Many journalists, generally the ones who fit into this category, complain about being called climate change denialists. It doesn’t help when denialists like Clive James tries to make the link as well. They complain that the choice of words links to offensive individuals that deny the Holocaust.  Whether or not the first person who used the term had this in mind is beside the point. I do think denialists are causing harm, but I don’t think they are necessarily going to cause a new holocaust. If anything does happen, we are all to blame because even if we did believe in man-made climate change, we haven’t swift and significant enough demanded action from our elected leaders.

But, after watching Melanie Phillips on Question Time and her horrendously arrogant display, I think the debate is more akin the pro-choice and pro-life abortion debate in the US.  Phillips complains that the climate change believers (which makes us sound like some kind of sect, such as the scientologists), are running some kind of totalitarian scam and swindle. But the fact is, she was quite happy to laugh, patronise and rudely dismiss the public and other panelists who believe in man-made climate change. Practice what you preach Ms Phillips.

To be fair though, climate change believers do dismiss the denialists just as badly. This is why I think the issue is similar to the abortion debate. No one will talk or listen to the other side and will never take each other seriously. In this particular debate,  I don’t think the eveidence will ever convince a sceptic or believer to cross sides.

However, what is definetly true is that while the denialists want to debate the issue, journalists like Philips give the denialists a bad name.

I think we are all guilty of refusing to listen to the other side. While I don’t agree with David Davis’s point of view, I was impressed with his point of view on Question Time; that while he is sure climate change is happening and is 80% that it is caused by human intervention, he still feels there is room for debate and it is important not to vilify each other.

Climate change believes say there is no time for debate. I disagree. There is enough action currently going on, to increase renewables, to decrease fossil fuel use, to create carbon sinks, that there is still room for debate but at the same time we can begin the process of saving the earth. Debates like COP15 aren’t going to stop and we will still make a huge effort to cut emmissions. Even in the worse case scenario, that we are wrong on climate change, it is never going to harm to lower energy costs, make the air less polluted and generally improve the health of the planet.

But refusing to listen to each other and complaining about it isn’t going to help.

C’è questo farmaco, la pillola RU486, chiamato amabilmente tra gli esperti del settore pillola abortiva, che in tutta Europa, Portogallo ed Italia esclusi, viene utilizzato da venti anni. Si calcola che l’abbiano usato, tra Europa e Stati Uniti, oltre due milioni di donne e, di queste, sedici siano morte per complicazioni derivanti dall’assunzione del farmaco.

L’Aifa, dopo anni di sperimentazione in tutta Italia, ne ha finalmente autorizzato la messa in commercio, rigorosamente in ospedale, circa un mese e mezzo fa. Ed è allora che è scattata la polemica: secondo il Governo, l’Aifa, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, non ha il potere di autorizzare la messa in commercio della pillola perché prima il Ministero della Salute deve valutare se l’uso della RU486 non sia in contrasto con la legge 194. Naturalmente, è ovvio che il nostro Governo blocchi l’azione di un’Agenzia, la cui funzione è quella di valutare se un farmaco sia pericoloso o meno, aggrappandosi a cavilli legislativi; in fondo è lo stesso Governo che decide per legge quali procedimenti penali devono cadere in prescrizione. Non fa una grinza.

Questo blocco ha messo in moto i vari “programmi di approfondimento” pomeridiani, che si sono prodigati nell’approfondire, appunto, la questione della pillola abortiva. E così qualche giorno fa mi sono sorbito la puntata in merito del geniale Il fatto del giorno di Monica Setta, a cui partecipavano, nell’ordine: Paola Concia, una tizia del PdL (o simpatizzante, non ricordo) con dei capelli impeccabili oltre a Patrizia e Giada De Blanck, forti del loro ruolo di -cito Wikipedia- personaggi televisivi. La puntata è così riassumibile: la conduttrice che si vanta di aver superato i due milioni di ascoltatori nella puntata con ospite Vespa (e te credo, con tutto quello che lo pagate), la povera Concia viene interrogata sul suo imminente matrimonio  con la compagna Ricarda (celebrato in Germania, che vi credevate?), e poi Giada De Blanck, interrogata se opterebbe per la pillola o per la chirurgia, che osserva: “beh, ci sono metodi per non rimanere incinta.. ma poi però un figlio è un dono di Dio!”. L’unico parere pseudo scientifico è stato chiesto a Severino Antinori in -pessimo- collegamento telefonico che, dopo aver sbraitato che “sono a favore ..crr.. dell’aborto ma la pillola fa maliss..crrr..mo!”. Nessun medico in studio a spiegare i meccanismi di funzionamento della pillola abortiva, nessuno psicologo a parlare dell’eventuale differenza di impatto sulla psiche della donna (si parla della pillola come meccanismo meno traumatico per la persona che decide di abortire), solo la Concia che, ad un certo punto, candidamente, confessa: “Io ho abortito una volta. Avevo ventuno anni. Ed è stato traumatico. Per una donna è traumatico”.  Una sincerità e una schiettezza che lì per lì hanno spiazzato anche me. Cala il silenzio nello studio, e la conduttrice passa velocemente la parola alla tizia del PdL che spara qualche banalità sul miracolodellavvita, seguita dalle interviste alla “gente comune”, che spara a zero sulla pillola perché “fa morire!”.

In pratica, l’argomento pillola è stato solo sfiorato in quello che è stata, di fatto, una discussione un po’ sgangherata sull’aborto (non c’erano posizioni pro/contro la pillola, ma solo pro/contro l’aborto). Uno pensa che programmi del genere dovrebbero essere concepiti per informare, non per dare spazio a personaggiucoli reduci da questo o quel reality, capitati lì per caso a dire cazzate.

Ma poi, alla fin fine, come funziona ’sta RU486? Perché è di questo che si dovrebbe parlare, per renderne chiaro il funzionamento alle persone, e spiegare loro gli eventuali effetti collaterali dell’aborto farmacologico. Allora, in poche parole: il principio attivo del farmaco è il mifeprestone, molecola che blocca l’azione del progesterone, l’ormone prodotto dal corpo lutero che di fatto sostiene la gravidanza, causando tutte quelle trasformazioni a carico dell’utero che permetteranno l’attecchimento e lo sviluppo dell’embrione. A differenza di molti altri ormoni che agiscono sul nostro corpo, il progesterone ha quest’unica funzione, e quindi il blocco della sua azione non causa effetti sistemici. A carico dell’utero il blocco del progesterone causa il distacco dell’embrione e la sua espulsione (che, per maggiore sicurezza, viene favorito dall’assunzione di prostaglandine che provocano contrazioni della muscolatura uterina), esattamente come avviene in un aborto spontaneo. Il tutto è accompagnato da emorragia, più o meno abbondante. Quindi nessuna invasività e minori effetti collaterali (fisici e psicologici) rispetto alla tecnica chirurgia, con un’efficacia del novantanove percento. Ed è la “semplicità” nell’azione che ha probabilmente indotto parte della nostra classe politica a pensare che l’introduzione in Italia di un farmaco del genere avrebbe spinto le donne ad abortire con la stessa facilità con cui prendono un’aspirina per i dolori mestruali, per cui la messa in commercio va bloccata, o limitata a un ricovero ospedaliero (non è chiaro se limitato al momento dell’assunzione della pillola o fino all’espulsione dell’embrione, che avviene in uno-due giorni).

Come sempre, si lascia legiferare su questi argomenti un Governo composto quasi esclusivamente da uomini e in cui le poche donne presenti sono delle bigotte della malora, vedasi il caso della Roccella, cattolicissima sottosegretaria al welfare con delega ai problemi etici che scazza notizie sentite a caso e che di scienza e medicina ne sa quanto io ne so di calcio.

Solo due dati mi sento di aggiungere:

1) l’OMS ha inserito la RU486 nell’elenco dei farmaci essenziali.

2) in Francia, a seguito delle proteste dei cattolici, la Roussel Uclaf, la casa farmaceutica che produce la pillola, affermò che avrebbe fermato la distribuzione del farmaco, ma le pressioni del governo francese lo stop fu annullato dopo due giorni.

How true!

“Genocide = dead human beings”

“Holocaust = dead human beings”

“Starvation = dead human beings”

“Abortion = dead human beings”

“They seem similar to me..”

“but I would also say that in general the welfare and livelihood of those of us in the here and now takes precedence over those who have not yet entered the world.”

The above are quotes from the commenter_____Not this writer…

Oh! War = Dead Human Beings! Reality vs. Scripture? Reality vs. imagination…Judgements and the religious-right winged Leaders vs. St. Matthew 7: 2… (Our Christ Jesus, as he was ending His “Sermon on the Mount”).

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

“Some of those guidelines currently are covered by the First Amendment, but those types of freedoms are vanishing around the world.”

Ans: The First Amendment is a created freedom. The rest of the world …Not there, but maybe, don’t you think would be Nice, No Great, No Heaven? Reality and not of this world… “All Men are Created Equal”…the principal author of the Declaration of Independence…owned slaves…Thomas Jefferson…Please help me with the truth?

• This Reverend would love to see a perfect world with our First Amendment. I would love to see newborn children enter into this world; parents filled with love for their new child, a ready bedroom with all the baby needs from crib to formula and on and on and…
• This Reverend believes in LIFE! Where life begins (human or not) is currently an error or truth thru semantics. Example: My God is bigger than your god…ad infinitum? And oops; this Reverend is an old white man. No! Not a notion of racism and… “Jesus loves the little children,
  all the children of the world.
  Red and yellow, black and white,
  All are precious in His sight,
  Jesus loves the little children of the world.” Words: C. Her­bert Wool­ston (1856-1927); Music: George F. Root (1820-1895) And! So do I…

And! In Milwaukee, there once was a month of small horrors…little Children having babies (not one but nine children).. The youngest was a beautiful, just turned 11 year old, riding on a gurney clutching a stuffed teddy-bear, victim of an orphanage and a rape by some big man though-”not my daddy and I hurt” and….this precious child was African American…(Should have aborted during the first trimester—you be the Judge)?

This Reverend is not a racist…This God-loving minister  brings scripture to the streets and in my writing. My heart during that “month of Horror,” had I not believed with all my being in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ would have been torn from my body and my soul. Instead! My heart was just broken and the reality…But enough about me.

• Because of the “no female” concept in China; by the end of 2010, this government will realize that they are about 120 million girls short and about 120 million boys with no girls…oops!

Should we believe in abortion? Should we believe in reality…“and love sister is just a kiss away”—Rolling Stones.

Gay Marriage is another wonderful example of our First Amendment…Let us pray that we will still enjoy that freedom 10 years from today.

May Respect and Understanding and Peace and Love (Rupl) be with all of us…forever?And! I pray that our Right-Winged Clergy grow Left-wings so that our Dove of Peace may fly once more…Amen.

The Christian Leaders uniting on Political issues are from 145 evangelical and both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders. This group has created a declaration (manifesto), stating this: 

 “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence to: participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we (the above) bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnership, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”

Stop! This spiritual waste of time…We need jobs, food, clothing and shelter for too many Americans. Is the Church a santuary for these men and women? Are the doors of these huge structures wide open? Why not?

And! This minister believes that our gay folk deserve a world without moral pandering and a stupid manifesto. If embryo-destructive research saves lives…Abortion is not a playground for religion…It is a human situation both personal and personal and personal and…Old white men telling young women what they should do with? How about assisted suicide and euthanasia? This is again a human situation and is personal and personal and personal and…

At the beginning of the week, Moderate Republicans saw their lives in the Republican Party flash before their eyes. Some overzealous RNC member with plenty of idiotic co-sponsors decided to create a “purity test” for candidates running for election or re-election in 2010. If you have not had a chance to read the wonderful,common-sense, harebrained resolution, check it out here.
Now don’t get me wrong, this whole purity push is asinine. However, the resolution did give us a glimpse of a step forward for the Party. Now I am sure you are wondering how the hell is a resolution whose sole intent is to deny financial and political support for moderate Republicans running for election or re-election in 2010 a step forward. The answer to the question is found in the resolution itself.

We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

Point 9 in the Purtity Test is focused on Health-Care Debate. It is also the only point that closely resembles anything Pro-Life in the purity test. This language is much more open than anything previous push forward by the Republican Party. Just look at the party’s platform…

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

Is this a sign the GOP is more open to Pro-Choice GOPers? Probably not but being Pro-Choice won’t hurt a candidate according to this test. Now that is a step forward for the Republican Party

The New Barack Channel (NBC) has jumped into the fray between Kennedy and the Catholic Church.  As usual, they are doing so with a leftist bias.

The second paragraph of the article which I have highlighted in bold below sums up the crux of the matter.  When a church or other conservative  organization compromises what it believes in order to support some liberal/progressive policy, no one says anything about separation of church and state (which is a misinterpreted load of liberal crap anyway).  But let the same organization take the same conservative stand they have taken since the beginning of time, and the left comes out screaming.  Hypocrites.

Now you have the Catholic Church, which to my knowledge has been around even longer than the United States, and has always said that abortion is wrong, is saying what it has always said:  “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”  They are telling this Kennedy idiot that Catholics (and Christians) can not support or condone abortion, and if you do support or condone abortion you can’t be a Catholic, or at least not one in good standing.  They are illustrating what God has always tried to teach us, that the world is black and white, not the shades of gray that liberals portray it to be.  There IS right, and there IS wrong.  Right and wrong don’t change with the times.  The religion of moral relativism propagated by liberals has taken over our society like a cancer.

So, why are liberals trying so hard to remove God from the public square?  Two reasons.

1. Acknowledging the existence of God reminds liberals of their own sin, and they do not want to be reminded of that.
2. Liberals/communists know that people who have a strong moral foundation can’t be controlled easily.  Someone without a moral foundation will believe whatever they are told by the powers that be.  This also speaks to the dumbing down of our educational system.

Whether you are a Christian or not, you need to stand up against this coordinated, intentional assault on Christianity and organized religion in America.  Right now it may not appear that liberals are attacking islam, but that is only temporary.  Political correctness is the only thing preventing that at the moment.  If the muslims win before the liberals do, the liberals will wonder where the Christians are to protect them from beheading.  If the liberals get their way before islam takes over, the liberals will persecute the muslims just like they persecute us.  As I was saying, this is more than just an assault on religion.  It is an assault on freedom.  Let’s review the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Any educated, reasonably clear thinking individual can see the wisdom behind the wording of the 1st Amendment, and that the liberals have taken great liberty with it to arrive at the current interpretation regarding “separation of church and state.”  It means that the government will not establish a STATE religion that you must be a part of.  It DOES NOT prohibit those in government who are of various religions from displaying or participating in their religion while on the job.

Wake up, people!  An attack on one of our freedoms is an attack on all of them.  Jealously guard your freedom, for tomorrow it may be taken from you.

NBC Takes Up Kennedy vs. Catholic Church ‘Crossing the Line’ Into ‘Political Blackmail’

By: Tim Graham
November 24, 2009 10:55 ET

Monday’s NBC Nightly News took up the story of liberal Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s public feud with the Catholic Church, and NBC’s Ron Allen implied something improper in how “the Catholic Church is flexing its religious and political muscle.”

When Catholic officials endorse liberal initiatives like immigration reform or oppose an execution, the networks don’t worry about the separation of church and state. But with traditional stands against abortion and gay marriage in the crossfire, NBC’s screen graphic asked if the church was “Crossing the Line?” A secular-left lobbyist accused the church of being “not above spiritual and political blackmail.”

(Read rest of article HERE)

The debate over abortion funding in the senate health reform bill brought to mind a topic that I have often found interesting; Liberal’s love affair with science…until it comes to abortion.

Global Warming: Liberals point to the science (which is actually grossly misinterpreted or ignored if contemptuous of the status quo).

Evolution: Look at the science.

Homosexuality: Again, look at the science.

Yet, when it comes to abortion and when a life becomes a life, liberals throw science out the window and scream and whine about a woman’s choice and individual rights. I find this interesting due to the massive amount of science that supports the beliefs of pro-life advocates, life begins at conception. Liberals are so quick to allow the murder of an unborn baby regardless of the science that supports the fact that it is in fact a baby. Still, they (liberals) love to defend the lives of murders and rapists and evil human beings on death row.

Whats wrong with this picture? Bad morals, bad people and a culture of “its not my problem and its not my fault”.

Pathetic.

To be clear, I am not a Roman Catholic.  Nevertheless, I am not shy about drawing from the deep well of Catholic teaching prohibiting abortion or the legalization thereof. 

I recently received word of a ghastly organization, “Catholics For Choice“.  It should be noted that this is not a Catholic organization, and in fact, claims to represent “the [alleged] great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood.”  Seems sort of silly to call such an entity a Catholic organization at all, since it opposes a rather major mission of the Church, not to mention its authority, which is sort of a big deal in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Bishops have, of course, addressed this renegade organization: “As the Catholic Bishops of the United States have stated for many years, the use of the name Catholic as a platform for promoting the taking of innocent human life and ridiculing the Church is offensive not only to Catholics, but to all who expect honesty and forthrightness in public discourse.”  The Bishops have also clarified that the Catholic Church’s position against abortion has never changed, and Catholic ministers have offered no shortage of rebuttals to the likes of pro-choice Catholic politicians Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, and Kathleen Sebelius.

Someone from a Catholic background recently told me that the reason the Church prohibits abortion is so that they can baptize infants to remove the stain of original sin, and that the Church does not consider unborn infants “innocent”.  These statements are false.  Just so we’re absolutely clear, I’m going to quote verbatim the Church’s teachings on abortion straight out of the Catechism, which appears in its discussion of the Fifth Commandment (“You Shall Not Kill”). 

2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”⁵⁶ . . . .

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.⁷¹

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.⁷²

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.⁷³

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁴

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁵

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”⁷⁶ “by the very commission of the offense,”⁷⁷ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁸ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”⁷⁹

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”⁸⁰

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”⁸¹

2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”⁸²

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”⁸³

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”⁸⁴ which are unique and unrepeatable.

[Italics in original, underline added.]

It could not be more clear that the Catholic Church takes the obvious and common-sense position that unborn human beings are “innocent”.  It affirms that proposition no less than three times.  Likewise, there is no disputing that the Catholic Church deems abortion to be a grave sin, and always has (and that aborted babies do not necessarily go to hell).  The Church explicitly deems the failure to protect unborn lives through penal sanctions to be unjust (not simply as a matter of religious doctrine, but of natural law). 

If anyone claims that the Catholic Church is anything but completely and expressly opposed to abortion and the legalization thereof, there are more than adequate grounds to disabuse that person of that notion.

LegalEase McGill – CKUT 90.3 Montreal – Womyn’s Voices and Freedoms
http://www.archive.org/details/LegaleaseMcgill-Ckut90.3Montreal-WomynsVoicesAndFreedoms

Welcome to Legal Ease – a monthly Montreal-based, produced and broadcast radio show concerning “The Law”. The collective is composed of law students from McGill University.

In our first half, we discuss Buffy Sainte-Marie and her legacy. The CIA black-listed 1960s Cree singer has been a strong voice on women’s equality, native issues, and peace for half a century. Her recent concert as part of POP Montreal offered an opportunity to reflect on her legacy and play a few songs.

In our second half, LegalEase looks at the recent controversy at McGill. After organizing an event entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust” comparing abortion to genocide, Choose Life McGill, a SSMU club, was subject to criticisms and protests by other McGill students. The university administration organized a follow-up townhall on controversial events at McGill. LegalEase contrasts reproductive rights and freedom of speech, while considering some relevant legal issues.

Jill Stanek reports that a lawsuit has been filed by a young woman who claims that she went for an abortion and changed her mind as the procedure was about to begin. Instead of abiding by her wishes, they held her down and forced her to have an abortion.

The Flint Journal reports:

The teen alleges that she screamed “Stop, stop, I don’t want this,” before the procedure, but he and an assistant held her down and covered her mouth as they terminated her pregnancy, according to court documents.

She… has since been admitted to Hurley Medical Center because she was suicidal after the abortion, according to court documents.

More will be forthcoming on this story, but one aspect intrigues me.  They held her down and forced her to have an abortion. That is a fair representation of what has happened to America.

Abortion was legalized ostensibly as a result of judicial activism. In the decades since abortion became law, Americans have not had the chance to vote on the legality of abortion, for fear that it might become illegal.

Activists are terrified of what they know America really believes about this heinous act. Moreover, they do whatever they have to do to ensure that women are not shown videos or photos of what an abortion does to their baby.

By all means, women are to be told that it is not a baby but a viable tissue mass, so the women will not  develop an emotional attachment to the life growing inside of them.

The Gallup organization reports that, for the first time, more Americans classify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice.  So, that begs the question: Why should America be forced to endure millions of abortions against its will?