect the people it governs.
There is no doubt that a baby threatened by partial-birth abortion is one of
the people [name of candidate] seeks to govern. After all, when a
partial-birth abortion is performed, that baby is already mostly outside his
mother and visibly human. And there is absolutely no medical reason why such
a gruesome procedure has to be performed.
If [name of candidate] is afraid to state that he's willing to protect this
tiny infant from having his or her skull stabbed and crushed, he clearly
doesn't have the courage to protect the rest of us from threats domestic and
foreign. [Name of candidate] needs to take a stand on partial-birth abortion
and do it now.
L-4 -- 110 Words
Moral courage is an essential trait in an elected
representative. So is compassion. [Name of candidate] won't state his/her
position on partial-birth abortion and that makes me wonder if he/she
possesses either quality.
If [name of candidate] can't stand up to the abortion lobby and try to
protect tiny, living babies from having their heads stabbed and crushed
while their arms and legs wiggle outside their mother's bodies, just who and
what will he/she stand up to? And if he won't protect the most vulnerable
"little guy" in our society, where is his/her heart?
[Name of candidate] needs to tell us where he/she stands on partial-birth
abortion. We as voters deserve that much.
L-5 -- 134 Words
It seems when people start talking about partial-birth
abortion, they talk about everyone's feelings except those of the person
most directly affected: the aborted baby.
Sworn testimony by a leading expert in the study of fetal development states
that there is a consensus among such doctors that a 20 to 22-week old unborn
baby is conscious and feels pain. In fact, the pain threshold of such a
child is actually lower, that is he's more sensitive to pain, than when he's
Partial-birth abortions are performed on babies at this stage and later. Can
anyone imagine what one pro-choice specialist in the field of fetal
development called the "prolonged and excruciating pain" associated with
this method of killing?
It grieves me that partial-birth abortion takes place; it appalls me that
our government sanctions it.
L-6 -- 122 Words
A former president was famous for saying he felt others pain.
I wonder if today's politicians bother to feel the pain of a baby killed by
Many partial-birth abortions take place after the fetus is 20 weeks old.
Yet, at 20 weeks, the baby in the womb is a conscious being who can feel
pain. This is not conjecture, it's the consensus of expert doctors who study
Politicians and others who try to justify partial-birth abortion say they
can't be sure if the baby is feeling pain while being dragged by the feet,
stabbed, and crushed. With the amount of scientific research and expert
testimony on record to the contrary, their callous disregard for human
suffering is inexcusable.
L-7 -- 134 Words
With the newly reconfigured Supreme Court ready to hear two cases on
partial-birth abortion this fall, perhaps the Court will finally acknowledge
what most of the nation already knows - there's no justification for a
procedure that is nothing short of infanticide.
A partial-birth abortion only qualifies as an abortion because the baby's
head is still inside the mother when he's killed. His arms, legs, and torso
are all outside the mother's body, moving and squirming in what one
pro-choice expert doctor termed, "prolonged and excruciating pain."
There's no medical reason why this barbarous practice has to be performed.
There's no threat to a woman's health that would require this type of
killing. The people, through their elected representatives, have a right to
ban partial-birth abortion. The Supreme Court needs to recognize that right.
L-8 -- 144 Words
Two new Supreme Court justices and two new cases on partial-birth abortion
this fall will hopefully lead to a restoration of the separation of powers
our forefathers designed.
Congress is supposed to make laws. The Supreme Court is supposed to
determine if those laws violate the Constitution, not whether they are good
policy. For far too long, our Courts have taken the role of the legislature
and Congress has abandoned its responsibilities, letting courts determine
There's nothing in the Constitution, one way or the other, about abortion.
If anything, one could argue that everyone, including the unborn, is
entitled to equal protection under the law. Hopefully, the Supreme Court
Justices will acknowledge the proper role of the judiciary when deciding
whether the people, through their elected representatives, have a right to
ban a practice that is nothing more than infanticide.