Pro Life Chalk Day: A Success

On Tuesday, a fantastic and dedicated group of LU Students for Life members woke up bright and early to cover campus sidewalks with pro life messages. All day Tuesday, students walked to and from class not without noticing things like “I’ve noticed that those for abortion are already born. -Ronald Reagan,” “Women need love, not abortion,” and “You matter!” written on the ground beneath them. There were probably many students who ignored the messages or perhaps even agreed, and there were definitely those who disagreed and either erased or poured water over them. But they key is that by chalking, we made the student body contemplate “life” and “abortion.”

This is what’s important in all areas of the pro life movement, political and non-political: getting the truth out there and making people think. Starting a conversation–a calm and diplomatic one, I might add–to express what we believe and why we believe it. We caused a ruckus with our chalking yesterday–but perhaps in doing so our message and our prayers for everyone who saw it planted a seed in the heart of another student who disagreed with what we were saying. I pray our chalking had an impact and I am grateful for the opportunity to witness to the student body!

Here are some pictures from this year’s pro-life chalk day. Thanks again to everyone who helped! God bless ❤

-Sarah

DSCN3613 DSCN3615 DSCN3634DSCN3619 DSCN3631 DSCN3632

How are your tax dollars funding abortion?

Tomorrow, October 1, marks the first day Americans can sign up for Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act). Students for Life of America is distributing this flyer to break down how and where tax dollars will be going towards abortions and contraceptives under health care plans. Please take a look and feel free to forward it on. You can also visit http://abortionfreehealthcare.com to download and forward it to multiple email addresses.

(Note: I couldn’t upload the .pdf file as an image, so please click the links below to open the front and back of the flyer!)

Front: How You are Funding Abortion Thanks to Obamacare

Back: Questions You May Have

As the Obamacare exchanges open, and as Pro-Life Month begins on October 1, please keep this issue in your prayers. Pray for discernment and guidance for elected leaders, for religious liberty, for the unborn, for women facing unplanned pregnancies, and for an end to abortion.

Lindenwood Students for Life will be participating in and hosting some great events this month so please keep a close watch on the LUSFL Events page and contact us if you want to get involved! God bless! ❤

-Sarah

The Blog is Back!

Hi all you lovely Lindenwood Lions! I hope everyone had a fantastic summer and is getting accustomed to this new semester. It’s going to be a great one for LU Students for Life. There are so many wonderful events and meetings planned, all to educate students on, and to speak up for, the sanctity of life on our campus, in our community and country.

Just to remind you of how the blog works: I research the political goings-on in the pro-life movement at the local, state, and national levels, and post updates about particular legislation and other topics here. The political side of the pro-life movement is crucial–changing the hearts and minds of people is extremely important, but if we want to abolish abortion we need to fight hard for the pro-life cause in the halls of our local, state and national governments.

As a reminder, our meetings are every other Monday night at 9PM in the Newman Center. Blog posts will be posted as often as possible, and if you ever have a particular subject you would like me to research, please don’t hesitate to suggest it.

God bless you all, and I look forward to working with you as we speak for those who do not yet have a voice–the unborn! ❤

-Sarah

Image

The Kermit Gosnell Trial

If you run in pro-life circles, you’ve probably heard much discussion about Kermit Gosnell and his impending trial. If you’ve been watching the mainstream media, you’ve probably heard very little to no mention of this case. Gosnell faces 8 counts of murder–7 babies and one woman; and to say that his Pennsylvania “clinic” was unsanitary would be putting it in the absolute mildest of terms. I’ll spare you any further details in the post, but here’s some basic information to get you caught up on the case. Brace yourselves. It’s truly horrific.

The Gosnell trial has received little to no attention from the mainstream media. In the courtroom in which the case was heard last week, this was the reserved media seating:

BHnmTV2CQAAwNoN

The Twitterverse sprung into action in an effort to end the media blackout and #Gosnell was trending for much of the day on Friday, April 12.

The silence from supposed journalists and the President, too, is absolutely deafening. The media has a job to do in reporting shattering stories like these. During the election, we couldn’t get away from the “pro-woman” rhetoric coming from certain candidates and media outlets. That definition of “pro-woman” was one characterized by providing free and easy access to abortions and contraceptives courtesy of the American taxpayer. But is it really pro-woman to turn a blind eye to a horrific case such as this? When women die from abortions, get diseases from the carelessness and uncleanliness of clinics allowed to exist and run in the most deplorable of conditions such as the Kermit Gosnell case, is that really watching out for “women’s rights”?

When a tragedy occurs, it is common and expected, even, for public policy makers to politicize the tragedy to effect change. After tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting we had, and still have, lawmakers and other public figures calling for change to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. President Obama made sincere and touching remarks about the children who were so tragically lost. But what about the children lost in this tragedy, children whose faces we will never see on the nightly news, but children whose lives were brutally taken? But it seems like this case is being treated as “just another murder.” I’m still waiting for this tragedy to be politicized to protect women and babies from the devastating and lethal act of abortion.

Why the deafening silence? Pro-choice blogger Megan McArdle answers that question:

“… Moreover, surely those of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion: that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion.”

So, the pro-choice camp appears to favor protecting abortion above all else. If too much scrutiny is applied to this case, it’ll bring about questions as to how regulated and how restricted the abortion “industry” should be and that, pro-choicers fear, will bring about restrictions on abortion. Absolutely baffling.

On another note, believe it or not, Planned Parenthood “condemned” the actions of Kermit Gosnell on Twitter and stated that he should be “punished to the full extent.” Really?

In March, if you remember, a Planned Parenthood representative testified against the Infants Born Alive bill in the Florida House of Representatives. This bill would provide for medical care for babies born alive after a failed abortion. A PP representative stood on the Florida House floor and stated that the decision as to what to do with a baby born alive after a failed abortion should be left up to the mother and doctor.

Aside from being cleaner (but even that’s up for debate…consider this PP facility in Delaware), I echo Lila Rose in asking how is what Planned Parenthood does any different? And how can PP condone not providing care to babies after botched abortions one minute, and then condemn actions such as that of Kermit Gosnell the next? If Planned Parenthood is so appalled, why don’t they call for more regulation and restriction on the abortion industry? Why don’t they call on the media to shed more light on the horrors of the Gosnell trial? They won’t, because doing so would bring more scrutiny upon abortion as a whole and, as they perceive it, would “threaten” access to abortions.

I’m shocked as to how one can remain pro-choice and claim to be “pro-woman” after hearing this story and not batting an eye. The devastating facts of the Gosnell case, and of the abortion industry in general, need to be thrust into the public sphere for discussion and debate. Because when you see the facts, you see that abortion is not safe, it is not pro-woman, it is not a legitimate medical procedure, but rather it is an inherently vile practice–devastating for the mother, and fatal for the child. Pray for all involved and affected by this case.

A Letter to the President

Hi all! In light of the Gosnell trial (blog post on this case forthcoming…) I thought it would be pertinent to post a paper I had to write for a political science assignment–it’s an open letter to President Obama regarding his pro-choice (read: pro-abortion) views. For the sake of space I won’t include my works cited info, but I can provide my sources upon request. Bear with me, this will be quite a long post, but I do hope you’ll read it in its entirety–perhaps it will help you to frame arguments with your pro-choice friends on why life is sacred, and why life begins at conception and deserves the right to be protected.

_____________________________________________________
April 10, 2013

Dear President Obama,

In December of 2012, after the horrific Newtown, CT shooting, you gave an impassioned speech that likely moved even the coldest of hearts to tears. In it, you emphasized the priority of our nation’s children. I quote: “This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.” I absolutely agree with your heartfelt comments. I don’t doubt for a second you were sincere in these words, but when I consider the message of this speech—the ultimate priority in caring for our children and giving them “the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose”—I come across a major stumbling block: your pro-choice views.

President Obama, I and millions of others of Americans who have already been born—and millions more who have yet to be born—are calling on you, in your position to truly effect positive change, to live up to the words you spoke at the Newtown memorial service, and truly care for the children of this country by defending life, even at the earliest of stages.

I know that you have an extensive of history in being pro-choice. You’ve cast votes against both partial-birth and sex-selective abortion bans, and have expressed your support for federally funding Planned Parenthood numerous times. I understand and concede that different life experiences and influences leave one with a unique view of the world and these factors play into his or her opinions. No doubt you have reason for your opinion on abortion, and no doubt you cast those previously mentioned votes because you truly believed your vote to be in the right. But consider the science behind human fetal development, and see that this is not about “choice” but about life.

We often call an unborn child at first an “embryo” or a “fetus.” Note that these terms do not make that being any less human and certainly no less alive than do the terms “toddler” or “adolescent.” Those terms do not denote whether the being is human or is alive, but rather are labels of different developmental stages. Whether you call he or she an embryo, a fetus, or an unborn child, the heart begins to beat just 18 days after conception, and after four weeks from conception, “a baby’s eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form.” Brainwaves exist at six weeks after conception and at 9 weeks, the unborn child can sense pain. To rudimentarily but truthfully quote Dr. Suess: “A person’s a person no matter how small.”

The question here is when, exactly, does life begin? Science speaks to the fact that life begins at conception. For it is at conception, the catalyst of human development, that unique DNA is created; human development and growth are set in motion. To bring an end to this growth and development, regardless of stage, is to end a life. A person, at age 80, does not look the same as they did at age 16. Similarly, a person does not look the same as they will later in life at conception or at any stage of prenatal development—but at conception, its still a person, at the earliest stage of his or her development. It’s been said that, in general, one has a “right” to do something up until the point that it begins to impact someone else. A woman, then, does not have the “right to an abortion.” Termination of life, whether it is inside or outside the womb, is a direct act of aggression against another individual—not a “right.”

You often speak of being very pro-woman in your politics and policy decisions—but is abortion “pro-woman”? As Lila Rose points out, despite receiving millions in federal funding, the abortion industry is shockingly unregulated. Hence, abortion clinics often fall alarmingly below any standard for health, safety, and cleanliness, and in turn, women suffer. Just a few days ago, a Delaware abortion clinic came under scrutiny from shockingly unsanitary conditions, because clinics “are not subject to routine inspections.” LeRoy Carhart, late-term abortionist, “fatally injured” Jennifer Morbelli in February during a late term abortion; and unfortunately, Morbelli was not the first victim of Carhart. In 2010, 24-year-old Tonya Reaves was also fatally injured in a Chicago Planned Parenthood during an abortion. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, the lives of millions of unborn children have been terminated. But the effects of abortion are potentially fatal and altogether damaging to women, too, and a pro-woman president should realize that women deserve better than abortion.

And so, Mr. President, I call you to action on this front; you are in a position to effect positive change not only for America’s youngest and defenseless, but for mothers, fathers, and our society as a whole. If you truly want to embody the words you spoke at the Newtown memorial—that protecting our kids should be our first priority, and that every child deserves the chance to live—you can take action to promote a culture of life in America.

Promote a culture of life by emphasizing that all life, whether “planned” or “unplanned,” is something to be cherished and cared for, protected and not disposed of for the sake of convenience. Encourage women who are considering abortion in the case of rape that the best, most beautiful and most beneficial to herself and her unborn child in response to a heinous act of violence is not more violence upon an innocent party, but rather it is love for that child and the chance for that child to live the life that awaits him or her. Encourage communities to support and assist pregnant women in crisis, and to counsel them on options other than abortion—many women turn to abortion because they believe that to be the only option, but it most certainly is not. And if you must continue to support federal funding to institutions like Planned Parenthood, encourage such institutions to continue providing health services to women, but to end the devastating and dangerous practice of abortion. Encourage and promote federal support, too, for organizations like Birthright, and other crisis pregnancy centers. Lastly, promote adoption. We must let women know that though they may not be in a position to raise their child, there are better options than abortion and adoption is a beautiful one.

In your speech at the Newtown, CT memorial service, you said: “Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?” Perhaps you, personally, can answer these questions positively after passing gun regulations, but until the lives of American children are protected from harm even at the very earlist stages of development, the answer will still be a resounding no. We cannot claim that we are letting our children know that they’re loved, nor can we teach them to love if we reduce their very existence to that of a “choice.” And we certainly cannot, in good conscience, say that we’re giving America’s children—all of them— the chance to live their lives when those very lives are systematically terminated with government approval.

You have the capability to usher in a new generation, a new culture of life in America. When you talk, people listen—your Newtown speech struck chords within the hearts of Americans, giving the country a greater resolve for the protection of our children. Live up to the words you spoke at Newtown, and stand for the protection and defense of all Americans, no matter how small, no matter how young.

God Bless North Dakota

A bill is on its way to North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple’s desk that would ban abortions based on genetic abnormalities like Down Syndrome. This is the first legislation of its kind in America. HB 1305 would also ban sex-selective abortions, making North Dakota the fifth state to put such a ban in place.

As we discussed at the last Pro-Life meeting at Lindenwood, sex-selective abortion has become a startlingly common practice across America, a deplorable practice proven by Live Action to be condoned by the likes of Planned Parenthood. From ProtectOurGirls.com, a project of Live Action:

“Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen estimated that as early as 1990, approximately 100 million women were demographically missing worldwide due to sex-selection abortion, female infanticide, and other such practices. Current estimates now put that number at 200 million missing women and girls globally.”

Even more shocking is the statistic that 92% of babies who are found to have Downs Syndrome are aborted. That means only 8% of these precious babies have a chance at life. This bill banning abortions based on genetic imperfections will undoubtedly save lives. (Click here to read a beautiful blog post by Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, about her little brother, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.)

God bless North Dakota, Governor Dalrymple, bill sponsor Rep. Bette Grande and the entire North Dakota legislature for moving forward with this legislation!

Letter to Congress Part II: Right of Conscience

(Part II of a letter to Congress I was assigned to write for a government class. See Part I: Free Exercise of Religion that I posted yesterday for the first half of the letter to Congresswoman Ann Wagner (MO-2)!) 

“The Federal Health Care Provider Conscience Laws protect healthcare providers (doctors and nurses) from participating in practices against their religious beliefs such as abortions and sterilizations. Similarly, American employers, religious schools and organizations should be guaranteed that same protection of right of conscience. The Court opinion in the landmark Roe v. Wade acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and the existence of differing views on the issue of abortion. The court acknowledged their “awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views” and that “one’s religious training, one’s attitude toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe” all impact how one perceives the practice of abortion.

Why, then, should those who perceive abortion and similar practices to be morally bereft be forced to condone and support the practice with funds through employee insurance or else face extravagant fines? They shouldn’t. That’s why the HCCRA is a step towards protecting the right of conscience and preserving the integrity of the free exercise clause. (And it’s important to note that this amendment would not prevent or impede upon one’s ability to seek abortion, contraceptive, and sterilization services elsewhere other than their insurance plan.)

Not only does the mandate have constitutional implications on the rights of Americans, but also the HHS mandate poses the potential for economic detriment. Religiously affiliated schools, charities, organizations, and hospitals that provide necessary and much needed services to many Americans will not choose compliance over their convictions—nor should they be expected to. These businesses and charities will close rather than fund practices they believe to be morally wrong, and the country will feel the effects. Further, companies like Hobby Lobby and others face startlingly expensive penalties for refusing to comply. This, consequently, is going to force many businesses to close.

I believe America would be best served if the Affordable Care Act were repealed in its entirety and replaced with legislation more affordable and less intrusive. However, if the law must stand, I believe it must be amended to protect the free exercise of religion and conscience of Americans whose beliefs are compromised with this abortion, contraception and sterilization insurance mandate. Thank you, Representative Wagner, for your co-sponsorship of this bill. You have my support.”

Letter to Congress Part I: Free Exercise of Religion

(Last week, for a political science assignment, I had to write a letter to a member of Congress about a certain issue he/she was working on and argue my opinion on the issue. Naturally, I chose the HHS mandate. As I wrote about previously, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act is currently in committee in Congress. Ann Wagner, representing Missouri’s 2nd district, was a co-sponsor of the bill so I wrote to her. This is Part I of the letter, focusing on the free exercise of religion.)

March 6, 2013

Dear Representative Wagner,

I recently read of your co-sponsorship of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940). I wanted to write to express my support and thanks for your involvement in this piece of legislation. Under the Affordable Care Act, we know that a mandate exists that will require employers and organizations to provide insurance plans—plans that must include coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations. Many Americans harbor deep objections to these practices but under the Affordable Care Act, will be required to provide insurance coverage for said practices to employees. Specifically speaking, houses of worship are exempt, but other religious organizations such as hospitals, schools, charities and other organizations are not—and we know that these religious organizations will not compromise convictions even in the face of extreme penalties or fines. I support the HCCRA bill and your co-sponsorship because I believe that, as the mandate stands, it inhibits the free exercise of religion for individuals who morally object to abortion, contraception and other similar practices; it forces employers to violate their conscience, a right that has been acknowledged numerous times by the federal government on this particular issue; and the economic impacts of the full implementation of this mandate have devastating potential.

Within the First Amendment stands the free exercise clause, stating that “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The HHS mandate requiring employers to provide abortifiacient, contraception, and sterilization coverage (or else face a steep fine) in their health care plans is blatantly an infringement upon this because it forces employers—whether they are organizationally or personally religious, or both—to do something which is antithetical to what their faith commands. Daniel Smyth of the American Thinker interestingly looked to the historic context of the text of the clause. Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755 and a popular dictionary during the 18th century revealed much of the context of the specific words used in the free exercise clause. Prohibit is “to debar, to hinder—to obstruct, stop, or impede” and exercise is not defined merely as the profession of worship but “to practice, to perform [outwardly].” Thus, the practice of a tenet of faith—the sanctity of life and its protection—is clearly hindered and obstructed when one is forced to violate that tenet.

In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security (1981), the Court decided:

“Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial.”

Similarly, this mandate puts pressure on employers to support abortion, contraception, and sterilization through offering it in their insurance plans, and hence a burden upon the free exercise of religion exists—a burden upon freely exercising the moral and religious belief that life is to be protected and not prevented. The mandate requires that one violate beliefs and “modify behavior” to pay for something that they hold to be deeply wrong and immoral.

(Part II: Rights of Conscience will be forthcoming! Keep checking back!) 

Missouri Company-12, HHS Mandate-4

A company from our own great state of Missouri recently won a court order (Sioux Chief Manufacturing v. Sebelius) against the HHS mandate requiring employers to provide coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilizations on their employee health insurance plans.

Sioux Chief Manufacturing is near Kansas City and was represented in court by lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom, a fantastic organization of lawyers dedicated to defending religious liberty. Lead counsel of this case, Jonathan R. Whitehead stated:

“Americans should be free to honor God and live according to their consciences wherever they are…They have the God-given freedom to live and transact business according to their faith, and the First Amendment has always protected that. Forcing Americans to ignore their faith just to earn a living is unprecedented, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.”

This makes 12 court rulings against the mandate granting exemptions from the mandate, compared to the four rulings in its favor. In researching for this blog post, I found a fascinating map that shows every HHS mandate case that has been filed, along with details regarding plaintiffs and court decisions. Check it out here. Congratulations to Sioux Chief Manufacturing for winning the court order and for pushing back against this intrusive mandate–may other business and organizations continue to do the same.

For one of my classes, I had to write a letter to a member of congress regarding an issue, arguing my opinion on said issue. I, of course, chose the HHS mandate. I’ll be posting this letter in several sections over the next few days, so please check back periodically!

Introduced Today: Health Care Conscience Rights Act

As you may be well aware, the current administration’s HHS mandate will require businesses, including religious groups, to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives within their employee health insurance plans–a blatant and quite sad infringement upon religious liberty. Today, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act will be introduced to the House by Representatives Diane Black (R-TN), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and John Fleming (R-LA). The representatives stated:

“HCCRA offers reprieve from ongoing violations of our First Amendment, including full exemption from the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate and conscience protection for individuals and health care entities that refuse to provide, pay for, or refer patients to abortion providers because of their deeply-held, reasoned beliefs.”

In addition to defending the conscience of individuals, business and religious groups who morally object to the HHS mandate, the HCCRA will:

  • offer protection for those in the medical industry (doctors, nurses, Catholic hospitals) who object to participating in abortions; it will “enable nurses, doctors, hospitals, all health care professionals… to abide by their conscience”
  • protection for hospitals and other medical related groups against discrimination in the event they refuse to participate in abortions, and “judicial recourse” for those who do experience discrimination

Kudos to these Congressmen and women for introducing this bill. As it stands, the HHS mandate will force crippling penalties upon those who refuse to comply (see: Hobby Lobby). Such penalties will inevitably kill jobs, and force business to close their doors. Business, individuals and religious organizations should not be forced to violate their conscience, and this bill has the potential to defend against that violation. Pray it has success in the House ,and that it goes forth to ensure stable protection of religious liberty against the HHS mandate.

A press conference hosted by Family Research Council is scheduled for tomorrow regarding the HCCRA. Updates on the status of this bill will be posted as they become available.