Dr. Richard Land: Super Bowl anti-abortion ad to confront, "the country with the undeniable humanity of each unborn child"

Dr. Richard Land of "The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention," has written a compelling article regarding the "Focus on the Family" commercial CBS will air during the Super Bowl on Sunday.

Land explained the commercial being criticized by numerous "pro-choice" groups tells the story of Tim Tebow and his mother:

"In 1987, Tim’s future parents, Bob and Pam Tebow, were in the Philippines on a mission trip. During the trip, Pam fell into a coma from amoebic dysentery and was administered several strong medications to treat her potentially life threatening illness. Later, doctors, worried about consequent severe damage to the baby she was carrying, strongly urged Pam to abort her fifth child. She declined their medical advice and gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby boy, Tim Tebow, on Aug. 14, 1987. Pam cited her strong pro-life Christian beliefs for her decision to have her baby over the doctor’s objections."

Land feels the reason pro-choice groups are protesting the ad, and have asked CBS to pull it, is because the ad puts a human face to unborn children, "It confronts people across the nation with the fact that every “problem pregnancy” involves not just a pregnant mother, but also a real, live unborn human being," he wrote.

Land compared Tebow's story to Harriet Beecher Stowe's book, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which, he wrote, "...put a human face on the 3 million slaves in America, thus hastening their liberation." He feels Tebow's story has the potential to put such a human face on the hundreds of thousands of babies aborted every year.

Land indicated, of the 14,000 anti-abortion advocates who attended a recent protest in Houston, Texas, 80 percent of them were under 30 years of age. According to Land, they carried signs that read, "We survived Roe--Roe won't survive us!" Land thinks it is indicative of a turning of the tides in America, and there is more consensus against abortion today than for it.

"The “pro-choice” movement knows they are losing and that ultrasound machines and commercials like the Tebows’ are confronting the country with the undeniable humanity of each unborn child," Land wrote as he charged "pro-choicers" to pay for their own ads countering ads such as the Tebow's, rather than seeking censorship of such advertisements.

"...they should pay their money and make their case. I suspect they know they don’t have such arguments and so they descend to the tactic of seeking to silence the arguments of their opponents."

In 2006, a total of 846,181 abortions were reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).


Read the entire ERLC article here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Baptist Press: Personhood Initiatives Mark National Movement?

A different approach

In November 2008, a Colorado initiative was defeated but, that defeat hasn't stopped seven states from considering bills or initiatives which set personhood at the moment of conception or fertilization, Baptist Press (BP) reported, in what is being considered a possible national movement.

"The bills and initiatives are unique in that none of them reference abortion, even though all of them take aim at the legal reasoning behind the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling." - BP

According to BP, the Colorado Definition of Person Initiative of 2008 was defeated by 73-27 percent. The bill stated:

"...the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

The definition attacks the very foundation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun's Roe majority opinion.

From the BP report:

"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun authored the Roe majority opinion, he acknowledged that if the definition of "personhood is established" to include the unborn, then the case for abortion rights "collapses" because the unborn's "right to life would then be guaranteed" by the Constitution."

Read the full BP report...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Florida Doctor's Medical License Revoked after Botched Abortion

While we're on the subject of abortion and Baptist Press (BP), I should tell you about another story I read while checking into BP reports from the past week. A very alarming story.

The Thomas More Society has filed a case against abortion doctor Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique, Belkis Gonzalez, a staff member of one clinic, and other staff at two separate abortion clinics, A Woman's Care in north Miami and A Gyn. of Hialeah, where a live birth occurred.

Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney, who is also a past president of the Dade County Bar Association, is representing Sycloria Williams, the woman who birthed the child in 2006 at the age of 18, under the umbrella of the Thomas More Society, according to Baptist Press.

Renelique, Gonzalez, clinics and staff are being sued for wrongful death, medical negligence and personal injury. Renelique's medical license has already been revoked by the Florida Board of Medicine.

Alarming details from BP:

"...After waiting about two hours for the doctor to arrive, Williams began feeling nauseated and was placed in a patient waiting room, given a robe and told to lie down. At 2 o'clock that day -- and with Renelique still not at the clinic and no one in the room -- Williams felt an immense pain and delivered a baby girl. The staff began screaming "and pandemonium ensued," and Williams "watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed," a civil lawsuit filed in January on Williams' behalf states.With the baby trying to breath, a staff member, Belkis Gonzalez, who has no medical license, came in the room and used orange shears to cut the umbilical cord, the suit states. She then "scooped up the baby," the placenta and afterbirth, placed everything in a red plastic biohazard bag, sealed it and tossed it into a trash can. Renelique later arrived and told her the "hard part was over," the suit states. He gave her an IV and a shot, cleaned her up and sent her home, the suit says....

...A series of anonymous calls helped police find the baby's body. One call told them it was hidden on the clinic's roof, but police were unable to find it, the suit states. A follow-up phone call led police to find the body in a cardboard box in a clinic closet."

BP also reported that an autopsy revealed the baby (Shanice) had air in her lungs and was trying to breathe when she died. The president and chief council of the Thomas More Society, Tom Brejcha, said the umbilical cord was not tied, allowing the infant to bleed to death.

Related stories:

> Board revokes license of abortion doctor - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

> Doctor's license revoked over botched '06 abortion in Hialeah - South Florida - MiamiHerald.com

> Florida Doctors License Revoked after Botched Live Abortion TopNews United States

> Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case - CNN.com

> FOXNews.com - Doctor's License Revoked Over Botched Abortion That Led to Live Baby Being Thrown Out - Health News Current H..


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This week at Baptist Press

"Baptist Press (BP)" reported President Obama spoke about honoring the "golden rule," appealing to all faiths that even though they held differing beliefs they could still work together, "to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; (and) to lift up those who have fallen on hard times," at the February 5, National Prayer Breakfast.

BP also quoted Obama as saying, "...no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."

According to BP, after Obama's comments, the president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a written statement, "My deepest prayer is that President Obama will move forward in the spirit of the Golden Rule and embrace policies that affirm the dignity of every human being, especially the most vulnerable of all, the unborn."

It seems Ms. Dannenfelser might be asking Obama to practice what he preaches.

BP reported:

"Obama was an advocate of unlimited abortion rights during his careers in the Illinois and U.S. Senates. Since becoming president, he has issued an executive order reversing a pro-life policy that prevented federal family planning funds from going to international organizations that perform or promote abortion."

> Obama's National Prayer Breakfast remarks

> Ms. Dannenfelser's written statement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Planned Parenthood: Keeping Politics out of the Doctor's Office?

The "Springfield News-Leader" published a "Voice of the Day" letter today offering a slanted view of what a regulation President Bush signed into law will accomplish.

Alison Gee, Southwest Missouri's Planned Parenthood Vice President, described the regulation as "a midnight regulation," though, in an earlier post, I referenced "Baptist Press" (BP) had reported the Health and Human Services Department had been working on the regulation for much of this year and had introduced the proposal in August. After its introduction, a 30 day comment period followed. In fact, the report from BP had stated (or warned) that critics of the measure were charging it was "an eleventh-hour move," so, no surprise Gee erroneously represented it as "a midnight regulation."

It's a topsy turvy world when the ten commandments are meekly removed from a government office because it offended one man but a nationwide effort is made to force doctors, pharmacists and pharmacist assistants to deal in abortion and abortion drugs against their own moral consciences. Or, should I say, there is an outcry against any regulation protecting those doctors, pharmacists and assistants from providing services and prescriptions which are in contradiction of their own moral code? In other words, your right to an abortion trumps the doctor's right to decline giving you one?

This morning, I followed the hot link provided by the News-Leader at the online edition of the paper:

"Join us. Visit www.plannedparenthood.org to learn more."

...What I found at the link, originally, was a replacement of the home page with a blatant call for money. Under a snowy, pine tree laden, peaceful blue, starlit banner, Planned Parenthood invited those who landed there to support "Choice on Earth":

"We have this special page up for just a few short days instead of the regular Planned Parenthood homepage because right now, we have a special opportunity: A long-time supporter will match, dollar for dollar, every online gift that we receive through December 31, 2008, up to a total of $300,000."

That is what I found the first time I clicked on the News-Leader's hot link. When I went back to pick up the link for this blog entry the link had been updated to direct the reader to the Planned Parenthood homepage. At the home page is a prominent "Choice on Earth" fund raiser notice.
Directly below the "Choice on Earth" contribution notice, the reader is invited to:

"Learn more about issues and elections at the website of our advocacy and political arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund."

Political arm!??? Wait a minute! Didn't Gee promise in her "Voice of the Day" letter today:

"We will fight this and use all of our power to keep politics out of the doctor's office."

???

Yet, they have a political arm? If their intent is to keep politics out of the doctor's office, why the need for a "political arm?"

Apparently, they just want to keep politics out of the doctor's office if it goes against their own political agenda. You see, it's okay to offend the moral conscience of doctors, pharmacists and their assistants through political activism, just don't offend Planned Parenthood by exercising your own right to be politically active in a cause that counters their own political agenda.

Bully, bully.

Gee wrote:

"President Bush is continuing to take his ideology and politics and smother women's ability to make fully informed decisions about their health care."

The regulation isn't about Bush "smothering" a woman's ability to make fully informed decisions about health care. It is about protecting the rights of doctors and pharmacists not to have to provide a procedure or prescribe drugs which cause a moral dilemma for them, individually. But, those very critics of the regulation have already sought the inclusion of funding for abortion in any national health care coverage plan president elect Barack Obama might seek so, it shouldn't come as a surprise these pro-abortion activists care little about the individual rights of people unless it goes along with their own agenda. (See BP's report on that, here.)

In this case, I see Bush trying to protect peoples' rights and Planned Parenthood trying to force others to provide services for an activity the former oppose on spiritual or moral grounds and, not stopping there, Planned Parenthood won't really be happy until they force every American taxpayer whose moral conscience is in opposition to abortion to financially support any woman's choice to abort.

In fact, the regulation does nothing to smother women's ability "to make fully informed decisions about their health care." Planned Parenthood can still inform women and women will still have a choice as to whether they want to abort a baby or choose another option, such as putting the baby up for adoption.

It's really about money, your money and my money. Planned Parenthood wants you to think without more of your willingly donated money, today, and future mandated tax dollars, their ability to "fully inform" women about their health care will be hindered or "smothered." They want to force all doctors and pharmacists to provide abortions and prescription drugs which some doctors are conflicted about providing. They want providing those services and prescription drugs forced upon those doctors and pharmacists to make the choice of abortion more convenient for women who want them and they want all of us to eventually be forced to foot the bill with our tax dollars.

Should women have the right to have a convenient abortion? Women can certainly get one but, poor things, it might not always be as convenient for them as they might like. They might have to make a day trip. What a pity.

I know people who have to travel to Kansas City or St. Louis to get treatment for certain illnesses so, should the taxpayer be forced to provide money (through the government) to every hospital in the nation so that all treatments and procedures are convenient to every single patient who needs those treatments or procedures that might be currently unavailable in their own cities, at their local hospitals and clinics? Is convenient "availability" what should dictate the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, even at the expense of individual moral conflict?

I have a cousin who is often forced to travel to Little Rock, Arkansas to receive the veteran health care benefits she needs. She can get them, but it's less than convenient for her and she often has to make the trip under physical duress, something which isn't often the case for women choosing abortion.

President Bush signed a regulation to affirm "the right of doctors and other health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object," not to deny women access; accessibility to abortions was not affected one whit by this regulation. Abortions are as available to women today as they were the day before Bush signed that bill.

Yes, Alison Gee, let's do ensure we keep politics (and money grubbing) out of the doctor's office.

This Week at Baptist Press: Groups try to Advance NON-Reproductive Rights

As one of its issues to watch, this week Baptist Press (BP) pointed readers to President elect Obama's transition Web site, where a 55 page report signed by over 60 abortion rights groups are urging the president elect to include abortion coverage as part of any national health care plan he might consider after he takes office.

Ironically, while the report includes "Health" in the title it also suggests it advances reproductive rights. The full title of the report is, "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration."

Let me get this straight so you will understand my bias. I am pro-life, not pro-abortion. I also understand that those who support abortion rights prefer the title, "pro-choice." I don't care how they want to be identified, a rose is a rose whether called a Diana, Princess of Wales™ or a Double Delight™ . And, I'm not sure how abortion advances the "reproductive rights" of women, it seems to me it actually promotes the opposite. They would like the taxpayer to be forced to fund abortions, in other words, what they really seek is to advance a woman's right NOT to reproduce through abortion. I wonder, what does NOT reproducing have to do with reproduction? In my opinion, it would have been more honest to have titled it "Advancing Non-Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," or "Advancing Taxpayer funded Abortions and Health in a New Administration." These advocates care not one whit whether it is against some taxpayer's individual ethical and moral convictions or sensibilities to abort babies for health reasons or just because they are currently inconvenient.

Pro-Life Susan B. Anthony List's President, Marjorie Dannenfelser was quoted in the article as stating, "After a decade of common-sense restrictions on taxpayer funding, the abortion industry thinks it deserves a bailout from President-Elect Obama."

Dannenfelser recommended pro-life advocates contact their senators through their Web site at: www.sba-list.org/abortionbailout to seek their opposition of the taxpayer funded abortions that these pro-abortion groups seek.

Meanwhile, BP reported, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under our current President, George W. Bush, announced a regulation intended to protect doctors' and health care providers' rights,"to refuse to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object."

BP pointed out, HHS was working on the regulation for much of this year and introduced the proposal in August. A 30 day comment period followed.

"The Christian Medical Association (CMA) reported 41 percent of its members said in a survey they had been "pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~