The heat the governor is feeling over his yearbook photos is a convenient distraction from the fact he let the mask slip about how far the pro-abortion movement is willing to go.
As more and more States seek to ensure the continued killing of the unborn, pray this movie will open eyes and reveal the deceptions of Planned Parenthood. For more about Abby Johnson, go here.
The battle lines are being drawn ever more starkly in this country, between those who believe in the sanctity of life, and those who believe it to be just another disposable commodity.
Pro-abortion activists believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg is their last hope of protecting the travesty known as Roe v. Wade. And perhaps they’re right. Interestingly, the “Notorious RBG” hasn’t been seen in public in over a month, having missed several oral arguments at the Supreme Court due to health issues (out of character for her). Has anyone done a wellness check on her lately? Some thought Tuesday’s State of the Union address might confirm whether she’s still an active Supreme Court Justice or we’re seeing a Democrat reenactment of the movie “Weekend at Bernie’s.” But now we’re told she’ll be skipping it due to a schedule conflict. How… convenient.
Sensing their time is short, abortionists are moving quickly to emplace laws at the State level that would allow the slaughter of the unborn to continue regardless the fate of the Roe precedent. In their haste, they are dropping any pretense this is somehow about making abortion “safe, legal and rare,” as the tagline used to go. No, this flurry of activity is about making abortion available on demand at any time, for any reason…
…including just after birth:
Virginia’s governor has drawn backlash after suggesting that a pregnancy could be terminated after the baby’s birth, as the state debates a bill relaxing restrictions on third trimester abortions. Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, made the shocking remarks in an interview with WTOP-FM on Wednesday, as he attempted to explain a Democrat delegate’s earlier remarks.
Northam, a pediatric neurologist(!), described a hypothetical situation where a severely deformed newborn infant could be left to die. He said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be delivered and then ‘resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue’ between doctors and the mother.
So does this mean that for a period of time after a
clump of cells fetus baby leaves the womb and draws breath it is still fair game for abandonment and death? How long is that period? Hours? Days? Weeks? What if an impaired child affects a mother’s “mental health” when it reaches two years old? The current crush of new laws go to great lengths to remove criminal penalties for killing an unborn child while assaulting the mother. Activists correctly realized the contradiction in charging “fetal homicide” while still permitting abortion. Their solution is to completely dehumanize the unborn in the eyes of the law, so they only become a “person” when born to a woman who wants them. “Women’s rights” do not include being allowed to play God.
We’re constantly berated that nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. But an unborn child is not the woman’s body. It is a distinct individual, with its own DNA, fingerprints, and future. Any person’s choices are limited by society to the extent they impact others, and this, above all, should be no exception. Aside from rape, every woman exercises her ‘choice’ in this matter by choosing to abstain from, or engage in, sexual activity. Abortionists like to “what if” all manner of horrific but statistically insignificant scenarios, but the conclusion is inescapable the overwhelming majority of abortions are simply birth control after the fact, at the cost of a human life.
It’s only a small step, not a slope, from this point to arguing that any inconvenient life can be terminated. The concept of “assisted suicide” already allows people to end their own life if they find it “too painful.” But last year the Netherlands began an investigation into a doctor who allegedly had family hold a patient down while he inserted a fatal IV drip against her will.
I commented recently on the willingness of political opponents now to say things that would have been considered beyond the pale just a generation ago: “Put the MAGA hat kids in the woodchipper,” “Burn their school down,” and of course an alleged comedian holding a simulated severed head of the president. Add this to the general devaluation of life that abortion and euthanasia represent, and we have an explosive cocktail indeed. Earlier generations of Marxists had no qualms about “breaking a few eggs” in the quest for their socialist paradise. Given the opportunity, I suspect their ideological descendants today would feel the same way.
Still wonder why many of us are determined to protect the right to bear arms? In a culture of death, the means of self-defense are essential.
Do you know what direction your State is headed on this issue? Will it protect the first heartbeat, or enable the murder of a person on the verge of birth? How will you help ensure your State chooses life?
Anticipating the possibility the monstrous Roe v. Wade decision might be overturned eventually, New York State passed landmark legislation to ensure the practice of sacrificing children to convenience will continue… and that the value of unborn life will continue to fall:
New York, with a newly empowered Democratic legislature, legalized late-term abortion on Tuesday and removed criminal penalties for botched abortions or other violence that leads to an in utero baby’s death. The sweeping law would remove the state’s ability to prosecute a Kermit Gosnell–type offender or a person who kills a child in utero through domestic abuse, for example.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, was not bashful about putting his signature to the new abortion law, wearing a pink tie, cracking jokes about how many years it took to pass the law, and ordering the World Trade Center to be lit in pink in celebration.
And the governor made sure to sign the bill on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, to make a statement. Most concerning is the fact this legislation permits abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, provided the mother’s life or health is at risk. The act does not define health risk, however, leading some to believe this could be a loophole to allow near or full-term abortions under the guise of “emotional health risk” or other such interpretations. The new law also moves regulation of abortion from the criminal law code to the public health code, lessening the impact of any sanctions.
Some news coverage of the event noted New York’s abortion rate is already twice the national average, with 23 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That statistic conceals the true impact, however. New York States own reported statistics show that for the period 2012 to 2014, there were 712,497 births in the state. Over the same three-year period, there were 285,127 abortions.
This means just over 1 in 4 pregnancies in New York end in abortion. 1 in 4!
New York City is a center of world banking and commerce, with fantastic amounts of money flowing through it. Fortunes are made and lost every day. Could it be New Yorkers are literally sacrificing their futures for the fleeting prosperity of the moment? If so, they would hardly be the first. Governor Cuomo celebrated the new law by ordering the new Freedom Tower (the replacement for the Twin Towers toppled on 9/11) to be lit in pink. That prompted someone to update this old image with the same color.
We have descended from the piousness of the Pilgrims to the practices of the pagan Ammonites. They, too, sacrificed children in the hope of material prosperity.
Today, the Ammonite civilization, such as it was, is dead. When we’re extending a big pink middle finger towards the heavens, should we expect any different?
Pray for our nation!
The recent rush to judgment over the Covington Catholic High School group’s actions after the March for Life in D.C. is merely the latest in a string of events, including the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, that demonstrate far too many of our citizens react to events via emotion and bias rather than reason. One only needs to spend a brief time on Twitter to realize our national discourse has largely descended to the level of junior high school taunting back and forth. Insults, rather than insight, is the currency there.
The danger is that these “two minutes’ hate” events have become so regular, that people who should certainly know better–like Disney producers–begin tweeting things like this:
Sure, he “apologized” as the original narrative about what happened utterly collapsed. That’s irrelevant — the fact many adults thought it appropriate to say such vile things shows how close we are to actual violence breaking out in our country. These public utterances simply show what is in the heart of far too many people.
I’ve often noted how close we are to violence now, or the need to defend our freedoms by force. And while I’ll admit to occasionally thinking like Han Solo, the truth is I’m well aware of what such circumstances would mean. As a military veteran of multiple deployments, I’ve seen firsthand what happens when the last veneer of civility is ripped away. And it’s the last thing I want for the country I love and pledged my life to defend.
How did we get here? Not by accident, that’s for certain:
In terms of communication, people will say what they think. The problem with the sad state of civil discourse today occurs because people are mostly really bad at thinking. The dismal failure of the education system is what created our poisonous public discourse.
This degeneration of the public’s ability to think did not occur instantaneously. The destruction of reason and logic was a gradual process, spearheaded by the adoption of postmodernist subjectivity in the late 1960s and pushed into the American schools since then.
Those of us who are partial to objectivity are instinctively aware that classroom methods of encouraging feelings and emotion are fundamentally problematic. Children are encouraged to express what they feel when it comes to understand the world around them. For example; climate change feels bad because humans are destroying the planet. Capitalism feels bad because we are exploiting the poor. Masculinity feels bad because males oppress women. Environmentalism feels good because we are saving the planet. Socialism feels great because we take care of the poor in society. Feminism feels wonderful because girls are empowered against male oppression.
The method of teaching students to “feel” (i.e. perception from senses) instead of to “think” (i.e. conception from judgement) is the problem with education. It is the reason why Johnny can’t think. Johnny’s mind hasn’t been trained to think in integrated concepts because he has always been taught to rely on his feelings. Johnny’s world is presented to him in a fragmented chaos of sensory perceptions.
It is quite an interesting exercise to note how most people are unable to think in concepts. Take for example, when a criminal kills with a gun, someone who is incapable of thinking in concepts can only see the instrument of murder and thus mobilize against banning guns because they think that it is the gun itself that is responsible of the crime. The same lack of conceptual thinking applies to those who are incapable of seeing a successful white male for his character, skills and habit as the factors shaping his success because their thinking capacity only allows them to see his gender and race as the factor which determines his success.
The American schools has succeeded in reducing the public’s intellect to the level of the perceptual beast. …they do not know how to put together the data they observed into structured logical thoughts. And like a lost animal incapable of making sense of the world around it, that person lashes out like a beast because the world is unintelligible around them.
These are excerpts from a much lengthier piece I encourage you to read in its entirety. It goes far to explain how a sitting member of Congress can wonder aloud why people might be more concerned about “being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right.” This is not a new development. Back in 2004 the New York Times actually ran a story about alleged records (proven to be forgeries) of then-President Bush’s service in the Guard that had the headline “Memos on Bush are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says.” (But whatever you do, don’t call the New York Times “failing” or “fake news!”)
Emotions have their place. But they must be kept in their place. That place is not the drivers seat of law and policy. Our compromised public schools, though, have taught multiple generations to “follow your heart” regardless of any inconvenient facts (example: the 100 million body count Marxist ideology racked up in the 20th century). So now we have a body politic where one side thinks the other is stupid for ignoring reality, and the other responds by thinking the rationalists are uncaring and evil.
That kind of divide is not likely to end well.