A Matter of Life or Death and a Decision Impacting Generations

I Might Be a Democrat . . .

Earlier today, I read an article that reminded me of a time when I was in high school. I had a teacher who called herself "The Queen B." Many of her students joked that she should run for president. Since I really liked her and agreed with much of what she said, I assumed I must be a "liberal" democrat, just like she was. In high school, it was much more popular (to me, at least) to be liberal than conservative; I couldn't wait to go to a liberal arts school. Truthfully, though, I had no idea what any of the rhetoric meant. I just knew how I felt when someone said liberal (free/liberated) or conservative (bound/restricted).

Then, I won a national competition and showed up in national television commercials. My picture was plastered all over the local paper. My dad asked me to be the guest speaker at a republican men's meeting. I read their little brochure and thought, "Oh, crap. I think I'm a republican." It didn't matter much at the time since I didn't even register to vote until I was nearly 25. (Don't follow my example--register to vote as soon as you have the privilege!)

One of the things that I remember my democrat teacher saying was, "In a democracy, a woman has the right to make a wrong decision." She was obviously pro-abortion. Since then, I've wondered, "In a democracy, does a child molester have the right to make a wrong decision? A rapist? A murderer?" Even more recently, I've thought, "Does a person who speeds on the Interstate have the right to make a wrong decision? What about someone who neglects to renew their vehicle registration? Someone who doesn't pay their fines?"

What's the difference, really?

The difference lies in what our government will support versus what it will condemn. Laws are made to protect the people, right?

The question I'd like to pose is, "Which people will our laws protect in the next four years? In the next 30?"

When Does Abortion End and Infanticide Begin?

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act "defines 'born-alive infant' to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines 'born alive' to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."

Should babies who are born alive during abortions be offered medical treatment? In other words, should the doctor who is trying to deliver a dead baby (by attempting to kill the infant in utero), then try to save the baby's life once the attempted abortion fails? When exactly does abortion end and infanticide--the murder of infants--begin?

I have to wonder which is more important: honoring the contract a woman made with a doctor to deliver a dead baby or helping to sustain a baby born alive during a botched abortion?

Obama voted in favor of leaving a LIVE baby to die if the baby was born during an abortion attempt. He voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act four times. Not just once, but four times.

In a recent Facebook comment, an Obama supporter said something like, "The law in Illinois at the time protected babies who were born alive. This vote wasn't going to change that." Really? Are you sure?

A little research will prove otherwise. According to the Fact-Check page on the Born Alive Truth website, "In 1999 a gruesome discovery was made that an Illinois hospital was shelving babies to die in a soiled utility room who had survived their abortions . . . " see the full article HERE. While Barack Obama would have you believe that, "There was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged," he neglects to mention that Jill Stanek, a labor and delivery nurse in Illinois testified before congress to the contrary. She held a dying baby that was refused medical treatment and watched him breathe his last breath. See her full story HERE.

The Unimaginable Becomes Imaginable;
Then It Becomes Common

Do you realize that as late as 1950, abortion was against the law? Adults living in the 1950s (my grandparents, for example) would have considered abortion unthinkable. Today, we live in a culture where adults consider infanticide unthinkable but abortion a "right." What has changed? Simply, a change in what is "acceptable thought."

Acceptable thought changes throughout time. History continually repeats itself as in the examples set before us by Christian Overman, the author of Assumptions that Affect Our Lives, "Infanticide was commonly accepted and widely practiced in ancient Greece. The Spartans tossed unwanted children from the side of Mt. Taygetus, and the Athenians exposed them to the elements in earthen jars placed next to the temples of their gods." Now fast-forward to the early to mid-1940s in Nazi, Germany where "there was a special agency set up for the purpose of child termination. It was made up of psychiatric and pediatric experts, whose function it was to decide--entirely on their own--which children were to be eliminated" (1996, p. 67).

In his book The Sign for Cain, Dr. Fredric Wertham writes of the agency that Overman described:

The children slated for death were sent to special "children's divisions." ... They were killed mostly by increasing doses of Luminal or other drugs either spoon-fed as medicine or mixed with their food. The dying lasted for days, sometimes weeks. In actual practice, the indications for killing eventually became wider and wider. Included were children who had "badly molded ears," who were bed-wetters, or who were perfectly healthy but designated as "difficult to educate." The children coming under the authority of the Reich Commission were originally mostly infants. The age was then increased from three years to seventeen years. Later, in 1944 and 1945, the work of the commission also included adults (quoted from Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman, 1996, p. 69).

In case you need help with the math, in less than 10 years, the killing went from unwanted children to three-year-olds to 17-year-olds to adults.

Couldn't happen in America? Consider this: while abortion was unthinkable in the 1950s, today it's embraced by many as a "right" or a "choice." Infanticide is currently unthinkable to many Americans. We have a hard time believing that babies who are aborted couldn't possibly be born alive. They're just a blob of tissue, right? My dear friend and former employer Gianna Jessen, who was born during a saline abortion, is proof that a baby is not a blob of tissue and that babies who survive abortion attempts can go on to live full and prosperous lives given proper medical treatment at birth.

What if the abortionist had been present during Gianna's birth in 1977? She would have received proper medical treatment, right? Not so. The truth is, she would have been strangulated, suffocated, or left to die. Sadly, infanticide has been a reality in our country for years.

"Even as far back as 1982, legal infanticide hit the headlines when the Indiana Supreme Court officially sanctioned the deliberate withholding of medical treatment and the subsequent starvation of a newborn child known to millions as 'Infant Doe.' Born with Down's Syndrome, the baby suffered from a blocked esophagus that could have been easily corrected through routine surgery. But the court granted the parents authority to withhold food. After six days, Infant Doe starved to death, not in an earthen jar, but in a modern, sterile American hospital" Assumptions that Affect Our Lives by Christian Overman (1996), p. 69.

Sobering, isn't it? The law protected the parents from being tried for murder. They let their baby starve to death, and the law protected them--not their baby. As a believer, I am commissioned to stand up for and plead the case of the orphan and the widow. This is my plea.

When you think of women in abortion clinics, do you think of white, middle class girls who have no where to turn or who don't want to tarnish their reputations or who want a better future for themselves than taking care of a baby at 16? Did you know that abortion clinics target the poor and the minorities? Did you know that most abortion clinics are located in poor neighborhoods? Did you know that Obama supports Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States?

If you're voting for Obama because you believe he's pleading the case of the poor and bringing change to our nation on their behalf, consider these sobering statistics taken from the website that used to be called "black genocide." It now bears the title Klan Parenthood:

In America today, almost as many African-American children
are aborted as are born.

A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

It's also worth mentioning that more babies have died as a result of abortions than all of the world's wars combined.

Roe, Roe, Roe Your Boat Gently to the Widest Application Possible

Obama is a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood, which was founded by an avowed racist, socialist, and eugenist.

In his July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Obama said,

"We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

If you don't know about the Freedom of Choice Act, it was written by the most radical pro-abortion activists because they saw informed consent and parental consent laws being passed at the state level. They wanted something powerful that would dismantle anything that could serve to reduce abortions through requiring that people be told the truth before an abortion or before their sixteen year old, who can't be given an aspirin without their permission, can have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. Obama standing in front of them and promising he's 100% on their side is the equivalent of a presidential candidate 160 years ago addressing an assembly of the owners of the slave ships, and saying, “If you elect me, the first thing I will do is sign an act that will insure slaves won’t be freed, and that nullifies any and all voter-approved state legislation that restricts slavery.” (And sadly, yes, even hearing this, some Christians would have campaigned for and voted for him.)

Now, “first thing” means first thing, right? So before helping the poor and protecting the environment and addressing the economy and national defense, what is President Obama going to do? He's going to assure that abortion stays legal and that the numbers are NOT reduced, by signing an act that will devastate decades of work at the state level by the pro-life movement. Requirements of parental notification and informed consent and bans on partial birth abortions? History, if Obama has his way. From the blog of Randy Alcorn.

Now, let's give a little history on the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. In his book Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, Dr. George Grant uses Sanger's own words to describe her:

"[Margaret Sanger] was thoroughly convinced that the 'inferior races' were in fact 'human weeds' and a 'menace to civilization.' She believed that 'social regeneration' would only be possible as the 'sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility' were repulsed. She had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a 'symptom of a malignant social disease' because it encouraged the prolificacy of 'defectives, delinquents, and dependents.' She yearned for the end of the Christian 'reign of benevolence' that the Eugenic Socialists promised, when the 'choking human undergrowth' of 'morons and imbeciles' would be 'segregated' and 'sterilized.' Her goal was 'to create a race of thoroughbreds' by encouraging 'more children from the fit, and less from the unfit.' And the only way to achieve that goal she realized, was through Malthusian Eugenics" (1988, p. 91). Internal quotes from Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano's, 1922, pp. 23, 176, 108, 110, 181, 264, 265). Final two internal quotes from Birth Control Review, 3:5 (May, 1919), and 5:11, (November, 1921).

If you haven't yet made the Nazi/socialist connections with Planned Parenthood and by proxy, to Obama, then maybe this will help drive home the point:

In 1933, the Review published "Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need" by Ernst Rudin, who was Hitler's director of genetic sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. And later that same year, it published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, "Selective Sterilization," which adamantly praised and defended the Third Reich's racial programs. The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood was self-consciously organized, in part, to promote and enforce White Supremacy. Like the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party, and the Mensheviks, it has been from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist. And this racist orientation is all too evident in its various programs and initiatives: birth control clinics, the abortion crusade, and sterilization initiatives. Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood by George Grant (1988), p. 92.

Did you know that many studies show that as birth control becomes more accessible, rather than declining, the number of unwanted pregnancies actually rises? And what do you think increases as a result? You guessed it: the demand for abortion. Remember where the majority of abortion clinics are located? Remember which babies are being aborted in far greater numbers than any other? A vote for Obama--or anyone in favor of abortion and infanticide--is not a vote in favor of the poor. It is a vote in favor of a continued and increased genocide.

Stealing Our Inheritance with Slick Talk

Just like Planned Parenthood, the agenda today is carefully disguised. This quote from Dr. Grant's book written in 1988 will (hopefully) blow your mind:

Margaret and the Malthusian Eugenicists she had gathered about her were not partial; every non-Aryan--Red, Yellow, Black, or White--they were all noxious in their sight. . . . In 1939, they designed a "Negro Project" . . . "The mass of Negroes," the project proposal asserted, "particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit." . . . In order to remedy this "dysgenic horror story," the project aimed to hire three or four "Colored Ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities" to travel to various Black enclaves and propagandize for birth control." . . . The project was quite successful. Its genocidal intentions were carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending social service rhetoric and organizational expertise. Like the citizens of Hamelin, lured into captivity by the sweet serenades of the Pied Piper, all too many Blacks all across the country happily fell into step behind Margaret and the Eugenic racists she had placed on her Negro Advisory Council" (pp. 92-93).

That was 1939, and things have changed since then, right? Well . . .

During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods. Of the more than one hundred school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade, none have been at substantially all-White schools. None have been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at Black, minority, or ethnic schools. . . . In 1987 . . . a group of Black ministers, parents, and educators filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education. . . The clinics are a "calculated, pernicious effort to destroy the very fabric of family life among Black parents and their children," the suit alleged. They are "designed to control the Black population" and are "sponsored by the very governmental agency charged with the responsibility of reaching and promoting family life values. (Grand Illusions, p. 94).

Whose Responsibility is the Orphan and the Widow?

We'd all like to believe that the government has our best interest at heart. The truth is, the government has no heart. Individuals do. But the government does have our tax dollars, which is one of the ways that Planned Parenthood (and the genocide they support) continues to grow.

I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the government to care for the poor. Visit almost any home in the projects or spend the day in nearly any public school or visit nearly any government-run hospital. Do you honestly want more of that?

I've heard it said that people are inherently greedy and that we need the government to sanction giving so that we can provide for all. If that were the case, then how have neighborhoods and schools and hospitals continued throughout the ages and why do they exist in non-welfare countries?

I believe that those who are best at caring for the poor are those who are closest to them. Countless organizations exist for the sole purpose of caring for the poor. They do an amazing job with volunteers and grants and donations and fundraisers. We will always have the poor. That we know for sure. We are commissioned to care for the widow and the orphan. God has placed that responsibility upon us--he gives us the power and the means, and then he expects us to deliver. He wants to live through us.

I believe that those who are most qualified to educate our children are those who are closest to them--those who love them and believe in them. "You are your child's most important teacher," according to William Bennett who served as Secretary of Education under President Reagan. In the introduction to his book The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide from Preschool through Eighth Grade, Bennett quotes psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner as saying, "the one indispensable condition for a child's successful upbringing is that at least one adult must have a deep and irrational attachment to him." He goes on to say, "In other words, someone must be absolutely crazy about that child. Children are put on this earth to be loved. They need unconditional devotion (not unconditional approval). When they grow up knowing that an adult is always there as guardian angel and guide, they thrive. When they sense that such devotion is missing, things can begin to go terribly wrong with their educations and their lives" (1999, p. 7).

Bennett encourages parents to take the lead role in their children's education. He tells us to resist the temptation to "hand more and more of our educational responsibilities to others. . . . If you turn over your most important responsibilities to others, you may doom his school career" (pp. 7-8). He says that a parent is the best teacher for one main reason: You love your child.

Does the government love our children? Does the government love the poor?

My husband, who showed me this excellent article today on Davy Crockett and welfare as well as a powerful follow-up article, says I'm more of a libertarian than a republican. I think he's right. In fact, if Ron Paul, a pro-life libertarian, had made it this far in the election, I'd probably have a big sign in my yard. I probably would have written a political post on my blog already. I probably would have voted by now.

Yes, I'm going to vote. And I'm sure I'll vote early, but as Jay Norris wrote on his Facebook recently, "I so badly want to vote for a candidate instead of against one."

Me, too, Jay.

I don't have faith in the government. When given the opportunity, I will vote for small government and against big government. I will also vote for the orphan, giving a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves.

While I do not have faith in the government, I do have great faith in my God and in His people.

I have seen first-hand the efforts of Ugandans without any government assistance whatsoever, charged with the mission to care for the widow and the orphan, change the face of their war-torn and AIDS-ravaged nation. I have watched them house, clothe, feed, educate, and love orphans. I have watched them rescue child mothers and care for their babies. I have watched them decrease the number of AIDS cases miraculously and exponentially. I have watched them selflessly give of themselves for years and years. How did they manage such tasks without the help of their corrupt government?

Hope for change cannot come from a political candidate.

I believe that a vote for Barack Obama, is a vote for expanded government, not a vote for reduced spending.

I believe a vote for Obama is a vote for veiled racism, not a vote giving hope to minorities.

I believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for socialism, not a vote opening the door for success for the poor.

I believe that a vote for Obama is a vote for genocide, not a vote for freedom of choice.