January 19th marks the 30th anniversary of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, which President Reagan designated on January 22, 1984, 11 years after Roe v. Wade overturned laws in every state opposing abortion. Since Roe v Wade, 41 years ago, we’ve had over 54 million abortions, the entire population of the Great Lakes region, including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New York, and the province of Ontario, over 17 percent of the current U.S. population.
This is the single most important issue of our generation. If a church in the segregated south didn’t insist that the image of God given to mankind of every race ensures equal rights, what would God say to that church?If a church in Rwanda in 1994 didn’t take a stand against the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus, what good would that church be? And in our day if a church doesn’t oppose the infanticide that happens in doctors’ offices for tens of millions of dollars of profit off those in desperate circumstances, that church has lost its saltiness. Our shepherds are cowards and the sheep are devoured. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6).
Opposing abortion isn’t the only issue of our day, but it is the most important, our calling to stand up for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Like any enormous injustice, the ways of repentance are many. It begins with fathers having the heavenly Father’s heart, sacrificing themselves for their wives and children, rather than using women and allowing their children to be sacrificed for them. It includes men and women repenting of murder for convenience. It includes the church repenting of her cowardice for not addressing this issue, and failing to disciple its own. Idols always call for blood. So does the true God. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ, and his grace is greater than our sin, including the sin of murder. This is our great strength and hope, the only way of deliverance.
In a New York Times editorial, Ross Douthat capably points out the descrepancy between the sentiments of the nation regarding abortion and the way the media reports it:
But if you’ve followed the media frenzy surrounding the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision — which it backpedaled from, with an apology, after a wave of frankly brutal coverage — to discontinue about $700,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood, you would think all these millions of anti-abortion Americans simply do not exist.
From the nightly news shows to print and online media, the coverage’s tone alternated between wonder and outrage — wonder that anyone could possibly find Planned Parenthood even remotely controversial and outrage that the Komen foundation had “politicized” the cause of women’s health. …
Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.
Indeed, that sense of relief was quantifiable: the day after the controversy broke, Komen reported that its daily donations had risen dramatically.
But of course, you wouldn’t know that from most of the media coverage. After all, the people making those donations don’t exist.
George Grant similarly summarizes recent trends in his forward to R.C. Sproul’s book Abortion:
Public-opinion polls conducted during the first year of the Obama administration found that 51 percent of Americans now call themselves ”pro-life.” In addition, the number of Americans who favor making it more difficult to obtain an abortion is up six percentage points in just five years. In 2005, 59 percent of respondents agreed it would be good to reduce abortion. Today, 65 percent take this view…. Yet another poll found that 58 percent of Americans say abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Just 25 percent disagree, and the rest have no opinion. The poll found women are more strongly pro-life than men, with 64 percent of women asserting that most abortions are morally wrong, a view shared by 51 percent of men.
The reversal of the Komen Foundation’s decision to stop supporting Planned Parenthood indicates that though most Americans oppose abortion, the most influential Americans do not. Or the influential people who do oppose abortion do not do so effectively or publicly enough yet. But as power shifts away from big government entitlementists and down to people who actually represent the views of Americans, those profitting from the abortion machine will be out of work.
The number one response to the question “Why did you have an abortion?” is “I felt I had no other choice.” Watch this video and read about the effects of abortions on women who have had them. This is not just violence upon the murdered children.
“The number one social justice issue for African-Americans in New York City is abortion. Period.”, says Anthony Bradley at the worldmag blog. And this is exactly right. Anyone who thinks they are about justice of any kind, much more social, and does not have abortion at center of their concerns is kidding themselves. Bradley points out New York City’s appallingly high rate of 41% of all pregnancies ending in abortions, and the higher 59.8% rate for blacks. This is self-inflicted genocide happening in every city.
This video has been making its way around for the last few weeks contributing to the momentum that led the House of Representatives last Friday, in a bipartisan vote of 240-185, to pass the Pence Amendment eliminating taxpayer-funding for Planned Parenthood. This is good, but still small, progress.
Here is a quotation from an excellent article regarding the unconstitutional nature of Roe v. Wade. The entire article is well worth a few minutes.
“From a constitutional perspective, moral arguments are irrelevant. Properly understood, the abortion question is a matter of federalism. Our Constitution lays out a governmental framework that is really quite simple. The powers of the national government are enumerated in Article 1, Sec. 8. The Tenth Amendment then tells us that any power not enumerated as a federal power (or prohibited by the Bill of Rights) is reserved for the states. This includes a wide range of state regulatory powers (known as “police powers”) which include authority over many moral and social issues. For example, the Constitution does not mention prostitution; therefore, it is a question for the states to decide according to their own local morals. The state of Nevada has chosen to legalize prostitution; forty-nine other states have chosen to outlaw it.
The same logic should be applicable to abortion — and it was, prior to Roe. By 1973, four states had legalized abortion, and forty-six others had restricted it. But the Supreme Court decided that it was going to ram abortion down the nation’s throat, whether it had constitutional justification to do so or not. The end result was a train wreck of an opinion. Conservatives who oppose Roe ought not speak about it in hushed moral tones, but rather with derisive hoots, jeers, and catcalls. The decision is intellectually fraudulent, and anyone who takes it seriously reveals his own intellectual insolvency.”
“Polls indicate that more women than men affirm the unborn’s right to life. In fact, “the most pro-abortion category in the United states (and also in other nations) is white males between the ages of twenty and forty-five.” More specifically, “the group that is most consistently pro-choice is actually singe men.” It’s ironic that abortion has been turned into a women’s rights issue when it has encouragee male irresponsibility and failure to care for women and children. Shouldn’t men be called upon to do more than just provide money to kill a child? Shouldn’t they be encouraged instead to say to the women they’ve made pregnant, “I’ll be there for our child. I’ll do everything I can for her. And if you’re willing to have me, I’ll be there for you to.”" Randy Alcorn, Why Pro-Life, p. 59.
“Carl Sagan ridiculed abortion opponents by asking, ” Why isn’t it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?” The answer, as every scientist should know, is that there is a fundamental difference between sperm and unfertilized eggs on the one hand, and fertilized eggs or zygotes on the other.
Like cells of one’s hair or heart, neither egg nor sperm has the capacity to become other than what is is. but when egg and sperm are joined, a new, dynamic, and genetically unique human life begins. That life is neither sperm nor egg, nor a simple combination of both. A fertilized egg is a newly conceived human being. It’s a person, with a life of its own, on a rapid pace of self-directed development. From the instant of fertilization, that first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity. This accounts for every detail of human development, including the child’s sex, hair and eye color, height, and skin tone. Take that single cell of the just conceived zygote, put it next to a chimpanzee cell, and “a geneticist could easily identify the human. Its humanity is already that strikingly apparent.”" Randy Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?, pp. 33-34
Elena Kagan not only supported partial birth abortion, also known as killing-a-baby-as-he-or-she-being-born, she did it outright dishonestly. But who would doubt lying when murder is openly embraced? From Worldmagblog:
When Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a domestic policy adviser at the Clinton White House, she wrote a memo in the midst of the debate over Congress issuing a ban on partial-birth abortion. Her 1996 memo cites a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a medical group that eventually opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion, which reads: Continue reading →