Category archives: Abortion

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

by Worth Loving

February 10, 2020

Recently, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest (R-N.C.) came under fire for comments he made regarding Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger. Speaking to an MLK Day breakfast at Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, Forest said this: “There is no doubt that when Planned Parenthood was created, it was created to destroy the entire black race. That was the purpose of Planned Parenthood. That’s the truth.” Forest later defended his comments to McClatchy News: “The facts speak for themselves. Since 1973, 19 million black babies have been aborted, mostly by Planned Parenthood. I care too much about the lives of these babies to debate the intent of Sanger’s views when the devastation she brought into this world is obvious.”

Margaret Sanger, her sister, Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York on October 16, 1916. The clinic was later raided by the NYPD, and all three women were arrested and charged with violating the Comstock Act for distributing obscene materials. After laws governing birth control were relaxed, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

While Lieutenant Governor Forest was attacked by many on the Left for pushing an uneducated, insensitive agenda, history backs him up. The fact is that Margaret Sanger strongly believed the Aryan race to be superior and that it must be purified, a view that finds its roots from Charles Darwin’s defense of evolution in The Origin of Species. Darwin argued that a process of “natural selection” favored the white race over all other “lesser races.” Sanger advocated for eugenics by calling for abortion and birth control among the “unfit” to produce a master race, a race consisting solely of wealthy, educated whites. Sanger said she believed blacks were “human weeds” that needed to be exterminated. She also referred to immigrants, African Americans, and poor people as “reckless breeders” and “spawning…human beings who never should have been born.”

Sanger once wrote “that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” In an effort to sell her birth control and abortion proposals to the black community, Sanger said: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” In 1926, Sanger was also the featured speaker at a women’s auxiliary meeting of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.

Sanger opened her clinics in largely minority neighborhoods because she believed immigrants and the working class were inferior and needed their population controlled so as to purify the human race. That trend continues today where almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. In fact, although only 13 percent of American women are black, over 35 percent of all black babies are aborted in the United States every year. Abortion is the leading cause of death for blacks in the United States. According to Students for Life of America, “more African-Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.” Black babies are about five times more likely to be aborted than whites. On Halloween in 2017, Planned Parenthood’s “Black Community” Twitter account tweeted: “If you’re a Black woman in America, it’s statistically safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term or give birth.”

While Margaret Sanger tried to portray Planned Parenthood as a merciful organization that helps needy families, the facts speak for themselves. In her testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September 2015, former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards openly admitted that over 80 percent of her organization’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions and not basic health care for poor or disadvantaged women. When you dive deeper, well over 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions.

Despite this sordid history, Margaret Sanger is almost universally recognized as a pioneer for women’s rights rather than the racist she actually was. When accepting Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she “admired Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…I am really in awe of her.” Those like Hillary Clinton are ignoring the explicitly racist statements that Margaret Sanger made throughout her life. The fact is that Sanger normalized birth control and abortion in the United States as a means to accomplish eugenics. Her ultimate goal was to eliminate non-white races, people with sickness or disabilities, children born to felons, the poor, and immigrants, to name a few.

Margaret Sanger is no heroine, and Planned Parenthood is not some merciful health care provider as the Left paints it to be. Margaret Sanger repeatedly stated her racist intentions for the whole world to see and hear, and Planned Parenthood was and still is the manifestation of those racist ideologies. America was founded on the idea that no matter your race, creed, national origin, disability, or station in life, everyone who comes here or is born here has the opportunity to live a successful, fulfilling life. Margaret Sanger didn’t believe that.

As pro-life activists, we must do our part to expose Margaret Sanger for who she really was. We must also expose the racist history of Planned Parenthood and how that history is still relevant today. For more information on Margaret Sanger and the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, check out these FRC resources: Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman and The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death.

Virginia Is Trying to Make Abortion Less Safe and Keep Women in the Dark

by Blake Elliott

February 6, 2020

The Virginia General Assembly is considering legislation to expand abortion access and repeal life-saving pro-life laws. Radical pro-abortion legislators have been advocating for expanded access to abortion in the fear that Roe v. Wade will soon be overturned. After pro-abortion Democrats gained control of the Virginia General Assembly, they wasted little time in targeting the state’s pro-life laws.

On January 28, 2020, Virginia’s House of Delegates passed House Bill 980, a bill which expands the list of medical professionals who can commit abortions during the first trimester to include physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified midwives. This bill also removes the 24-hour waiting period requirement, a requirement that women seeking abortions be given an opportunity to view an ultrasound, and a requirement that medically accurate information regarding the procedure be provided to the woman seeking an abortion.

Not to be outdone by the Virginia House of Delegates last week, the Virginia State Senate passed a companion bill, Senate Bill 733. State Senator Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond) described the urgency of passing these bills by arguing that existing pro-life laws somehow inhibit women from controlling their bodies and easily ending the baby’s life.

The sad reality is that these bills will do more than expand abortion—they will actually make the procedure even more dangerous. By eliminating the ultrasound requirement, abortions will become more unsafe by removing the crucial step of allowing the physician to clearly see the unborn child in the womb. Furthermore, repealing the requirement that the woman be given medically accurate information opens the door to women being denied critical information about their pregnancies.

In addition, the dangers that come with these bills allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified midwives the ability to commit abortions that they have not been trained to do cannot be ignored. One would think that the Democratic party, who claims to be “pro-woman” and is promoting these bills in the name of “women’s health,” would want certified physicians with training to be the ones committing the abortion, but that is not the case. Instead, they treat abortion as if it were a minor procedure. State Senator Stephen Newman (R-Bedford) emphasized this when he pointed out how “there is no other procedure we deal with that ends the life of another person.” It is crucial that we remember that these procedures don’t just simply kill the baby—they can also be dangerous for the woman.

For pro-lifers, these bills amount to an egregious effort to repeal major pro-life laws on the books in Virginia which have saved countless lives. Delegate Margaret Ransone (R-Westmoreland) gave a powerful testimony in the House as she described the need for these pro-life laws and the dangers of repealing them. She pointed out that no matter what the circumstance is around the pregnancy, a woman seeking abortion deserves information about what will happen during an abortion. Abortions are incredibly traumatic procedures, and women deserve to be given access to as much information as possible about them.

Delegate Ransone described one abortion provider’s description of a chemical abortion, which read similarly to Planned Parenthood’s website. Planned Parenthood describes chemical abortions and how the woman will cramp and bleed tremendously and release “large clumps of tissue.” Not surprisingly, they fail to mention that these large clumps of tissue are actually the unborn child. Wouldn’t one think that a woman would want to be fully informed about a chemical abortion (which is in reality an in-home, do-it-yourself abortion) and the trauma that will come with it? Delegate Kathy Byron (R-Bedford) described House Bill 980 as being “so lax, so casual, that anyone, at any time, almost anywhere can have an abortion performed by just about anybody.” If pro-abortion Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly cared about “reproductive health,” then why do they support deregulating an industry that has hurt women?

Only one Democrat, Delegate Patrick Hope (D-Arlington), spoke on the House floor in favor of House Bill 980. Delegate Hope said that the issue was personal for him because he has three daughters, and he wants his daughters to be able to make their own reproductive health decisions—without all the information necessary to make that decision, apparently. He demanded that his colleagues support this legislation to roll back “medically unnecessary” restrictions on their health care. Delegate Hope apparently believes allowing women access to medical information regarding an abortion somehow “restricts” their health care. What was missing from his comments was any sort of awareness that his daughters, and women in Virginia, will not be able to make the best decision for themselves if they are not given the best possible information.

It is incredibly sad that the Virginia General Assembly decided to pass HB 980 and SB 733. Pro-abortion Democrats value the bottom line of the abortion industry over women’s health. Denying women the ability to access information regarding abortion doesn’t advance women’s health, it hurts it—and it will inevitably lead to more aborted children. It is important that Virginians wake up and see what is happening in their state. Democrats are doing the bidding of the abortion industry, which is further cheapening life and keeping women in the dark.

Fetal Dignity Laws: Respecting the Life That Was Lost

by Blake Elliott

January 29, 2020

There is an urgent need in the United States to institute laws that protect fetal remains in order to protect the dignity of unborn children. This should not be a controversial issue. Yet abortion suppliers such as Planned Parenthood oppose efforts to protect fetal dignity because it would impact their money-making fetal body parts trade.

Abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths are tragic in their own right, but it is also a tragedy that abortion suppliers are able to sell or dispose of the fetal remains like a piece of trash in certain states while making a profit off of the fetal remains in others. This state of affairs has undoubtedly contributed to an environment where people like Dr. Kermit Gosnell stored fetuses in bags and bottles throughout his office or the disturbing case of the deceased Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, who had 2,246 fetal remains stored in a garage at his home.

In response, FRC has compiled a fetal dignity map which highlights each state’s fetal dignity laws, allowing individuals throughout the country to see just how much work needs to be done in their state in order to respect fetal remains.

Pennsylvania’s House Bill 1890 is a prime example of a fetal dignity bill that should be supported by all, but pro-abortion politicians still find a way to oppose it. This bill requires abortionists to cremate or bury the remains of babies they abort, unless the mother decides they want the remains buried in a place other than the customary health care provider’s location. In this case, the mother would be responsible for the burial or cremation and the cost associated with it. This bill offers a humane response to aborted fetal remains by requiring the burial or cremation of the remains instead of allowing them to be sold, harvested, or used for research.

However, state representatives such as Mary Isaacson, a Democrat representing Philadelphia, oppose this bill by claiming it “harasses abortion providers.” It is evident that Democrats are more concerned with the ability of abortion suppliers to make a profit than they are with women’s health care and the life that was lost.

There is a solid case for Republicans to make in support of fetal dignity laws. For one, the fetal remains would not be allowed to be sold for profit by abortion facilities to make money and continue to grow their business and would instead be required to be buried with dignity.

It also allows for families to grieve properly through the devastation that comes with losing a child to miscarriage. FRC’s Katherine Johnson put it perfectly in her latest analysis: “Women who have miscarriages should be able to receive death certificates that provide validation and dignity to the loss of their children.” Women receiving a death certificate after a miscarriage is an aspect that is often forgotten when discussing fetal dignity laws. It is important that states acknowledge that when a miscarriage happens, a woman and her family has indeed lost a child. Perhaps because of this, not all Democrats are against fetal dignity laws. In fact, 15 Democratic Pennsylvania representatives joined Republicans in supporting the recent PA HB 1890. In a polarized political environment like the one that exists now, this points towards how sensible these fetal dignity laws are. This recent bill is a positive step in the right direction in ensuring that all fetal remains are treated with the respect that every person deserves.

Every deceased human deserves to be treated with respect, including unborn children who unfortunately never had the opportunity to take their first breath. It is truly saddening that abortion suppliers like Planned Parenthood can get away with claiming to help women when in reality they are using women and their babies to make a profit. There is no reason that abortion suppliers should be allowed to dispose of fetal remains like normal people dispose of their trash.

Hopefully, states will follow the Pennsylvania legislature’s lead to ensure that all fetal remains are treated with dignity and all families are given this right to properly bury or cremate their child. Make sure to check out our new fetal dignity map to see if your state protects the dignity of all fetal remains.

For Every Christian, Being Pro-Life Must Become a Way of Life

by Adelaide Holmes

January 27, 2020

Many Christians today are missing from the fight to end abortion, and the pro-life movement needs their help.

Instead of joining the political or cultural efforts to fight abortion, many pro-life Christians leave the work for the pro-life leaders in these arenas. There are two primary fronts in the battle, and Christians are needed in both. Abortion will continue to be legal and culturally acceptable as long as Christians fail to do their part and leave the bulk of the work to larger, interest-based organizations. 

There are many pro-life organizations in D.C. and around the country that are dedicated to making abortion illegal and socially unacceptable. Family Research Council, as well as other pro-life political action groups such as Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life Committee, and Americans United for Life are effective and passionate about changing the political landscape.  

But this won’t be enough to end legal abortion in America.

While the political fight is crucially important to ensuring justice for the preborn, there’s work to be done in the culture as well. Countless groups exist with this focus. Life Training Institute and Equal Rights Institute have top-notch speakers and apologists who train pro-lifers all over the country in conversational apologetics. National groups like Students for Life of America or state groups like Protect Life Michigan exist to equip high school and college pro-life clubs to host effective outreach and start dialogues with young minds who might be open to the pro-life argument. And groups like Live Action and The Radiance Foundation educate the public through digital media on the reality of what abortion does to its victims. 

But this still isn’t enough to make abortion culturally appalling.   

Sixty-two percent of Americans between the ages of 18-29 still identify as pro-choice. About one million abortions are committed every year. It’s not for a lack of groups dedicated to bringing a legal end to abortion. It’s not for a lack of organizations devoted to informing the culture about the inhumane injustice of abortion. The problem is that too many Christians are leaving them all the work. If more Christians don’t join in the fight, we won’t see an end to this injustice. 

Pursuing justice for the unborn is not simply a job for special interest groups. Pursuing justice is a duty that God has placed on all of us as Christians. The prophet Micah reminds us that acting justly is a requirement of God for mankind. Micah 6:8 says, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Not only that, but we are commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31).

The unborn are our youngest and most vulnerable neighbors. Christians have a God-given duty to love their neighbor and to act justly by them. We cannot ignore this duty by leaving the work of advocating for the unborn to pro-life organizations. We must join them in the fight, and we can do this by simply living out our faith.  

Christians need to start acting like being pro-life is more than a check you write in the mail to your favorite organization or more than a vote for the pro-life candidate. Being truly pro-life must be a way of life. Not everyone’s contribution will look the same, but abortion won’t become illegal, much less unthinkable, until every Christian starts loving their preborn neighbor in practical ways.

Here are several possibilities:

  • Offering sidewalk counseling at abortion facilities
  • Praying in front of abortion facilities
  • Contacting your representatives and senators
  • Signing and circulating pro-life petitions
  • Volunteering your time and resources to help pregnancy care centers
  • Consider opening your home up to pregnant women who need support
  • Consider adopting a baby in need
  • Marching for life in D.C.
  • Reading a pro-life apologetics book and learning to articulate why you’re pro-life
  • Sharing that training with your fellow church members, friends at school, or your own family
  • Sharing why you believe the preborn are valuable human persons with someone who disagrees with you

These are some of the ways we can love our preborn neighbor and seek justice on their behalf. Until every Christian starts to live out his call to love his preborn neighbor, the political and cultural pro-life organizations won’t be enough to turn the tide on abortion. They can’t do it on their own. They need our help.

Pastors and churches play a central role in this mission. We need pastors to teach on how every human being, regardless of size, is made in the image of God. We need youth groups to host apologetics trainings and do outreach in the community. We need churches to equip their congregation to dialogue with their pro-choice friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers.

It’s time for every pro-lifer to be the hands and feet of Jesus. It’s time for all of us to love the preborn as we love ourselves. It’s time for us to defend and protect the rights of these tiny humans the way that we would want our rights defended. It’s time that we become willing to love them as we would our own children. Until we do, there won’t be lasting change toward a culture of life in America. 

Adelaide Holmes is an intern for Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy at Family Research Council.

The Plea

by Judy Lamberson Smith

January 22, 2020

*Editor’s note: This poem was written by Judy Lamberson Smith of Lakeland, Florida. It is reprinted here with permission.

All I want is a chance
To see what I might become.
To run barefoot in the grass
Feeling the warmth of the sun.

All I want is a chance
To learn to read and write,
Gaze at a starry sky,
And try to fly a kite.

All I want is a chance
To see how tall I will grow,
Pet a pup, pick a flower,
Play in newly fallen snow.

All I want is a chance
To see how far I can go in school,
Make friends, sing a song,
And learn the Golden Rule.

But I didn’t get that chance.
It all ended one day.
Don’t know why or how,
PAIN
And then I went away.

You see, I died before I was born.
Did anybody cry for me or mourn?
There were so many things to see and do.
Above all…
To know your love,
And to show my love for you.

All I wanted was a chance!

California’s Newsom Prioritizes Animal’s Lives Over Babies

by Blake Elliott

January 17, 2020

CC Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr, cropped

Recently, The Sacramento Bee reported that California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced his plan to end animal euthanasia in California, making California a “no-kill state.” The governor’s plan calls for the allocation of $50 million dollars to “achieve the state’s policy goal that no adoptable or treatable dog or cat should be euthanized.”

While ending the practice of euthanizing unwanted or stray animals is indeed a laudable goal, for pro-lifers the hypocrisy of Governor Newsom is hard to miss. While claiming California will become a “no-kill” state for stray or unwanted dogs and cats, Governor Newsom has done nothing to alleviate the elimination of the most innocent and vulnerable Californians: the unborn.

Governor Newsom campaigned on legislation to convert student health clinics on California public university campuses into dispensaries for chemical abortion drugs. The legislature obliged, and he signed into law California Senate Bill 24. This legislation will only add to the tragically high number of abortions in the state. Last year, there were 132,680 abortions in California alone, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. Rather than being concerned with human life, Governor Newsom is more concerned with expanding abortion rights.

California is undoubtedly one of the more progressive states when it comes to the abortion issue. In fact, there are virtually no restrictions on abortions in California. The state currently adheres to a “viability” standard (the point at which it is generally understood a child can survive outside of the womb with or without the assistance of life support systems) which allows limitless abortion prior to a physician deeming a child in the womb is “viable.” After viability, the state restricts abortion to those instances in which a woman’s life or “health” are threatened. This “health” exception is vague and undefined in state law. In fact, courts have determined that “health” can mean anything. It can mean “familial,” “emotional,” or “mental” health. For all intents and purposes, it means a woman can obtain an abortion up to birth in California.

Newsom has openly boasted about how few restrictions there are on abortion in his state. He even boasted about how proud he was of his state for expanding access and “removing barriers to reproductive health,” as if there were extreme barriers in place to begin with. Newsom makes it no secret that he is pro-abortion and is proud that California leads the United States in the number of abortions performed per year. In May of 2019, he even invited women from across the country and globe to come to California to have their abortion procedure.

Governor Newsom’s hypocrisy continues to be evident as he wants to spend $50 million dollars on an initiative to protect animals while also advocating for and promoting the destruction of the most defenseless and delicate humans in his state: unborn children. Governor Newsom even doubled the investment into reproductive health in his most recent budget proposal, hitting a record $100 million dollars of matching federal funding, which according to Newsom will provide millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Newsom is a prime example of just how blind the pro-abortion Left is to the simple logic of the pro-life movement. If Newsom doesn’t see the hypocrisy of his support for eliminating animal euthanasia while also expanding abortion rights, then it makes you wonder just how far the pro-abortion Left can go in furthering their radical ideas while turning a blind eye to the atrocity of abortion that is happening right in front of them.

Since 2000, 3,429,978 babies have lost their lives in abortion facilities in California. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that while California might soon become the newest “no-kill state,” they continue to cement themselves as a “kill-state” of unborn children.

Blake Elliott is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

Michelle Williams Chose a Career Over a Child. But What If She Never Had to Choose?

by Laura Grossberndt

January 8, 2020

Michelle Williams made headlines with her acceptance speech at this year’s Golden Globe Awards. After accepting her prize for best performance by an actress in a limited series or motion picture made for television, Williams said she is “grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists.” She went on to declare that the award—and her career—would not have been possible “without employing a woman’s right to choose.”

When you put this [award] in someone’s hands, you’re acknowledging the choices that they make as an actor, moment by moment, scene by scene, day by day, but you’re also acknowledging the choices they make as a person, the education they pursued, the training they sought, the hours they put in.

I’m grateful for the acknowledgment of the choices I’ve made, and I’m also grateful to have lived at a moment in our society where choice exists because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice. I’ve tried my very best to live a life of my own making and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I can stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over—sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise, but one that I carved with my own hand. I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose. To choose when to have my children and with whom. When I felt supported and able to balance our lives knowing as all mothers know that the scales must and will tip towards our children.

Williams may feel gratitude for the choices afforded to her, but she shouldn’t have even had to choose between career and children if she didn’t want to.

For many women, pregnancy can feel like a career death sentence, with the potential to jeopardize their self-identity, education, training, and hard work. Meanwhile, their male peers rarely must choose between having children and a career. Working women everywhere are justified to feel dismayed at this imbalance. But the alleged solution, that of “a woman’s right to choose,” is not as egalitarian and empowering as its proponents claim.

When we talk about a woman’s “right to choose,” rarely do we discuss what exactly is she choosing between—and why she can’t have both.

Consider the story of Susan Struck. She wanted to keep both her pregnancy and her job in the Air Force. But military regulations at the time said she couldn’t have both. Struck wanted to choose childbirth and place her child for adoption, but her superiors would not allow Struck to keep her job unless she got an abortion. This shouldn’t have been a choice Struck had to make. But in 1970, it was. Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized the injustice of this choice and took up the case on Struck’s behalf. Ginsburg noted years later:

It was, I thought, the perfect first reproductive-choice case to come before the Court. The government was telling Captain Struck, ‘You cannot exercise your choice for childbirth unless you give up your chosen career.’ She had the choice of leaving the service or having an abortion, available to her on the military base pre-Roe v. Wade. She became pregnant in 1970, if I recall correctly. Susan Struck’s position was, […] ‘[The Air Force] cannot force me to give up my career if I make the choice for childbirth.’

She further commented:

Susan Struck was told by her commanding officer you have a choice: you can get an abortion or you can leave the service, because pregnancy was an automatic ground for discharge. Susan Struck said, I am Catholic. I will not have an abortion. But I will use only my accumulated leave time, I have made arrangements for adoption of the child. Nonetheless, her choice was, you get an abortion or you get out. That’s the reproductive choice case I wish had come to the Supreme Court first.

After becoming a Supreme Court Justice, Ginsburg reflected on her legal career and credited motherhood as a reason for her own success, rather than a hindrance:

When I started law school my daughter Jane was 14 months … I attributed my success in law school largely to Jane … I went to class at 8:30 AM … so I came home at 4:00 PM; that was children’s hour. It was a total break in my day … and children’s hours continued until Jane went to sleep. Then I was happy to go back to the books, so I felt each part of my life gave me respite from the other.

If Michelle Williams and other actresses like her think they need to have abortions to keep the careers they’ve worked so hard for, then it’s a somber indication of the cost of doing business in Hollywood. However, it shouldn’t be surprising. You don’t have to look any further than the #MeToo Movement to know that Hollywood has a long, ugly history of mistreating and exploiting women.

The lesson of #MeToo has been lost on Hollywood. Instead of making the entertainment industry more accommodating and respectful of women, it still demands its actresses submit and conform to a status quo shaped by and better suited to men. If Hollywood truly respected women, it wouldn’t exploit them as often as it stands accused of doing. If Hollywood truly respected women, it would value the children and families of its women. Instead, Hollywood insists that female bodies must perform like male bodies, leading its women to believe that they must choose between giving life to their children and having a career with which to support themselves. And after the women choose the career, Hollywood stands and applauds when these same women confess on awards stages to aborting their unborn children.

In her speech, Williams said she sought to carve out a life for herself with her own hand. But is that really what happened? Or is Hollywood’s handwriting all over her story? The scales may have tipped towards Williams’ children now, but not before Hollywood insisted that they tip towards her career first.

In addition, Williams said she felt ready to have a child when she “felt supported and able to balance our lives.” But what if Williams—and women everywhere—never had to worry about feeling supported? What if she knew her employer, family, friends, and community would be on her side and wouldn’t force her to choose? What if she knew there were health clinics and adoption agencies ready to help her should she need them (and there are)? Would she still think her abortion was necessary for her success?

Scientific advancements make an increasingly overwhelming case for life in the womb. The pro-abortion lobby is losing on that front, so they have fallen back on the argument for women’s autonomy. No woman should be robbed of her life choices and career opportunities, they say. But this is simultaneously a false and an unjust choice.

Why pit a woman against her children? Instead of expecting a woman to end her unborn child’s life for the sake of a career, we should make it easier for a woman to have both the child and the career (with which to support herself and her child). The most empowering thing for a woman is not “choice,” but instead not needing to choose at all—because she can have both.

FRC’s Top 5 Blogs of the Year

by Family Research Council

December 31, 2019

In the Year of Our Lord 2019, FRC’s blog covered a wide range of topics that have impacted the sanctity of life, the family, religious freedom, and the culture here in America and across the globe. Listed below are the five blogs that received the biggest response from you, our readers, as well as some other honorable mentions. Thank you for reading our blog! We greatly appreciate your interest in and passion for these vital issues that are shaping the moral character of our nation. We hope that these articles inspire you to stand for biblical truth, whatever your walk of life may be.

1. 75 Years Ago Today: A D-Day Prayer by Chris Gacek

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.”

2. Should Christians Recognize “LGBT Pride?” by Peter Sprigg

The tendency of many straight ‘allies’ of ‘LGBT Pride’ is to avert their eyes from these actual behaviors. Instead, they define such individuals by their feelings, and then accept the argument that because these feelings are not a ‘choice,’ they must define the person’s innate identity. This is a mistake. Just because feelings are not chosen does not mean they are inborn—they may result from developmental forces in childhood and adolescence. And while feelings are not chosen, both behaviors and a self-identification are chosen.”

3. Basic Human Decency Starts with Protecting Babies on Their Birthday by Caleb Seals

When it comes to abortion, the political Left always trots out the same line: ‘It’s the woman’s right to choose whatever she wants with her own body.’ Pro-lifers respond to this by speaking up for the rights of the unborn baby’s body. But after the recent passage of New York’s extreme abortion law and Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s pro-infanticide comments, we are no longer talking about defending the unborn, we are talking about defending the born. Let that sink in.”

4. How Game of Thrones Mainstreamed Sexual Exploitation by Laura Grossberndt

Movies and television shows such as Game of Thrones enjoy a patina of respectability due to their complex plots, extensive viewership, and numerous awards—making them more palatable to a wide audience than a pornographic film would be. However, by treating human sexuality as a commodity, Game of Thrones and its ilk are just another incarnation of the commercial sex trade.”

5. Boys Competing Against Girls Steal Another Win by Cathy Ruse

When men who identify as women compete against women, they’re not achieving a sports victory. They’re just lying, cheating, and stealing.”

 

Honorable Mentions

Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman …

Thus, my tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his ‘social transition’ he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to the name Josh now—the only name anyone’s known him as for almost four decades. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic ‘burial ceremony’ to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn’t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole.”

It’s common wisdom to teach kids to respond to a fire or active shooter. They need the same ‘fire drill’ for pornography. Thankfully, most children won’t deal with a fire or a shooter, but all of them will need to escape from pornography.

The ‘escape’ plan from Good Pictures Bad Pictures Jr. is simply ‘Turn, Run and Tell!’ Turn away from the bad picture, hurry and get away, and go tell a trusted adult what you saw. The CAN DO Plan from Good Pictures Bad Pictures helps kids not only turn away from it, but to label it by saying ‘That’s pornography!’ This allows kids to have more control over their thoughts by engaging their thinking brain.”

As trade talks between the U.S. and China continue, China’s human rights violations need to be at the forefront of the discussions. China’s organ trade isn’t a minor violation—it’s indicative of systematic harassment, abuse, and even murder of its religious minorities.”

What America needs today is citizens who strive for personal responsibility and service to others and leaders who are looking first to serve, to imbibe the spirit expressed in the faded, worn out words of the Washington Monument—Laus Deo. We need leaders who serve God (Joshua 22:5; 1 Samuel 12:24; Hebrews 9:14) and their fellow citizens (Luke 6:38; Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 4:10). Jesus himself said, “The greatest among you will be your servant” (Matthew 23:11). We as citizens need to renew our commitment to being responsible for ourselves but also to serve those in need, and our government officials need to rediscover their true vocation: to be public servants.”

Trump Administration Closes Out 2019 by Protecting Life and Religious Freedom

by Connor Semelsberger

December 20, 2019

Since taking office, President Trump has become known for his determination to protect life and religious freedom. Now, he has further strengthened his record with new regulatory actions. Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a finalized regulation that protects taxpayers from paying for abortion, and yesterday, the comment period closed on HHSproposed rule revising its grants process. Family Research Council has voiced support for this proposed rule because it would protect the religious freedom of adoption and foster care providers.

Towards the end of his administration, President Obama mandated that adoption providers and other organizations working with HHS must accept same-sex marriage and an individual’s professed gender identity. This mandate’s infringement on religious freedom was so severe that South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster had to ask HHS for a special waiver from this regulation so that Miracle Hill, the state’s largest provider of foster homes, could remain open.

South Carolina was far from being the only state or locality in which adoption providers encountered religious freedom hardships on account of the Obama-era regulation. Now, President Trump is seeking to remedy the existing regulation’s problems with this newly-proposed rule. Now that the comment period on the rule has closed (FRC’s comment is available here), we hope to see protections for adoption and foster care providers finalized soon.

When Obamacare was passed in 2010, it circumvented the longstanding Hyde Amendment’s ban on federal funds paying for abortion. Obamacare allowed plans to cover elective abortions so long as payments for abortion coverage were collected “separately” from those paid for with federal subsidies. Not only was this policy an inadequate means of protecting taxpayers from funding abortion, but the Obama administration also issued a regulation skewing the word “separate.” As a result, many of the payments meant to be collected separately are instead collected together. Under the current regulations, a single notice about the abortion surcharge or an itemized surcharge on the bill would satisfy Obamacare’s requirement for separate abortion payments.

Because this implementation is so obscure, many Americans are unaware that they are paying for abortion coverage in their health plans. This is one reason why FRC has partnered with the Charlotte Lozier Institute to create Obamcareabortion.com, which provides much-needed transparency concerning which Obamacare plans cover elective abortion.

As 2019 comes to a close, we can be thankful we have an administration that seeks to enforce the law as written—not skew it. The newly-finalized regulation will force insurers to collect two distinct payments, one for elective abortion coverage and one for all other covered health services. This separate collection of payments will serve to alert consumers when their plan covers elective abortion, thereby allowing them to make an informed decision on whether to select a plan that covers abortion or not. The setup of Obamacare still subverts longstanding protections against taxpayer funding for abortion; therefore, it is essential that the administration enforce the separate payments provision the way Congress intended.

Whether on religious freedom or life, President Trump continues to deliver on the promises which got him elected.

The Link Between Abortion and Eugenics Makes Its Way to the Federal Appeals Courts

by Katherine Beck Johnson

December 19, 2019

Among a number of recent developments in the federal appeals courts regarding abortion jurisprudence, one of the most notable is their discussion of eugenics. Though the history of infamous characters like Margaret Sanger and the link between eugenics and abortion has been known for some time, it didn’t make its way into court opinions until Justice Thomas wrote a lengthy concurrence in Box v. Planned Parenthood explaining the history of abortion being used as a tool to achieve eugenic objectives.

In an attempt to curtail eugenics, Ohio passed a law, H.B. 214, which prohibits any person from purposefully inducing an abortion if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion in whole, or in part, because the unborn child has Down syndrome. A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction which stopped the law from going into effect, and a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed that ruling. On December 13, the en banc Sixth Circuit vacated the panel’s ruling and agreed to hear the case before the entire court.

Dissenting from the earlier Sixth Circuit panel’s opinion, Judge Batchelder noted how Ohio’s law promotes a compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a modern day eugenics tool. She said, “Ohio concluded that permitting physicians to become witting accomplices to the deliberate targeting of Down [s]yndrome babies would undermine the principle that the Down [s]yndrome population is equal in value and dignity to the rest of Ohio’s population, and would do deep damage to the integrity of the medical profession.”

Judge Batchelder is not the only judge to follow Justice Thomas’s lead and talk about the link between abortion and eugenics. Recently, the Fifth Circuit struck down Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. While he stated he was bound by Supreme Court precedent to reach this result, Judge Ho, a President Trump appointee, wrote a concurrence in which he noted that abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution, and that “the district court’s claim that it is racist to believe in the sanctity of life is particularly noxious, considering the racial history of abortion advocacy as a tool of the eugenics movement.”

It is encouraging to see appellate judges proclaim the history between abortion and eugenics. This could lead to a more clearly recognized state interest in stopping eugenics in this context, one which could eventually become compelling enough to outweigh a woman’s “right” to privacy. In the interim, we appreciate these judges exposing the history and modern-day link between eugenics and abortion.

Archives