DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Abortion's Destructive Strategies

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I own a rubber model of a 12-week unborn baby that I keep on my desk.  My four-year-old granddaughter, the first time she noticed the Precious One in my office said, "Look Grandpa.  A baby!"

Even my pre-school aged granddaughter recognized the reality of God's Creation.  She did not see the model as being one of a "fetus," or "a blob of tissue."  She recognized it as being a replica of a baby.  The idea that it is okay to murder unborn children is not something we are born with, but an evil that is taught.

Abortion stops a beating heart, kills innocent babies that are defenseless and unable to defend themselves against the murderers, and abortion advances a culture of death that desensitizes society and is one of a number of factors that has led to our demoralized culture that celebrates death, perversion and debauchery.  The purveyors of abortion refuse to admit the destructive nature of abortion, and instead celebrate the practice as a right of a woman, and any opposition is considered to be waging a war against women, or attempting to take away a woman's "reproductive rights."  To forward the agenda of death, the abortionists rely on deceptive strategies, and an attempt to silence any opposition who dares to stand against them.  The tactics are those that are used by tyrants and dictators, a "do onto them before they do onto you" attitude that contains a mixture of deception and direct assault.  The hate portrayed by those that support abortion against the "pro-life" advocates that promote saving the lives of innocent babies is incredible.  Pro-life advocates are called extremists and radicals, and the pro-life pregnancy centers are called "fake," and are accused of applying the deceptive practices.  In reality, "deception" is a trait describing the strategies used by the pro-abortion forces.

Those who support abortion do not tolerate an opposing view, and unlike the pro-life crowd, are using every governmental tool in their arsenal to silence and destroy anyone who dares to stand against their murderous crusade.  Preferential treatment is being afforded to pro-abortion organizations through governmental policy and laws.  In California, the extent of how far the abortionists are willing to go is absolutely appalling.

The website "" calls California's AB775 "A Woman's Right To Know."  What is meant by that is that the pro-abortion crowd, who believes abortion is a God-given right and that saving a baby's life in the womb is not a God-given right (in my book "Silenced Screams" I explain that if our rights are God-given, then they would be God-defined as well, revealing that having an abortion is NOT A RIGHT), believes a woman has a "right" to know where abortion clinics are, but has no right to know where a pregnancy crisis center that will provide counseling to assist her in being fully informed about the consideration of abortion which can include an ultra-sound so that the mother can see the beating heart inside her might be.  Therefore, pro-life centers must be forced by law to provide information about where a woman can get an abortion, but abortion centers do not have any obligation to inform their patients that there are any alternatives to killing their child in the womb.

As the pro-abortion movement uses deceptive tactics and dishonest propaganda campaigns to smear their pro-life counterparts, as well as deception regarding the services they offer (for example, contrary to popular opinion, Planned Parenthood Centers do not offer mammograms) while downplaying that the primary reason for their existence is abortion, they project their own fraudulent characteristics upon their opposition,  In the article, as a matter of fact, author Dahlia Lithwick claims pro-life crisis pregnancy centers "offer very limited services and factually discredited information," "uses scientifically disproven arguments about heightened risks of suicide, breast cancer, and infertility after an abortion," uses "deceptive practices," gives "false health information," "frequently no medical professionals are on staff," and "they do not give referrals for abortion."

Are pro-life centers guilty of these accusations?  Aside from the final charge, by and large, no.  Are there staff members at facilities that have made erroneous statements regarding a pregnancy?  I suppose it is possible, but in my experience the likelihood is minimal, and if it does happen it is not done purposely and deceptively.  As for the final statement, "they do not give referrals for abortion" . . . Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point.  The primary mission of pro-life centers is to stop the slaughter of the pre-born. Of course they do not give referrals for abortion.

Abortionists realize that the pro-life movement is winning the battle regarding America's Genocide.  In 1995 the number of abortions in the United States was 1.6 million.  According to a conversation I had with Thomas Glessner of The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), in 2013 that number was at about 1.1 million (1.2 million only a few years before that).  In 1991 there were over 2,000 abortion clinics in the United States, currently there are about 500.  Abortion clinics are being shut down due to lack of business, the result of the efforts of pro-life organizations, and appalling cases such Kermit Gosnell's abortion house of horrors, and the recent videos revealing that Planned Parenthood participates in an illegal underground body parts black market trade where they are being paid to sell off the body parts of aborted children.

In 1995 about 33% percent of Americans considered themselves to be pro-life or take pro-life positions.  Today, that number is above 50%.  As for the closure of abortion clinics, a recent closure of the Albany Clinic in Chicago has pro-life advocates celebrating yet another victory in their battle to save the lives of innocent babies.

In California alone, there are more than 300 pro-life pregnancy centers, and as attitudes are shifting regarding the morality of abortion, the pro-abortion forces are doing what they can to force their view back into the majority.  While the AB775 Reproductive FACT ACT (which goes into effect January 2016, but may be delayed due to litigation) requires crisis pregnancy centers to notify their patients about how to obtain abortion services, another proposed measure in California works to further the cause of the murder of the pre-born by forcing religious institutions who, by virtue of their faith are against abortion, to participate in the funding of abortions.

California is using the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to try to compel religious institutions to pay for abortions through the insurance they offer.  The matter is now in the hands of the courts.  

The case against California's destructive and deceptive strategy was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Foothill Church of Glendora, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills and Shepherd of the Hills Church of Porter Ranch.

Named as defendant is the state Department of Managed Health Care Director Michelle Rouillard, who, the plaintiffs contend, is “forcing churches to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans.”

“Churches should not be forced to pay for the killing of innocent human life,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the organization. “The government has no right to demand that church health insurance plans contain coverage for abortion – something that violates these churches’ most sincerely held religious beliefs.

“California is violating the Constitution by strong-arming churches into having this coverage in their plans,” Stanley said.

The case follows lawsuits filed by ADF and Life Legal Defense Foundation last year against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over California’s mandate and “its violation of federal conscience law.”

The churches contend the State of California has not explained how enforcing the mandate “squares with the Constitution and contrasting federal law.”

“Because Obamacare requires health insurance coverage, and the California mandate requires abortion coverage in any health plan, these churches are truly left with no way to opt out of paying for abortions,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jeremiah Galus.

“What’s absurd, though, is that the same government that rightfully does not require California churches to pay for contraceptive coverage requires them to pay for elective abortion coverage.”

Galus said Californians “should not be forced to choose between following their deepest convictions and submitting to unlawful and unnecessary government mandates.”

“Elective abortions are not part of ‘basic health care,’” he said. “They have no business being forced into the medical coverage provided by churches that do not wish to support terminating lives due to very real, sincere and well-known faith convictions. We hope the court will require California to follow the Constitution and respect these churches’ fundamental freedoms.”

The complaint explains the plaintiffs believe, “as a matter of religious conviction, that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to pay for, participate in, facilitate, or otherwise support abortion, which they believe destroys innocent human life.”

The complaint also contends the violation of religious freedom was deliberate.

“Defendant imposed the mandate with full knowledge that it would coerce religious employers and churches like plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That has “created an untenable situation where plaintiffs and other religious employers do not have to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives and infertility treatments but must provide coverage for voluntary and elective abortions.”

Rouillard instructed the insurance companies to make the change without letting churches or religious organizations comment, or even know, about it, the complaint argues.

“Realizing that plaintiffs and others have sincerely held religious beliefs against paying for or providing coverage for abortion, defendant encouraged the insurers to hide these changes by informing them that they may ‘omit any mention of coverage for abortion services in health plan documents.’”

Evidence that Rouillard was specifically targeting churches, the complaint says, was demonstrated by the fact that the mandate “does not apply to health benefit plans offered by the California Public Employees Retirement System and other policies.”

“Defendant designed the mandate to make it impossible for plaintiffs to comply with their religious beliefs,” the complaint charges.

To do that, the lawsuit alleges, California ignored the requirements that accompany “approximately $70 billion in federal funds for programs under the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act.”

Those mandates, the lawsuit explained, ban discrimination by the state on the basis “that the health care entity does not provide for, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”

It cites violations of the First Amendment and creates a pages-long list of damages, including chilling religious exercise, a government-imposed coercion regarding religious beliefs and exposing the plaintiffs them to damages and penalties.

“Defendant issued the mandate to suppress the religious exercise of plaintiffs and other similarly situated churches and religious employers,” it states.

Further, it imposes a government religion, the complaint asserts.

“The mandate adopts a particular theological view of what is acceptable moral complicity in provisions of abortion and imposes it upon all churches and religious employers who must either conform their consciences or suffer penalty,” it alleges. “The mandate unconstitutionally prefers those religions and denominations that do not have religious objections to abortion and exhibits hostility toward those that do by forcing them to pay for abortions in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The action seeks a permanent injunction against enforcement of the government’s belief system.

ADF said the “concern of many pro-life Californians about being compelled by the government to pay for elective abortions has only been enhanced recently by the knowledge that some of those aborted children may have had their body parts sold for profit.”

The attacks against pro-life advocates go beyond governmental and legal strategies.  Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods, and locations where pro-life pregnancy centers exist in the hopes of deceptively drawing women away from those pro-life centers with the specific goal of increasing the number of abortions.

In the City of Temecula, a California city located between Los Angeles and San Diego, and an area that is considered to be fairly conservative for California standards, an independent pro-life pregnancy center was recently forced to relocate.  Like a majority of pro-life centers, Birth Choice Temecula is making the move towards becoming a medical clinic with medical staff on the premises, and medical services such as ultra-sounds offered to their clients.  The facility is funded by donated money, and offers their services at no cost to the patients.  Due to environmentalist agendas seeking to achieve "sustainable development" demands established by internationalist entities such as the United Nations, Birth Choice was compelled to change the location of their center.  Since they offer some medical services, their new location was required to be in an area zoned for medical.  The increased cost was passed on to the donors, and Birth Choice's supporters responded wonderfully.  Now with their new location now officially open, the local Planned Parenthood facility has also made a move. . . relocating to a building across the street.

Was the location change an attempt to confront Birth Choice directly?

In an email, the Executive Director of Birth Choice, Janette Chun, welcomed the competition, believing it to be an "opportunity."  She wrote, "How could this get any better?  We are so very excited about the opportunities this affords us in ministry."

Which brings to mind that new California law I was telling you about, AB775.  While Pro-Life Centers are being expected to, by law, provide information about where a woman can obtain an abortion, why are abortion clinics not required to give information about where a woman can receive pro-life counseling if she so desires?  Isn't the law a little lop-sided?  Isn't that preferential treatment?  Apparently, this is a case where the leftist agenda conveniently ignores their definition of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.  In the minds of the pro-abortion crowd, equal protection under the law means preferential treatment for locations that provide abortions, while using the law to discriminate against faith-based facilities, pro-life facilities, and against the lives of children who want desperately to be afforded the opportunity to gasp their first breath.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative news and Commentary

No comments: