Planned Parenthood representative: babies born alive & breathing after abortion can be killed
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on April 1, 2013)
A baby was born alive during a botched saline abortion on April 6, 1977. Weighing just two lbs and severely injured by the abortion solution which had burned her skin, the child was premature and had cerebral palsy. Her parents, two young teenagers, released her to the foster care system of the state, and she was later adopted at the age of four. Gianna Jessen is now a recording artist, public speaker and pro-life activist who seeks to raise awareness regarding the rights of abortion survivors. She understands, in a way many of us cannot, the brutal nature of abortion and the value of laws that protect infants born alive. She knows that if someone at the hospital where she was accidentally born had not intervened on her behalf, she could have been left to die in a utility room on a heap of soiled linens.
In 2008, nurse Jill Stanek explained in a riveting and shocking video that many abortion survivors have not fared as well as Gianna. Many have been denied medical care and simply abandoned. As 2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul shared in his ad, “Life,” during his time as an ob/gyn doctor in Texas, he witnessed viable and breathing babies that were delivered after botched abortion procedures who were left to die, while premature babies born to expectant parents were given every consideration and surrounded by doctors and nurses fighting to prolong their lives.
It is incidents like these that have inspired “Born Alive” legislation all around the nation, providing legal protection for infants who survive an abortion procedure. This week, one such bill went up before a committee in the Florida House of Representatives.
Horrifically, although not surprisingly, the “Infants Born Alive” bill was challenged by the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. The Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates sent Alisa LaPolt Snow to present their case at the committee hearing. The video of her testimony is cringe-worthy and horrible, but profoundly indicative of the criminally callous nature of the abortion industry.
“It is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” Rep. Jim Boyd says to Snow. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
The response Snow has to give to his question is so reprehensible that she even seems embarrassed to give it. “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” she manages to say.
Rep. Daniel Davis then goes on to probe a little deeper. “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
Snow bristles. “I do not have that information,” she replies. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
“I understand that you’re not a physician,” Evans rejoins. “But you do represent physicians who do perform this activity. Can you tell me what happens when a baby is alive on the table? At that point, what do they do with the baby that is struggling to live?”
“I don’t know,” says Snow hurriedly. “And, as it’s been referenced earlier, you know, we don’t know how prevalent this situation is.” Does she know that her statements are shocking to the civilized world as she pauses here and allows her eyes to dart about uneasily? Does it occur to her that even if the situation only happens once in the whole state of Florida, someone is going to be grateful someday for the law that gave them life? Someone, perhaps, like the beautiful Gianna Jessen?
Evans’ looks stunned as he appeals to the chairman. “I—I don’t know how else I can get an answer Mr. Chairman,” he says.
Rep. Jose Oliva addresses Snow again. “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion, that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?” The barbarity of this concept is hard to take in all at once.
Snow looks uncomfortable as she reiterates her earlier statement. “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
Oliva doesn’t miss a beat. “I think that at that point, the patient would be the child struggling on the table. Wouldn’t you agree?” he counters.
Snow pauses, caught off-guard. She laughs. “Uhh, that’s a – really good question. I don’t know how to – answer that,” she says. “I – uh, you know, I think – I would be glad to have more, you know, conversations with you about this.” She nods her head decidedly, signaling that she has nothing else to say. She has been defeated.
Or has she? In a civil, humane society, where vulnerable and innocent lives are respected, Snow’s little testimony would be a scandal and an abomination. To people who do honor and cherish the lives of babies, it is just that. Unfortunately, it’s not immediately clear that we do live in such a society. And when people like this woman hold high positions among us and lobby on behalf of the rights of adults to kill living children, my doubts get more and more pronounced.
The bill ultimately passed the committee on Wednesday.
British Comedian Rowan Atkinson, 'Mr. Bean'
When Insults Are Illegal:
British comedian Rowan Atkinson warns about ‘The Outrage Industry’ and the ‘Creeping Culture of Censoriousness’
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on October 29th, 2012)
A few years back, a young Oxford University student who was out celebrating the conclusion of some exams, came out of a bar and made a childish comment to a policeman. This comment landed him in jail. The comment? “Excuse me, do you realize your horse is gay?” Rather than ignoring him, the policeman demanded he pay a fine of £80. When he refused, he was arrested under Section 5 of the 1986 UK Public Order Act. Thames Valley Police said: “He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.”
" The whole thing is absolutely absurd," said Mr. Brown. "There were about six police officers and a whole load of patrol cars.”
A jury eventually overturned the ruling, but not before calling significant public attention to Section 5, the infamous clause in the Public Order Act which states that,
A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
British comedian Rowan Atkinson, in a short speech last week at the Reform Section 5 Campaign’s Parliamentary Reception, called it, “That thing where you can arrest anybody for saying anything that might be construed by anyone else as insulting.”
Other victims of Section 5 include a Christian preacher who told a passer-by that homosexuality was immoral, a 16-year-old holding a poster that read, “Scientology is a Dangerous Cult,” two hotel managers who engaged a customer in conversation about Mohammed and Islamic dress for women, and a preacher who told police privately, upon being questioned, that he thought homosexuality was a sin. Atheist John Richards, who placed a sign in his window which stated, “religions are fairy stories for adults,” was told by police that he could be arrested under Section 5. Animal rights protestors who displayed toy seals dyed with red food coloring were threatened with arrest and seizure and told by police that the toys were distressing to members of the public. Following a complaint from a customer, police reportedly told Christian café owner Jamie Murray to stop playing DVDs that showed texts from the New Testament in his establishment.
It’s interesting to note that in most of the cases mentioned above, the supposed offenders were eventually acquitted, although sometimes at significant cost to themselves and to British taxpayers who had to fund the ridiculous court costs accrued by the imprudent actions of public servants who were given free reign by an absurd law. In his speech earlier this month, Rowan Atkinson touched on the inherent absurdity of attempts to ban insulting language, saying,
“The clear problem with the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism is easily construed as insult by some parties. Ridicule, easily construed as insult. Sarcasm, unfavorable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, -- can be interpreted as insult. And since so many things can be interpreted as insulting, it is hardly surprising that so many things have been.”
To ban insults is to outlaw a form of speech that is central to most disagreements and controversies – even those which are wholly cordial. Anytime there is a verbalized clash of ideas, there is a likelihood that one party will poke fun at another. In many cases, there is also the possibility that one party will completely lose his or her head and spout off something really offensive. There is always the probability that the two sides in a public debate will publicly declare their opponents to be wrong. This is not a travesty that calls for government intervention but an unavoidable by-product of free speech rights – and of human nature.
Atkinson wisely suggests that a culture which cannot handle insults needs to be exposed to them more regularly. “ For me,” he says, “the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech, is to allow a lot more of it. We need to build our immunity to taking offense, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, but more speech.”
This brings us to the central problem with laws banning insults, which is that the task of deciding what type of language is insulting is left to the government. A ban on insulting language is not like a ban on swearing or a ban on using curse words in public places. It is a ban which can encompass even justified criticism. Indeed, it has the Kafkaesque quality of being a ban on nothing in particular and therefore on potentially anything.
“ They [police officers] don’t seem to need a real victim,” Atkinson warns. “They need only to make the judgment that somebody could have been offended if they had heard or read what has been said.”
It is these open-ended bans and this undefined repression which makes the modern era’s war on intolerance so deadly to liberty and so poisonous to law. A nation which is governed by the proverbial “rule of law” is a nation in which citizens are able to easily ascertain what is and is not allowed. The rule of law is characterized by lucid legal language and common sense judgments which are intelligible to the majority of the citizens. It is only in despotic nations that citizens must live in constant fear of breaking some law which they have never heard of and which makes no sense to them at all.
“ We live in a country where insults are illegal,” laments the Reform Section 5 Campaign’s official video. If you’re an American citizen, you still live in a country where insults are legal. Unfortunately, if the trends in Western Europe and Canada are any indication of the future, you are going to have to fight with all of your might to keep it that way.
“IT IS the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular.”
-- Gilbert Keith Chesterton --
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus
The RNC Power Grab:
Ignoring GOP injustices makes 'us' as bad as 'them.'
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on September 03, 2012)
In which historian David Barton gets a lesson in honesty and we all benefit
(Posted by Bryana Johnson on August 26, 2012)
Moveon.org has come out with a fairly ridiculous ad that claims to expose the evil GOP strategy to oust President Obama from the White House. The way they see it, this master plan is a sinister three-pronged plot. The conspiratorial triad has the following elements:
1. Sabotage the economy and blame it on Obama
2. Use rich people’s money to spread lies about Obama
3. Suppress minority voters using Voter ID laws
The video is rife with errors, with one actor calling Republican Mitch McConnell the “Senate Majority Leader” suggesting that Republicans actually have the majority in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Democratic Harry Reid is, in fact, the Senate Majority Leader. The actors point out that conservative organizations have donated more money than liberal organizations, omitting to mention that the Obama campaign is oustpending the Romney campaign by a significant margin in almost all of the key states. The two actors go on to state that there is a massive, racist design on the part of Republicans to disenfranchise minority voters by instating photo ID laws.
The flagrant deception displayed in the clip is sickening and many readers over at The Blaze have complained that they weren’t even able to sit through the full 4.25 minutes of asinine drivel. By descending to this level of intellectual dishonesty, moveon.org has sunk into the primordial slime, doing further damage to their reputation even with many democrats and liberal voters. In the culture wars, liars often prove a massive disadvantage for the causes they attempt to champion.
Conservatives and evangelical Christians have had to deal with a controversy of their own this week, and maybe a liar too, as Wallbuilders founder David Barton’s newest book has been pulled by his publisher, Thomas Nelson, due to historical errors that were found to render it unsellable. Barton, who has been a hero to Christian evangelicals for years, is known for his claims that the Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian nation and that the majority of them were “orthodox, evangelical” believers. Recently, however, a significant number of mainstream Christian scholars have begun to question the validity of his claims, with Christian college professor Warren Throckmorton going so far as to write a book debunking Barton’s views.
One of David Barton’s main areas of interest is the spiritual life of America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson. Barton approaches this undeniably enigmatic subject with confidence, asserting that Jefferson was “orthodox” for most of his life, that he fought against the institution of slavery, that he used federal funds to promote Christian missions to the Indians, that he didn’t believe in a “wall of separation” between church and state but in a Republic that would actively promote Christianity. He likewise suggests that Jefferson’s sexual morality was unimpeachable, that he didn’t really edit out the miraculous stories of the New Testament and that he founded the Virginia Bible Society. Throckmorton and others such as Michael Coulter, John Fea and Jay Richards, a senior fellow at the creationist Discovery Institute, insist the documents show otherwise, with considerable evidence to back them up.
Barton’s Wallbuilders group has been a polarizing force for years, dividing the nation’s historical enthusiasts into two camps: those who swear by the supposedly Jeffersonian ideal of a separated church and state, and those who are of Barton’s persuasion, namely that revisionist historians have edited Jefferson’s evangelical beliefs out of the textbooks. Unfortunately, this divide leaves out a third very plausible and very reasonable possibility, which is that Jefferson was a product of his times, heavily influenced by the enlightenment deism of the age, slightly racist as most Europeans were, and a staunch believer in freedom of religious expression. It is asking a lot to expect this 18th century thinker to measure up to either the contemporary ideals of either conservatives or liberals. Those ideals didn’t even exist yet.
While Jefferson certainly doesn’t fit Barton’s ideal of an evangelical Christian statesman who wanted a biblically-based government, neither can he serve as a poster boy for the secular, liberal vision. His statements about responsibility, fiscal sanity, traditional morality, and even God are too numerous to overlook. Indeed, they make up a great portion of Jefferson’s oft-quoted writings. Let’s take a look at a few which seem to soundly rebuff the contemporary liberal ideal.
“ I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” (A bit of a blow to the welfare state and the Life of Julia)
From Notes on the State of Virginia: “Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” (Putting him squarely in the anti-Bloomberg opposition and against proponents of government healthcare)
“ I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
“The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
Regardless of where you stand on the big Jefferson Question, the recent Barton saga delivers a critical exhortation that all idealists and public policy advocates would do well to heed. Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And as a flawed mortal, you will likely need God’s help to do it.
Career politicians and mercenary public figures may be able to get away with shocking deceptions, but idealists who play at the mind wars for the sheer love of the things they espouse have no business twisting the truth even a little. We have not waded into battle, into these culture wars, for money or for fame, for public notice or for personal advancement. What do we have left on our side if we lose the truth?
“Nowadays the devil has made such a mess of everything in the system of life on earth that the world will presently become uninhabitable for anybody but Saints. The rest will drag their lives out in despair or fall below the level of man. The antinomies if human life are too exasperated, the burden of matter too oppressive; merely to exist, one has to expose oneself to many snares. Christian heroism will one day become the sole solution for the problems of life.”