Why we need to pass “A Woman’s Right to Know” Legislation Reply


By Tom Quiner

“What’s a fetus?”

That was the question posed by the young woman to an employee of Planned Parenthood.  She asked because she was six to eight weeks pregnant.

Here is what Planned Parenthood told her:

“The fetus is the developing embryo inside of you.  But at this point, there’s nothing developed at all.  There’s no legs.  No arms.  No head.  No brain.  No heart.  At this point, it’s just the embryo itself.”

The Planned Parenthood employee went on to tell the pregnant girl that raising a baby is expensive.  She suggested abortion is the cost-effective solution.

And then she says that if someone is truly against abortion, they should be willing to take in all of these ‘aborted’ children and raise them themselves.

These are direct quotes taken from an undercover video at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The video was shot by Live Action Films.

To clarify:  The fetus does have a head.  It does have a brain.  It does have arms.  It does have a heart.  It does have legs.

The Planned Parenthood employee was either misinformed or chose to be untruthful.

To clarify:  Approximately 555,000 married American couples seek to adopt.  But only 22,000 infants are adopted.  These stats come from the National Council for Adoption.

The Planned Parenthood employee was either misinformed or chose to be untruthful.

Take a few minutes and watch the film below.

I wrote a piece that appeared in the Des Moines Register on Super Bowl Sunday.  You’ll find the column below.

It expressed my concerns on the high abortion rate in the African-American community.

It expressed my advocacy for passage of “The Woman’s Right to Know” legislation.

This type of legislation requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Such legislation was passed in Oklahoma.  The Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion group, is aghast.  They say the law forces women to hear about information that is irrelevant to her medical care, like does the fetus have a heart, a brain, arms, and legs.

Evidence of the fetus’ humanity is irrelevant to pro abortion groups.  However, this kind of evidence is apparently very important to pregnant women.  Among women planning an abortion, nine out of ten who view an ultrasound of the baby in their womb change their mind.  The sight of an object with arms, legs, and a head opens their minds and hearts to the reality that they carry a person in their womb, not a blob of formless cells.

After the column below appeared in the Des Moines Register, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson responded as follows:  “Suggesting that the Women’s Right to Know Act would help reduce abortion in the African-American community is insulting. That implies that women of color are incapable of or unable to make this very personal, difficult decision. In reality, this bill is designed to shame women, to intimidate them when they are in a vulnerable situation.”

The video above says it all.  Planned Parenthood personnel may not always be trustworthy with the facts about the fetus.  They insult their clients (regardless of their color) by withholding critical information on the most important decision a woman will ever make:  whether or not to terminate the life of the baby in her womb.

In fact, withholding information of this nature is more than an insult, it is criminal.

Peggy Hamill, State Director of Pro Life Wisconsin, knows how important accurate information is to pregnant women:

“As a sidewalk counselor at Milwaukee Planned Parenthoods, I have had post-abortion women fall apart in my arms, sobbing, immediately regretting their abortions. Nothing can prepare a woman for an abortion.  This new footage reconfirms that Planned Parenthood is not providing women with complete, accurate medical information about their developing baby, much less the after effects of the abortion ‘procedure.'”

A Woman’s Right to Know legislation is a compassionate way to stem the abortion epidemic that particularly afflicts the African-American community.  Yes, it would impact Planned Parenthood’s profits.  Perhaps that’s why they’re so opposed to this type of legislation.

Encourage legislators in your state to pass A Women’s Right to Know bill next session.  Do it in the name of compassion.

Does Black Genocide Matter? 3


By Tom Quiner

As seen in the Des Moines Register on February 7, 2010

One out of two African-American pregnancies end in abortion.

Does it matter?

I was advised by a voice I respect that I’m walking into a minefield, that perhaps a white guy shouldn’t be writing about black abortion.  I drove out to the Maple Street Baptist Church to ask Reverend Keith Ratliff about it.

Reverend Ratliff, who is African-American, said “any caring individual has a right to write about life.”  Even more, he characterized abortion as a “silent genocide” in the African-American community.

Blacks represent twelve percent of the population, but account for 36% of all abortions.  He told me abortion is the biggest killer in the African-American community, topping cancer, heart disease, AIDs, and homicide.

Why talk about black abortion today?  Here’s why:  this is Black History Month.  It’s a fair bet our schools aren’t going to talk about it.  After all, they had a chance to hear about it a couple of years ago when Dr. Alveda King visited Des Moines.  Dr. King is Martin Luther King’s niece.  She speaks out nationally on the impact abortion is having on the African-American community.  Roosevelt High School, which had invited her to Des Moines to speak, rescinded the invite.

Her topic evidently isn’t a fit subject for public schools.

I ask again, does it matter?

After all, a revered woman influenced the world with these words: “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”

Yes, Margaret Sanger’s legacy is alive today.  Her organization, Planned Parenthood, has built clinics in inner cities throughout America with much support from our political establishment.  In fact, Reverend Ratliff says 78 percent of PP clinics are in minority neighborhoods.  Although they can’t be credited with performing all of the 650,000 annual abortions being performed on the African-American unborn, they have the lion’s share of the market.  At $450 per abortion, the African American community accounts for nearly $300 million a year in revenue for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Abortion is big business.

Its impact is measurable.  The total fertility rate for the African-American community has dropped well below the replacement rate of 2.1, down to 1.97.

An important part of our American community is dying off in what is characterized as genocide by some in the black community, to the financial benefit of others.

Today is Super Bowl Sunday.  Focus on the Family is running a controversial Super Bowl ad that celebrates the life of Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow.  His Mom was faced with a tough choice when she carried Tim in her womb.  Her doctor encouraged her to abort because of health risks she faced.  She chose life.

Today’s Super Bowl ad is dangerous.  It humanizes “choice.”  Women’s groups are outraged and demand that CBS drop the ad.  Erin Mattson, VP for the National Organization for Women (NOW) said “This ad is hate masquerading as love.”

Try to follow that logic on that one.  Here is the ad that appeared on Super Sunday:

The solution to abortion is education according to Reverend Ratliff.  Here in Iowa, our legislature has attempted to do just that with the “Woman’s Right to Know Act.”  This bill requires an informed consent before an abortion takes place.  It includes the opportunity for a woman to view an ultrasound of her fetus.

Something amazing happens when the mother views her fetus:  it turns into a person.  It turns into a she, instead of an “it”.  Nine out of ten moms change their mind and don’t have the abortion after viewing this ultrasound.  She chooses life, just as Tim Tebow’s mom did.

Isn’t that what our President wants, for abortion to be legal, but rare?

Dehumanizing slavery was a tragic chapter in the history of Black America.  Dehumanizing abortion is our current history.

If this matters to you, ask your legislators to let the Woman’s Right to Know Act come to the floor for a vote.

If this doesn’t matter to you, I ask why?

Does Obamacare require you to pay for abortions? Reply


Yes.

Despite the furious debate between President Obama and a few conscientious Democrats, like Bart Stupak, you and I are required by force of law to pay taxes that will abort babies.

Despite an Executive Order to the contrary, the long anticipated dream of the Democratic Party has been realized.  Tax-payer funded abortions are here.

I will point out how the Executive Order is circumvented in a moment.  First, let us review the three philosophies affected by the new abortion entitlement.

Group One

The first was clearly articulated in a letter to the editor in yesterday’s Des Moines Register (in response to my column the week before).  I quote:  “A fetus is a growth like a tumor – not a person, and has no human rights whatsoever.”

In other words, a fetus is an inhuman blob, a tumor, perhaps much like a gall bladder gone bad.  It is not a person.  To Americans with this philosophy, there is nothing objectionable to tax-payer funded abortions.  To this group, there is much to be said of ridding the world of unwanted babies, much as there is much to be said of ridding the world of gall bladders gone bad.

This group sees no moral issue with abortion.

Group Two

Group Two consists of President Obama and most of the Democratic Party.  They believe abortion should be rare, but safe.  This group gives tacit acknowledgement to the humanity of the fetus.  Why else should abortions be rare?  You wouldn’t say that if you viewed the fetus as being equivalent to a tumor, as Group One does.  However, despite its humanity, group two is unwilling to grant the fetus human rights and allows its destruction for any reason.

Group Two typically mouths the platitude:  “while I’m personally against abortion, I can’t impose my view on others.”

Group Three

Group Three views the fetus as a baby, as a human being, as a person with full human rights.

Notwithstanding the platitudes mentioned above, Group Two in fact joined with Group One in pushing for taxpayer funded abortions in the healthcare debate.

Even more, they agitate to remove conscience safeguards for pro life healthcare providers.  In fact, they very much wish to foist their view on others.

Group Three, of which I am a member, recoils in horror and shame at the thought that our tax dollars are used to destroy innocent human life in the womb.

At this point, you may want to know why Group Three is so worked up.  After all, the President issued an Executive Order to keep abortion out of the health care bill.  Right?

Unfortunately, there are loopholes.  The United States Catholic Bishops issued a summary of these loopholes:

***

• Federal funds in the Act can be used for elective abortions. For example, the Act authorizes and appropriates $7 billion over five years (increased to $9.5 billion by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) for services at Community Health Centers.  These funds are not covered by the Hyde amendment (as they are not appropriated through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill governed by that amendment), or by the Act’s own abortion limitation in Sec. 1303 (as that provision relates only to tax credits or cost-sharing reductions for qualified health plans, and does not govern all funds in the bill).  So the funds can be used directly for elective abortions.

• The Act uses federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions. Sec. 1303 limits only the direct use of a federal tax credit specifically to fund abortion coverage; it tries to segregate funds within health plans, to keep federal funds distinct from funds directly used for abortions.  But the credits are still used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions.  This violates the policy of current federal laws on abortion funding, including the Hyde amendment, which forbid use of federal funds for any part of a health benefits package that covers elective abortions.  By subsidizing plans that cover abortion, the federal government will expand abortion coverage and make abortions more accessible.

· The Act uses federal power to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions even if they are morally opposed.

The Act mandates that insurance companies deciding to cover elective abortions in a health plan “shall… collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a separate payment” for such abortions.  While the Act says that one plan in each exchange will not cover elective abortions, every other plan may cover them  — and everyone purchasing those plans, because they best meet his or her family’s needs, will be required by federal law to fund abortions.  No accommodation is permitted for people morally opposed to abortion.  This creates a more overt threat to conscience than insurers engage in now, because in many plans receiving federal subsidies everyone will have to make separate payments solely and specifically for other people’s abortions.  Saying that this payment is not a “tax dollar” is no help if it is required by government.

***

What gives the Catholic Bishop’s such credibility is that if the Stupak language was kept in the bill, the Bishops found much to commend in the rest of the bill.  (I humbly demur, but that is a post for another day.)

Does Obamacare require you to pay for abortions?  Yes.

What is the truth? Reply


As seen in the Des Moines Register April 18, 2010

Is truth absolute or relative?

Americans disagree.  The question needs a healthy airing in light of an upcoming nomination battle this summer to select a new member of the Supreme Court.  After all, our Justices have to determine what is the truth from a legal point of view.  Their decisions have had a profound affect on the fabric of our nation.

The most obvious example: before 1973, forty-six states said it was illegal to kill a baby in the womb.  After 1973, those laws were considered to be wrong.  The underlying principal, that the baby in the womb was a person with rights, was “untrue” according to the Justices.

Moral Relativism has emerged as a powerful force in America.  It animates the political Left, and it is the political Left that currently dominates Washington.  They will select the next Justice.

Moral Relativists view truth as an oozing, fluid idea.  What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.  Feelings determine morality.  Truth is an evolving entity, much like the Constitution of the United States in their eyes.

The self-esteem movement is a reflection of the impact moral relativism has had on our culture.  Moral absolutism produces guilt when we do something wrong.  Guilt is bad.  On the other hand, moral relativism allows us to rationalize away such unpleasantness, which makes us happy.  Happiness is good.

Therefore, feelings ultimately define morality for the Relativist.  Self-esteem is the name of the game.

For moral absolutists, it is just the opposite.  Moral actions define feelings.  Self-respect is the name of the game.  They believe truth is timeless and universal.

Moral Relativists point out that truth can’t be absolute, because different cultures have embraced such different values.  Who is to say our values, whatever they may be, are superior to theirs’?  Values and truth are relative.  Right?  The mantra for the Relativist goes something like this:  “Although I’m personally opposed to [fill in the blank], I certainly can’t tell another culture or person that it is wrong if that is their own truth.”

But if that were really true, we’d be forced to accept Nazi genocide of the Jews as an acceptable German value, and who are we to impose our values on others? In fact, we so adamantly rejected them that we went to war over them.

This points out an unspoken flaw with Relativism.  Cultures are actually more alike than dissimilar.  We are bound together by transcendent truth.

Courage and compassion are revered in every culture in the world today and yesterday.  Even in Nazi Germany, they were on display by brave Germans hiding their Jewish friends from the Nazis. Wisdom, hope, and honesty are universally venerated.  They are ingrained in humanity, imprinted on our soul, so to speak.

There has never been a culture that celebrates lying, betrayal, addiction, cowardice, and selfishness.  How can this be if values are relative?

The great moral influencers of the world include Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, and Mohammed.  Their moral philosophies were more alike than dissimilar.

So when the Congressional Judicial Committee sits down with the next Supreme Court nominee to determine their worthiness for the bench, it would be instructive to ask him or her these questions:

Do we have a fundamental right to life?

Do we have a fundamental right to liberty?

Do we have a fundamental right to a pursuit of happiness?  What does happiness mean from a legal viewpoint?

If yes, from whom (or Whom) do these rights flow?

Is truth absolute or relative?