“You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period.”
These pointed words are stated by Fr. James Altman (above) from the Diocese of La Crosse, WI, in a video burning up the internet. More than a quarter of a million people have watched it on YouTube alone. Fr. Altman will surely get some pushback from some of his fellow clerics, even though Catholic Church documents, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, state that Catholics can’t directly support certain issues such as abortion.
We’ll leave it to them to wrangle over the sensitive issue of forming consciences of faithful citizenship.
The Democratic Party has become radical on abortion
Iowans for LIFE is a non-partisan group, which supports the reproductive teachings of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic voters simply don’t realize how radical the Democratic Party has become on the issue of abortion. As we have written in previous blogposts, the party calls for:
- Taxpayer funded abortions for the full nine months of pregnancy.
- A pre-clearance requirement on pro-life legislation passed by states, which would effectively nullify pro-life efforts at the state level.
A Marist Poll revealed that a majority of Democratic voters want abortion restricted to the first trimester, which is when a majority of abortions occur. Nonetheless, the Centers for Disease Control estimate more than 10,000 late term abortions occur each year. By contrast, police shot and killed nine unarmed black men in 2019 (source: Washington Post database).
Nine unarmed black men vs. 10,000 unarmed late term babies, ALL tragic.
But the former causes riots that are ripping our nation apart. The deaths of the latter are supported by the same people who defend the rioters.
Here’s the point…
The point: a vote for Democratic candidates by Catholic voters is a vote for a continuation and expansion of this holocaust on viable, unborn babies.
It gets worse. Democrats oppose the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. This is the most reasonable legislation in the world. It …
- Creates criminal penalties for doctors who withhold medical care to babies who survive an abortion attempt.
- Mandates that these survivors be transported from the abortion clinic to a real hospital for medical treatment.
- Mandates that these health-care practitioners report violations.
- Grants women cause for action against her abortionist.
- Protects mothers from prosecution.
Democrats assert that the law would “unnecessarily restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers,” which is nonsense.
The language of the bill explicitly refutes the assertion, simply requiring doctors to …
“exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
In other words, the bill doesn’t allow doctors to discriminate on the basis of whether the baby is wanted or unwanted.
Democrats insist ‘born alive’ legislation isn’t necessary
Democratic politicians assert that there’s no need for this legislation, as it never happens. They are wrong. Just ask Melissa Ohden (below).
A variety of sources, including the Centers for Disease Control, estimate that more than 1200 babies survive an abortion attempt each year and are born-alive. This bill would require an abortion clinic to transport the infant to the hospital to save her life, report the incident, and be subject to legal sanction if they don’t comply with either. The bill doesn’t stand a chance if Democrats control either the White House or either house of Congress.
So now you know
If you are Catholic and you vote for Democratic candidates, you now know that if your candidates get their way:
- Human abortion will increase in America, because …
- Taxpayers will be forced to pay for it, even though it violates their religious convictions.
- State legislatures will be blocked from regulating abortion at the state level.
- And babies who survive an abortion attempt won’t stand a chance.
Any way you cut it, Catholic voters who vote Democrat support this culture of death and destruction by electing politicians who openly admit their intention to expand human abortion. That’s our takeaway from Fr. James Altman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=I4WJIvbEdWk&feature=emb_logo
Nick Sandman, aka ‘the Covington Kid,’ leveled his opposition with a stirring speech at the Republican National Convention (above). He’s the young man who was accused of racism at the 2019 March for Life. The media piled on with slurs that would make even a hardened abortionist blush. But today, the triumph of the Covington Kid is complete.
In 2019, the mainstream media, in a rush to judgement targeted Nick Sandman with hyperbolic rhetoric shocking by even today’s standards:
“I don’t know what it says about me but I’ve truly lost the ability to articulate the hysterical rage, nausea, and heartache this makes me feel. I just want these people to die. Simple as that. Every single one of them. And their parents.” Erik Abriss, writing for New York Media’s pop culture site, Vulture
“MAGA kids go screaming, hats first, into the wood chipper.” Jack Morrissey, “Beauty and the Beast co-producer
“Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?” Reza Aslan, CNN contributor
“Name these kids. I want NAMES. Shame them. If you think these f—ers wouldn’t dox you in a heartbeat, think again.” Kathy Griffin, ‘comedian’
“This Covington School thing is beyond belief…the lack of basic Respect for an elder (any elder) is the number one symptom of a SICK society….MAGA CATHOLICS paving the road of ignorance…you are a DISGRACE…look that word up, it means something….learn your History, Catholics. Grow some spine Clergy…lead by example and stop embarrassing the rest of us who know better.” John Cusack, actor
“Mocking, condescending, disrespecting, A–HOLE,” Debra Messing, actress
“I think so many of us have been on the receiving end of the face he was making: a smug, untouchable, entitled f*** you.” Jessica Valenti, author of “The Purity Myth”
Shortly after all of this venom was unleashed against young Mr. Sandman, a more complete video recording of the event emerged which cast events in an entirely new light.
Mr. Sandman sued CNN and the Washington Post. Both settled out of court. More lawsuits are pending. More substantial settlements are in the offing.
Nick Sandman spoke beautifully at last night’s convention, clearing the air on what happened. Do you think his pro-abortion detractors, having been so wrong about the young man last year, would have the sense to be gracious upon hearing his speech last night?
No. They are still vicious. Here is a sampling of their unrestrained rage:
“He’s a fu*&ing little pr*ck that deserves an a*s beating.” Xavier Gonzalez Jr.
“I’m watching tonight because it’s important. But I don’t have to watch this snot nose entitled kid from Kentucky.” Joe Lockhart, CNN political analyst
“What happened to #NickSandman is not enough people dragged his dumb ass outta the way growing up, and being from a wealthy background & going to a boys school, that is mistaken for the ultimate “in yer face” stunt. The smile on his face said it all. I’m being a cocky smart*ss.” Alexandria Branwin
“Back on twitter to bully a young republican — Nick Sandman —, or whatever that mama kid’s name is looks like the rough original sketch of a Pixar human from a movie about plants that talk, or some sh*t.”
“Sure #NickSandman. I was once in high school and when sh*t occurred I didn’t like, I could and did walk away. You and your MAGA hat could have walked away. COULD HAVE WALKED AWAY! You didn’t. You stayed, you smirked, you sued, you got a paycheck, you still have front teeth gap.” STARVING CARTOONIST.
The irony of all this venom was pointed out by another commentator on Twitter, Matt Perlinger:
“Nick Sandman’s speech tonight reminded me of the depths of the media’s hypocrisy. Liberals can burn down buildings and be defended as “peaceful protestors.” Conservative, pro-life protesters get slandered as agitators for literally standing silently and doing nothing.”
Be sure to watch the 300 second speech above in its entirety to the very end.
In case you don’t know the entire story, the video below points out the five lies the media spread that has compelled two news outlets to settle Sandman’s anti-defamation lawsuit out of court. The triumph of the Covington Kid continues as more lawsuits are still pending.
The Pro-Life lobby in the Iowa State Legislature
The 2020 Legislative Session will go down in the history books for many reasons. Not the least of which was the suspension of the session due to Covid-19; a virus that ceased the entire world and the ramifications of which we will continue to endure for years to come.
Prior to Covid-19, a phrase that we will often say, we were having a successful session in the pro-life movement. We worked hard in garnering support for the Protect Life Amendment; the best and most direct path toward undoing the judicial overreach in 2018.
For those not quite up to speed, the pro-life movement in the state of Iowa was finally seeing some major successes. We had the trifecta of Republican control in the Governor’s office, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. We were poised for major pro-life legislation. We began this trifecta with the 20-week abortion ban and 72-hour waiting period. While the 20-week abortion ban sailed into law with no hold-up, the 72-hour ruling was immediately contested by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. They filed lawsuit and sought an injunction so that the 72-hour waiting period would not go into effect until the court process had gone through the necessary actions.
We then move forward to the next legislative session in which we pass the first in the nation Heartbeat law. The Governor signed this historic bill into law that May. Shortly thereafter, the court finally made their ruling on the 72-hour waiting period. As suspected, the court ruled the law unconstitutional and that it was an undue burden for women. But they went a step further in creating law. They determined that we had a fundamental right to abortion in our Iowa Constitution. Anyone who has read our Constitution knows that is not in fact the case. They legislated from the bench and created law. As we know from our high school government class, the judicial branch is to interpret the law; the legislative branch is to make the law.
In this ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court effectively took the role of creating law out of the hands of our duly elected legislators and took it upon themselves to determine the law of the land in the great state of Iowa. Unelected judges created law with one stroke of the pen.
Because of this ruling, the heartbeat law never went into effect. Polk County District Judge Hubbert ruled on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade (but he is not an activist judge At. All.) that because of the 72-hour ruling, the Heartbeat bill was ruled unconstitutional.
While we still have the 20-week abortion ban on the books here in Iowa, it really is only a matter of time before that too is challenged in light of Iowa’s new ‘fundamental right’ to abortion in our Iowa Constitution.
So, what do we do?
First, we get the top legal advice in the country, Thomas More Society. We enlist the help of top litigant Martin Cannon, who represented the state of Iowa in the Heartbeat lawsuit. He, along with his team, met with the coalition of Pro-Life Leaders to talk to us about our options given this new right to abortion in our state.
They were clear; an amendment to the constitution was the surest and clearest path to undo what these activist, unelected judges did. We needed to state that there was in fact NO fundamental right to abortion and essentially take our constitution back to what it was before this ruling. This was the only way that we could be assured that if or when Roe vs. Wade falls and abortion law is given back to the individual states, that Iowa would not become the mecca of abortion in our country.
Given the expert legal advice from the top pro-life and pro-family litigation firm in the country, our marching orders were clear. With this, the coalition of pro-life leaders set out to convince the Republican lawmakers and the public that the protect life amendment was the right move forward.
We worked hard. We met throughout the summer, talked at central committee meetings, events across the state, we conducted extensive polling on the appropriate language and title of this bill, we developed a strategic plan with goals for each month. We did action alerts to our network, did outreach at the Iowa State Fair, and spoke at any event we could get at with our message.
The beginning of the legislative session proved promising; the poll-tested language for The Protect Life Amendment passed the Senate subcommittee, committee, and full floor vote. It was now time for the House to do the same. It passed out of the House subcommittee and committee but was stalled on the floor vote. We were told from House leadership that they did not have the votes to move it forward to a full floor vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans hold the majority in the House, so it was NOT the Democrats who were holding this up.
Then we learned due to Covid-19, the session would be suspended. It was a long couple of months until session resumed in June. We were hopeful as we moved forward that the House would debate, vote, and pass this important legislation. We were continually counseled by House Leadership to let them do their work to bring out the necessary votes and to not activate our network to contact them as that would only cause more harm than good. We followed their direction.
Unfortunately, in the final two days of session, we learned that the amendment would not move forward and that the House was now presenting a new pro-life bill, a 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion.
We worked quickly to now activate our network; a decision in hindsight we should have done months ago had we not listened to House Leadership. Unfortunately, we were a day late and a dollar short and the House in their wisdom and pro-life expertise, decided this new bill would be the path forward.
Despite our best efforts, The Protect Life Amendment failed to pass the 2020 Legislative session.
We are now left with an unknown bill; a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. The hope is that this bill will attempt to do what our Protect Life Amendment was to do- reverse the 2018 court ruling that declared a fundamental right to abortion in our Iowa Constitution.
So- what does this bill do? Will it work? Why was the pro-life lobby ineffective in our mission? Why didn’t the legislators trust the pro-life movement in Iowa in our recommendation of The Protect Life Amendment? Has the pro-life lobby become powerless in the eyes of our elected officials?
The day before Governor Reynolds even signed the 24-hour bill into law, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed a hearing for an injunction on the bill. A telephonic hearing was held on the day she signed the bill into law on Monday June 29, 2020. The following day, the judge granted Planned Parenthood’s motion and allowed the bill to be enjoined until the case went through the legal system. In other words, the bill will not go into effect at this time in Iowa.
At this point, there are more questions than answers.
We are truly hopeful that the 24-hour waiting period bill will help our cause. Right now, the Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders in the state of Iowa have some serious work to do in the months ahead before the 2021 session.
In the meantime, IFL will be working and educating as we have done for the last 48 years in the state of Iowa. I hope you will stand with us as we continue this battle.
The Democratic Party platform embraces taxpayer-funded abortions for the entire nine months of a pregnancy, even though 78% of rank and file members of their own party disagree with this extreme position. Furthermore, they want U.S. taxpayers to fund abortion in developing countries, a position opposed by 76% of all voters in the same poll.
A convert
“I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far.”
Who is imposing their religion?
Biden used to say that he couldn’t impose his Catholic religion, which supports life from conception to natural death, on others. Now he has no compunction imposing his new sacrament, abortion, on all taxpayers, even Roman Catholics who still embrace the timeless pro-life teachings of their Church.
Biden joins a long list of Catholic politicians who embrace abortion-on-demand, to the chagrin of the retired archbishop of the diocese of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput. Shortly before his retirement, he wrote:
“The unborn child means exactly zero in the calculus of power for Democratic Party leaders, and the right to an abortion, once described as a tragic necessity, is now a perverse kind of ‘sacrament most holy.’ It will have a candidate’s allegiance and full-throated reverence…or else.”
The modern religion of ‘choice’
The modern religion of ‘choice’ suggests that power for a woman a comes from control over her own body, even at the expense of the child in her womb. Their ‘clerics’ encourage women to ‘shout their abortion’ as outward signs of being ‘blessed’ by the sacrament of abortion.
Celebrity abortion activist, Lena Dunham, expressed her longing for the sacrament a few years ago with her lament that, ”I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”
Clashing sets of scripture
Her theology is grounded in the abortion culture’s ‘scripture’ from 1970, “Our Bodies Ourselves.” It clashes with Christian theology whose scripture states, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6)
Catholic philosopher, Dr. Peter Kreeft, sees the sacrament of abortion as a diabolical caricature of the Catholic Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist:
“Abortion is the Antichrist’s demonic parody of the Eucharist. That is why it uses the same holy words, ‘This is my body,’ with the blasphemously opposite meaning.”
Ultimately, abortion acolytes promote their sacrament with religious fervor and unwavering self-righteousness. They are out to convert us, or else.
Democrats for Life want to change their party’s platform regarding human abortion. More than one-hundred Democratic politicians signed the letter below asking the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee to avoid pursuing the radical abortion policies touted by the by leftwing of their party. The effort was led by Louisiana governor, John Bel Edwards. The letter and footnotes follow:
Friday, August 14, 2020
Members of the Platform Committee,
We are current and former elected Democrats from many states, representing millions of Americans. We are members of Congress, state legislators, and local officials. Like you, we are committed to the Democratic principles of equality, fairness, and democracy. We have committed our careers to advance Democratic ideals and policies. Many of us represent purple districts, where it is difficult to earn and retain elected office as a Democrat. One of us is a Democratic governor in a red state. We respect the pro-life leanings of our constituents.
We are united by three major concerns:
- We are concerned that many Democratic leaders support policies on abortion that are radically out of line with public opinion. Many Democratic leaders support abortion at any time, for any reason; this position is opposed by 79% of Americans.1 The 2016 Democratic Platform endorses taxpayer funding of abortion, opposed by a supermajority of the population.2 The same platform endorses taxpayer funding of abortion in developing countries, opposed by three-fourths of voters.3
- We are concerned that, due to this wide disparity, the Democratic Party is alienating voters. In 389 out of 435 Congressional districts, a majority of voters support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks.4 When Democratic leaders support late-term abortion, they push many voters into the arms of the Republican Party. Many people holding pro-life views are single-issue voters.5
- Finally, we are concerned about the betrayal of Democratic Party values. An extreme position on abortion rights violates our commitment to inclusivity and diversity. Polling consistently shows that one in three Democrats are pro-life.6 We must respect and include these 21 million Democrats.
We support reintroducing the conscience language from 2000 into the 2020 platform, which acknowledges that Americans have differing and deeply held views on abortion.7 We call upon the Democratic Party to avoid divisive policies, such as passing a law in Congress defining a right to abortion (“codifying Roe v. Wade) and introducing taxpayer-funded abortion (“repealing the Hyde Amendment”).
Fundamentally, we believe that every single state and county in this country deserves Democratic governance. We should not cede large swathes of the United States to the Republican Party. In the US, pro-life Democrats have been a critical part of the coalition to expand voting rights, improve health care, and pass criminal justice reform. These accomplishments would not have been possible if the Democratic Party had in place a litmus test on abortion.
We respectfully submit that the Platform Committee considers these suggestions and opens the hearings to hear the voice of innumerable elected pro-life Democrats across the United States of America.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
1 21% believe that abortion should be available to a woman any time during her entire pregnancy (Marist Poll; January 2020; p. 3) 2 60% oppose using tax dollars to pay for a woman’s abortion (Marist Poll; January 2020; p. 8) 2)
3 76% oppose or strongly oppose using tax dollars to support abortion in other countries (Marist Poll; January 2020; p. 9)
4 CCES 2018; DFLA analysis
5 30% of pro-life voters will only vote for a candidate with their views, vs. only 19% of pro-choice voters (Gallup Polling; July 2020)
6 29% of Democratic voters identify as pro-life (Gallup Polling; 2019)
7 Suggested language: “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party.”
Kamala Harris is the most significant vice presidential candidate pick since Harry Truman was selected as Franklin Roosevelt’s running mate in 1944.
Then …
Then, party operatives knew that FDR’s health was in serious decline and that there was a good chance he wouldn’t be able to complete his fourth term. The sitting vice president, Henry Wallace, had strong socialist sympathies, and these same operatives feared his progressive leanings would cost them at the ballot box. Thus, the more moderate Truman was selected over Wallace, and as feared, Roosevelt died in office elevating Truman to the presidency just 82 days after being sworn in as vice president.
Now …
Now, Joe Biden would be the oldest president ever to serve if elected. He would be 78 years of age when sworn in next January. By contrast, the previous oldest president was Ronald Reagan who left office at the age of seventy-seven. To complicate matters, Mr. Biden’s mental acuity has become a campaign issue. In a June 29th Rasmussen poll, 38% of responders believe Joe Biden has dementia. He has refused to seriously address voters concerns by taking a cognitive test and releasing results to the voting public, as President Trump has.
In light of these concerns, Mr. Biden’s vice presidential pick looms large. Political operatives on both sides of the aisle are dubious of Mr. Biden’s ability to complete a full term in office. By selecting Ms. Harris, he has bowed to his advisors who viewed the California senator as a more moderate voice than some of his other vice presidential options, such as Elizabeth Warren, Stacey Abrams, or Karen Bass.
Kamala Harris is not moderate on pro-life issues
From Iowans for LIFE’s perspective there is nothing moderate about Ms. Harris when it comes to pro-life issues, as we touched upon yesterday. What we didn’t cover is Kamala Harris’ plan to shut down the pro-life movement. Citing Iowa as one state of many that have passed laws protecting the rights of the unborn person in the womb, Harris would ask Congress to establish a “pre-clearance requirement” on states, like Iowa, that have passed laws abortion advocates don’t like, as you can hear below:
As President, I will stop dangerous state laws restricting reproductive rights before they go into effect. pic.twitter.com/w0cDxdH51T
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 29, 2019
In essence, if a President Harris had her way, Iowa legislators would have to ask the Justice Department to grant us permission to implement the pro-life legislation Iowans demand. Legislators would spin their wheels with these undue burdens, as a Justice Department under any Democratic president would never accede to our request.
Kamala Harris’ pro-abortion style of governance goes beyond that of any other Democratic candidate in this current election cycle. She shifts the burden to states with a legacy of challenging the strictures of Roe v Wade, such as the Hawkeye State.
If this sounds preposterous, it isn’t. The Harris plan would mimic the pre-clearance requirement included in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Pre-clearance neuters the pro-life movement
The pre-clearance requirement neuters the lobbying efforts of pro-life Iowa groups like Iowans for LIFE and the Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders, of which we are a member. Legislators won’t take up pro-life issues knowing that a Justice Department appointed by a President Harris won’t provide clearance to a single law that regulates human abortion.
As for Joe Biden, he has demonstrated a tragic pliability on every single major social issue of our times. In light of his questionable cognitive abilities, a Vice President Harris may have enough sway to promote her radical plan, even if Biden is a figurehead president.
Democratic candidate for president, Joe Biden, selected Kamala Harris as his running mate. Ms. Harris has staked out an aggressive, pro-abortion stance on abortion in her public career, which she clearly asserts:
“Reproductive healthcare is under full on attack in America today. There are states that have passed laws that will virtually prevent women from having access to reproductive healthcare. It is not an exaggeration to say women will die, poor women, women of color, because these Republican legislatures who are out of touch with America are telling women what to do with our bodies. People need to keep their hands off of women’s bodies and let women make the decisions about their own lives.”
She considers abortion rights a matter of justice:
“The reality of it is this is still a fundamental issue of justice for women in America. Women have been given the responsibility to perpetuate the human species. Our bodies were created to do that. It does not give any other person the right to tell a woman what to do with that body. It is her body, it is her right, it is her decision.”
Even more, Ms. Harris has demonstrated an anti-Catholic bigotry in her questioning of Brian Buescher two years ago, who was nominated to serve as a district judge in Nebraska. Harris asked:
“Since 1993, you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men. In 2016, Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as “a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths.” Mr. Anderson went on to say that “abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.” Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”
She demanded to know if Mr. Buescher “ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights.” In essence, Kamala Harris suggests that membership in the Knights and adherence to this core teaching of our Catholic faith disqualifies a person from judging the laws of our land.
As Attorney General for the state of California, Harris sued investigative journalist, David Daleiden, for his exposé of Planned Parentood’s practice of selling fetal body parts for profit. Rather than focusing on Planned Parenthood’s crimes, Harris went after Daleiden, who heads the Center for Medical Progress. Said Daleiden:
“I hope that all Americans … are going to be able to come together to oppose the kind of radical disrespect and contempt for the First Amendment and for First Amendment civil liberties that Kamala Harris has demonstrated throughout her career.”
You can hear more of Mr. Daleiden’s reactions to Ms. Harris’ actions against him in the video clip above.
So where does Kamala Harris stand on abortion? Ms. Harris has a perfect voting record with the pro-abortion lobbying group, NARAL. Although Joe Biden has already lurched to a more pro-abortion posture this year, a Biden/Harris ticket ensures the most vigorous assault on pro-life regulation in history.
By Maggie DeWitte
True or False: birth control reduces human abortion? Planned Parenthood’s Erin Davison-Rippey asserts that “limiting birth-control access increases abortion” (Des Moines Register, August 4th).
The Guttmacher Institute disagrees
Planned Parenthoods’ associates at the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute disagree. Their website acknowledges that “in 2014, 51% of abortion patients were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant.”
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service disagrees
Their associates at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain’s largest abortion provider, also disagree with Ms. Davison-Rippey. Their former director, Ann Furedi, explains:
“It is clear that women cannot manage their fertility by means of contraception alone.
Contraception lets couples down. A recent survey of more than 2000 women requesting abortions at clinics run by BPAS, Britain’s largest abortion provider, found that almost 60% claim to have been using contraception at the time they became pregnant. Nearly 20% said that they were on the pill. Such findings are comparable to several other smaller studies published during the last decade.”
A former Planned Parenthood director disagrees
A former Planned Parenthood director from Texas also disagrees. Ramona Trevino saw first hand that birth control actually increases human abortion:
“Working for a non-abortion center made it clear to me that contraception and abortion are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist without the other… Contraception creates a market for abortion by promoting promiscuity and providing men and women a false sense of security against an unintended pregnancy. The more promiscuous people are (especially young people), the more likely they’ll become pregnant.
The more people use birth control and adopt a contraceptive mentality, the higher the odds that they’ll seek an abortion. Because, let’s face it, if they’re using birth control, a child is not part of the ‘plan.’ Abortion is the backup, so to speak, for contraceptive failure, misuse, or lack of self-control.”
In other words, Ms. Davison-Rippey’s pro-abortion peer group are forthright in dismissing her premise that birth control has anything to do with reducing the incidence of abortion, and in fact, does just the opposite as the data reveals.
Abortion is financially lucrative to Planned Parenthood
She laments that Planned Parenthood no longer receives taxpayer dollars from the state of Iowa or the federal government, funding PP willingly relinquished in order to preserve their lucrative abortion business. These monies are available exclusively to authentic healthcare providers that don’t perform abortion.
A Planned Parenthood fact sheet asserts that “three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.” And yet their former director, Dr. Leana Wen, identified abortion as their “core mission.” In fact, abortion represents 52% of the organization’s non-government health services revenue, according to the pro-life watch dog, Live Action. That’s why Planned Parenthood took a pass on taking taxpayer dollars. They’d lose a lot more if they gave up aborting Iowa babies.
A false alarm
Ms. Davison-Rippey sounds a false alarm when she suggests that this lack of funding impacts reproductive healthcare for Iowa women. For the record, Planned Parenthood is NOT the only provider of birth control in Iowa. Their 9 facilities are all located in urban locations, including three in Des Moines, and one each in Council Bluffs, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, Ames, and Cedar Falls, providing no service to rural families.
By contrast, the Iowa Coalition of Pro Life leaders identified 157 qualified medical facilities (2017 audit, as you can see above) spread throughout the state of Iowa, including rural areas. They provided the same services as Planned Parenthood, without the abortions.
Shifting family planning dollars away from Planned Parenthood’s abortion-centric urban facilities to rural community health centers cuts drive times for these rural families, who represent 43% of our state.
Ultimately, Iowans and Americans overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer-funded abortions. The progressive website, Slate, acknowledges this reality:
“In every poll, a plurality of Americans opposes public funding of abortions. In every poll but one, that plurality is a majority. The questions vary, but the result is the same. Respondents support “banning federal funding for abortion…”
Iowans for LIFE agrees with Ms. Davison-Rippey in one respect. “Politicians must listen to a majority of Iowans” and understand they don’t want their tax dollars used to abort Iowa babies.
[Do you want Iowans for LIFE to continue standing up to Planned Parenthood in the public square? You can support us financially in two ways: online or by attending our pro-life Christmas Gala this November … or both. Start today with as little as $9.]
Ideas change the world for better or worse. Three 20th century women with clashing creeds unleashed their ideas on the world for better … or for worse. Margaret Sanger, Ayn Rand, and St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta each affected the world in profound ways.
Wouldn’t it be something if you could get them into a room together for a conversation on how they formed their creeds? Wouldn’t it be even better if you had the great English writer, philosopher, and poet, GK Chesterton on hand to moderate?
Guess what, that’s what Iowans for LIFE did through the power of theater. We distilled the writings and speeches of these prominent 20th century thinkers into a 49 minute evening of breathtaking conversation.
Here is an excerpt, which you can read below and watch above:
~
GK CHESTERTON: My dear St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, what is your creed?
MOTHER TERESA (quietly, calmly): God is love. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love until it hurts.
[Pause for the audience to contemplate her simple words.]
So tell me, Mr. Chesterton, what do you make of this clash of creeds?
CHESTERTON: Frankly, I’m baffled. Two of you fine ladies are American citizens, one by birth, the other through immigration.
I’m not sure what to make of you, because America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed, and it sounds very different than either of yours.
That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.
This Declaration is perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature.
It enunciates that all men …
SANGER (with a smile on her face): … and women!
CHESTERTON: [smiles and bows head] … are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just.
By inference it condemns atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived.
In many respects, ladies, it seems as if Mother Teresa’s creed which acknowledges a Creator is more American than either of yours.
AYN RAND: Nonsense, Chesterton! You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
America is culturally bankrupt.
~
The conversation really heats up when Chesterton asks what they think of abortion. Again … our script is based on the actual words of each protagonist. You can watch the entire performance for free online. Just click here. Be sure to share with a friend.
Some people tune out when the subject of abortion comes up. IFL uses different approaches, including the theatrical arts, to breakthrough the self-imposed barriers each of us is capable of erecting.
A Clash of Creeds forces each of us to think carefully about what we believe … and why.
Watch it now. Let us know what you think of the ideas that changed the world.
[Iowans for LIFE’s banquets are always THE best! You’re going to learn, be well-fed, AND be entertained. Reserve your spot at this year’s banquet, A ROYAL CHILD Christmas Gala. Tables are ten feet apart to respect social distancing protocols.]
The American landscape is littered with fallen statues of notable historical figures tainted with the stench of racism. A notable statue still stands at the Smithsonian Museum’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C., that of Margaret Sanger.
An influential American
Time Magazine named her one of the twenty most influential Americans in history. The Smithsonian says she “fought to achieve civil rights for disenfranchised or marginalized groups.” And yet a group of thirteen legislators wrote the Smithsonian in 2015 asking them to take down her statue. Their reason:
“Ms. Sanger was an avowed advocate of eugenics and the extermination of groups of people she deemed as “undesirables.” Specifically, Ms. Sanger singled out African-Americans, among other minority groups, as deserving to be subjected to such horrific and inhumane treatment.”
By the same token, a group of Black pastors asked the Smithsonian to remove her likeness, because:
“Margaret Sanger was a racist who wanted to end the black population through birth control and abortion.”
Nonetheless, her statue still stands, although cracks in her reputation are emerging. Just today, the New York Times reports that Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is removing their founder’s name, Margaret Sanger, from its Manhattan health clinic. Their spokesperson, Karen Selzer explains:
“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color.”
So what is Margaret Sanger’s legacy?
Was she primarily an advocate of women’s self-determinism? Or was she primarily an advocate of national breed-improvement through a compelled program of eugenics?
Iowans for LIFE explored her creed in a unique theatrical pieced titled, “A Clash of Creeds.” You can watch her eugenic worldview on display contrasted to that of Ayn Rand’s and Saint Mother Teresa’s, with GK Chesterton as moderator, in the clip above. (Go to IowansforLIFE.org to view the entire performance.)
Ms. Sanger’s creed is succinct:
“Birth control is the first important step woman must take toward the goal of her freedom. It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal. It is the first step they must both take toward human emancipation.”
So you can see that the pursuit of women’s self-determination is present in this statement.
Further, Sanger asserts that …
“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
What is eugenics?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
“Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population’s genetic composition.”
Sanger called on Congress to establish a ‘Parliament of Population Directors’ who would “direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.”
An abrupt turn
Here, the legacy of Margaret Sanger takes an abrupt turn, for her Parliament would have immense, coercive power:
“They would be empowered to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born to feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
Even more, the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.
No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.
By all means there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness, and mental disorders.”
Complicated race relations
The legacy of Margaret Sanger is especially complicated when it comes to her connection with race relations. She spoke to the white supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan. She once wrote (commenting on the ‘Negro Project‘ in a letter to Clarence Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939):
“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Apologists suggest that this passage was merely “inartfully written.” And yet her legacy has impacted the African-American community disproportionately. In the city where she founded Planned Parenthood, New York, black women are more likely to have an abortion than give birth. Nationally, Blacks represent 12% of the population but 36% of all abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, three out of four abortions are performed on women who are poor.
Sanger opposed abortion
The irony is that Sanger opposed abortion:
“I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
So is the legacy of Margaret Sanger primarily about liberating women, or is it about limiting undesirable populations?
Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, suggests the latter in a 2009 interview in the New York Times Magazine:
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Evidence supports Ginsberg’s concerns
To support her concern, a letter came to light written by Ron Weddington, one of the attorneys who successfully argued the Roe v Wade case that legalized abortion. Writing to former president Bill Clinton in 1993, he said:
“I don’t think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population…. Start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country [through abortion]…. There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and…well…so Republican. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies.”
To further bolster Justice Ginsberg’s concerns, the popular economics book, “Freakonomics,” stated that abortion was therapeutic to the greater society, because it reduced crime rates in the Black community, that the eugenic effects are measurable. The authors, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, explained why abortion is good, from their perspective:
“Fertility declines for black women are three times greater than for whites (12 percent compared with 4 percent). Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions.”
So is the legacy of Margaret Sanger more a story of the emancipation of women or a eugenically-driven master plan to suppress the African-American population, the disabled and the imperfect?
Her complicated legacy is in the news. Her admirers and apologists are beginning to get pushback. Will her statue still be standing tomorrow?
[Learn more about Margaret Sanger’s creed. Watch our dynamic theater piece, “A Clash of Creeds,” which uses the actual words of Sanger, Ayn Rand, and Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Click here now.]