It was bad enough for the White House to disinvite a pastor from praying at President Obama’s inauguration because he expressed orthodox Christian views in a sermon delivered almost 20 years ago. But to disinvite him in order to reflect “this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans” is enough to make George Orwell proud. Talk about a classic example of doublespeak!
To be sure, Orwell never used the term “doublespeak,” but in his classic volume “1984,” he referred to “doublethink” and “newspeak.” Others have combined these terms into “doublespeak,” meaning to say one thing and mean the opposite. As noted on a contemporary Orwell website, “In 1984, when BIG BROTHER and the Party say PEACE they mean WAR, when they say LOVE they mean HATE, and when they say FREEDOM they mean SLAVERY.”
Today, in 2013, when this administration says “inclusion and acceptance of all Americans” it means “exclusion and rejection of multiplied tens of millions of Americans.” And when this administration uses the “diversity,” word, it means “narrow conformity,” in strict accordance with the Gay Activist Doublespeak Lexicon, as reflected in the comments of Addie Whisenant, spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Whisenant explained that President Obama had asked Pastor Louie Giglio to pray at the inaugural ceremonies before learning that this evangelical pastor had preached an evangelical sermon in the mid-1990’s entitled, “In Search of a Standard – Christian Response to Homosexuality.” Using the “diversity” word, she noted that the inaugural committee was “not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural.”
So there you have it: A popular evangelical pastor (well known, I might add, for his work against sex trafficking) was excluded from participating at the inauguration of President Obama in order to “celebrate the . . . diversity” of America and to reflect the “administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans” (both quotes from Whisenant).
As I noted on October 13, 2012, “In the upside down, gay activist lexicon, tolerance means intolerance, inclusivity means exclusivity, and diversity means my way or the highway.”
The whole inaugural event becomes even more Orwellian when you realize that: 1) President Obama will be using two Bibles when he is sworn in (the Lincoln Bible and the Martin Luther King Bible), yet he will be doing so while explicitly disavowing the contents of those Bibles on a number of critically important points (the divine mandate to protect innocent life and the divine disapproval of homosexual practice being two of the most glaring).
2) In 2009, at the ceremonies held one day before President Obama’s first inauguration, Bishop Eugene Robinson was asked to bring the opening invocation, yet Robinson has been one of the most divisive figures in American (and even world) religion since making history as the first openly gay bishop ordained by the Episcopal Church. So, a respected Protestant pastor like Louie Giglio is considered divisive whereas an openly homosexual bishop who has caused a fissure in the Episcopalian Church of America and the Anglican Church worldwide is considered an ideal choice. (Chad Griffin, president of the gay activist Human Rights Campaign, agreed that it would be right to exclude Giglio from this year’s event, since “Participants in the Inaugural festivities should unite rather than divide,” presumably just as Robinson “united” Americans in 2009.)
3) Although Pastor Giglio was branded as “vehemently anti-gay” by Think Progress, preaching one major sermon on the subject of homosexuality over a 20 year period hardly qualifies as being “vehemently anti-gay.” And when Giglio stated almost 20 years ago that acting on homosexual desires is a choice, that homosexual practice is “a sin,” that “homosexuality is less than God’s best for his creation,” and that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus,” he was hardly expressing viewpoints that were “vehemently anti-gay.”
4) Just four years ago, despite protests from gay activists and their allies, Pastor Rick Warren offered the benediction at Obama’s inauguration, even though he had publicly opposed same-sex “marriage” in California in 2008. Now, based on a mild sermon preached almost 20 years ago, Pastor Giglio has been excluded from offering the benediction. How dramatically things have changed in just four years.
In a very important article, Rev. Al Mohler was quick to label this “The Giglio Imbroglio — The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism,” noting that, “The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment” – along with the orthodox expressions of Judaism and Islam, among other world faiths.
Yes, the administration has decided to scorn the views of perhaps 150 million Americans (if not many more) in order to celebrate our country’s “diversity” and to reflect “this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”
Somewhere, Big Brother is smiling, and in America, it’s 1984 in 2013. In fact, it’s been 1984 for a quite a few years already. The problem is that most Americans don’t have a clue. Doublespeak has been doing a masterful job.
Dr. Michael Brown is the author of The Real Kosher Jesus and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.
If Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Michael Barone and others are right and Mitt Romney is our next president, we moral conservatives cannot take our foot off the gas. We cannot let up in our advocacy for life and family. We cannot relax or shift into neutral as if some great victory has already been won. To do so would be to make a fatal mistake, and four years from now we will be kicking ourselves again, vowing once more not to sell our souls to the Republican Party, claiming that this time we have learned our lesson, only to repeat the cycle four years hence.
But being forewarned is being fore-equipped, and that negative scenario does not have to unfold. Instead, if we do our job and urge the president to do his, calling him to account at every point and offering positive support, whether he fails or succeeds, our mission will continue unabated. In fact, the more he fails, the more will we realize that the responsibility for moral and social change falls on us, not on him.
Now, my hope is that President Romney will follow through on his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, that he will be a champion for the rights of the unborn, that he will appoint excellent justices to the Supreme Court, that he will offer compassionate and practical solutions to help and empower the poor, that he will push for a federal amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and that he will defend DOMA in the courts in accordance with the pledge he signed for the National Organization of Marriage. (In stark contrast, one shudders to think what Mr. Obama would do if elected to a second term, barring a miraculous change of heart.)
That is my hope for President Romney, but it is not my expectation. Rather, I expect that his overriding emphasis will be on fixing the economy, that he will work hard for a bipartisan base, that he will seek to govern as a statesman who unites the country, and that he will avoid “divisive” issues. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if some of his first appointees were anything but moral conservatives.
Of course, this is not to downplay the importance of the economy, which itself has all kinds of moral implications. As stated in the recent New York Daily Newsendorsement of Romney, “Nine million jobs evaporated. The typical American family saw $50,000 vanish from its net worth, and its median household income dropped by more than $87 a week.” This is nothing to snivel at.
And if President Romney can help breach some of the deep divisions in our country, assuring the nation that he is the president of all Americans, that too would be a positive moral and social accomplishment.
But I am not putting my trust in a political savior, especially one with a mixed track record like Mitt Romney when it comes to abortion and gay activism, and I am determined to learn the lessons from the past. No more looking to the White House to transform America!
Really now, how many times will we aggressively get out the vote for the latest conservative savior – or at the least, the conservative antidote to the latest evil emperor – only to say, “We’ve been used! You let us down!” How many times we will live out Einstein’s famous definition of insanity, namely, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”?
So, my vote is for Mitt Romney, with some hope, with a lot of reservation, and without a lot of expectation, although I would be absolutely delighted to have my reservations proved wrong.
And what if Barack Obama is reelected? Then we would do well to avoid the trap of putting most of our energies into rebuking the president’s latest transgressions. Instead, we will have to focus our efforts like never before on on fomenting a moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution. Come to think of it, that would be a sound course of action if Mitt Romney is our next president too. Can I count you in?
The time for this kind of revolution – not a violent one but an ideological, cultural one – is long overdue, and I for one am not waiting for the White House to make it happen. How about you?
Dr. Michael Brown is the author of The Real Kosher Jesus and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.
The Democratic Party Platform contains just one reference to “God,” and the inclusion of that single reference was famously booed by many delegates at the Democratic convention. In contrast, the Republican Party Platform contains 12 references to “God,” and candidate Romney has emphatically stated, “I will not take God out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation that’s bestowed by God.” Does this make the GOP the party of God?
The Democratic Platform certainly stands in stark contrast with the Republican Platform. The former is radically pro-abortion, endorses same-sex “marriage,” and is decidedly weak on Israel. The latter is strongly pro-life, in favor of natural, organic marriage, and unashamedly pro-Israel.
All this is readily seen in Liberty Counsel’s Voter’s Guide, which contrasts 10 categories in both platforms: Abortion and Human Life; Family Values; First Amendment, Liberty, and Responsibility; ObamaCare; Gun Rights; Fiscal Reform; Israel as an Ally; Government Oversight; Judiciary; Word Use Comparisons.
Starting with the last category, as already noted, the Democratic Platform (from here on DP) used the word “God” once; the Republican Platform (from here on RP) spoke of “God” 12 times. But is this more semantics than substance? Apparently not.
The DP did not mention the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. The RP condemned them.
The DP did not mention the protection of individual conscience in healthcare; the RP explicitly supported it.
The DP did not mention the right to publicly display the Ten Commandments; the RP explicitly endorsed it.
The DP favored the so-called Fairness Doctrine; the RP opposed it.
The DP did not encourage abstinence-only education for teens; the RP encouraged it.
The DP did not mention the enforcement of laws against pornography and obscenity; the RP did.
The DP did not support a constitutional amendment that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nor did it support the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); the RP supported both.
The DP did not mention euthanasia and assisted suicide; the RP opposed both.
The DP supported taxpayer-funded/subsidized abortion; the RP opposed this.
The DP did not mention the Human Life Amendment in defense of the unborn; the RP supported it.
And Romney continues to ratchet up the God talk, stating, “I will not take God out of the public square,” and “we are [a] nation under God.” But that does not mean that the Republican party is the party of God. Not by a long shot.
Both parties have more than their share of cronyism, compromise (if not outright corruption), ungodly alliances, hypocrisy, blind spots, and poor role models. It would be a terrible mistake to invoke some kind of divine sanctity on the Republicans. (For the record, it would also be a terrible mistake to think that there are no godly Democrats out there.)
To be perfectly clear, as a religious conservative, I strongly support the GOP Platform when it comes to family, life, and Israel. And I find it interesting that individuals, religious organizations, and political parties which invoke God and the Bible as authorities tend to be pro-life, pro-traditional family, and pro-Israel (which does not necessarily mean anti-Palestinian). In contrast, individuals, religious organizations, and political parties which either marginalize God and the Bible or reject the plain sense of the Scriptures tend to be pro-abortion, in favor of same-sex “marriage,” and anti-Israel (or, at least, not strongly pro-Israel).
And I do understand why conservative pundits have referred to the “godless Democrats” and why conservative politicians have runs ads highlighting the Democratic “booing of God.” But even if many (or most) Democrats are “godless,” that does not mean that the Republicans, for the most part, are godly, nor should we look at them as the Party of God. (For the conservative Christians reading this, do you think God would appoint a Mormon to head up his party?)
Let’s not forget how many Republican candidates have used “God language” to win the votes of conservative Christians (especially evangelicals) only to disappoint those very voters once in office.
Let’s not forget that marriage was redefined in New York State because four Republican senators caved in. (It’s true that the bill was driven and supported by Democrats, but the Republicans certainly failed to hold the line.)
Let’s not forget that the Republican Party of Massachusetts has not embraced the national platform as its own.
And let’s not forget the fundamental error we make when we exaggerate the goodness and godliness of a large and diverse political party.
Without a doubt, the Republican Platform is far closer to conservative Judeo-Christian values than is the Democratic Platform, but let’s not get carried away. The only true, political “party of God” is sitting in heaven right now. Here on earth, the political scene is mixed, and the ones calling themselves the “party of God” are groups like Hezbollah. (In case you didn’t know, that’s what Hezbollah means in Arabic.)
Dr. Michael Brown is the author of The Real Kosher Jesus and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.
It’s one of the perennial debates in America, especially when we’re faced with socially divisive issues: Can you legislate morality?
If we mean by that question, “Can you make people moral through laws?” the answer is plainly no. If we mean, “Are laws put in place to govern people’s moral behavior?” the answer is plainly yes.
Morality is actually one of the main things that we must legislate, and my suspicion is that even those who bristle at this statement actually agree. As Frank Turek observed, “It never fails. Whenever some conservative takes a stand on a moral issue, some liberal somewhere will indignantly claim, ‘You can’t legislate morality!’ How many times have you heard that worn-out phrase? Incredibly, it’s not even true.” (From the book Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler.)
To be sure, virtually all of us recognize that the attempt at Prohibition was a failure and that it did not help to improve American morals. And this failed policy is commonly pointed to as proof that morality cannot be legislated.
But do we really believe that the law has no place in restraining immoral or illicit or socially destructive behaviors? Don’t we actually welcome such laws? Or would anyone suggest that we should not have laws against things like human trafficking?
Jeff Jacoby recently reported that, “By a vote of 183-50, town meeting members in Middleborough, Mass., last week approved a bylaw making public cursing a civil offense and authorizing police to enforce the ban by fining offenders $20.”
Whatever your opinion is of this particular bylaw, do you believe that there should be some kind of laws against profane speech in public, at least in some settings?
Can you imagine walking through a grocery store with your children and hearing a public service announcement laced with all kinds of profanity, or taking your family to a ballgame only to hear the announcer repeatedly use the F word, or switching to a news station on the radio only to be greeted with every kind of vile sexual description? Yet when the government (or a local company) regulates speech in any of these settings, it is legislating morality. Should there be no such laws?
What about laws prohibiting public nudity or pornographic displays? Let’s go back to the grocery store where you’re shopping with your kids. Should there be open pornographic displays at the checkout counters, as there are in some European countries? Should there be no restrictions on the amount of flesh these magazines can show? And what about the workers in the store? Should they not be required to keep their clothes on?
Obviously, we’re not talking about laws prohibiting murder or rape, which every sane person recognizes as necessary. (Yes, these legislate morality too.) But even when it comes to laws prohibiting something like public nudity, most everyone (save the nudists and most extreme libertarians among us) recognizes that it’s right to require people to cover up in public. This too is legislating morality.
When it comes to the marriage debate, advocates of same-sex “marriage” often tell us that the government has no right to decide which relationships are moral and which are not, but do these advocates really believe what they are saying?
This past Father’s Day, Ronan Farrow, the 24-year-old son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, tweeted, “Happy father’s day — or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” As he previously expressed, “He’s my father married to my sister [Soon Yi]. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.” Soon Yi, for her part, “never considered Allen her father or even a father figure, noting that Andrew Previn, Farrow’s former husband was her adoptive father.”
But let’s put this convoluted family feud aside and ask a more simple question: Should there be laws against incest? To give a specific, recent example, was Columbia University professor David Epstein guilty of a crime when he had a three-year consensual affair with his grown daughter? Was this only “a moral transgression,” or was it also a legal transgression?
If you agree that there should be laws against incest (on any level), that means that you agree that morality can and must be legislated. (Advocates of same-sex “marriage” who oppose polygamy and incestuous unions also agree that the government should make certain moral judgments when it comes to marriage.)
As Turek explained, “Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. Can you think of one law which doesn’t declare one behavior right and its opposite wrong? The truth is all laws legislate morality (even speed limits imply a moral right to life). And everyone in politics — conservatives, libertarians and liberals — is trying to legislate morality. The only question is: ‘Whose morality should be legislated?’”
Isn’t that the real question?
Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.
It was November, 1976, and I was very excited by the election results. Our new president was a “born-again Christian”! Having become born-again myself at the age of 16 late in 1971, this was the first election where the religious beliefs of a candidate really caught my attention, and Jimmy Carter’s open Christian faith helped put the born-again term on the national map. Four years later, he was (quite literally) swept out of office by Ronald Reagan, the darling of the religious right.
Rev. Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, which was founded in 1979, had famously declared, “We have a threefold primary responsibility. Number one, get people saved. Number two, get them baptized. Number three, get them registered to vote.” And although Reagan was not known as a deeply religious man, he was a strong conservative and a consistent opponent of abortion.
As one report observed, “For the Moral Majority, Ronald Reagan was a modern-day prophet whose rhetoric on family values, school choice, muscular patriotism and personal morality echoed their own view. Both Reagan and the Moral Majority saw American culture as a cesspool filled with sludge by ’60s-era hippies, immoral Hollywood directors, civil-rights radicals, abortion-loving feminists, the media and liberals.”
Eight years later, despite the many good intentions of the Moral Majority, despite the clear voice Reagan provided on a number of important moral issues (including abortion), and despite some of the very positive things Reagan accomplished (nationally and internationally), America was still stuck in a deep moral quagmire and the abortion industry continued almost unabated. In fact, according to the Alan Gutmacher Institute, there were at least 1.5 million abortions every year from 1980-1988, the years of the Reagan presidency, showing increase rather than decrease.
Of course, religious conservatives are not the only ones who have looked for a political savior. Need I mention our current president, he of the Greek pillars at the Democratic National Convention, treated like a rock star and hailed as “the one,” as if a quasi-Messianic figure? And need I mention the extreme hostility expressed towards President George W. Bush in the last years of his second term by those looking for “hope and change”? Now the Tea Party has risen up, angered over what they perceive is happening to America, grieved over what they claim is a systematic seizing of our liberties, and determined to see radical change come to our nation.
Not surprisingly, many Tea Party members, along with many other Republicans, are people of conservative Christian faith, and most of the Republican candidates campaigning for the presidency are known for their strong (and, it appears, genuine) faith. There is Rick Perry, who called for a prayer convocation attended by 30,000 before announcing his presidential bid. There is Michelle Bachman, who will now be joined on the campaign trail by her “personal pastor,” Mac Hammond. There is Herman Cain, who was recently quoted by the Christian Post as saying, “My faith plays a very big part in all the decisions that I make. . . . I’ve been involved with the church since I was young.” And always looming in the background is Sarah Palin, baptized in a lake in Alaska after getting saved at the age of 12. Perhaps one of these individuals will be our next political savior? Perhaps one of them will ascend to the presidency and bring about dramatic, national changes?
I would suggest we take a more pragmatic approach and not set ourselves up for disappointment yet again. First, the American political system is both complicated and convoluted, totally different than, say, ancient Israel where the right king could bring about national transformation, especially over the course of his lifelong reign. Here we have two major parties (at least), often at war with each other, often fighting for what is politically expedient rather than what is best for the country, sometimes internally divided as well. And then there is the ever-present “good old boy” syndrome, with its coalitions and deals and favors. We would be naïve to think that one charmed leader will be able to overcome all this in the short period of time he or she serves as president.
Second, America is a nation of more than 300 million people, and much of the change we need must be grassroots change, from the bottom up more than from the top down. In fact, it is hypocritical to criticize big government and its overreaching arm while at the same time looking to government to save us. Third, our presidents are not superheroes, and once we get past the political panegyric, we are reminded of their humanity.
We would do well, then, to remember the Paul’s exhortation to pray for our leaders (1 Tim 2:1-4), to vote or campaign for those we believe are best suited for the job (even with conviction and passion) without simplistically thinking that the next person we elect will somehow save our nation.
Can we hope for positive change? Absolutely. Can we expect national transformation? That will come from the nation (ultimately as people turn to the Lord) not just from the president.
From an E-Mail sent by Lou Engle’s TheCall on April 12th:
Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.” Regarding Senate Bill 48, the next few weeks will decide what California students will learn, which according to Lincoln will guide the thinking of our future government. As Gettysburg was considered the high water mark of the civil war, this very well could be the Gettysburg of American education regarding the issue of homosexuality.
This bill will affect nine million children and parents in public schools. The implications of this one bill are monumental and I believe the voice of the churches must be heard in this critical hour.
“California Senate Bill number 48, now tracking its way through the legislature, would change the teaching of core academic subjects into a ‘celebration’ of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual lifestyles. This profound change in the basic education of children would be mandatory, without involvement or opt-out rights of parents.”
What is at stake?
SB 48 still passed the Senate Education Committee but there’s still time to stop this bill in the assembly and senate that SaveCalifornia.com calls “the worst school sexual indoctrination ever,” forcing nine million California children to learn about homosexuality at an early age with no opt-out rights for parents.
What is most alarming about this bill is that if it passes, parents will have no rights over what their children learn in public schools regarding their sexuality. This is total discrimination against religious liberties and parents’ rights to teach their children morals.
Furthermore, Dr. Miriam Grossman, an author and child psychiatrist for over 20 years, presented well-researched evidence that introducing elementary and junior high school students to homosexuality will cause gender confusion and misidentification as a homosexual because they are still in the stage of gender and identity formation.
Also, because California is the largest consumer of textbooks, what goes into California’s textbooks will most likely go into the rest of the nation’s textbooks. This could effect what all public schools will teach across the nation!
“What we all do, or fail to do, in the next few weeks will determine whether or not California’s school children will be subject to homosexual textbooks and curriculum for years to come! Your help is needed to fight this bill every step of the way at every committee hearing and every vote.”
Three steps to stop SB 48
1. Please pray that God would do a miracle and stop the passage of this bill.
2. If you are a California resident and you want to stop this bill, please go to the following website to let your representatives know your stance. It only takes a minute: http://capwiz.com/legislativecenter/issues/alert/?alertid=27189501
3. It is vitally important for us to vote and put those who will truly represent us into office. If we don’t vote, we won’t be represented, period.
So murdering these 7 infants AFTER inducing labor is “one of the most horrific things” the news reporter of 30 years had “ever heard,” and these abortions are worthy of having the doctor charged with 7 counts of murder, and yet in a number of states, doing this same thing with infants the same age is fine as long as you do it inside the womb (Pennsylvania’s limit is 24 weeks)? What hypocrisy!
Shockingly (or perhaps, not that shocking come to think about it), there are notable pro-choice activists that say there should be no limits on when abortions should be able to be performed! According to the leftist magazine Slate:
Marge Berer, founding editor of Reproductive Health Matters, takes a similar position. In an article on the same site, RH Reality Check, she argues that “an abortion provider must never pass judgement on the validity of a woman’s need for an abortion.” Instead, “abortion providers should act as technicians with a clinical skill to offer.” According to Berer, “anyone who thinks they have the right to refuse even one woman an abortion can’t continue to claim they are pro-choice.”
Berer takes particular offense at a moral limit suggested by pro-choice writer Frances Kissling. Kissling has proposed that “when a fetus reaches the point where it could survive outside the uterus, is healthy, and the woman is healthy, and she has had five months to make up her mind, we should say no to abortion.” Berer quotes this statement with dismay and repudiates it with a question: “Who exactly are the ‘we’ that she [Kissling] now considers herself to be part of?” Berer concludes that “there will always be a handful of women” who don’t make their abortion decisions before 20 or 24 weeks, and “the pro-choice thing to do is to support them and do the abortions anyway.”
Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, goes further. “Is there anything qualitatively different about a fetus at, say, 28 weeks that gives it a morally different status to a fetus at 18 weeks or even eight weeks?” she asks. “Why should we assume later abortions are ‘bad’—or, at least, ‘more wrong’ than early ones?” Furedi rejects this assumption and concludes that “in later pregnancy, too, I believe that the decision, and the responsibility that comes with it, should rest with the pregnant woman. … We either support women’s moral agency or we do not. … There is no middle ground to straddle.”
Among other things, this means no time limits. Furedi argues that “women should have access to abortion as early as possible and as late as necessary.” In her current essay, she writes: “To argue that a woman should no longer be able to make a moral decision about the future of her pregnancy, because 20 or 18 or 16 weeks have passed, assaults [moral autonomy] and, in doing so, assaults the tradition of freedom of conscience…” In fact, “the delivery of an abortion procedure in the second (and even third) trimester is preferable to its denial.”
These essays vary, but together, they capture the absolutist worldview. There’s no moral difference between eight, 18, and 28 weeks. No one has the right to judge another person’s abortion decision, regardless of her stage of pregnancy. Each woman is entitled to decide not only whether to have an abortion, but how long she can wait to make that choice.
Make no mistake about it, what Kermit Gosnell, the physician charged with murdering these infants, did was business as usual in the abortion industry (save for his less than sanitary abortion office and less-than-professional way of doing things). After all, what do people think abortion is?
As disgusting and horrific as this case is, the words of pro-choice activist Ann Furedi should resound: “Is there anything qualitatively different about a fetus at, say, 28 weeks that gives it a morally different status to a fetus at 18 weeks or even eight weeks?”