When Infanticidal Democrats Are Accidentally Correct on Abortion

Recent words by notorious democrats again prove the old adage: even a broken clock is right twice a day. In this case, we have had two democrats in less than two weeks accidentally speaking truth to one of the gravest moral issues of our time.

First of all, we have Alabama state representative John Rogers (D). At the beginning of this month, the republican-controlled Alabama House overwhelmingly passed (74-3) pro-life legislation that would make abortion a felony except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. The bill will likely not become law, as it will probably die in the Alabama Senate. Aware of this, pro-life lawmakers hope to use the legislation as a means to overturn Roe.

In debating the bill, while attempting to defend the indefensible—the killing of unborn children—representative Rogers made clear the democrats’ position when it comes to the most helpless and innocent among us when he declared,

Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.

Note that Rogers here provides us with several bits of rare clarity when it comes to democrats and the unborn. Repeatedly using the word “kill,” Rogers reminds us what an abortion actually results in: the death of a human being. As a popular pro-life refrain goes, “If it isn’t a life, then why do you have to kill it?”

Also, Representative Rogers failed to resort to the anthropomorphically ambiguous language so common among those who wish to sanitize what is really happening when an abortion occurs. Instead, Rogers made the mistake of referring to unborn children as “kids.” To protect the “right” to kill children in the womb, for decades those corrupted by liberalism have sought to dehumanize the unborn.

Thus, we often hear children in the womb described as a “zygote,” “embryo,” or “fetus.” Though these terms are medically correct, the left employs such language in order to avoid using the more humanizing words such as “baby,” “child,” or “kid.” What’s more, in order to hide their evil behavior toward children in the womb and to further dehumanize the unborn, the left will often abandon medically accurate terminology for unborn human beings and simply make stuff up.

In 2015, writing about the scandal involving Planned Parenthood and the selling of baby parts, Jen Gunter of The New Republic declared, “These are not ‘baby parts.’” She prefers that the “tissue specimen” be referred to, not as a fetus or an embryo, but as a “product of conception.” Gunter declared that the term “baby” doesn’t apply until birth.

Likewise, on CNN recently, breaking trend with democrats who have been accidentally correct on life in the womb, while debating “heartbeat bills” that have become law across the U.S., former Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn—a democrat, of course—said,

When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control of her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals.

Thus, the so-called “party of science” again reveals just how much stupidity they will stoop to in order to justify their perverse sexual agenda.

Speaking of stupid, Alyssa Milano has tweeted again. Rightfully ignoring the threats of the ignorant Hollywood elite, Governor Brian Kemp recently signed Georgia’s version of a fetal heartbeat bill into law. Like so many others on the Hollywood left, because of the favorable tax laws passed by Georgia conservatives, Milano finds herself working in Georgia. Being a full-fledged member of the sex-crazed ignorant Hollywood elite, Milano can’t seem to help interjecting herself into Georgia politics.

After Governor Kemp signed the heartbeat bill into law, Milano decided it was time for action. On May 10, through her Twitter account, Milano called for a “sex strike.” She tweeted:

Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.

It seems that liberals are more clueless about biology than we thought. Seemingly unaware of the irony of her call, pro-life conservatives on Twitter soon clued her in:

BREAKING: Liberal women go on a #SexStrike. STD rates plummet

— Matt Barber (@jmattbarber) May 11, 2019

Does anyone else see the irony in calling for a #sexstrike to gain choice regarding unintentional pregnancies?

— Nicole Saphier, MD (@NBSaphierMD) May 11, 2019

She’s admitting that abortion as an option increases risky behavior.

She’s also admitting that abstinence works.

This #SexStrike is going to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country.

I’m not seeing a downside to this.

— 🇺🇸  Loyal Moses 🐴 🐄 (@loyalmoses) May 11, 2019

Abstinence is always the best birth control. THANK YOU for coming around to the Evangelical Right. Love you Alyssa and Praise God 🙏🙌

— Steve Johnson (@spjohnson12) May 11, 2019

Of course, the world would be a much better place if Milano and her ilk—men and women alike—would remain on a “sex strike,” at least until they are in a committed marital relationship. Sadly, this is not the plan. As a Milano supporter in the New York Post reveals, the real desire for pro-abortionists is to turn states like Georgia into states like New York. Because, “if you’re in a place where you can still have abortions, like New York State,” then one can “f— all you want!”

And thus, we see Ms. Milano produce even more unintended truth from the left! Without stating so in such clear terms, for decades the left has sold their wicked sexual agenda upon the notion that if voters will just elect democrats, then one can “f— all you want!” This has resulted in not only a war on the unborn, but a war on marriage, the family, and the ultimate target of the modern left: the truth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Georgia Media Engages in Polling Propaganda

In order to further the liberal agenda on the legalized killing of children still in their mothers’ wombs and to help elect more democrats, the largest newspaper in the state of Georgia—The Atlanta-Journal Constitution (AJC)—has engaged in polling propaganda. Of course, like virtually all U.S. newspapers, given that the AJC is dominated by those with a liberal worldview, this should surprise no one. However, it doesn’t mean we should let them get away with it.

As I noted in a recent column, earlier this year the Georgia legislature passed the LIFE Act—often dubbed a “fetal heartbeat” bill. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has yet to sign the bill, but he is widely expected to do so. Given that protecting the so-called “right” to kill the unborn is sacred to the modern left, liberals across my home state of Georgia have gone to great lengths to demonize and discourage anyone willing to stand up for the most helpless and innocent among us.

In an effort to discourage the pro-life movement and to paint the U.S. as more pro-abortion than it really is, for years now abortion apologists—especially those in the media and the Democrat Party—have promoted polls that supposedly show overwhelming support for the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. For example, late last summer, after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ)/NBC News poll purported to show 71 percent of Americans were against “completely overturn[ing]” Roe.

However, such polls are almost always seriously flawed. As Michael J. New noted at the time,

The survey question began by stating that Roe v. Wade established a right to an abortion, “at least in the first three months of pregnancy.” It then asked respondents if they would like to see the Supreme Court “completely overturn” Roe v. Wade. As such, many respondents likely concluded that Roe v. Wade only legalized abortion in the first trimester and a reversal of Roe would ban first-trimester abortions.

On the question of overturning Roe, the recent AJC poll uses the exact same deceptive language as the WSJ/NBC poll. The question reads,

In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision or not?

Unsurprisingly, poll results showed that, to the above question, 70 percent answered “no.” Subsequently, on its website (and I’m assuming in the print edition as well) the AJC ran the headline “AJC poll: Strong support for Roe.” The first sentence of the article declared, “Seven of 10 Georgia voters say they oppose overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that guaranteed the right to an abortion, according to a new Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll.”

The article made no mention of how polling subjects were asked about the Roe decision. To warn readers about this, I noted as much in the comments section of the article. Shortly thereafter, my comment was deleted, and soon after that, the AJC website posted an article that contained the poll questions and results.

Given that we are 46 years removed from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe, many Americans are ignorant about the fact that Roe v. Wade deals with abortion. Thus, pollsters are left to try to explain the decision in one or two sentences. Therefore, we get inaccurate polling results on the Roe decision and on abortion. As was noted in National Review last year,

A Pew Research Center poll taken in 2013 found that only 62 percent of respondents were aware that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion. Seventeen percent thought Roe v. Wade dealt with some other public-policy issue and 20 percent were unfamiliar with the decision. Furthermore, even many who realize Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion fail to understand the full implications of the decision. Many wrongly think that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in [a] national ban on abortion, instead a reversal of Roe would return the issue to the states.

What’s more, while the recent AJC poll supposedly showed overwhelming support for the Roe decision, respondents were about evenly split on their support for Georgia’s LIFE Act. Forty-three percent said they somewhat or strongly supported the bill while 48 percent said they somewhat or strongly opposed it. These results are more in line with what more sophisticated abortion polling reveals.

For example, consider last year’s Gallup poll on abortion. On the question of whether the Supreme Court should overturn Roe, 28 percent said yes and 64 percent said no. However, more detailed questioning reveals that Americans are not as much in favor of Roe as a simple question on overturning Roe might indicate. When asked whether an abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, “When the woman does not want the child for any reason” (the vast majority of abortions are performed because the child would be an inconvenience), 45 percent said it should be legal, while 53 percent said it should not be legal.

When the same question is asked about the last three months of pregnancy, only 20 percent said abortion should be legal, while 77 percent said it should not be legal. Likewise, in the last three months of pregnancy, when asked about whether abortion should be legal if the child would be “born mentally disabled” or “born with Down Syndrome,” the vast majority thought abortion should be illegal (61 percent to 35 percent and 68 percent to 29 percent, respectively) in such cases.

However, under the court’s current interpretation of Roe—a legal and moral abomination— laws that would restrict abortion according to the above opinions would almost certainly be struck down. In other words, because of the pro-abortion hyperbole regularly thrown around by liberals, many Americans simply don’t understand that for U.S. laws to reflect such opinions, Roe would have to go.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Moral High-Ground Proves to be a Slippery Slope for Pro-Abortionists

After abortionist George Tiller’s murder, the left-wing media (bloggers, commentators, etc.) went wild with calls of “domestic terrorism.”  The lustful dash by liberals to paint all pro-lifers and Christians with the same brush as Tiller’s killer, Scott Roeder, was pathetically predictable.

Just a sampling of the attacks: Christina Page of the Huffington Post called Tiller’s murder a “foreshadowing.” She added that if you think Tiller’s murder was an isolated incident, “You are wrong. The trend is clear and frightening.” Also on the Huffington Post, Shannyn Moore called Roeder’s act “Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism.” The president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said the killing was “not an isolated incident. It is part of an ongoing pattern of hateful rhetoric…”

The facts simply do not support this anti-Christian, anti-Pro-Life propaganda. According to the National Abortion Federation’s own statistics, there have been a total of eight abortionists murdered in the U.S. since 1977. Tiller’s was the only one in the last 11 years. There have been 17 instances of attempted murder since 1977 with only one occurring in the last 11 years.

Now, one murdered abortionist is too many, but it pales in comparison to the 50 million or so humans who have been killed in their mothers’ wombs since 1973. In fact, the pro-abortion lobby has done more to devalue human life than any other organization or individual in the history of our nation. After all, our culture has been taught for the last 40 years or so that life is a “choice.” Given this, should we be at all surprised when anyone decides to take the “choice” of life and death into his own hands, regardless the age of the victim?

But, as many pro-abortionists have so perceptibly noted, abortion is legal, while assassinating abortionists is not. However, prior to Roe v Wade in 1973, this was not the case. In most U.S. states abortionists and their assassins were both felons under the law. Just because something is now “legal” doesn’t make it moral.

Since Tiller’s death, “Another Pro-Life murder” has been a frequent sentiment on left-wing blogs. Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, were called to task for fomenting the atmosphere of “hate” that supposedly led to Tiller’s murder. Many on the left shared the sentiments of Shannon Moore mentioned above: Tiller’s murder was a case of Christian domestic terrorism.

The Obama administration wasted little time weighing in on the matter. Obama himself said that he was “shocked and outraged” by Tiller’s murder, referring to it as “heinous acts of violence.” The Attorney General directedU.S. Marshals to protect abortionists all over the country. There were also many calls by liberals for pro-lifers to condemn the act.

Just a day later, a very similar incident played out that revealed the true position of liberals when it comes to “domestic terrorism.” On the day after Tiller’s murder, a radical Muslim convert, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, gunned down two U.S. soldiers at a military recruitment center, killing one of them. In the light of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and numerous other Muslim attacks against the U.S. both at home and abroad, one would think that Muhammad’s attack would bring about significant condemnation from U.S. officials and the media. The silence was telling.

There was no denunciation from Obama or his administration; no calls for U.S. Marshals to help protect recruitment centers (not that they would need it); and no calls for Muslims to denounce the event. In fact, there was little coverage of the entire event.

Fox News did report that Muhammad had “political and religious motives.” It was also reported that Muhammad had recently traveled to Yemen and Somalia, both hotbeds for Islamic extremism.

It has since been revealed that Muhammad may not have acted alone and may have even been part of a larger plot to attack multiple U.S. military targets. This important information still was only enough to draw scant attention from the liberal media or liberal bloggers.

All of this goes to show the true motives of liberals when it comes to Tiller’s murder. It was simply a convenient opportunity for liberals to go after pro-lifers in general. It was an irresistible occasion, however brief, for liberals to stand on the high moral ground. It was a chance for the pro-abortionists—who readily support the killing of humans in the womb—to temporarily turn the tables. Perhaps the nearly 3700 abortions that take place today will bring them back to reality.

Copyright 2009, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com