wyandotcountyrightolife

Earlier today, as has every President since Dwight Eisenhower, President Barack Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton hotel in our nation’s capitol. As I have the last two years, I’d like to take a deeper look at what the President remarked to an audience of over 3,000, packed with dignitaries. (I’ve included what we wrote in NRL News Today in 2012 and 2013.)

The answer to the following may not be as obvious as we might first think. At a national Prayer breakfast whose audience is predominately Christian, what must be running through his mind when he says the following:

“Today, we profess the principles we know to be true. We believe that each of us is ‘wonderfully made’ in the image of God. We, therefore, believe in the inherent dignity of every human being — dignity that no earthly power can take away. And central to that dignity is freedom of religion — the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith if they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do this free from persecution and fear.”

Is the President oblivious to the context of “wonderfully made”? The words, of course, are from Psalms 139 (verses 13-16) which read

13 For You formed my inward parts;

You covered me in my mother’s womb.

14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

Marvelous are Your works,

And that my soul knows very well.

15 My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.

And in Your book they all were written,

The days fashioned for me,

When as yet there were none of them

God knew us from before the beginning, knitting us today in our mother’s womb in a fearful and wonderful manner. We are His.

Anyone, like the President, who is as close to the Abortion Establishment as two coats of paint–organizations whose reason for existence is to short-circuit the days fashioned for over a million unborn babies each year–might want to rethink alluding to Psalm 139.

I read the entire speech which was accurately summarized in news accounts as primarily addressing religious freedom worldwide, particularly but by no means exclusively of Christians. Nobody is saying that the Obama mandate that compels employers, including religious groups, to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections is of the same moral order as being killed for your faith.

But resistance to that mandate is, for many millions of Americans, an exercise of “freedom of religion” — the right “to practice their faith how they choose.” I cannot read the President’s mind but I would hazard the guess that he does not take seriously the idea that some/many/most of those who fearlessly oppose the mandate do so because they refuse to be complicit in evil.

I say that because his administration keeps floating alleged “compromises” which miss the core of why people resist. I think it’s fair to conclude those are all for show.

At least rhetorically, the President understand the importance of religious freedom at home and the role that the faithful have played in reform movements. He said

“Now, here, as Americans, we affirm the freedoms endowed by our Creator, among them freedom of religion. And, yes, this freedom safeguards religion, allowing us to flourish as one of the most religious countries on Earth, but it works the other way, too — because religion strengthens America. Brave men and women of faith have challenged our conscience and brought us closer to our founding ideals, from the abolition of slavery to civil rights, workers’ rights.”

We would argue, of course, that nothing is more in harmony with “our founding ideals” than restoring protection to the littlest Americans.

One other thought about the President’s remarks to the National Prayer Breakfast. Sarah Pulliam Bailey of Religious News Service made an interesting observation:

“Prayer breakfast organizers could be making up for the past two breakfast speakers, who both called out Obama in his policies. Last year, Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s address drew controversy for criticizing the Affordable Care Act and other policies. In 2012, Christian author and speaker Eric Metaxas criticized policies on abortion.”

No President looks for criticism, pointed or even blunted. But it is interesting that it just so happens that at a time when Mr. Obama’s popularity is sagging, organizers would invite not an outsider but a member of his administration, U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Rajiv Shah, to provide the keynote address. As you can guess, Shah’s remarks hardly qualified as speaking truth to power, aka the Obama administration, which is what Dr. Carson and Mr. Metaxas fearlessly did.

If you have few minutes, please read “President Obama, the National Prayer Breakfast, and the Question ‘Who is Fully Human?’ and “What the President said at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast and what his remarks say to pro-lifers.”

And if you really want to read something that will move your soul, go towww.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/20482a.htm where you will read the text of President Reagan’s remarks in 1982 to the National Prayer Breakfast.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments todaveandrusko@gmail.com.

Beyond the obvious—that it’s very important to know whether the death toll from abortion is rising or falling—why would National Right to Life News Today be running what will turn out to be probably 8-10 articles on Guttmacher’s latest abortion numbers–“Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2011”–that appeared in “Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,” Guttmacher’s in-house journal?

While hardly perfect, everyone agrees that even although Guttmacher is a spin-off from Planned Parenthood, its numbers are the most complete. The Centers for Disease Control does good work breaking out the numbers by demographic groupings, but the CDC admits (because its approach is more passive) that its totals very much understate the actual number of abortions that take place.

Also, because Guttmacher’s analyses are treated almost like gospel by the media, what they say—or imply—is the reason abortion numbers rise or fall can shape (distort, in our view) the subsequent discussion.

When you read the stories about the report, you keep coming across some version of the statement that Guttmacher doesn’t offer an explanation for why there were about 1.06 million abortions in 2011, a drop of 13% since 2008 and 550,000 fewer abortions than the high water mark of 1.6 million in 1990. But clearly they have, shall we say, strong suspicions. Let’s see what they are and whether pro-life explanations make more sense.

Guttmacher’s explanations include “nearly foolproof long-term contraceptives like intrauterine devices” (as the New York Times put it), and the effect of the recession (“Presumably,“ Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman write, because of “economic uncertainty,” “more women and couples were making conscious decisions to avoid pregnancy and so resumed or continued using contraceptives”). As we have written previously, there were some quiet admissions on Guttmacher’s part that protective pro-life laws may have played some minor, minor role.

But clearly laws—and other pro-life initiatives—played a much larger role in explaining why there was a resumption in the long-term decline in the number of abortions which had (in Jones’s and Jerman’s words) “leveled off because 2005 and 2008.”

Here are some reasons why.

Writing on Mercartor.net., Prof. Priscilla Coleman notes that “The authors assume that certain types of laws are unlikely to affect the numbers.” (They cite laws enacted in Louisiana and Missouri.) Coleman then explains why, in fact, they would and did decrease.

For example, if you look at the declines in the abortion rate in those two states, the drops are much higher than the national average. Clearly, the laws did have a impact. And, by the way, Guttmacher ignores laws that don’t fit their idea of what matters, such as laws which help women-helping centers.

Coleman also addresses the impact of large number of pro-life initiatives passed, which Guttmacher dismisses because there also was a decline in the number of abortions in states that did not pass such initiatives. She writes

“However, this simplistic argument does not take into consideration the fact that the record number of regulations, which have often been quite contentious, have received an enormous amount of national media attention with psychological effects surely crossing state lines.

“Moreover, it is quite likely that the increased efforts made by the majority of US states to effectively regulate and protect women from poor medical decisions, is a reflection of a culture that has grown to understand the complexities of abortion and the numerous adverse consequences it often brings to women, families, and society.”

If you take a step back, you realize that the views of the Abortion Industry lack depth because they view pro-life initiatives through one eye, so to speak. Every pro-life law can only be seen as making abortions more difficult to obtain.

But to the unbiased observer—seeing with both eyes—these laws can best be understood as making it easier for the woman to choose life.

THAT is what drives the Planned Parenthoods and the Guttmacher Institutes crazy: that the raceway to death could have speed bumps. Once women in crisis pregnancies slow down—because of parental involvement laws, or seeing ultrasounds, or obtaining unbiased explanations of their unborn child’s development, or 24 (or more) hours to reflect–more will choose life.

And that is also why pro-abortionists so desperately fear the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. What if most people grasped that by 20 weeks, the preborn experience pain? What would their attitude be toward the little ones whose life is snuffed out when the abortionist cuts them to pieces or poisons them or induces premature delivery and then slits their spinal cords?

One other crucially important point. The genius of the Pro-Life Movement is that it is like a house with many rooms. National Right to Life proposes and enacts state and federal legislation, its PAC elects pro-life candidates (often against overwhelming odds), it organizes affiliates in all 50 states, and in many and varied ways it educates the public to the humanity of the unborn child and the tragedy that is abortion.

The latter is one instance of what might be called “soft” power, although everything NRLC does ultimately is a reflection of persuasion. What the Guttmachers of this world fail to see—maybe cannot see would be more accurate—is the difference it makes that our Movement is the ultimate grassroots movement.

That means that pro-lifers are busy everywhere. This does have an impact, both where they live and collectively.

It shows the public we are not the devils the media often insists we are, but regular folks.

When women-helping centers give women genuine alternatives, over time the message sinks in: pro-lifers care about the unborn child and her mother

And because more and more young people are identifying with the cause of life, the face of the Movement is not the stereotype the mainstream media so often paints. You cannot exaggerate how important this is.

We’ll be talking further about “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2011” today and in the next couple of days. Stay tuned.

In just a few months, a group of young pro-life leaders will meet in Washington, D.C. for an unforgettable summer that will equip them with the knowledge and skills to lead the pro-life movement into the future.

At the National Right to Life Academy, an intensive five-week training program, pro-life convictions are transformed into action. The curriculum for the program covers abortion, euthanasia, health care reform, stem cell research, bioethics, human development, legislation, history of the pro-life movement, media relations and grassroots organizing.

What truly makes the Academy stand out is the hands-on training for effectively articulating the pro-life message. Students do not just learn about the issues, they are challenged to argue the issues! In a series of exercises, program instructors play abortion proponents and pose the tough questions to the students who then defend the pro-life position drawing from their lessons. In addition, students receive training in persuasive writing, speech delivery and media interviews.

Academic credit is available for students who successfully complete the program. Students have the opportunity to earn 3 college credits from the Human Life Studies program at the Franciscan University Steubenville.

Applications are still being accepted for the 2014 National Right to Life Academy, which runs from June 26-August 1, 2014. Interested college students should contact academy@nrlc.org. More details about the program are available at www.nrlc.org/academy.

Since the program’s inaugural year in 2007, nearly 75 students have graduated. Empowered by the Academy, those graduates are making a real difference across the country for life! Graduates are working for state right-to-life groups, forming local chapters, volunteering for pregnancy resource centers and organizing pro-life student groups on their college campuses.

Devyn Nelson, the executive director of North Dakota Right to Life and a 2010 graduate, said of the program, “The National Right to Life Academy served me well in preparing me for this position. Not only did the Academy give me a thorough understanding of all the life issues, it helped me become comfortable and confident in speaking the truth about the life issues in public.”

Heather Wilson, the Southeastern Regional Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, said this upon her graduation from the Academy, “I know that I will draw on the knowledge and experience of this Academy’s training for years to come.”

In 2007, Politico ran a story about the National Right to Life Academy, noting, “The students were also schooled in how to deal with the press and how best to appeal to potential audience members. Vanessa Faith-Daubman, a 19-year-old- nursing major from the University of Pennsylvania and acting president of the campus group Penn for Life, explains that they were taught not to use the term ‘pro-choice’ to describe people who support abortion rights but to use ‘pro-abortion’ instead. ‘Simplifying the phrasing of words brings back the emotional impact,’ said Daubman.”

2011 graduate, Sarah Ryan, remarked, “The Academy was truly a challenging program, but it was rewarding in so many ways. I thought I had an in-depth knowledge of the Pro-Life movement, including legislation and strategies, but my eyes were really opened.”

As a 2009 graduate myself, I cannot begin to describe how meaningful the program has been for my pro-life work. Even years later, I continue to draw from the lessons I learned at the National Right to Life Academy. I recommend it to any young person looking to take their pro-life activism to the next level.

In a battle over partial birth abortion in 1999, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said to Rick Santorum that life begins “when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” The debate about when life begins stirs all sorts of illogical assertions, and a new video seeks to set the truth of life in the heart of America.

About You is a video that takes the life message to viewers, asking them to consider when their own life began. With a a thought-provoking, conversational style, a narrator points out what film producer, Thomas Purifoy, of Nashville-based Compass Cinema, says is the intent of the video, to show:

“There’s no way to draw a line anywhere in our life that says we weren’t ourselves at that moment, so we have to say that we’re a person all the way back to the moment of fertilization.”

Purifoy adds, “I wanted people to think about it in terms of their own lives instead of someone else’s life.”

Originally the video was produced for a nonprofit that decided to stop creating educational videos, so Purifoy and Compass Media decided to finish it for the 41st anniversary of Roe V. Wade January 22.

The end of the video adds a second focus to the message, which is important for voters in Tennessee. Tennesseans will vote in November on Amendment 1, Senate Joint Resolution 127. The reason for the legislation is unique to Tennessee because the Tennessee Supreme Court has limited pro-life legislation in that state because they have ruled that the current Tennessee Constitution limits the restrictions that can be placed on abortion. This new Amendment would clarify the Tennessee Constitution to once again allow the Tennessee legislature to enact abortion restrictions just as many other states have. The Amendment removes the court imagined right to abortion from the Tennessee Constitution, stating:

“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

Purifoy notes that while the video is a general pro-life video, Compass Cinema always wanted Tennesseans to know about SJR 127 and be aware of the ballot amendment.

About You takes a simple message and format to remind us of the complexity of life. From the moment the egg is fertilized, life begins, and About You is another tool that reminds us to assert otherwise is to ignore science altogether

WATCH VIDEO & LEARN MORE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6WNXIlXlk

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/02/powerful-video-reminds-us-that-science-is-clear-on-when-life-begins/