The story the media doesn’t like to cover 6


By Tom Quiner

Thousands and thousands of people across America lined the streets of their communities in prayer for the end of abortion.   Here in Des Moines, masses lined Merle Hay Road.

The Life Chain in Des Moines, Iowa, October 3rd, 2010

The Des Moines Register did not photograph the event.  They didn’t include a single word of coverage in their Monday edition.  Keep in mind, the Register provides Planned Parenthood lavish news coverage and editorial support.  They provide little to none to pro life causes.

Quiner’s Diner was there.  We are providing you the photographic coverage of an event the mainstream media does not consider newsworthy.  Do you think they would have covered this event if it was a rally in support of abortion rights?

No need to answer.

Thanks to Lisa Bourne for providing photographs near the front end of the chain at St. Theresa’s Catholic Church.

Why Reduce the Number of Abortions? Reply


As seen in the Des Moines Register on October 4th, 2009

By Tom Quiner

“The president explicitly expressed his commitment to reducing the numbers of abortions and to listen to the church’s concern on moral issues.”

This is the news release much of the media missed on July 16th after President Obama met with Pope Benedict.

Think about this statement. It is relevant today, October 4th, 2009.  This is Life Chain Sunday across America.  In Des Moines, you’ll see members of your community standing along Merle Hay Road in respectful support of life.

I once believed there were only two positions on abortion: one believing the object in a mother’s womb is a person; the other believing it isn’t.  It follows that group one believes the unborn are entitled to human rights, group two doesn’t.

I was mistaken.  There is a third group, the one President Obama and much of his party are in.  This group tacitly acknowledges that the object in the womb is a person, but is unwilling to grant it human rights.  Why else should we reduce the number of abortions?

If the fetus is simply a collection of cells, much like a gall bladder, why did the President feel a need to reduce the number of abortions?

Scientists are universal in their assertion that life begins at conception, at which time its genetic code is complete.

In defense of my pro-choice friends, it is fair to ask:  “is the life in the womb really a person?” In other words, is it a “full” human entitled to full human rights?  Or is it, in fact, some sort of subhuman not entitled to human rights?

The implications are enormous.  The President’s party prides itself on looking out for the little guy.  If they’re wrong, they have abetted violence on an unimaginable scale directed at the most vulnerable persons in society, the unborn.

To my pro-choice friends, what if you’re wrong?  What if there is only a one-in-ten chance that we’re dealing with a human person in the womb?  Is the risk to our humanity worth it?

Some of you tell me you’re personally opposed to abortion, but that you can’t impose your view on someone else.  I don’t think you’re shooting straight with yourself.  Are you personally opposed to killing a baby with colic that cries all night?  Of course you are.  Are you willing to impose this view on the parent up all night with the crying kid?  Of course you are.   We impose values on others all the time. That’s why we pass laws:  to protect us from each other.

I know this is a tough issue.  None expressed the dilemma more eloquently than a famous Senator: “While the deep concern of a woman  bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion-on-demand is not in accordance with the values our civilization places on human life.  Wanted or unwanted,  I believe that human life even at its earliest stages has certain rights which must be recognized.  The right to be born; the right to love; the right to grow old.”

Ted Kennedy said it so well.  Yes, that was the late Senator Kennedy’s beautiful defense of life in 1971.  Then he changed his position.  He didn’t change this core position for scientific reasons or moral ones.  It came down to politics.

Today, on these pages in the Register, notable Republicans suggest that we, too, should be less concerned about this issue.  I think not.  If anything, Republicans should stand up for the little guy more than ever.

Either all humans possess personhood or they don’t. In America, all are created equal. Today’s Life Chain simply recognizes that whether embryonic, fetal, infantile, young, old, or dying, we’re entitled to human rights.  This is an American value.  Join us on Merle Hay Road at 2 PM today.

Here’s something Republicans and Democrats can agree on 1


By Tom Quiner

Join us at the Life Chain tomorrow at 2 PM at the First Assembly of God Church on Merle Hay Road

Republicans and Democrats have differing viewpoints when it comes to the human fetus (Latin for offspring or Little One).

Republicans view the Little One as being worthy of human rights. Democrats don’t.

Republicans view the Little One as being a person. Democrats don’t.

Republicans view the Little One as having a fundamental right to life. Democrats don’t.

Democrats and their judicial soulmates have had far more power than Republicans over the past thirty-some years when it comes to formulating policy affecting Little Ones.  They have stripped just about every human right away from them.

Interestingly, though, both current Democratic President Obama and previous Democratic President Clinton have expressed the same sentiments, that abortion should be legal, but rare. Clearly, they sense there is something wrong with the wanton destruction of Little Ones, but they have been unwilling to do anything about it.

There is something Democrats can do with Republicans tomorrow.  They can join us in prayer on behalf of Little Ones everywhere during the annual Life Chain.  Here in Des Moines, the faithful will come together in respectful prayer along Merle Hay Road, stretching from St. Theresa’s Church to the First Assembly of God church.

Although Republicans will be praying for the end of abortion, Democrats can pray that a conflicted woman carrying a Little One will have a change of heart and let her child be born.

Democrats can pray that adoption will flourish in a land where broken-hearted couples unable to conceive pray daily for a Little One.

Democrats can pray that abortion won’t be needed because fathers and mothers recognize the humanity of the Little Ones in their mothers’ wombs.

The Democratic Party still has a sizable number of the faithful in their ranks. Republicans extend a hand of friendship to join with us in prayer starting at 2 PM on Sunday, October 3, that abortion will never be needed in America again.

We can agree on that, can’t we?

Welcome to Des Moines, Mr. President Reply


By Tom Quiner

In this 2007 Life Magazine photo, President Obama campaigns in Beaverdale, Iowa.

The President of the United States is visiting my neighborhood this morning. He’ll be at the home of members from my church. Some of my friends will be in attendance.

I had a 7 AM meeting at my neighborhood coffee shop this morning, Grounds for Celebration, where a couple of Secret Service agents where loading up on caffeine.

It’s all exciting, but I didn’t earn an invite. I wonder why?

Despite our differing political views, I welcome the President to Beaverdale, Iowa. (Beaverdale is the name for a neighborhood in Des Moines — surely one of the best places in the world in which to live!)

I honor the Presidency and welcome President Obama to my beloved state and neighborhood.

A friend of mine, a Democrat, asked if I could ask the President a question, what would it be? I don’t know that I have a question as much as an explanation for the difficult political climate in which President Obama operates. It goes back to Peggy Noonan’s question to which I referred in my post last night: does the other side have a good motive?

Abortion is the leading social issue that explains much about how conservatives assess the President and his Party’s motives .

They state that abortion should be rare, but safe.

But the legislation they have either passed or want to pass contradicts their rhetoric.

They refused to exclude abortion in the language of the mammoth healthcare bill they passed. True, the President signed an Executive Order preventing it, but an Executive Order does not carry the clout of clear legislative language such as the Hyde amendment.

The President is an enthusiastic supporter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This act would have devastating implications for Americans who revere the sanctity of human life. It would strip away conscious-protection laws. Doctors would be compelled to perform abortions, because abortion would now be considered a basic “human right.” Catholic hospitals would be forced to abandon Catholic principles … or close. The sheer quantity of abortions will only increase, contrary to the stated position that abortion should be rare.

It’s one thing for Democrats to say “although I’m personally opposed to abortion, I can’t tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.”

It’s quite another for Democrats to say “you will be compelled by law to remove the life within a mother’s womb if that is what she wants.”

FOCA has not passed … yet.

Democrats took a big step toward the goals of FOCA, though, by ensuring that abortion was not excluded from the healthcare bill, the President’s Executive Order notwithstanding.

So, here is what I would say to President Obama:

“Mr. President, I hold your office in high esteem. I pray for you often. I pray that God keeps you safe. But I don’t trust your motives. I’m concerned that you want to impose a new value system on me, my Church, and my country, one that our Founding Fathers never envisioned, one that my Church never envisioned. I’m concerned that if you and your party get your way, Americans who have embraced traditional American values of God-granted rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, will experience economic sanctions … or worse … if they don’t accept your new order. I wish you well, Mr. President. Thanks for letting me voice my views.”