Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
PARTIALLY VICTORIOUS OR BLOWING SMOKE? Posted: Wednesday April 18, 2007 at 2:27 pm EST by Judie Brown
I found it interesting that the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Law that contains a life of the mother exception. I found it even more interesting that the justices themselves found the law "facially" constitutional, pointing out that the lawsuits challenging the partial birth abortion law should never have been allowed in court anyway.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, made it clear that the proper way to challenge such a law, "if an abortion ban is claimed to harm a woman's right to abortion," is through an as-applied claim. In other words, the law can be challenged again based on a particular mother's claim that if she does not get a partial birth abortion, her life will be endangered.
Justice Kennedy clarified that other options are readily available to the woman in such a circumstance, so no significant obstacle to obtaining an abortion exists even though the partial birth abortion law was upheld.
In other words, the decision rendered today simply outlaws most of a particular type of abortion; it does not limit when an abortion can be done nor does it limit abortions by other methods up through the moment of birth.
The pro-abortion crowd will scream bloody murder, of course. And the Republicans will use today's decision to distance themselves from "radical" pro-life positions, but in point of fact, what was really won today?
If pro-lifers consider this a victory, then somebody better check what they are putting in their coffee.
I know ALL opposes the federal PBA ban, but could one good thing coming out of the USSC upholding it be the notion that Congress is more allowed to introduce a total abortion ban? Or does today's decision make it harder for a total abortion ban to be upheld? Daniel | April 18, 2007
Eliminating Partial Birth Abortion will not save lives. That baby will still be killed. Just a diferent procedule will be used. Nevertheless, the pro-abortion crowd will find their arguement to support abortion just harder to make. AL MAREK | April 18, 2007
Note: there is NO Constitutional Right to baby-killing! Nowhere is that abomination in the Constitution. This country STILL HAS TO GET THAT RIGHT, as God Almighty will not be mocked. Man's laws are subsidiary to God's. In regard to the moral order, we are only required to obey JUST laws which are not in conflict with God's! All other unjust laws require civil disobedience for the sake of the common good, more importantly for the eternal sake of our immortal souls!
Gary L. Morella | April 19, 2007
The pro-life movement cannot claim victory on this one because the pro-death crowd is ready to fight Judie. A save the life of the mother exception is better than one that pro-aborts wanted "health". I believe that there should be no exceptions but until we get another conservative Justice on the court we'll have to settle for this version Judie.
Mike Hassett Chelmsford Mass Mike Hassett | April 19, 2007
Judie,
I'm amazed how people say that "we can fight and win the little battles to ending abortion". Well, I got news for them, by the time the Roman Empire allowed Christians to practice their faith, Rome was already falling! Another thing, by the time slavery was made illegal, we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. By the time Blacks were allowed to vote, the pro-abortion movement had already taken wing! Interesting isn't it! Apparently, some folks just don't get it. It took a war to end slavery. We don't need a civil war to end abortion do we? Hopefully no. My point, is that when we take baby steps to ending abortion, our nation will be destroyed!
Nick
Nick Nick | April 19, 2007
At my college campus in DC, the pro-life group (me included) is taking the partial-birth procedure ban as a victory. I think that, while it is not as strong as it could be, the ban is a victory for pro-life people everywhere. The pro-choice people on my campus got mad about it and are having a vigil mourning the passing of the ban and as a type of protest saying that they want more babies killed. I think that our response to the ban, as pro-lifers, should be just a passionate as theirs, and even more so. We should take it as a small victory and be praying constantly, not just at a one-time vigil that this senseless killing of innocent children would stop and that the Supreme Court Justices would overturn Roe. Emily B | April 19, 2007
I would consider this a victory because it showed that the court is more pro-life than it was seven years ago when they struck down a similar Nebraska law. ben | April 19, 2007
If a mom was really a mom, then she should know that if being pregnant was hazardous to her health, she could induce her labor either by c-section or vaginal delivery- as early as 21 weeks have children been born early and lived. I would rather know I tried to save both our lives then to know I killed my own child just because my health was endangered. elisabeth | April 19, 2007
Perhaps it's a step in the right direction...it has opponents a bit frightened and reeling.
anon | April 19, 2007
Dear Mike
Yes indeed, and may we have the grace to persevere until victory for all God's children is upon us.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 20, 2007
Dear Al
The pro-abortion gang will be frantic, and continue to exaggerate. At the end of the day, their fanaticism will be their undoing.
God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 20, 2007
Dear Gary
Amen and Alleluia.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 20, 2007
Daniel
The interpretations of the decision reflect confusion and perhaps different takes on what Justice Kennedy did and did not write in that majority decision.
One thing is clear: The USSC did not address the preborn as a person, even though the procedure upon which they ruled consists in nearly delivering a baby prior to puncturing his skull with a pair of scissors.
It seems to me that the Court is hung up on procedural language, not personhood.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 20, 2007
In baseball terms lets call it a foul ball. Not everything we wanted but certainly a step in the right direction. We got a proof of concept victory in this one. We have shown that there are some limits to abortion. I am now more revved up and ready to go and also any time the pro deathers are upset I am happy. Brian | April 20, 2007
I like this part of what the Supreme Court said: "The government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.?
It is extremely important we elect a conservative pro-life President in 2008. Two of the Supreme Court justices are nearing retirement age (including liberal Ruth Ginsburg). We are closer now more than ever to restoring to the unborn the rights that were given them by God and bringing down Roe v Wade.
The liberals are spending all their time on saving the earth from global warming while thousands of babies die each and every day from abortion. They certainly have their priorities backwards.
Ken McKee | April 20, 2007
Dear Nick
After 34 years all pro-lifers have to celebrate is a Supreme Court decision that literally invites the pro-abortion side to come back and challenge them again.
What we need is a revival of faith and a drive to END aborting our future. The day after the Supreme Court decision the same number of babies died by surgical abortion.
God bless you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 21, 2007
Dear Emily
Thank you for your insights and the commitment to the babies! Keep up the great work.
Praise be Jesus Christ now and forever; in Him alone resides the true victory over the culture of death.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 21, 2007
Dear Ben
In that sense, Ben, you are correct. Let's get busy now and truly end the child killing in America.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 21, 2007
Dear Elisabeth
Your insights are totally correct. What we need to do in America in affirm MOTHERHOOD and the fact that a Mother becomes a Mother the moment her child is conceived.
God be with you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 21, 2007
Dear Anon
Anytime the pro-abortion folks are screaming, we should be busy striving to make them scream even louder.
God bless you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 21, 2007
How predictible that 75% of comments praising the Supreme Court decision are men! When men get wombs they'll get a voice in abortion decisions. julia | April 22, 2007
Dear Julia
No child has ever been conceived without a male sperm and a female egg, so my advice to you would be to honor that fact of life and welcome comments by fathers and mothers, men and women alike.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 23, 2007
Dear Brian
Well said, but let's not forget that the justices pointed out that if that same baby is killed in utero via a lethal injection to the heart followed by dismemberment, there is no problem.
And let's also remember that the Justices pointed out that the partial birth abortion could still be done to save the life of the mother.
I am glad you are revved up, but let's also be honest when we move forward.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 23, 2007
Dear Ken
Thank you for your comments, and rest assured that we are all working as hard as possible to restore total protection to every innocent person from his beginning to his natural end.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 23, 2007
Dear Judie,
First, I must say that I do not consider thia a victory. I also contend that there is no such thing as a "partial birth" How does one be partly born? Once any part of the child, no matter how small, exits the womb, then it is born. Can we be partially born-again? No, you are or you are not.
Second, my suggestion is to follow the money. Why are the pro-aborts so vehment in their support of this one particular method of abortion. Because it is the one with the most profit potential. They charge for this type of abortion the most of all abortions. Then they can sell the baby body parts. The parts must be as intact as possible. The brain tissue must be preserved. Why evacuate the brain while the baby is still alive? So the cells can be alive and fresh for preservation for medical research and treatment, ie. Parkinson's disease. Also the torso must be intact whole in order to receive the most money. So the love of money is the root of all evil. This is why dismembering the child in the womb is not perferred, it will destroy their profit potential as disgusting as it sounds. It could act as a deterant, depending upon the enforcement of the "act". "In God We Trust". Clifton Powell | April 26, 2007
Dear Clifton
As you so accurately suggest, evil begets evil.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 26, 2007
Judie,
I see this in the context of setting precedent. Consider this: the majority decision, written by Kennedy (a generally pro-_Roe_ justice, giving the "moderate" feel you condemn), notes that, while the mother's iife is still the concern, the medical facts presented are different from _Nebraska_. Now, the medical facts may be the same, but they were presented differently, so the Court says that makes this situation different from other cases.
Now, Roberts, Alito and even Scalia have made a big deal about the importance of precedent. This case sets the precedent that a previous decision can be interpreted *if the medical facts are different* or presented differently. A few years ago, as you know, McCorvey and Cano tried to appeal their own decisions on the grounds that the facts were different from when _Roe_ was passed. Kennedy was responsible for whether the Court heard the case, and rejected it.
Now we have precedent under which McCorvey and Cano can re-present their argument.
Also, I see what you're saying about the "loophole," although I see it is as more a smack-down of activist liberals who have taken to suing against laws rather than waiting for the "as-applied" situation to arise.
And isn't it our contention that "PBA" is never "medically necessary"? So how could an "as applied" situation even occur?
All that said, it ought to be frightening that the SC has not only usurped the power to legislate, but also usurped the pwoer to make medical diagnoses. John Hathaway | April 26, 2007
Der John
Indeed, the most wrenching sentence from these five Catholic justices is this:
"If intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure."
Sodium chloride to the heart, rendering the baby dead, is fine with these five Catholic judges. God help us.
ABORTION A MOTHERLY ACT? Posted: Tuesday April 17, 2007 at 6:09 pm EST by Judie Brown
How strange it is for me to receive an editorial from The Times in Great Britain on the day after more than 30 people were gunned down at Virginia Tech. Strange because the title of the commentary is "Abortion: why it's the ultimate motherly act."
Imagine a woman writing about the murderous act of abortion as the motherly thing to do. How very disturbing; how very understandable in a world where so many women have surrendered their motherhood on the surgical table of an abortion mill.
The writer of this article, Caitlin Moran, is such a mother ... the mother of a dead child. Perhaps she cannot live with her choice and so she fantasizes about the "good deed" she performed.
Perhaps reality is too frightening for her. She writes, "If women are, by biology, commanded to host, shelter, nurture and protect life, why should they not be empowered to end life too?"
Moran has two living children and, she tells the reader, she aborted a third child last year. She says it was one of the least difficult decisions of her life. She says she was simply too tired to have a baby. She also says, "I didn't want another child, in the same way that I don't suddenly want to move to Canada or buy a horse."
Need I quote further? She is telling us that a child and his or her fate is on a par with buying a horse. How much more dehumanizing can you get? I guess, for those of us who live in Virginia, we know part of that answer: 34 years of murdering the innocent in utero was bound to have consequences.
Actually, I think another quote from Moran's commentary is even more telling:
"Ultimately, I don?t understand antiabortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species, we?ve fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don?t believe in the sanctity of life."
Obviously, she's not speaking for the entire "species" but she's right in noting that the pro-abort crowd certainly doesn't believe in the sanctity of human life.
And when there is no belief in the sanctity of human life, no respect for human life, then, yes, purchasing a stove top is a tougher decision than bringing new life into the world.
Why are people really shocked at events like Virginia Tech when we live in such a morally bankrupt society? Donna | April 18, 2007
In response to Donna, I don't think the writer was referring to just the "pro-abort" crowd as you put it. Respect for human life is very much lacking in conservative, pro-life groups too. Are these not the same people who refuse gun-control, push the death penalty, ignore global warming and condone the war? Seems to me there is a lack of respect for human life across the board...not just from the "pro-aborts". North of the Border | April 19, 2007
Dear Donna
You are a wise and thoughtful woman. Keep battling to defend the sanctity of life.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 20, 2007
Dear Donna (Judie),
I disagree that abortion is in the same family as supporting our troops at war or gun control.
If we don't win the war in Iraq we will be fighting them on our land soon.
If we don't stop gun control only the criminals will have the guns and America will not exist as we know it.
I am a sidewalk counseller in Anchorage, AK and am adimate that we must stop abortion but not comparing apples to oranges.
Sincerely,
Shirleen Rannals Shirleen Rannals | April 20, 2007
Dear North
Well, I think you have made a criical mistake in applying judgment to an entire movement because of the errant posturing of some.
A genuine pro-lifer is committed to protect the innocent and the vulnerable from direct killing or indirect killing such as birth control or passive euthanasia.
As for me, I do not make erratic statements about the war, or gun control or the far-fetched concept of global warming. All thsee problems might well go away if we as a nation stopped murdering our progeny.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 21, 2007
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for North of the Border... I'm a Canadian and I still believe in the sancticy of life.
Secondly, I'd like to address the point he makes, of course respect for life is lacking within the pro life camp. But I believe that all possible steps have been aken within the mainstream pro life movement to prevent the attacks on abortioinsts.
Pro abortion advocates will always point to the miniscule amount of violent people that happen to hold an anti abortion view, but isn't abortion the ultimate act of violence. For me abortion is on par with infanticide, it is the killing of a defenceless human being. I find it odd that the proponents of one of the largest mass murders in human history (abortion) are condemnng those who hold beliefs vaguely associated with a handful of bad apples. Kelden | April 22, 2007
Dear Kelden
It has always been my experience that when the pro-abortion people cannot argue the "merits" of their position, since there are none, they resort to innuendo, name calling and deception.
We have to remember that not a single one of those who acted violently against a pro-abortionist was ever identified with a mainstream, Christian pro-life organization.
Thanks for your comments. God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 23, 2007
Dear Shirleen
AMEN! Abortion is an intentional act of murder -- murder of the innocent.
Gun Control is precisely as you have described it; and war must be waged against evil agressors.
So as someone who is in total agreement with you, all I can say is praise God for you.
MURDER OR CHOICE? Posted: Saturday April 14, 2007 at 10:00 am EST by Judie Brown
The horrific story of Nicole Marie Beecroft and the tragic fate of her newborn baby is a shocking story and a dire warning.
Nicole Marie Beecroft was in her ninth month of pregnancy when she experienced strange sensations one day, and subsequently gave birth to a little girl. What happened next defies logic. Nicole, age 17, stabbed her newborn child 135 times and then disposed of the body in a garbage bag which she placed in a garbage can outside her home.
Her mother did not know Nicole was with child. Nicole apparently did not realize that her cruel, inhumane act would result in a charge of murder and bail that has been set at one million dollars.
And while the psychologists will have a field day with this case once it gets to court, there is a simple question that must be asked. What is the difference between the horror of what Nicole did to her daughter and what an abortionist does, under cover of law, to a preborn child?
Isn't murder always the same? Isn't such a grisly act always wrong?
Could it be that Nicole simply acted out what she felt was permissible because she knew that an abortionist would have done the same thing? Was she under the impression that a woman's choice could be made at any time, even after a baby is born? Did she think that an "unwanted pregnancy" could be eliminated either before or after birth?
Nobody knows the answers to these questions, of course, but it should give us pause to reflect on what happens after 34 years of publicly defending a woman's-a mother's-right to control her own body.
When a 17 year old girl like Nicole grows up in a culture that consistently expresses a view that a pregnant woman should be the only one to decide whether or not she wants to be pregant, could that message have such a profound affect on a young girl that she would resort to such a despicable act?
Nicole Marie Beecroft now stands accused of murder. But had she paid an abortionist to solve her problem, she would never have been charged with a crime at all. Something is definitely wrong with this picture.
My thoughts exactly! It's nonsense! Amber | April 18, 2007
Dear Amber
Christ's peace be yours!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 20, 2007
Dear Judie,
A few days ago, I watched a TV program about heroic doctors saving prematurely born children (as early as 6-th months pregnancy). I felt like crying out loud, "these children are just like the children being killed in partial birth abortion!"
It's absurd. My mind will never fully grasp this. Anna | April 24, 2007
Dear Anna
It is always impossible for the human mind to grasp what is, at its core, unexplainable because it is so very illogical.
Let us pray for Nicole, for her family and for this nation ... a nation drenched in the blood of its most vulnerable citizens.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 25, 2007
I agree with you Judie, I think the pro-life supporters should use this tragedy to expose the hypocrisy of abortion. Nicole could have killed the baby while inside her body with no consequences and now she has received life in prison with no eligible parole. This should be exposed. Robert Owen Anderson | December 4, 2008
Emilio's entire family has but one wish: that they be allowed to continue lifesupport for this dear little boy in the hopes that indeed he will miraculously improve. But that is not the way the doctors and the hospital see it at all. In fact they have defined Emilio's treatment as "futile."
Time is running out for Emilio, but I have to say that I think time is running out for America as well. We give up too easily on those plagued with devastating conditions. Just this week the Senate, for example, approved the "Hope" act which give scientists the right to kill severely disabled human embryos.
Have we not come to a state in our nation whereby only the fit will survive, and the law will condone the killing of all others? As Amber Dolle, American Life League's media director, wrote in her column about Emilio this week,
As tragic as this case is, unfortunately, it is not a rarity. More and more states are enacting so-called futile care laws and more and more innocent people are dying, likely before their time. What is so troubling about these broad policies is that they do not pertain solely to extraordinary means used to keep a patient alive, such as ventilators. Rather, if hospital "experts" (doctors, ethics commissions and the like) so decide, they can remove a feeding tube used on patients who can't feed themselves. These are not extraordinary means to keep someone alive. These mechanisms simply provide a disabled person with the same necessities that you and I require to stay alive.
Please pray for the Gonzales family ... and for America.
This story made me want to cry- only God himself should determine who lives and who dies... and if God wants him to die, he would die with or without life support. elisabeth | April 19, 2007
RIDICULOUS RUDY Posted: Wednesday April 11, 2007 at 12:10 pm EST by Judie Brown
I am sure you have heard by now that pro-abortion quasi-Catholic Rudy Giuliani is attempting to appease pro-lifers by suggesting that he intervened on behalf of Terri Schiavo in order to save her life.
Sorry, Mr. Giuliani, but while that may make you Sean Hannity's best friend, it's not going to wash with real pro-lifers like me.
As his pathetic memory apparently failed him, he told an interviewer, "I think I said that I thought every effort should be made to keep her alive. I don't know that I supported the, the whole thing to the very end, but I am not sure now."
Well, all I can say is that last minute, flawed recollections do not change the public record.
Giuliani defends his support for some taxpayer-funded abortions while arguing that he personally supports the sanctity of human life including Terri's right to live ... as far as he can recall.
If you believe that one, I will sell you a bridge real cheap!
Guliani is only trying to fool himself. You know our society is no longer welcome towards religion anymore. The center's no longer holding. Libertarian movements are done in the name of excluding religion from public. Mark Shea recently said "I wouldn't be surprised if we see another Diocletian in our day." Judy we've seen a generation of fluff and flowery homilies (would make you think we were in a group therapy session), decades of atheistic materialism and hedonism. Cardinal Cormac of the U.K. recently said, "subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent....". Our nation is in very real danger! The death of the West is near. The persecution in Europe is only a foretaste of what will happen in America and Australia if things continue the way they are. Buchannan explains this all too well in his book called "The Death of the West". Let's all do a penance.
Nick Nick | April 11, 2007
Dear Nick
Your response is profound and accurate, I am sad to say. Indeed, our nation must get on its knees before God and seek His forgiveness for the many national sins committed under the mantle of the law.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 12, 2007
dear judie,
if you don't like Rudy maybe you shouldn't vote for him. chandler | April 13, 2007
ANYONE who thinks Rudy is a conservative really needs their heads examined! First he says he hates abortion and would appoint conservatives onto the Supreme Court then he says pro-lifers should "Get Over" the abortion issue and move on. Now he supports the US Supreme Court's decision? Who's he fooling Judi?
Mike Hassett Chelmsford Mass Mike Hassett | April 19, 2007
WHAT SORT OF DEAD IS HE? Posted: Tuesday April 10, 2007 at 8:57 pm EST by Judie Brown
I am not asking a rhetorical question in today's blog headline. In fact I am asking one of the most serious questions ever asked about a human being whose fate is placed in the hands of a scientist.
You see, some in the pro-life movement are claiming that the Coleman/Isakson embryonic stem cell bill, S. 30, is actually a pro-life proposal. The bill, described as the "HOPE" act is not what it seems.
The bill defines those human embryos who can be killed in order to take their stem cells as follows:
NATURALLY DEAD - The term "naturally dead" means having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state.
Now tell me, if you are a scientist who is desperate for human embryonic stem cells, would you use your judgment to deem an embryo as naturally dead so that you could use his stem cells? And who would question you?
Don't be deceived. This bill is about as pro-life as Planned Parenthood. Let's ask our pro-life confreres to examine things in the light of reason instead of the light of politics.
STEM CELL SHAM Posted: Monday April 9, 2007 at 11:58 am EST by Judie Brown
As the Senate begins debate on two different pieces of legislation it is important to note that there really isn't any difference between the two.
Let me explain, First of all, Senator Harry Reid's bill is so similar to the bill President Bush vetoed last year that chances are slim that the bill would ever be signed by the president.
However, the legislation authored by senators Isakson and Coleman claims to be an ethical alternative that could actually become law. Isakson is convinced that his bill "threads the ethical needle" and would garner Administration support.
But wait! This bill is described as permitting human embryonic stem cell research on embryos that scientists determine are incapable of surviving in the womb.
Say what???
In other words, if a particular scientist is in need of human embryonic stem cells for his research and comments that he does not believe the human embryos will survive, then he is welcome to kill them.
What a shame that such a sham can not only be proposed but gain support from would-be pro-life politicians. Don't be fooled; both bills are deadly!
How should the embryos be handled? What should be done with them?Obviously, we do not want to use and kill them for research. What would be the moral and ethical way to approach this? Bruce | April 16, 2007
Dear Bruce
The moral and ethical thing to do would be to offer each of them to an adoptive couple, keeping in mind that many of them would not survive once placed in the adoptive mother. Many would die in that process, but at least no direct act of killing would take place.
This is but one of the reasons why the only realistic solution to the problem is to ban IVF.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | April 17, 2007
Maybe we could let them grow, be born and pay taxes with the rest of us. Let me ask, what kind of a demonic fool would think of Killing them? Maybe you would turn YOUR life over to science (today) so your body could be used to experiment for cures. Bob Woolhouse | April 18, 2007
Dear Bob
Man's ability to do a certain thing does mean that he ought to pursue it. Human being's lives in America become cheaper with the passing of each day as respect for individual human dignity is replaced by utilitarianism.
There is a great sadness in our nation and few have recognized it for what it truly is.
Video Story: Dangerous Effects of the Pill
Jenn Giroux, Executive Director of HLI America, speaks at the Protest the Pill Day 2010 protest at the Metro D.C. Planned Parenthood.
Pro-Life Story: My CUZ Posted By Brooke Duda on Jan, 23 2007 I live in a little town south of Erie, PA. While I grew up with a loud and crazy family many of them like to party. While at a party my cuz was talking to someone that she had ... Read
