Month Archives: January 2013

I Can Make a Difference in One Life…

by FRC Media Office

January 23, 2013

This is the third video in a series that FRC has produced to help bring awareness to the different programs that pregnancy resource centers offer expectant mothers, who might not be prepared for their child’s birth. For more information on pregnancy resource centers, read our report, “A Passion to Serve.”

Jeanne Monahan to Speak at ProLifeCon

by Krystle Gabele

January 23, 2013

ProLifeCon is only four days away, and we have so many exciting speakers, who will no doubt empower online activists to bring awareness to the policies impacting the pro-life community in Washington.

We are very blessed to have Jeanne Monahan, President of March for Life as a speaker at this year’s ProLifeCon.  Jeanne is a former FRC colleague, who will be able to share her experiences advocating for the sanctity of human life at every stage from conception to natural death.  There is no doubt that Jeanne will also inspire and empower online activists, as they continue to advocate for life in their own communities.

Register today for ProLifeCon.   You do not want to miss out on the opportunity to network with other pro-life internet activists and policy leaders.  

Jason Jones to Speak at ProLifeCon

by Krystle Gabele

January 22, 2013

This year, ProLifeCon has many exciting speakers, and it is a great opportunity to hear from experts, who will educate you on emerging technologies to help spread the message, but make you aware of the issues impacting the pro-life community. 

We are excited that Jason Jones, who is the President and Founder of Movie to Movement, which ran the grassroots campaign for the documentary 2016: Obama’s America.  Additionally, Jason produced the short film, Crescendo, which also raises money for pregnancy resource centers.  Jason was also the co-executive producer for Bella, which was a great movie that brought awareness to the sanctity of human life.

There’s still room available to join this year’s ProLifeCon.  Register today, as you don’t want to miss out on the opportunities available from this event.

I Can Make A Difference in One Life…

by FRC Media Office

January 22, 2013

This is the second video in a series that FRC has produced to help bring awareness to the different programs that pregnancy resource centers offer expectant mothers, who might not be prepared for their child’s birth. For more information on pregnancy resource centers, read our report, “A Passion to Serve.”

Ask Them What They Mean By “Choice”: Does Planned Parenthood or NARAL Think Choice Eliminates Adoptions?

by Krystle Gabele

January 22, 2013

Recently, I wrote an article in response to a story in USA Today about prospective parents having a difficult time adopting children in the U.S.  While the article shed light that fewer children were available for adoption, it also brought a sad equation to the picture regarding the number of abortions performed each year by Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

On this “Ask Them What They Mean by Choice Day,” I thought it would be great to ask both Planned Parenthood and NARAL a question:  If you are in favor of “choice,” then why do you advocate for abortions?  You see, choice provides options.  While abortion is a grave option that kills an innocent life, there is another option for a woman who may not want to raise a child — one that would not harm innocent life.  This option would be to allow a woman to make a choice for life and allow the child to be raised by a loving adoptive family.

In 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) performed 333,964 abortions.   This number has climbed over the past year.  According to their recent report, 92 percent of pregnancy services (which includes adoption referrals, prenatal care, and abortion) were abortions, while adoption referrals accounted for only 0.6 percent. So, a woman is 145 times more likely to receive an abortion than an adoption referral (333,964 abortions were performed in 2011, but only 2,300 adoption referrals). PPFA continues to be one of the largest abortion providers in theUnited States, and for a group that positions itself as “pro-choice,” they seldom advocate for the choice of adoption.

Thankfully, there are alternatives to Planned Parenthood.  Many Pregnancy Resource Centers advocate for adoption or provide resources to those may want to raise their child.  Their work often goes unnoticed by the mainstream media.  FRC highlighted the works of Pregnancy Resource Centers in the report “A Passion to Serve.”  Within this report, there are stories of women who wanted to seek an abortion, only to change their mind upon receiving the support and resources available to either place their children up for adoption or to raise them.

Imagine if one of the 333,964 mothers would have brought her child into the world to be adopted by a loving family.  It would have been worth it to see a child thrive and experience life.  This is the choice that Planned Parenthood and NARAL neglects to advocate.

We Must Act: Inaugural Address Falls Flat

by Robert Morrison

January 22, 2013

I was fourteen when I attended a family wedding. The morning after, I snuck into the reception area and took a sip of the champagne from the previous night’s revelry. It was warm and flat. It almost ruined my taste for the bubbly for the rest of my life.

And that’s how I felt about President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address. The Washington Post trumpeted the hortatory line We Must Act as if it was holy writ. Well, they had to write something in that pompous headline.

I remember Lyndon B. Johnson’s three-worder addressing a joint session of Congress after JFK was assassinated: “Let us contin-ya.” OK. What did we expect him to say? “I’m going to abandon all of John Kennedy’s policies”?

President Obama’s First Inaugural Address was witnessed by 1.8 million people on the National Mall in 2009. It was doubtless an historic occasion. But what did he say then? We struggle to recall a single memorable line. I looked this one up:

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

Is this what Chris Matthews considers Lincolnesque? Try this for Lincolnesque:

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

This was Lincoln’s State of the Union Message to Congress of December 1, 1862, now just 150 years past. Lincoln did not deliver this address in person; a clerk in Congress probably droned on.

But the words of President Lincoln have life, power, and purpose a century and a half later. Lincoln did not graduate from Columbia or Harvard Law School. Maybe that’s why he was such a powerful orator and rhetorician.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was an avid reader of Shakespeare. He knew long passages from the Bard by heart. We can hear echoes of Shakespeare’s mastery of language in many of Lincoln’s writings.

Yesterday was also the federal holiday dedicated to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

His famous 1963 “I have a dream” speech certainly inspired millions of Obama voters in 2008 and 2012. But that speech appealed to Americans of all races and political opinions when it was delivered. It reached out from “the red hills of Georgia” the mountaintops of New York, California and the Rockies. It was a generous, embracing speech, joining Americans together in a common affirmation of our founding ideals.

We are told over and over again that President Obama’s every act is historic. Well, yes.

We probably never had a president chew gum at his Inaugural Parade before (although I won’t vouch for Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson’s not chewing tobacco at his.)

Still, it’s hard to do something historic without saying something memorable. At Normandy in 2009, President Obama “hovered over the nations like a sort of god,” enthused Newsweek editor Evan Thomas. Okay, Mr. Thomas, so what did this sort of god say there? Even his most bedazzled admirers cannot tell you.

I remember Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Boys of Pointe du Hoc” speech at Normandy as if it were yesterday. He pointed to the grizzled veterans seated before him and praised them for liberating a continent, for “leaving the vivid air signed with their honor.”

Presidents are judged by their words. We carve them in stone. We expect a president to offer us something better, finer, loftier than the humdrum of day-to-day utterance. This Inaugural Address sounded like a campaign potboiler, a harangue to gin up the base. There was not a word in it to appeal to me.

Mitt Romney was rightly criticized for referring to the “47-percenters”—those Americans he claimed were receiving or had received some form of payment from the federal government. It is hard to imagine how you could ever unite the country when you dismiss nearly one-half of it.

But yesterday’s Inaugural Address was just as narrowly partisan, just as dismissive. President Obama was saying: We won, you 48-percenters, so stand by for another round of liberal hope and change that will leave you gasping for air. We must act; you will be acted upon.

May I offer a suggestion to President Obama with all respect? Read Abraham Lincoln’s Bible. Read it daily. Millions of us revere the Bible as the Word of God, but even if you don’t believe that, the King James Version of the Bible gives us a style and a resonance that has never been equaled. In it, you might even read about what pride goeth before.

January 22, 1973: The Wound in America’s Soul

by Robert Morrison

January 22, 2013

President Reagan said it well: “abortion is a wound in America’s soul.” He said that in his State of the Union Address (1986). He was the first and, alas, the last president to speak thus of this terrible wound. I remember that speech well. It thrilled me to hear the president I served speak so tenderly, so sincerely of this momentous issue.

President Reagan knew that millions of Americans tune out to politics. But if they pay attention to anything in the year, it’s likely to be the State of the Union Address, or the Inauguration. So he used these high state occasions to appeal to Americans’ consciences. He attacked no one. He condemned no one. But he spoke the truths that we all know.

The late Arlen Spector called the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) a “super precedent.”

Whatever that means, it suggests that the Court’s diktat must be irreversible. Precedents of the Court, after all, are overruled every session. Spector might have agreed with radical Lawrence Lader.

This co-founder of NARAL wrote that “abortion is central to everything in life and how we want to live it.” Lader understood that the sexual revolution required some sacrifice. And the sacrifice of millions of unborn children was preferable to any limits on the sexual license he and his followers demanded.

Perhaps even worse than the vacuous opinion of Harry Blackmun in Roe was the plurality opinion of the Supreme Court nearly twenty years and thirty million lives later. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court poured salt into the wound Roe had inflicted. The three-judge plurality wrote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Justice Antonin Scalia is right to ridicule this as “the sweet mystery of life” passage. Has there ever been a sillier notion jumped-up and paraded as constitutional dogma? Of course we can define the mystery of human life for ourselves. But has that ever been understood to imply a right to take lethal action against others based on our self-defined right? You may have liberty to define yourself as the new Emperor Napoleon, but if you undertake to invade Russia in winter, you might just be restrained.

Reaffirming Roe in Casey, the Court ordered us all to pipe down and obey. Later that year, Bill Clinton was elected president. Columnist Charles Krauthammer, ordinarily a wise man, pronounced the pro-life movement dead. Political contention over abortion was over, he intoned.

Not so fast. For the past twenty years, the conflict over abortion has intensified, if anything. Even Hillary Clinton was led to say abortion is “wrong.” (Newsweek, October 31, 1994). She was then trying desperately to save the Democratic majority in Congress. It didn’t work. Since that time, of course, she has spared no effort to advance this wrong thing at home and around the world.

Feminist Naomi Wolf conceded that the pro-choice side had failed to consider the spiritual side of abortion. She quoted her friends being pursued by “the baby furies.” And recently, in TIME Magazine, no less, Joe Klein noted that “sonograms have made it impossible to deny that that thing in the womb is a human being.”

Abortion was wrong for Hippocrates before the Christian era. This pagan philosopher knew that the direct taking of innocent life was and always will be wrong. It violates the natural law that is said to be written on the hearts of men. Thucydides anguished over his beloved Athens and its democratic decision to destroy unoffending Melos. He knew this homicidal act would stain Athens’ memory to the latest generation.

Abortion contradicts our founding documents and perverts our understanding of them. Lincoln described the Founders’ basic premise: It was their enlightened belief that “nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon and imbruted.”

Roe and its progeny violate the fundamental precepts of the great religions. Those who claim to be a religious coalition for abortion rights must answer a basic question: Shall we do unto others that which we would never wish to be done unto us?

Nothing in modern American life has been so destructive of our Union as Roe. Governments are instituted among men to secure our inalienable, God-given rights. By making government a party to the destruction of human life, we undermine the very reason for its existence. Fifty state laws were overturned by Roe. In every one of those state laws, the abortion provisions were a part of the homicide code. The authors of those laws knew something about government and human life that the moral relativists of the 1970s and today blandly refuse to acknowledge.

On this dread fortieth anniversary of infamous Roe v. Wade, I remember Marilyn, our church organist. Marilyn was as apolitical as you can get. She led the children’s choir and gave us many a beautiful Christmas program of angelic voices. After Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, she told me she and her children had stayed up all night—weeping.That’s because she and her husband had adopted these wonderful kids. She knew that the election of a pro-abortion president would mean no good for America’s future. I couldn’t agree more.

Identifying Your Name Using Your DNA

by David Prentice

January 18, 2013

We usually think of DNA carrying the secrets of our biological life, including health and potential disease. But now scientists have used DNA sequences to determine identities.

It’s not that your name is written in the DNA letters that make up the coding sequence of your genome. Rather, the researchers were able to make the connection between a person’s DNA sequence and their name by connecting information in public internet databases. There are a growing number of scientific studies where people submit their DNA for analysis of the genetic information and its relationship to various health conditions, genetic traits, ethnic studies, and population tracking. The DNA is usually submitted for the analyses and then identifiers are removed from any published information. People are usually told as part of informed consent that no personally identifying information will be included. Dr. Yaniv Erlich and colleagues at the Whitehead Institute published a paper in the journal Science showing that they could use genetic information published anonymously, and then use online genealogy databases to determine the identities, including surnames, of almost 50 people who had participated in the genetic studies. Dr. Erlich said that with the type of genetic information they used:

“It only takes one male. With one male, we can find even distant relatives.”

The database search relies entirely on free, publicly accessible Internet resources. The discovery of this privacy loophole in keeping DNA donors anonymous has caused concern especially in the research community. When Erlich and his colleagues found that they could uncover the personal identity of the DNA donors, they contacted the National Institutes of Health to alert them to the problem.

In the news story in Science, Laura Rodriguez, Director of policy, communications, and education for the National Human Genome Research Institute, said that federal law prohibits health insurance companies from using a person’s genetic data, but many people worry that the law does not go far enough, and that there is nothing stopping companies from using genetic data to determine policies for life insurance and long-term disability care. Rodriguez co-authored an accompanying policy article that discussed the need to address concerns about genetic privacy without dampening the sharing of research results.

The federal law she references is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), signed into law in 2008.

Dr. Russell Moore to Speak at ProLifeCon

by Krystle Gabele

January 18, 2013

This year’s ProLifeCon promises to be another exciting time to unite pro-life activists from across the country to become active online and bring awareness to the sanctity of life.  We have an exciting line-up of speakers, who will not only educate you on emerging technologies to help spread the message, but make you aware of the issues impacting the pro-life community in 2013.

We are grateful to have Dr. Russell Moore, Dean of the Schoolof Theologyand Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as a speaker at this year’s ProLifeCon.  Dr. Moore also writes on his personal website, Moore to the Point, and his engaging articles on religion, culture, and adoption have inspired many readers along the way.  He is also the author of several books, including Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ, Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches, and The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective.

Dr. Moore lives in Louisville,Ky. with his wife, Maria and their five sons, two of which were adopted from Russia.  There is no doubt that his vast experience with adoption will inspire you.

You don’t want to miss ProLifeCon, as there are many more exciting speakers who will be featured throughout the week.  Click here to register today and learn how you can spread the pro-life message to others.

Reps. Trent Franks and Diane Black to Speak at ProLifeCon

by Krystle Gabele

January 18, 2013

It is hard to believe that ProLifeCon is only four days away.  We are blessed to have so many amazing speakers on the lineup this year, as one of the goals is to empower online activists to bring awareness to the policies impacting the pro-life community in Washington.

We are excited to have Rep. Trent Franks from Arizona as one of our speakers.  Rep. Franks has spent most of his life working on children’s issues and trying to build a better future for all children. Whether as a Representative in the Arizona State Legislature, Executive Director of Arizona Family Research Institute, or later as the Director of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Rep. Franks has worked passionately in an effort to protect the human life at every stage, including the unborn.  Now a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, Rep. Franks remains committed to protecting the innocent. He is the author and sponsor of numerous pieces of pro-life legislation, including the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (or PRENDA), the only bill in the history of the United States Congress to address the problem of sex and race targeted abortions. Rep. Franks is currently serving his sixth term as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Diane Black from Tennessee will also be speaking at ProLifeCon.  Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, Rep. Black has been fighting for the rights of the unborn, building off her work when she served in the Tennessee Legislature.  Rep. Black’s first piece of legislation, HConRes 36, would have prevented Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding, and she has also co-sponsored legislation that would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit abortion funding in the new health care law.

December 2012 «

» February 2013

Archives