Letter 62

Recently, I heard someone say that stopping abortion "will not happen through changing laws but from changing hearts."

Isn't that special? This is the just the standard diversionary position of someone who knows that abortion is evil but lacks the courage to take a stand, has a financial or political interest in abortion, or is trying to appease both sides.

The reality is, no one disagrees that the answer to all of humanity's problems lies in changing hearts. But, practically speaking, what would our crime rate look like if we just waited around for that to happen? For example, is this woman willing to erase laws outlawing rape from the books? Would she like to go into a dark alley late at night and try to change a rapist's heart? Or what if her neighbor was having sex with his six-year-old daughter. Would she alert the authorities, or just hope that this guy would one day have a change of heart?

Martin Luther King once pointed out that laws are not intended to change hearts but to control the heartless. He was right. And in modern society, no one is more heartless than the gang of moral degenerates who work at American abortion clinics. Until laws prohibiting abortion are restored, abortionists will be free to kill helpless unborn children, while maiming, raping, and killing many of their moms. Maybe some people think this is acceptable, but I don't. Women and children deserve better.

The bottom line is, if abortion is not wrong then why do we need this change of heart? And if it is wrong, why do we allow the heartless to do it? I say, let the law lead and maybe some of the hard-hearted will follow.

Letter 63

It has been said by those in favor of legal abortion that stopping abortion "will not happen through changing laws--it will come from changing hearts."

We don't need to change hearts--people already know abortion is unjustifiable killing. For evidence, let's look back to 1989, when for two weeks Rush Limbaugh did "caller abortions." If he got a call he didn't like on his radio show, he would push a button, get a sound effect of a vacuum cleaner and a scream, and disconnect the call.

People got so upset that one radio station pulled the show entirely. Limbaugh was denounced as cruel and heartless. He challenged his listeners. "None of what I did was real. Yet, in this country an abortion happens 4,000 times a day--for real...There is real emotional distress. There is physical harm and there's death...Where is the outrage against those who do it for real just down the street from where they live?...If you didn't know in your heart of hearts that abortion was a savage, violent act, what I did wouldn't have bugged you so much. I took you inside an abortion mill, and some of you couldn't take it."

Limbaugh was right. People don't need a change of heart. They need to step inside the abortion mill and face up to reality. The problem isn't hearts of stone, it's feet of clay.

Letter 70

Some pro-choicers argue that our state legislature should not pass laws restricting or banning abortion in this state. They say, "If abortions are harder or impossible to obtain in this state, women will just travel to other states to have them."

Some women might travel to other states to have abortions. But then, when the drinking age is raised in one state, some teenagers travel to other states to purchase alcohol. We put the best interests of the majority of teens first. Then we deal with the teens who will go to a lot of trouble to obtain alcohol.

So it should be with other harmful things. Abortion is not a provision of health care. It is risky elective surgery sold to women in a crisis using high-pressure sales tactics. Most women want to avoid abortion. Placing some limitations on the practices of abortion marketers protects the majority of women.

Some women may indeed be sure that abortion is what they want. They may indeed travel to other states. So be it. Should we endanger all the women of our state in order to convenience the small minority who actually want and seek out abortions?

The job of the legislature is to protect the interests of the majority of citizens without harming the minority. Having to travel to obtain an abortion will not harm the small minority. Being browbeaten into unwanted abortions harms the majority.

Whose interests are these pro-choicers protecting anyway?

Letter 71

Those who favor legal abortion always argue that our state legislature should not pass laws restricting access to abortions. They say, "If abortions are harder to obtain in this state, women will just travel to other states to have them."

When they say women will go to other states for abortions, they are only partly right. Some women might. But these would be the rare women who are very enthusiastic about abortion. The majority of women, the ones who want help to carry their pregnancy to term, would be free from being pressured into abortions by their families or abortion salespeople. In other words, if we outlaw abortion in this state, that would ensure that only women who really want abortions have them. That sounds a lot more pro-choice to me than the way things are now, with many of the women who abort doing it against their own desires and better judgment, purely because it's legal to browbeat them into it.

If people who want abortion to be legal were honest about their concerns, they'd say, "If abortions are harder to obtain in this state, our abortionists may be out of work."

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Our laws should be based on protecting the lives of the women of the state, not catering to the abortion industry.

Letter 72

Pro-abortion extremists want us all to believe that abortion is essential to securing women's freedom. But the fact is that no sane woman believes that freedom means having a clean place to kill your child.

Wouldn't women be more free if they were never expected to kill their children?

Letter 73

Those who favor legal abortion always argue that our state legislature should not pass laws restricting access to abortions. They say, "If abortions are harder to obtain in this state, women will just travel to other states to have them."

Since when does our state legislature decide what to do based on other states' legislative decisions? This is the pro-choicers' equivalent of, "But Jimmy's mom let him have a BB gun!"

If every other state legalized cocaine, prostitution, and underage drinking, should ours too? If we're going to let other states write our laws, why have a legislature at all? Why not just have a survey done every year of what laws other states passed, then institute the same laws ourselves?

Our legislature is not responsible for what other state legislatures do. To say we should allow abortion because everybody else is doing it is a cop-out.

Letter 136

Pro-abortion people argue, "Outlawing abortion will not end it."

Well, outlawing rape hasn't stopped it either. Nor has it stopped armed robberies, murders, car thefts, or any other abhorrent behavior. Does that mean these things should therefore be legal? By abortion-industry logic they should.

Letter 137

Consultants were once called to an institution for teenage female offenders. Almost all the girls had harmed themselves, using pens, broken glass, splinters, anything they could find, to carve their own skin.

For over 30 years, the institution had tried everything they could to get the girls to stop. But inmates continued to cut, burn, and poison themselves. Only after the consultants had identified the girls' real needs was the problem abated.

Advocates of legal abortion describe the self-destructive behavior of some pregnant women who didn't have access to legal abortion--throwing themselves down stairs, drinking poison, putting sharp objects into their bodies.

These situations sound remarkably similar. Just like the girls in the institution felt trapped, these pregnant women feel trapped living in a society that is hostile to them and to their needs.

Abortion proponents claim that we should do the mutilating for her--that we should pay a doctor to stick sharp instruments into her body instead of letting her do it herself. That makes as much sense as saying that the attendants in the institution should have come in with clean, sterile scalpels and carved the girls instead of letting them do it themselves.

The answer to gruesome self-abortion attempts isn't to replace them with gruesome pseudo-medical abortions. It's to figure out why a woman would do such a hideous thing, and give her a healthy alternative.

The girls in the institution needed love, not clean razor blades--just as pregnant women need love, not abortions.

Letter 138

Those who favor legal abortion claim, "Outlawing abortion will not end it. It will just cause women to die."

It is time we stopped letting abortion advocates tell this lie.

Between 1965 and 1967, the number of deaths each year from induced abortion fell from nearly 200 to about 110. This was a 45 percent drop in two years. But the number of deaths started climbing again in 1968. What had happened?

Some states started legalizing abortion. That's what happened.

When abortion was illegal, few doctors did them. Those who did practiced great care. After all, a mistake could end a medical career, or even lead to prison. Now that abortion is legal, more doctors do abortions. They have less skill. They have little to lose if they are careless. Women pay with their lives.

We don't know how many are dying, because no one is required to report legal abortion deaths. But we know women die from abortions, because the most gruesome cases often make the local news. It is no comfort to the families of these women to say, "Well, at least it was legal."

When abortions are legal, more women have abortions. When abortions are legal, abortionists are more careless. When abortions are legal, more women die. This seems so simple it should go without saying. It is a shame that abortion advocates can't see this.