By Maura Butler

I learned greater gruesome detail this week of Barack Obama’s radically pro-abortion convictions.  I had written in an earlier post (4/9/08) of Obama throwing out a bill that would have provided emergency medical care for babies surviving an abortion when he was the chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee of the Illinois State Senate.  Well now let me tell you the whole story.

There is an abortion procedure called induced-labor abortion, or more euphemistically dubbed mid-trimester labor induction.  This procedure is often done in a hospital setting, not an abortion clinic; and it is done not by typical abortionists, but by a simple order written by a doctor that a nurse or resident follows.  A pill, an ulcer drug called Cytotec or Misoprostol is given to the pregnant woman at specific hourly intervals until an abortion is induced.  This is done normally around 16 to 28 weeks gestation.  Being 16 weeks pregnant myself, hearing all of this brought tears to my eyes.  The woman “gives birth” to a dead baby – but approximately ten to twenty percent of these babies are actually born alive.

Jill Stanek, a registered nurse turned activist, told me this information.  She decided to do something about this after rocking a 21 week gestation baby who was born alive after one of these abortions in the hospital where she worked.  The baby died in her arms after 45 minutes.

In 2001, Jill took up her cause in the Illinois State Legislature where she first encountered Barack Obama.  The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would require hospitals to provide care for infants who were born alive after an abortion.  Barack Obama voted AGAINST this humane and commonsense legislation in committee, then voted “present” instead of for or against once it was brought before the Illinois State Senate.  That was 2001.  The following year he voted against it on the senate floor and the third time, he threw it out of committee (as mentioned above).  In 2005, with Obama no longer serving at the state level, the bill passed.

How could someone be against this legislation?  A tiny little human being, still breathing with a beating heart, is left to die, and you don’t want to do anything about it?  If that is not outrageous, I don’t know what is.

In 2002, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was passed on the federal level, but there were no penalties involved in the bill.  Jill Stanek and her allies are trying to change that so the law will actually have a chance to make a difference in the lives of these vulnerable children and their families.

By Maura Butler

I must put a warning at the beginning of this report.  This is a very disturbing story, certainly outrageous, but heart wrenching and evil.  It is not for the faint of heart and even as I type, I feel sick and sad.

This is one of the most disturbing articles I have ever read.  An art student at Yale University has done the unthinkable over and over again for her senior art project.  This young woman needs prayers.  Over the course of several months, she was artificially inseminated as many times as medically possible; then she took abortifacient drugs – medication to induce an abortion early in pregnancy.  She video taped herself going through the miscarriages and saved the blood, fluid and tissue expelled from her body for her art project.  She has used the remains as a medium for her art.

I don’t know whether to scream or cry.  To think of all those innocent lives on display like that, like some twisted postmodern statement; it’s almost inconceivable.  But this girl conceived it.  And to further the outrage, she had to have the project approved by her advisor.

What damage she has done to her body and her mind.  How negligent of her advisor to encourage this young mind to go forward with these horrors.  My first thought was of the innocent lives lost and exploited.  But I had to stop for a moment and consider what this young woman went through, her multiple abortions, as if they were a statement.  Her body, mind and soul will be forever scarred and I hope and pray that when her day of reckoning comes, love and forgiveness surround her.

This is not art.  It is death through indifference.  Please continue your personal fight for Life so both personal and public catastrophes like this one can be a thing of the past.  Change hearts and minds.  It is the only way.

Amendment: Thankfully the actions in this story were a hoax.

By Maura Butler

Last week, self-proclaimed pro-life Democrat Senator Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president.  Obama has been canvassing the state of Pennsylvania trying to drum up votes against Hillary Clinton, who is leading the polls there.  The problem with this endorsement is that Obama has radical views on abortion and has voted on opposite sides of this issue than Casey almost every time a Life bill is up for a vote.  The Associated Press reported Casey’s endorsement might help Obama with pro-life voters and Catholic voters, but I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were Obama.

When Casey campaigned against pro-life hero Senator Rick Santorum, he campaigned on a pro-life platform but stated and restated that it wasn’t his most important issue.  He voted right on stem cells and some other abortion bills, but Casey has found himself on the wrong side of funding for abortion and family planning services.  In September of last year, Casey voted to overturn the pro-life Mexico City Policy – a policy that states private overseas organizations that "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning" are not eligible to receive funds under the U.S. foreign aid program for "population assistance”.  Casey doesn’t believe in abortion, but he’ll fund it.  Thankfully, President Bush has promised to veto the bill if the pro-abortion language isn’t removed.

Barack Obama was not in town for that vote, but rest assured he would have voted for it.  He is so radically pro-abortion that when he was chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee of the Illinois Senate, he threw out a bill that would provide emergency medical care for babies surviving an abortion. 

In his recent Pennsylvania tour, Obama spoke of a baby as a punishment for a young girl’s mistake of getting pregnant.  Speaking about his daughters, he said, “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.”  The remarks may have been off-the-cuff, but it gives great insight on his position on Life.

Casey’s endorsement may help Obama with Pennsylvania voters, but not with pro-life voters.  We know better.  We’re too smart for that. 

By Maura Butler

It’s not enough that Planned Parenthood is given millions in hard-earned tax-payer dollars.  The LA Times recently reported that Planned Parenthood of California is under investigation for over-billing the state government for birth control pills.  When one of their internal auditors brought this to their attention, they fired him, ignored the report, and kept right on collecting that extra gravy. 

They took advantage of a federal program for health centers where they can buy drugs at a reduced price and file for reimbursement under special rules.  They billed for more than they paid and now they are being sued.

It’s bad enough that we have to pay for what goes on at those clinics – but it’s even worse when they steal from us to continue their sordid anti-life practices.  Stealing from the government is stealing from taxpayers, most who are morally opposed to what Planned Parenthood does.

By Maura Butler

A sophomore studying at UCLA recently released shocking recordings uncovering continued racism at Planned Parenthoods around the country.  Pro-life student Lila Rose hired an actor to call the development offices of various Planned Parenthood sites and ask that the potential donation be only used to abort black babies.  The responses were shocking.  Not a single person with whom the actor spoke said no.  In fact, one woman said the request was “understandable” and that she was “excited” to process it. 

Understandable?  No, in fact, it is incomprehensible!  To single out a specific sub-sect of our society based on a judgment call regarding their skin color for the purpose of murdering their offspring is horrifying.  But that’s just what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she began Planned Parenthood.  In various writings Sanger references her “Negro Project” which was a plan to reduce the number of black children through abortion, sterilization and birth control.  She was a firm believer in eugenics, the idea that through proper breeding humans could eliminate undesirables from society.

Ideas have consequences.  One of the consequences of eugenics is today’s abortion industry.  Planned Parenthood sets up shop in largely minority communities under the mask of helping poor women.  Whole classes of people are being wiped out because they are disabled with Down Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis.  Ask an adult with DS or CF if they think their life is worth living and I bet you can guess the answer.

In my heart, I believe most people who are pro-abortion would find this story shocking.  They detest racism just as much as you and me.  So if we can get at their hearts through this story, then maybe we’ll have a better chance at changing their minds about abortion as well.  To take action against more funding for Planned Parenthood, click here.

By Maura Butler

Have you ever met a child with Down Syndrome (DS)?  If you have, he or she likely touched your heart.  Kids and adults with DS are just about the most loving and loveable people on the planet.  They don’t care what you look like or how much money you make.  If you have a smile for them, and even if you don’t, rest assured they have one for you.

University of North Carolina biology professor Albert Harris believes women are under moral obligation to abort their children if given a DS diagnosis.  However, at the end of the article, Professor Harris said that he wouldn’t want his own child to be aborted regardless of a DS diagnosis or not.  In other words, he wouldn’t follow his own moral position – that just doesn’t make sense. 

Unfortunately, the majority of prenatal testing is done so that if parents don’t like the results, they can choose to have an abortion.  Herein lies the slippery slope.  People abort a boy because they want girl, a girl because they want a boy, they get a false positive of some developmental disability and decide they don’t want a child with problems.  Here’s a hint: all children have problems; some are just more obvious than others.  As genetic testing gets more advanced, more affordable and easier, there will come a time when parents can choose to abort their child who has blue eyes or a lower IQ or lesser athletic ability.

Some people don’t like the slippery slope argument.  But it’s a good one because it showcases our flawed human nature.  Give an inch and we’ll take a yard.  Harris and many like him think DS is a reason to abort.  In January, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement recommending all women, not just those 35 and over, be offered DS screening.  They don’t say this, but the only reason to screen is to make a decision whether to abort or not – leaning toward abortion.  Data show 90 percent of unborn children with DS diagnoses are aborted.

Parents of children with DS are getting more involved the fight to educate pregnant women who are given a DS diagnosis.  They are concerned for many reasons.  They love their kids and want to dispel some of the fear that comes with the diagnosis.  And they want their kids to know other kids with DS.  With the population only at about 350,000, people with DS are becoming more and more scarce, and this is mainly due to abortion.  Less people with DS also means less funds for research and institutional support.

It is a sad state of affairs in America when an entire class of people is being systematically wiped out because of an extra 21^st chromosome – something completely out of their control.

By Maura Butler

Back in November, Japanese scientists lead by Professor Shinya Yamanaka declared they had created embryonic-like stem cells by reprogramming adult human skin cells (iPS cells – induced pluripotent stem cells).  This news was lauded by scientist all over the world and rendered cloning obsolete.  Even Ian Wilmut, the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep, tossed his grant to pursue cloning in favor of this new and exciting technique, which also turns out to be completely ethical.  So why then are Nebraska lawmakers advancing a bill to fund human cloning in their state?

LB606 is a bill being reviewed by the Nebraska state legislature that would ban one type of cloning but legalize and pay for (with tax-payer dollars of course) another type of cloning.  Those of us who follow these issues carefully know that back in November 2006, Missourians voted on a constitutional amendment on the same sort of semantics.  Reproductive cloning – make a human clone and implant it into a woman’s uterus so that it gestates like a normal embryo into a fetus and beyond – is viewed as the stuff of horror science fiction to most of us.  But therapeutic cloning – creating a human clone to destroy it for its stem cells in the hopes of finding a cure for something and treating patients – is lauded as noble… even though a human life is destroyed to get there. 

Almost all scientists agree actual therapies from therapeutic cloning are decades away.  But my point of this recent study where skin cells from an adult were reprogrammed making iPS cells is that now cloning does not have to happen anymore.  The adult from whom the skin cells are taken can be treated with his or her own stem cells – not the stem cells of his or her genetic twin, i.e. clone.  This is exciting stuff.  And it works.  So why pursue the other extremely controversial research?

My guess is fame and fortune.  But the pursuit of cloning for fame has already shown fruitless.  On January 17^th, 2008 Stemagen announced it had successfully cloned the first properly documented human being.  No one cared.  Did you hear about it?  I try to keep abreast of this stuff and I didn’t even hear about it until three weeks later.  Thanks to the Yamanaka discovery, it wasn’t news.

By Maura Butler

On the day tens of thousands of citizens were marching for our most vulnerable and weak sisters and brothers, religious leaders of three different denominations were “blessing” the Mohawk Hudson Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Schenectady, New York.  The Albany Times Union reported this commemoration took place on January 22^nd, the 35^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

And what exactly are they commemorating?  In their eyes, it is the day when women were liberated from the chains of actually having to be mothers.  This 18,000 square foot clinic complete with surgical wing, was “blessed” by ones who call themselves people of God, members of the clergy – people who should be bringing souls to God, not encouraging the death of a woman’s child by a murderous abortionist.

Reverend Larry Phillips declared the clinic “sacred ground where women are treated with dignity, supported in their role as moral decision-makers… sacred ground where the violent voices of hatred and oppression are quelled.”  In part, the dignity of women lies in the very fact that they can be mothers, givers of life.  Persuading them to have someone tear their children from their bodies committing a most violent act to both woman and child is one of the greatest oppressions of women in all history.

If you are a person of faith, be sure to read the second page of this article to read the theologically problematic words of the Reverend Bill Levering.

Isn’t it interesting that the other side of this debate has long since demanded religion to be expelled from the debate.  I’m not sure what they wanted to accomplish by having religious leaders confer a blessing on their buildings of death and destruction.  Certainly it was more of a statement, an effect rather than a real desire for blessings from the Almighty.  If it is the latter, maybe in time the Lord will change their hearts and minds.  Let’s continue to pray for that.

Thanks to The Weekly Standard February 4^th 2008 issue and Anthony Sacramone of First Things for the lighter side.

By Maura Butler

Forgive me for my writer’s block.  It took the 35^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to shake me back into being outraged again.  Marching with the tens of thousands of pro-life soldiers on Tuesday uplifted my spirit to continue fighting the good fight.  Unfortunately the anniversary often reignites the other side too.

We used to be anti-abortion and they used to be pro-abortion.  But over time as the horrors of abortion were uncovered and advances in technology revealed these tiny human beings with their beating hearts, abortion became a dirty word.  They switched to pro-choice, and we became pro-life.  As time passed and technology progressed, being pro-life came to incorporate more than being anti-abortion.  But the jargon lives on.

As pro-life activists chip away at Roe little by little with commonsense restrictions like parental notification and bans on late term abortion, reactionaries on the other side throw phrases around that, on their own, sound innocent – phrases like “childbearing choices” and “women’s health”.  The other side’s activists talk the talk about wanting abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” but in reality, they are no less pro-abortion than they used to be – and I mean PRO-abortion, desiring more abortions.¹

Let me give you an example.  In a recent article written on January 22^nd, the author discusses the impending presidential election as it relates to abortion.  Bringing in pop culture, she rejects the notion that abortion is a dirty word.

“The movie "Juno" brings us a pregnant teen who gives her child up for adoption, while the tabloids offer up Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's 16-year-old real life and really pregnant sister who opts for single motherhood. There's also "Knocked Up," about a woman with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. After its strong box office run the movie is near the top of DVD rentals, with nary a mention of abortion except as a verboten subject, a less than savory choice that the pregnant protagonists wouldn't deign to consider.”