Olympics Commercials feature Babies, Conversations with Babies

Have you been catching any of the Olympics this year?  I've been paying more attention than usual with all of the great stories such as Michael Phelps' last races and the success of the swim team in all categories, the men's basketball team comparing themselves to the '92 Dream Team, Usain Bolt's defense in the 100 meter dash, the gold metals in tennis, and the gold metal runs in beach volleyball. And although I've been fast forwarding through most of the commercials thanks to the greatest invention ever--the DVR--I've also caught a few including the promotions for NBC's new drama/comedy, The New Normal.

I was pretty surprised when I saw this one:



NBC running an ad using the phrase "unborn baby"?  Well, "future unborn baby" anyway.  What exactly is a future unborn baby?  I guess we may never know.  Are they making a video before the baby is conceived? Because I suppose that would be the appropriate term.  But when I first saw it I was under the impression that they were talking to their conceived baby.  It reminds me of the clever pro-abortion linguistic invention: "potential person."  As in, "Hi potential person, who I'm speaking to because you live, grow, and exist in your tiny corner of the world."

But NBC redeemed themselves with the pro-aborts with this abortion joke 20 seconds in.  I found this one while searching for the first video:



The best commercial of the Olympics thus far has to be this one featuring incubator technology for preemies from GE:



GE used to own NBC/MSNBC, and their CEO Jeffery Immelt is a big Obama guy, serving on his fake jobs council, so I'm no big fan of the corporation.  Isn't it strange to see that the same aged babies they would let die at the hands of an abortionist are the same aged babies that they invest so much into saving?

Obama Abortion Ad a Lie

PolitiFact took a look at Obama’s recent abortion ad and rated it a liar, liar, “Pants on Fire.”

The ad says Mitt Romney "backed a bill that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest." The only problem is that they referenced a 2007 CNN GOP debate where the candidates were answering a hypothetical.

Questioner: Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?

Romney: I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states.  I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.

Anderson Cooper: The question is: Would you sign that bill?

Romney: Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.

So, in other words, the bill doesn’t exist.

From Politifact:  More recently, Romney has made clear that he supports the exception for rape and incest. In 2011, Romney explained his position on abortion in an op-ed in the National Review. It begins with "I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother."

Too bad.  It would be nice to see the Republicans nominate a pro-life candidate that didn’t discriminate against some children. 

In any case, the ad can’t really be described as “negative” or an “attack.” I actually think it will rally America’s pro-life majority who by all accounts are more enthusiastic about this election. Obama is doing some of the heavy lifting, resulting in pro-life turnout for Romney.

Mitt Romney's Confusing Abortion Mess

Justice Scalia on Abortion

I'm sure a lot of you have seen the recent Piers Morgan interview of Justice Scalia, but of particular importance is how his judicial philosophy applies to the recognition of the right to life of all human persons. So, for your viewing pleasure, the interview discussion of abortion, then a collection of clips from various public appearances.

This Pro-lifer Isn't Voting for Romney Yet...And It Isn't Because of Stericycle

Wait, before you scroll down to the comment section to set fires, this post has nothing to do with the now infamous remarks he made during the 1994 Senate campaign. On the contrary, I agree with you that we should take people at their word and welcome them into the pro-life fold. We win by winning people to the cause and setting them to work.

The problem, as I see it, is that every act pointed to as evidence of his 2004 pro-life conversion is followed by an act that puts a smile on Cecile Richard’s face. Chronological order will help to put the whole mess in perspective, so let’s start at the only fair place to begin--2004.

As the story goes, after talking to an expert in the field, Romney discovers that life begins at conception, and proceeds to promptly veto a bill that would give embryonic stem cell researchers the go-ahead to kill and harvest baby body parts for experimentation.

I’m not going to use this whole space to pick him apart. I’ll give him his props. It couldn’t have been an easy decision in Massachusetts, politically.

I get that he was likely “personally pro-life” throughout his life, teaching his kids not to murder their kids, or one another. There’s no way a guy suddenly wakes up during a non-abortion debate after witnessing decades of shredded baby pictures. So his conscience prevailed, and he couldn’t bring himself to think about explaining that signature on judgment day.

Ok, so it gets shady here. In the lead up, he tells reporters: "All of the rhetoric has been, 'We are throwing away embryos--surplus embryos--that could be used for stem-cell research and that makes no sense. ...And now, now that I've said, 'Ok, I support that,' now [the other side says], 'No, that's insufficient. How could you possibly limit it to that?' Well, that's what they've been asking for."[1]

The position that the IVF clinics should be allowed to funnel human beings to the mad scientists is not pro-life. Translation: it is not illegal, or even limited, because apparently there’s a never-ending supply of “yesterday’s leftovers” babies.

Later that year, in July, the crazies send a no age restrictions morning after pill bill to his desk.

LifeNews writes: “Continuing to try to raise up his pro-life credentials in advance of the 2008 presidential primaries, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will veto a bill that would have made the state the latest to allow women to get the morning after pill over the counter.”[2]

Still, facing a veto-proof leftist legislature, and with the movement continuing to question his motives, he does the right thing.

Cecile is probably pissed at this point. But he wins her back in December with an executive order forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense the baby-flushing drug. From LifeSiteNews:

In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue. 

The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives. 

Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities. 

The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.[3]

Since Governor Romney is so fond of allowing the courts to rule on all things abortion, why didn’t he just let them sort it out? He could have taken the position of the Health Department and let a red-faced Cecile sue.

Honestly, I don’t even want to get started on Romneycare. I think enough people understand that the national debate about taxpayer-funded abortion and violations of religious liberty happened on a smaller scale in Massachusetts in 2006. Sign away Governor.

Fast-forward to 2011.

Any respectable pro-life political candidate could sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge. In fact, they all did—everyone--even Red Eye regular Thad McCotter--even Pawlenty.

But not Mitt Romney. The man zipping his pen around anti-life executive orders and government run healthcare laws can’t bring himself to sign it?

Last June, he published his own version which begins by listing the babies who do not have a right to live: “I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”[4]

The SBA List asked the presidential candidates to commit “to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions.” Romney objected to the appointment provision: “The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government.”

The pro-life movement was up in arms when the Romney camp floated Condi Rice’s name around for VP last week, but can we be shocked? A pro-abortion VP would actually align with his official pro-life pledge.

Romney then forgoes the Personhood USA pledge, not a shocker following the SBA fiasco.

So far in the last year, Romney has skipped a Fox News televised pro-life forum with Huckabee and two national pro-life forums with Personhood USA--all perfect opportunities to prove his pro-lifeness.

In May, he finds time to drop by for a fundraiser at the home of morning after pill king and Teva Pharmaceuticals President Phil Frost.

MSNBC and the leftist blogosphere is trying to gin up controversy surrounding a 1999 investment by Bain Capital in Stericycle, the company that hauls away and burns to ashes most of the nation’s bloody abortion evidence. But I want to reiterate, we’re not interested because Romney wasn’t claiming to be pro-life yet.

Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW have all published their obligatory endorsements for the President, lying, and claiming that Romney supports “radical personhood laws.”

Personhood would respect, recognize, and restore the right to life of every unborn human being, a.k.a. the goal of the entire pro-life movement. If Cecile, Obama, and their friends are attempting to deflate us, all they have to do is highlight the fact that Romney hasn’t signed the personhood pledge, and would never support personhood, even if we got the green light from the Supreme Court.

What is a person? Why is killing wrong?

A Shameful Correlation: The truth about Fannie Lou Hamer

MSNBC contributor Melissa Harris-Perry’s utterance on television last fall equating the injustices of the Jim Crow era to the 2011 Mississippi ballot measure that would recognize all human beings as persons certainly garnered less attention than it deserved.  In attempting to make her case, the Tulane Political Science professor invoked the story of a horrific crime perpetrated against Mississippi Civil Rights hero Fannie Lou Hamer in 1961.

“She and many, many other poor African-American women, during the era of Jim Crow, were given what came to be called “Mississippi Appendectomies”—literally going in either for a childbirth or for other minor procedures and having their uteruses removed through hysterectomies that they had not consented to,“ said Harris-Perry.  “Now this is on the other side of that.  What’s happening now is Mississippi, once again, making a choice, as a state, as a government, to intervene in the reproductive life choices of women and of families in ways that will undoubtedly have dramatic and negative impact on women’s health.”[1]

What Harris-Perry failed to include in her remarks was that the compulsory sterilization policies were championed by the early eugenicists, and the eugenics movement has had no greater ally than it did in Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

In her “Plan for Peace,” promoted in speeches and published in the April 1932 issue of Birth Control Review, Sanger specified that her objective was “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted” and “to give certain dysgenic [genetically inferior] groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”  She concluded, “[M]illions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense--defending the unborn against their own disabilities.”[2]

In the October 1921 issue of Birth Control Review, Sanger agreed that eugenics was “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”[3]

History revisionists have a difficult time explaining away the “Negro Project.”  Sanger launched this undertaking in 1939 to foist the eugenics-based policies on the nation’s poor black communities. 

Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer recognized the tactics of the population control movement, and did not hesitate to appropriately identify them.

In This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer, author Kay Mills writes that Hamer’s position on abortion was “unequivocal.”  Hamer called the population controller’s methods “genocide.”  She is quoted saying, “I believe that legal abortion is legal murder.”

Hamer testified in 1973 that “God breathed life into [the unborn] just like he did into us.  And I think these children have a right to live.”[4]

As the youngest of 20 children, Hamer referred to her origins as a “narrow escape to be here.” She said, “[I]f you give them a chance, they might grow up to be Fannie Lou Hamer or something else.”[5]

Annie Devine, Fannie Lou Hamer and Rev. Ed King

Mississippi Civil Rights activist, retired United Methodist clergy, and personal friend of Fannie Lou Hamer, Rev. Edwin King, told an audience on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade that Hamer was responsible for shaping his strong pro-life convictions.  “Mrs. Hamer was the first person to make me start thinking,” he said. “She quickly realized that…this new so-called ‘right to abortion’ was wrong for everybody, black and white.  She was a new prophetic voice telling me and others that abortion is murder.”[6]
  
"Mrs. Hamer said to me that we should see the white racism in the legalization of abortion," recalls King.  "She said that whites had always tried to control blacks…now there were too many blacks in America, so this new genocide was the answer to the victories of the Civil Rights Movement."[7]

In 1962, just a year after the violation against Hamer, a bill in the Mississippi legislature would propose to open new Planned Parenthood facilities throughout the state and impose criminal penalties on parents of illegitimate children for failing to attend a mandatory family planning session.   A Civil Rights group deemed it the “planned parenthood bill” and noted that sterilization would have been “strongly advocated.”  Two years later, another bill proposed compulsory sterilization or a 3-5 year prison sentence for mothers of two or more illegitimate children.[8]

Careful to disassociate themselves from the legislation, former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society and Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher would tell Medical World News just a few years later in 1969: “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, and determine how it is to be employed.  At present, the means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion.  Perhaps someday a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible.”[9]

Rev. King relates how Hamer predicted the dramatic and negative effects of Sanger’s vision.  “You know, or can easily find, some of the dreadful statistics,” he continued. “American abortion rates have been dropping, but still the slaughter of the innocents continues, and there is a racial component.  In the nation, a black child in the womb is twice as likely to be killed as a white child.”[10]

In fact, today, abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community—higher than the next seven leading causes combined.[11]  Nearly 40% of black preborn babies’ lives are ended by surgical abortion.[12]

Clouded by the mantra of “choice,” many prefer to conclude that the abortion industry has severed ties with the eugenic schemes of Sanger, but consider the evidence.  A 2009 New York Times interview with sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she “thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly, growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.”[13]

It follows then that if Melissa Harris-Perry is earnestly seeking to draw an accurate correlation, she need not invent a link, and she need not look beyond Margaret Sanger’s discriminatory and racist promotion of compulsory sterilization and her lasting legacy of the modern-day abortion industry.  

California Civil Rights Foundation President Walter Hoye describes the Jim Crow era as “more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws.”

“It was a way of life.  Under Jim Crow, Black Americans were non-persons.  We were not entitled the rights and privileges of a Constitution,” he explains.  “Jim Crow was imposed, top-down, by corrupt public officials.  It represented both the legalization and legitimization of anti-Black racism in its ugliest form.”

Personhood, on the other hand, aims to correct today’s imbalance.  It is a movement of the people to recognize the inherent rights of all people of every race, gender, and age.  If Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer were here today, you can be sure she would be leading the charge.

“This is more than a Civil Rights Act, this is a human rights act.  This ought to be the act that brings white folks and black folks together and cut out this racism and bigotry—because it’s bigger than that!” - Mississippi Civil Rights Activist and Personhood Amendment Supporter Dr. John Perkins

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/ns/msnbc_tv-msnbc_tv/#45062564

[2] Sanger, Margaret. "My Way to Peace," 17 Jan. 1931. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=129036.xml

[3] Sanger, Margaret. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review Oct 1921. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml

[4] Mills, Kay. This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2007.

[5] This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer

[6] LeMasters, Eric. "United Methodist Ethicist Denounces Abortion." The Institute on Religion and Democracy 24 January 2011. http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1765

[7] Tooley, Mark. "Religiously Demanding Obamacare Abortion Funding." The American Spectator 25 January 2011. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/25/religiously-demanding-obamacar

[8] The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Genocide in Mississippi. Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University, 1964. http://larson.library.emory.edu/marbl/DigProjects/swh/images/Curry%20818/0818-053.pdf

[9] Chesterton, G.K. and Michael W. Perry. Eugenics and other evils: an argument against the scientifically organized state. Seattle: Inkling Books, 2000.

[10] LeMasters, Eric. "United Methodist Ethicist Denounces Abortion." The Institute on Religion and Democracy 24 January 2011. http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1765

[11] National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008.

[12] Abortion Surveillance Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5808a1.htm?s_cid=ss5808a1_e

[13] Bazelon, Emily. "The Place of Women on the Court." New York Times Magazine 7 July 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all