1 2007 by pBMZ63O6

VIEWS: 15 PAGES: 33

									Mark: Welcome to Life Talk January 2007, I‟m Mark Crutcher
along with my trusty side-kick Cherie Johnson and Troy Newman.
We‟ve got a lot of stuff for you this month, we‟re going to get
started with Alan Ackels and the news. Alan ..

Alan: Thank you Mark. A new study by the Alan Guttmacher
Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood reveals that
despite the use of contraception repeat abortions are on the rise.
The study found that about half of all abortions in the US are now
done on women who have had at least one previous abortion. One
pro-life physician Dr Frank Joseph pointed out that Planned
Parenthood‟s own figures show that the more condoms they pass
out the more pregnancies occur and the more money they make off
abortions.

Appearing on the ABC program This Week, Senator John McCain
said he thought Roe v Wade should be overturned. Critics of
McCain point out that he has voiced several inconsistent positions
in the past, telling the San Francisco Chronicle in 1998 that he
would not support the repeal of Roe v Wade, then telling NBC‟s
Meet the Press that to some degree Roe v Wade should be
overturned.

In an ironic twist of fate, Kansas Attorney General Phil Klein who
recently lost his bid for re-election, in part for his investigation into
late term abortionist George Tiller, will now become Johnson
County‟s next District Attorney. Despite the position change Klein
recently won an appeal by the state Supreme Court allowing him to
continue his investigation into Tiller‟s violations of the state‟s late
term abortion statute and Planned Parenthood‟s failure to report
child rape. Some pro-life leaders believe that Klein‟s new job
could actually put him in a better position to prosecute the illegal
activities of the abortion industry.
Following up on a previous Life Talk story, Alabama Attorney
General Troy King has arrested the administrator of Summit
Medical Center for illegally performing abortions and falsifying
business records at the Birmingham death camp. Janet King was
arrested after a patient was given RU486, then showed up at a local
emergency room with a dead 6 pound baby protruding from her.
In addition to a fine of $1,000 King faces up to 6 months in prison.

On previous Life Talks we have reported on allegations regarding
a baby born inside a Hialeah, Florida abortion mill. Now an
autopsy performed on the infant has confirmed that the baby was
indeed born alive before it was placed inside a red biohazard bag
by a clinic employee and thrown on the roof of the clinic to die.
The investigative report filed by the state shows the child weighed
320 grams, was 22 weeks old, had black hair and was taken to the
Medical Examiners office with remnants of an umbilical cord
attached. Amazingly authorities say that they‟re still not certain
whether they will pursue criminal charges in the case.

In 2004 Arizona abortionist Brian Fenkel was sentenced to 35
years in prison for sexually assaulting patients. Then last month
the Phoenix New Times received a letter from one of Fenkel‟s cell
mates, convicted child molester James Stites stating that Fenkel
was bragging that he would soon be released. Stites said he
became alarmed about the possibility of Fenkel being unleashed on
the public after he heard him talk about how he loved his job
because he got to play with a lot of breasts and rub his patient‟s
crotches.

Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher said “it‟s pretty revealing
when a pro-choice hero is so bad even baby rape-ers don‟t want to
see him on the streets”. Despite Fenkel‟s claims authorities are
saying that Fenkel will not even be eligible for parole for at least
20 years.
In Mississippi abortionist Malachi DeHenry was arrested after a
new indictment accused him of shooting his wife Niosha in the
head in their Laurel home in 1997. His first trial resulted in a hung
jury, the second indictment also charges DeHenry with the 1992
rape of a then 21-year-old patient. DeHenry was denied bond and
will be held in the Jones County Adult Detention Facility in
Ellisville until his trial which will likely be held in the spring of
2007.

Finally, the Seattle Aradia Women‟s Health Center abortion mill
brags that they have killed over 54,000 children. Now they are
closing permanently due to a lack of funds. Despite receiving
$25,000 in grant money from the Paul G Allen Charitable
Foundation a letter on the clinic‟s website says that the high cost of
doing business including servicing low income women contributed
to their demise. I‟m Alan Ackels for Life Talk news, for daily
updates log on to prolifeamerica.com. And Mark, there you go,
back to you.

Mark: Thanks Alan. Lots of good news there, an abortion mill
shutting down, abortionist being told he's going to stay in jail.

Troy: That‟s always great news.

Mark: Right.

Cherie: Always. Speaking of news, we got quite an email this
week, we get lots of emails but this one I thought everybody
needed to hear about and I know you‟d like to comment on this
one I bet when you hear it. “I was surfing websites about abortion
in order to write a paper about it for my English class when I found
this one (prolifeamerica.com) as luck or lack of luck would have it
I stumbled upon the pictures of dead fetuses. Well, needless to say
I was deeply upset by the images, with tears streaming down my
face all I could think was that it was so wrong to have those images
on your website, even if you‟re trying to show that there can be a
brutal side to abortion. After all in reality a woman destroys life.
But then I think of my little sister who‟s 17 years old, she and I
spent the Saturday after Thanksgiving sitting in an abortion clinic.
She‟s a junior in high school, she has yet to go to college and she
and I both know that our parents would have kicked her out of the
house had they known she was 6 weeks pregnant. She cried her
eyes out to think that she had to destroy a life she wanted to bring
into the world but realistically couldn‟t. She destroyed a life to
continue hers. Maybe that‟s wrong no matter what, but I hope she
never sees the pictures you have on your website. I hope no one
who ever had to go through that ever sees those pictures. I know
that its difficult to think of but it‟s a decision that no one wants to
make, yet somehow gets made about 3,700 times a day. No one
should have to see the product of their mistakes laid out against a
ruler-measured inch per inch. I respect your opinion but I feel in
trying to make your point you were just as wrong as my sister for
exploiting those pictures. Maybe you should look at your own
mistakes before so quickly judging others.”

Mark: Amazing. That is the abortion battle in microcosm right
there. That is the American people. The American people will
look you in the face and say “abortion is murder, we know that”.

Troy: “And we want to do it”.

Mark: “But we don‟t care”.

Troy: It reminds you a lot of George Orwell, that this can be true
and a contradictory position can be equally as true and there‟s no
inconsistency at all. Speaking of that, coming out of Spain (from
the National Review) we‟ve got the socialist legislative body wants
to put apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas) they want to put
them on “the category of persons and they be given the moral and
legal protection that is currently being enjoyed only by humans”.
This is ridiculous. They‟re saying on one hand we want to give
gorillas and chimps the same equal protection that humans have
but at the same time take away that same humanhood and
personhood of the unborn baby.

Mark: In Spain abortion is legal.

Troy: It is.

Cherie: Are they aborting unborn apes?

Mark: Who knows?

Troy: If they‟re going to give them the same right then they
should be able to abort sheep.

Mark: These two things are very similar. These are microcosms
of how people look at the abortion issue in America. They admit
its murder. What‟s this girl crying for, she says tears are streaming
down her face. She‟s crying because sitting there seeing, we
murdered a child.

Cherie: Her daughter, my niece, and its shoot the messenger too.
She‟s appalled at the pictures and its happening right down the
street for real. Go down there and get mad.

Mark: She‟s less concerned about the fact that she participated in
the murder of a child than she is that we showed it to her.

Troy: She doesn‟t want to know that she killed a baby. Once she
saw that picture on your website she immediately was face to face
with the truth, she was convicted of her sin but then she refuses to
repent.
Mark: I guarantee she knew it before she did it. She knew it when
they were sitting in that abortion mill. You look at this deal in
Spain where abortion is perfectly legal, but they‟re going to give
personhood status to apes. I think if I‟m not mistaken they‟re
rationale (in the National Review this month) was because apes
share 97% of the DNA with humans. The unborn child shares
100%. But they‟ll write them off in a heartbeat.

Troy: Right. They don‟t want to recognize the personhood of the
baby when its staring them right in the face just like this was.

Mark: It brings me to this subject I want to talk about for a
moment. This is the sort of illogical lunacy that the Supreme
Court of the US uses. When you say „yes, the unborn child is a
human being but we can kill them because their not persons‟. I
want to use this to show how totally out of touch with reality the
Supreme Court is in this country. We have Steven Briar, Supreme
Court Justice, this was in the Dallas Morning News Monday
(12/4/06), I‟m sure it was carried around the country. Briar was
giving a speech on television (an interview) he said when Supreme
Court Justices make a ruling on the constitutionality of something,
he said judges must consider the practical effect of the decision to
insure democratic participation, we are the boundary patrols. He
said here that they must promote through the Supreme Court
decisions they render, they must promote political agendas. That‟s
literally what he‟s saying here.

Troy: And the ends justify the means. What he‟s saying is he
needs to look at the outcome of their decisions before they look at
what the actual law says. Now we‟re a constitutional republic,
stare decises was a big position in the Roberts hearings. We are a
government that is ruled by law and order, not by public opinion
polls.
Mark: Right. A Supreme Court Justice‟s job is to look at
something that comes up from the states or lower courts and say „is
this constitutional or is it not, does it blend with our constitution‟?
It is not to look at it and say „this is the outcome we want‟.

Troy: This is how its going to effect society and therefore we‟re
going to do „x‟, no matter what the law says.

Mark: Right. A couple years ago Sandra Day O‟Connor gave a
speech similar to this and she said „the Supreme Court needs to do
a better job of looking at international law‟, see what other
countries do before they make a ruling. The constitution was not
written in France or England or Uganda, it was written in the US.
It‟s a US document that determines how this country‟s laws are
supposed to work. It is irrelevant what Canada does, or what
happens anywhere else. Yet these are the people who are making
the decisions that judge how everybody else in this country live.
This country will not survive with these types of people on the
Supreme Court, it simply won‟t happen. Every time we have a
Supreme Court Justice come up, if it‟s a so-called conservative
that‟s going to be nominated, they say we want somebody that is a
strict constitutionalist, then you have other people who say no, the
constitution is a living document, we don‟t have to go by the strict
constitution, we have to see what the intent of the founding fathers.
Like we can read the minds of people who died 200 years ago,
right? This is what the argument is about. These people are the
ones who say we‟re not looking for equality for opportunity, we‟re
not looking for constitutionality, we‟re looking for equality of
results. We‟re looking for a given result when we make a decision,
in other words, it‟s their political agenda, that‟s all this is.

Troy: What we‟re seeing now is a board of people who are acting
like an oligarchy and something more akin to a social engineering
firm than a group of attorneys or judges that are looking at a
document and deciding matters based on law. It‟s really more
analytical.

Mark: Based on the constitution.

Troy: The constitution and law. It‟s something more like a
mathematical problem, what the exact answer is going to be based
on the constitution and law versus something that‟s more
subjective and arbitrary and that‟s what we‟re seeing on the
Supreme Court. As you said Cherie, we‟re not going to be able to
stand as a country as long as we have social engineers in place of
judges.

Mark: Right. And that‟s what we have, that‟s where we are.

Cherie: Are they forgetting what the constitution says and what
it‟s about or they just dismiss it?

Mark: They don‟t care, they do not care. They have a political
agenda and when these people go to the Supreme Court hearings,
whether they‟re going to be confirmed or not confirmed. They sit
there and say (when you‟ve got people like Briar and I guarantee I
don‟t remember it) but if you could go back to his Supreme Court
confirmation hearing, I‟ll guarantee you there was a place in there
where he said „look, I‟m a Judge, I‟m supposed to look at what the
constitution says, I‟ll rule based on that, I‟m not there to advance a
political agenda, that‟s wrong to try and advance a political agenda
from the Supreme Court‟, he was lying through his teeth. And his
own words right here prove it, he has a political agenda and he‟s
saying “I‟m going to make Supreme Court decisions as a Supreme
Court Justice that advance that outcome in that political decision”.
We cannot survive if this is the way we‟re going to do it.

Troy: Not only was he lying then, but every single court decision
that affirms the ability for abortionists and women to take the lives
of their innocent baby, in direct contradiction to the innate
humanity of the preborn child, written into the constitution is a
direct lie against the constitution, against the people and against
God.

Mark: Thanks a lot, it was a discussion here. We could talk about
this, we can‟t now, we‟ll be right back.

On the 22nd of this month the American Holocaust will be 34 years
old and so far it‟s claimed about 50 million victims. These
children had committed no crime, they were given no trial, there
was no judge, no jury, no appeal and no stay of execution. They
were simply carried into an American death camp and killed. It‟s
easy to expose the incoherent logic used by the Supreme Court to
justify its Roe v Wade decision. We can also make a perfect case
that the Justice‟s responsible for it and those who have reaffirmed
it since, were not just wrong but willfully evil. However, what is
often overlooked about Roe v Wade is its implied suggestion that a
nation can execute millions of innocent human beings without
consequence. That assumption is a testament to the unfettered
stupidity of man. There is always a price to pay for tolerating evil.
Think about this. Those of us who are baby boomers didn‟t give
America legalized abortion, the 1973 Supreme Court was made up
exclusively of people from the World War II generation.
However, it has been baby boomers who have had the most
abortions. Shortly we‟ll be reaching retirement age and numbers
that are going to financially overwhelm the Social Security and
healthcare system. The question becomes, in a nation that morally
bankrupted itself by using child sacrifice to address social
problems, why would any solution to the social problems created
by the elderly be unthinkable? After all if we believe God was
serious when he said that man reaps what he sows, we cannot
ignore the fact that a generation which killed one quarter of its own
children because it saw them as inconvenient, unhealthy or
expensive, is about to become inconvenient, unhealthy and
expensive itself. Like I said, evil always has a cost.

We‟ve talked on the show before about the issue of incremental
legislation probes versus the going for the defensives approach.
I‟ve made by position quite clear, I think incremental approach
was wrong headed to begin with and now we have 34 years of
experiences with it to prove it doesn‟t work. So everyone
understands what we‟re talking about, incremental approach meant
you try to protect some babies now and you try to protect another
group of babies next year, another group the next year and
eventually you get the whole thing. That was the strategy that
what I call the pro-life establishment went with 34 years ago. The
problem we have is it was supposed to be so pragmatic (and the
people who support it say you can be morally incremental and you
can pass incremental legislation morally) and I don‟t necessarily
have an argument with that but I think its been proven to be totally
unpragmatic. The reality is we‟re 34 years into pursuing this
incremental legislation approach. We have never returned legal
protection to one baby in one state yet. We have never passed a
piece of incremental legislation. People will say, we‟ve passed
things like parental notification or we passed women‟s right to
know. Those do not protect any babies, those simply regulate how
the babies are killed.

Cherie: And the women and children continue to stack up like
cordwood.

Troy: Like you said, there isn‟t one piece of legislation that we
can point to at this point in time that has saved a baby.

Mark: I don‟t say that‟s true, I think parental notification saves
babies.

Troy: It can save a baby.
Mark: But it doesn‟t return legal protection to the baby.

Troy: I think the arguments save the babies, for instance, the
whole debate surrounding partial birth abortion saved numerous
babies. But the piece of legislation doesn‟t save any babies.

Mark: It wouldn‟t save one baby. We‟ve had people from
National Right to Life on here arguing that a ban on partial birth
abortion would return legal protection to babies. They‟re wrong, it
would not.

Cherie: They‟ll find another way to kill them.

Mark: They‟ll just kill them another way. It would be like if you
oppose the death penalty (like I do) if you said we find hanging
cruel and unusual, so we‟re going to outlaw hanging, that means
the state would just use firing squads or lethal injection, or
whatever. It doesn‟t prevent any death penalty.

Troy: The other problem we have in the pro-life movement is
there isn‟t really an organized plan for an incremental approach.
For instance, today we‟re going to get A piece of legislation,
tomorrow we‟re going to get B, but it‟s spasmatic at best. The
fetal pain law is a perfect example, what does this attempt to
accomplish?

Mark: You‟re bringing up a good point because that‟s the subject
of this particular deal.

Cherie: Anesthetize them before we kill them?

Troy: And its ok.
Mark: This legislation just failed in Congress anyway, it failed to
begin with. The question is, should we even have been doing such
a thing? Let‟s say you pass a piece of legislation that says the
unborn child must be anesthetized before it is killed. Would that
increase the number of abortions? Because women say well at
least the baby isn‟t feeling any pain, so I can feel comfortable
going ahead.

Troy: As a sidewalk counselor, I would say „yes‟ because one of
the key instruments that we use is to convince the mom that‟s
going to abort their baby, that their baby is going to be in
excruciating pain.

Mark: Absolutely. We had a situation develop in Colorado where
some pro-lifers were arguing back and forth about this, one is our
good friend Brian Rohrbaugh from Colorado Right to Life, he‟s
been on the show before. He had taken basically what would be
our position that the pro-life movement loses credibility when we
go about the business of regulating abortion. Because then what
we‟re saying is then therefore it should be ok, if we regulate it and
we determine the method by which its carried out then we‟re ok
with it. In the midst of this discussion with Brian and other pro-
lifers there who disagree with him, Dr Charles Rice from Notre
Dame University (he‟s a constitutional law professor) brought up
some interesting points about the dangers of the incremental
approach and the dangers of regulating abortion once the time
comes that Roe v Wade is overturned. Brian and Dr Rice have
both agreed to be with us today and I want to welcome both of you
to the show. Hello Brian.

Brian: Hi, thanks for having me.

Dr Rice: Good to be with you Mark.
Mark: Thank you Dr Rice. Brian, give us a real quick thumbnail
analysis of what‟s going on there, in your view with legislation like
this fetal pain act.

Brian: Ok. Let me first say this, abortion actually started in
Colorado in 1967, so it‟s been 39 years of the innocent children
being slaughtered, and nothing has been done to protect them,
that‟s absolutely a correct statement. I was elected as President of
Colorado Right to Life and our position, as a board, is that we will
never support any law that ends with „and then you can kill the
baby‟. That includes every type of law that would regulate
abortion. So anything that allows for the abortion after you meet
these certain conditions is inherently evil, it goes against God‟s
command of Thou Shalt Not Murder. We took that position on the
Informed Pain Consent (something bill). What was wrong with
that bill is its very good to warn women that their child is going to
suffer intense pain. But its evil to offer a solution and then to
allow the abortion to continue, so if that bill would of just said
„you must notify women if they have an abortion, their baby is
going to be tormented and tortured to death, we would not have
opposed the law. But when you offer a solution you make abortion
more humane, more palatable, you ease the conscience of society
and of the mother and you undoubtedly will increase abortion by
doing so.

Mark: Absolutely. Dr Rice you raise some concerns about the
question of (let‟s assume for a moment Roe v Wade was
overturned) you‟re argument is that some of these regulatory
pieces of legislation could actually backfire on the pro-life
movement and make it harder for us to then pass laws that protect
the unborn, is that correct?

Dr Rice: Wait a minute, first you have to define what it means to
say that Roe v Wade is overturned. The basic holding of Roe v
Wade is that whether or not the unborn child (and they call them a
fetus) is a human being, he is a non-person and therefore has no
rights under the constitution. The court said that if the child is a
person then the case for abortion collapses, that was their word,
collapses. Their position is that whether or not he‟s a human
being, he‟s a non-person, which is the same in effect as a holding
that an acknowledged human being is a non-person which is
exactly what the Nazi‟s did to the Jews and what the Dread Scott
case did to the slaves and so on. So the pro-life movement (the
National Right to Life) committee and other people made a tragic
error in shifting the focus back in the 1970‟s and especially in 80
and 81 toward seeking a state‟s rights solution or exceptions,
actually promoting exceptions and so on. The problem there is that
if you for example promote a law that says that abortion will be
forbidden except for rape or incest or health or life of the mother
whatever it might be, what you‟re saying is that an innocent human
being can be legally executed whenever a legislature so decides or
whenever another individual so decides and that makes that
innocent human being a non-person. That‟s the advice of the
state‟s rights movement so for 40 years almost the emphasis has
been on regulating this thing and treating the right to life as if it‟s
negotiable.

Troy: Dr Rice, I think you‟re making an incredibly pertinent point.
What you‟re saying is that the pro-life movement has made a
difference between preventing abortions as opposed to promoting
exceptions. What that does is it may backfire once it gets kicked
back down to the states.

Dr Rice: Right, right. One other point is that Henry Hyde for
example and others would reluctantly to get his funding law
through accept a life of the mother exception or whatever, fighting
for the right to life and then at the end you‟re on the floor and they
cram it down your throat. I‟m not throwing rocks at anybody who
votes for it under those circumstances. What we‟re talking about
here is that the pro-life movement has adopted this strategy and
they themselves have proposed these provisions. For example, a
law that says that a minor must get parental consent or a judge‟s
consent for an abortion, right? Now that as you mentioned that
does prevent some abortions. But you know what it does besides
that? It creates a public impression that abortion is really no
different from getting your ears pierced. It corrupts the public
discourse and we‟ve had almost 40 years of this.

Mark: Some of these so-called incremental approaches (which I
still argue, and I‟ll defend this until the end) we‟ve never passed
one piece of incremental legislation, all we‟ve done is regulate the
practice of abortion, that‟s not incremental legislation. One thing a
lot of these laws do when the pro-aborts fight them, either the state
legislature or on the federal level, when it gets to the point that
they recognize they‟re going to lose, they will throw an
amendment on there that basically codifies Roe v Wade in their
state law in order to go along with the bill that‟s being promoted.

Dr Rice: Right.

Mark: Well, we just lost. I‟ve seen pro-lifers come to me and say
oh, we just had this major victory in our state because we passed
this, you look at the bill and it has this writer on it that codifies Roe
and the state law and they think they won.

Dr Rice: Right. There‟s no justice on the Supreme Court even the
pro-life Justices (Thomas and Scalia and so on and we don‟t know
what the two new guys are going to be) but there is no justice on
the Supreme Court who regards overruling Roe v Wade as really
overruling it, that is restoring personhood. They all, even the pro-
life guys, regard overruling Roe as simply returning it to the states,
and that is really affirming the non-personhood of Roe. If you
return it to the states, depending on how the court words this thing,
the states are going to be there and their laws will have these so-
called incremental provisions which will say well you can have an
abortion in this case or that case and abortions will continue unless
you change those laws.

Cherie: I‟d like to know if the unborn children are non-persons
why do they need anesthesia for one thing and second, when did
the pro-lifers start to trust the pro-aborts and the abortionists to
administer the anesthesia?

Mark: I think it would be a financial bonanza for the abortion
industry, you can charge this woman $200 or $300 to anesthetize
her child and then not do it.

Dr Rice: I‟m not throwing rocks at guys who go and vote for that,
I‟m just saying its stupid, I‟m not saying its immoral. I think the
thing is stupid and one of the problems is that technology is
making abortion truly a private matter. It‟s moving it beyond the
law. Now you have over the counter Plan B (the so-called
emergency contraceptive). One of its three ways of working is that
it prevents implantation which is abortaficient.

Mark: Right, that‟s an abortion, absolutely.

Dr Rice: Sure. Everything prior to implantation is now called a
contraceptive. Which incidentally, the whole abortion thing is an
outgrowth of the acceptance of the contraceptive ethic. Listen, if
you are the arbiter of when life begins, you‟re going to make
yourself the arbiter of when life ends, as in abortion, euthanasia.
You separate sex from pro-creation there‟s no intrinsic reason why
Freddie & Harry can‟t get a marriage license.

Mark: Right. I want to bring Brian back here. I understand
you‟ve taken some heat up there from a lot of the pro-life
community over this. First, I want to commend you for not
backing down because you are absolutely 1000% right.
Brian: Thank you.

Mark: Describe for us a little about some of the heat you‟ve taken
from some of these pro-lifers.

Brian: There‟s a lot of name calling, there‟s people saying that I‟m
siding with Planned Parenthood and the abortionist because I‟m
not jumping on board with this law which I consider to be an evil
law. And that‟s ok because I like the public debate, I actually
challenge National Right to Life to a public debate which so far
they have declined to do. Because this is a topic that we need to
express publicly. The American people have a right to hear about
this flawed strategy and why we‟re failing. As long as we‟re
willing to stand up and honor the word of God, then we have the
authority to do something. But when we concede our authority to
the laws of man and the courts of man, then we‟re going to have
exactly what we‟ve had for 39 years. We‟re going to have
innocent children and adults and the handicapped murdered with
the blessing of the courts. So my position is really very simple,
you can‟t do evil so that good may come from it because it won‟t
work out.

Troy: That‟s right. Brian, its interesting that people would call
you and say you are on the side of Planned Parenthood when the
folks that are passing this piece of legislation, once its passed and
if the Supreme Court reverses itself and brings this issue back to
the state, that this law that says you can have abortion as long as
you have parental consent, their law, a pro-life law would actually
be used in a contradiction to the way it was originally intended. It
would codify abortion versus overturn it so I think you‟re on the
right side Brian, I encourage you to keep it up.

Brian: Thank you.
Dr Rice: I would agree, Brian is right. I wrote a book on this
called the Winning Side which contains 37 types of legislation that
you could pass without compromising the right to life or the
personhood of the child. For example, prohibitions of funding for
abortions (public funding for abortions), conscience clauses (things
that would divest state pension funds from investing in companies
that produce abortafacients and so on. There are a lot of things that
you can do. But that‟s not what Brian is talking about, that‟s not
what I‟m talking about. These guys are pushing things that try to
save lives and I‟m not criticizing their good faith but I think its
stupid because in that process re-affirm the non-personhood of the
unborn child.

Mark: From my Marketing background and I can tell you from a
marketing standpoint. One of the fundamental mistakes you can
make is to offer the so-called customer too many options. When
you give a person too many options, the inevitable result is they
fear making the wrong decision and they decide not to decide, they
make no decision at all. We‟ve all seen this, you go out thinking to
buy a new car, you think you know what you want and you go look
at that and you think about buying it and then you think well I‟ll
look at some other cars, pretty soon you‟ve looked at 25 cars, you
don‟t know what you want, you‟re confused, you‟re scared of
making the wrong decision. 99% of the time (I came from the auto
industry) I can tell you they know that when that occurs, 99% of
the time the customer won‟t buy anything. In the beginning of the
pro-life movement the pro-aborts notice (I want to point out to
people) never compromise, they understood there was nothing to
be gained from compromising, they have yet to this day ever
compromise.

Troy: That‟s why they support partial-birth abortion.

Mark: That‟s why they support everything. I think people were
well intentioned, they were just not very bright, they said (in order
to appear reasonable) we‟ll accept these exceptions, we‟ll have this
exception over here and this one over here in order to get
something passed. What happened was you made the abortion
issue more complicated than it is. I get so sick of hearing (even
pro-lifers) say well, this is a very complex issue, no it‟s not.

Troy: No it‟s not.

Mark: The unborn child is either a living human being or its not,
period, end of story. If it is, you can‟t kill them.

Dr Rice: I‟m glad you mentioned partial birth abortion here. The
partial birth abortion law as was mentioned before did generate a
consciousness of what abortion is. There are 3 points here, 1) is in
any civilized society the only legitimate question is whether
innocent human beings should be executed legally, and the answer
is no. What the compromises in the pro-life movement have done
is they themselves have framed the issue not in terms of whether
innocents should be legally executed but which ones.

Mark: And how and by what method?

Dr Rice. Right. That‟s the 3rd point, in partial birth abortion
they‟re regarding it as a huge triumph when they frame the issue in
terms of how the executions are going to be done. It is totally
corrupting of the public discourse and especially because abortion
is becoming a private matter by pill and so on. There‟s no
compromise possible. The law can‟t regulate it, it‟s really a
religious and cultural thing as it always has been.

Mark: I think we made it over complex.

Troy: Right.
Mark: If we had stuck to our guns the way the pro-aborts did, the
American people would have a choice between absolute
unrestricted abortion on demand or no abortion at all. If we had
left it at that, and it wasn‟t the pro-aborts that did this, it was us, if
we‟d left it at that decision I think we‟d have won in the first 4 or 5
years.

Dr Rice: Yes. Right after Roe v Wade Congressman Larry Hogan
of Maryland introduced a very simple amendment that would have
added from the moment of conception to the equal protection of
laws and the pro-life movement went and supported an exception
amendment instead that had the exception for the life of the
mother. Jim Buckley a Senator introduced it, a fine guy, his theory
(I believe) was that you need that to take care of the ectopic
pregnancy, cancerous womb kind of thing. You don‟t, those things
are not, in fact, abortions in the eyes of the law. So they started
with the exception thing and then in 1980 President Reagan said he
would sign a bill that would define the unborn child as person, in
terms of the 14th Amendment. It had the votes, Senator Helms
introduced it and the National Right to Life Committee and other
establishment outfits went instead for the state‟s rights approach.

Mark: It doomed us.

Dr Rice: It was a disaster and the court probably would of upheld
that law because it wasn‟t until 1997 that they went the other way
on that 14th Amendment.

Mark: Dr Rice, we appreciate you being us and we ask that you
come back in the future and talk about some of these issues.

Dr Rice: Sure, I‟d be glad to.

Mark: Brian, again, keep up the good work, we‟re proud of you.
Brian: Thanks for having me.

Mark: Now its time for Father Frank and Janet Morana with this
month‟s Gospel of Life. Father Frank …

Father: Thanks Mark. It‟s good to be with you again brothers and
sisters. As you know January 22nd marks the day when in 1973 the
US Supreme Court issued the two most disastrous decisions that its
ever made, in fact, the two most disastrous decisions ever made by
any human authority, any time in human history. The Roe v Wade
and Doe v Bolton decisions. Now Roe v Wade of course is better
known but Doe v Bolton its companion case was as the court
indicated meant to be read together with Roe v Wade. Together
these two decisions gave us (what we still have today) a policy of
abortion on demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for any
reason or no reason at all. Today we‟re going to talk to the
plaintiff of the Doe v Bolton decision. Many of you have met or
heard or seen on pro-life television programs the Jane Roe of Roe
v Wade, Norma McCorvey, who is completely pro-life, who works
full time to end abortion and in fact has done a lot of speaking
around the country. Not as familiar to some of you however is our
guest today who was the plaintiff of the Doe v Bolton case. Sandra
Kano who lives in Atlanta, Georgia and who likewise has spoken
out, sometimes with Norma, sometimes on her own. She has been
with us at Priests for Life for many different occasions and today
we have her joining us by phone. Janet, we‟re going to talk to
Sandra and also tell us about Sybil and the book that Sybil wrote.

Janet: Well, Sybil Lash has been a close companion and friend of
Sandra through the years. She was the one who actually helped
dig up more information of the deceptions in Sandra‟s case and she
wrote Supreme Deception. People can get a copy of this book and
I strongly recommend them to do so and read how Sybil was able
to uncover all the lies of the Doe v Bolton case. They can contact
Priests for Life and we‟ll get Supreme Deception to them.
Father: Let‟s talk now to Sandra. How are you?

Sandra: I‟m fine, how are you?

Father: Great, thanks for joining us on Life Talk.

Sandra: Thank you for having me.

Father: And Sybil, welcome to the program.

Sybil: Thank you Father Frank.

Father: Sandra, in a nutshell tell us how did this case begin, how
did you get involved as the plain?

Sandra: I went to the Atlanta Legal Aid to get a divorce from my
husband and get 3 children out of foster care.

Father: So it had nothing to do with abortion?

Sandra: No, never have I went anywhere to have anything to do
with abortion.

Father: So you did not want an abortion at all, you never requested
it of the court?

Sandra: No, I‟ve never believed in abortion nor would I ever have
abortion.

Father: Sybil, you met Sandra some years later, how did this case
turn into an abortion case?

Sybil: I think at the time Sandra went to Atlanta Legal Aide, she
was so vulnerable and her circumstances were so pathetic that the
attorney‟s took one look at her and realized they had their perfect
vehicle to ram this decision before the Supreme Court.

Father: Classic manipulation.

Sybil: Yes, classic manipulation.

Janet: Sandra, you even had your family basically again, wasn‟t it
your own mother working with the attorney to try to get you an
abortion?

Sandra: Yes, my mother had good intentions at heart but she
didn‟t think I needed another child, which I didn‟t. But she wasn‟t
thinking of what would be happening here of having your child
aborted, taking that life. She was trying to help the attorney‟s
work to have the abortion for me.

Janet: They actually had an abortion scheduled for you, didn‟t
they?

Sandra: Yes.

Janet: What did you do when you found that out?

Sandra: I ran away to keep from having one.

Janet: How far did you run, you left Georgia?

Sandra: I went to Hugo, Oklahoma.

Janet: Amazing. So you had the baby?

Sandra: Yes.

Janet: And then you came back to Georgia, how much later?
Sandra: Well, what I did was go to Hugo, Oklahoma and I came
back, the attorney brought me back to appear in a court case, which
I wasn‟t aware exactly what it was except it was a woman‟s
liberation court case. I came back and my baby was born in
November that year.

Father: It‟s truly amazing. You‟re court records (of course) were
unsealed some years later. Sandra, you told me that you found
your signature on papers you never signed, is that right?

Sandra: Yes, there‟s quite a few documents I never seen that has
my signature that was not my signature.

Father: That must have made you quite angry?

Sandra: Yes, I‟ve been angry quite a bit over the years.

Janet: It‟s amazing they forged her signatures on documents, she
never knew about it, and yet we can‟t seem to get anything done
here.

Father: Sybil, tell us in a nutshell some of the efforts that have
been made to get Sandra‟s story out.

Sybil: Well, we‟ve done the book, Sandra speaks when she can.
She‟s recently come off of a process that started in the year 2000 to
get her case back before the Supreme Court, gone through all the
Federal Courts and on October 10th the Supreme Court decided
that they weren‟t going to hear her case.

Father: Right. This was under the Rule 60 motion, right?

Sybil: Correct. That we have new knowledge, well, we do have
new knowledge because back then you could compare an abortion
with tonsillectomy, there was DNA evidence that it was a separate
entity, there was so much more that we know now that we didn‟t
then. You would think that the Court would want to rectify a
wrong, but these chose for whatever reason to not even hear
Sandra‟s plea. Ever since that case was decided, Sandra has felt a
horrible burden of guilt for all the children that are being killed.
You would have thought that the Court would have wanted to help
her relieve her of this great burden that she carries and it‟s not her
fault.

Father: Well, Sandra we‟re certainly altogether with you within
the determination to see this horrible tragedy ended. You were
manipulated the guilt is certainly not on your shoulders but in
another sense we all share it together as a society because we all
have a role to play. You‟re certainly playing yours to do
everything humanly possible to stop this abortion tragedy. One of
the most inspiring things to me and Janet you‟ve been down at the
National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga, Tennessee and
I‟m sure many of our Life Talk viewers have seen it. Where there
are little plaques along this big wall, all put there by parents of
aborted babies, expressing their sorrow, their regret. There‟s a
bigger plaque down there from Sandra and another one next to it
from Norma. Sybil, were you with Sandra that day at the National
Memorial?

Sybil: I was. I was with Sandra that day and it was there that I got
the transcript of the argument before the Supreme Court legalizing
abortion.

Father: Yes.

Sybil: It is a travesty that our Justices would hear a case with no
facts and they admit that there were no facts.

Father: Right.
Janet: Sandra, so many people don‟t realize like we said, they
know Norma‟s case Roe v Wade. But what they don‟t realize is
while Roe v Wade made abortion legal, it was basically your case
that opened the floodgate that allowed it for any reason through all
9 months of pregnancy. I bet people watching Life Talk right now,
there are some people who still think abortion is only legal in the
1st or 2nd trimester.

Father: Roe v Wade of course allowed it throughout pregnancy
but Doe v Bolton took that health exception and made it
meaningless by saying that health included the age and
psychological background and the family circumstances. It made
health defined so broadly that in effect abortion is allowed for any
reason even in the 3rd trimester.

Janet: Father, the book Supreme Deception that Sybil researched
and wrote, people can be using this in letters to the editor. They
can quote from this book, students can use it when they‟re doing
papers on abortion. It‟s a perfect opportunity when asked to do
research, well research both Supreme Court cases and quote some
of the things that Sybil has now researched in this book.

Father: Well, that you for speaking out, we look forward to
working with you in the months and years ahead and thank you
Sybil for all that you‟ve done for Sandra and for all of us in
helping to expose the truth behind this case.

Sybil: Thanks for having us.

Father: God Bless you both, and thank you Janet. Certainly there
is a lot we can offer our viewers through Priests for Life, we
encourage them to receive the bi-weekly column,
subscribeatpriestsforlife.org. if they‟re not already getting our bi-
weekly emails, we‟d like them to get those. Tell a little about the
travels of our pastoral associates.

Janet: You Father, myself (I travel and speak) and we have several
of our other priests, we also have Dr Alveta King (who‟s a pastoral
associate) Dr Paul Schenk and Jim Pinto who‟s now heading up
our lay associates of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life. We‟re
all available to come in and do pro-life training seminars, speak at
your churches, your banquets, we‟re all available.

Father: Of course, if there are any young men out there who feel
they have a vocation to the priesthood and want to devote it to
saving the unborn, we are now able to accept seminarians. This
Missionaries of the Gospel of Life is not different from Priests for
Life, this is an opportunity for Priests for Life to accept these
seminarians and train them for specifically the very same work and
the very same mission that we‟ve been carrying out all these years.

Janet: That‟s right. Finally, we have a great email service now for
priests where they get homily hints, bulletin inserts on a regular
basis, so if they have a priest that has an email, please let the priest
know, send us his email, we‟d like to get them on our liturgical
email blast.

Father: It‟s clergyatpriestsforlife.org. is where they‟d subscribe for
that. Thanks very much and thank you brothers and sisters for all
you do for the pro-life cause. I always enjoy meeting so many of
you throughout the nation, look forward to continuing that in the
months and years to come. We‟ll continue praying and working
together for the end of abortion. That‟s it for this month, Mark,
back to you.

Mark: Thanks Father Frank. We have to talk about something
here where blood pressures are bound to go up. On the show
we‟ve talked a lot about the church is collapsing and giving cover
to our enemies. In this last election the Democrats figured out (one
reason they won) that they could not be perceived as the Party of
the unreligious, Godless, pro-aborts, etc. It was successful. Now
we‟re seeing, they‟re starting to line up for 2008. Let me give you
some things that have come up in the news recently. Hillary
Clinton has hired a faith guru, Burns Strider, he heads the religious
outreach for the House Democratic Caucus. He‟s been hired by
Hillary Clinton to teach her how to appeal to evangelicals and
Christians and pro-lifers in particular. John Kerry has hired a guy
named Shaun Casey, Associated Professor of Christian Ethics at
Wesley Theological Seminary as his religious outreach advisor.

Cherie: They‟re going to sway me, I know.

Mark: Oh, yes, I‟m in. Nancy Polosi says she wants to have Matt
to showcase her faith as a practicing Catholic.

Troy: This was San Francisco, right?

Cherie: That‟s another country, isn‟t it?

Mark: We just had the person that was appointed to run the
Christian Coalition step down because he wanted to change the
emphasis of the Christian Coalition from the moral issues like
abortion and homosexuality and all to things like global warming,
ecology and poverty and things like that. What we‟re seeing here
is the Democrats are starting now to plan for 2008 and they know
they‟ve got to win, they‟re going to have to do what they did this
last time which is get religious conservatives, dupe them into
coming over and voting for them. And unfortunately a lot of our
people do that.

Troy: That‟s what happened in 2004, it was the religious voter
voting on moral lines, it was the moral voter Protestant, moral
voter Catholic than 2000 & 2004 that swung the elections for
George Bush and the Republicans.

Mark: If you look at some of the exit polling that was done on this
last election, in one state I saw 36% of people who labeled
themselves evangelicals voted for a hard-core pro-abortion
Democrat for Virginia. This was demonstrated all over the
country. So the Democrats have figured out, not necessarily just
Democrats, but the pro-aborts, the Godless left has figured out that
you don‟t really have to be a religious conservative to get the vote
of the religious conservative, all you have to do is say a few of the
right things.

Troy: You just have to talk like one.

Mark: And they‟re co-opting people on the Christian right by the
droves, that‟s how they‟re winning elections, so they‟ve figured
out a formula here. Now we have people supposedly that have
always claimed to be on our side of the issues, that are assisting
them. We just had a situation with Rick Warren, pastor and author
who wrote The Purpose Driven Life, supposedly one of the most
influential evangelicals in the world. He holds a conference in a
church, turns over the pulpit to Barack Obama who everybody is
holding out there to be the front runner for the Democrats in 2008.
The man is radically, staunchly, hard-core pro-abort, pro-
homosexual. What happened here is Rick Warren gave him
political cover. By putting this man in this position, he gave him
political credibility and Christian credibility, any way you look at
it that‟s what happened. These people are sell-outs, their heretics.
We‟re seeing this time and time again.

Cherie: And everybody glosses over it. Why aren‟t they saying
hey church and state and you can‟t have a political guy and
supporting him. But if it were John Haage putting a Republican
conservative pro-life guy, he‟d be the scourge of the Herr.
Mark: Absolutely. It‟s what I‟ve said before. You can be
Christian in this country and the press will leave you alone, the left
will leave you alone, the public will leave you alone as long as
you‟re a Christian who doesn‟t live up to it. As long as its just
something you mouth and you think, you‟re ok, you‟re in good
shape.

Troy: It‟s like platitudes, God Bless you, remember Bill Clinton
used to say that all the time, God Bless America at the same time
he‟s sleeping with Monica Lewinsky. But the issue with Barack
Obama I think runs incredibly deep within the church. This guy
supports abortion on demand, even the radial partial birth
procedure which he has supported again and again and again. So
to put him up as a person who has something to say on the issue of
a) human compassion, I believe he has already relinquished his
right to speak on moral issues because he‟s already given away the
farm, because he supports abortion on demand, he has absolutely
no credibility to speak on any other issue.

Mark: Not until he rescinds and repents of that.

Troy: Absolutely.

Cherie: But Oprah supports him and everybody worships Oprah.

Mark: It‟s scary.

Cherie: It is, it‟s just amazing.

Mark: Let me make a point here, we repeatedly called Rick
Warren‟s office and talked to his people to get him to come on and
defend himself. He would not. But he‟s out there going on all
these puff-piece places like Shawn Hannity, just up there and
tosses him a little softball to hit over the fence. He‟s going on all
these shows where he knows no one will ask him the hard
questions. The thing that bothers me is that you have all these
people that are Christians saying well, you know Jesus hung out
with sinners, but he always confronted them in their sin. There‟s
no problem hanging out with Barack Obama or anyone else but
you don‟t give him the pulpit and you do confront him in his sin.

Troy: Jesus never handed over the pulpit to the Pharisees who
were trying to kill him. We‟re trying to convert the people like
Barack Obama to a standard of faith. That‟s what people don‟t
understand is we have a scripture and it sets a standard as we spoke
about the Constitution, it‟s a standard that we must adhere to and if
this person isn‟t adhering to that, we call it sin and they need to
repent of that sin before they‟re elevated to a position of authority
power.

Mark: People like Rick Warren and there are others out there that
are doing the same thing. They give credibility, that this guy
would go out in the public, and he is, Barack Obama is out there
talking about his Christian faith and how that‟s an intrical part of
his life. Then when the American people see him on television,
from the pulpit in the church with this guy who‟s one of the most
influential evangelicals in the world patting him on the back and
inviting him here to speak. They said well, yes he must be, he
must be ok.

Troy: Here‟s a very interesting thing, we‟ve got to look at this
particular issue. He sponsored two conferences on AIDS, when is
he going to sponsor an international conference on abortion? He‟s
never going to do that.

Mark: He‟s never going to do it. That‟s what this whole thing is
about.

Cherie: PC, acceptable.
Mark: Right. And no body is going to get mad at you for saying
we need to stop AIDS, no body is going to get mad at you for that.
But you stop abortion or say you ought to stop abortion, now
suddenly they‟re going to get mad. This really aggravates me,
again I want to make the point, we offered to let him come on here,
but he knew we‟d confront him and we‟d offer him the tough
questions that he didn‟t want to do.

Troy: People should challenge him. Let‟s have an international
conference on the pro-life agenda.

Mark: Absolutely, that‟s a good point, thanks. We‟ll be right
back.

The pro-life battle changes every day and that‟s why we created
prolifeamerica.com. It‟s your one stop source for the latest cutting
edge information, breaking news and pro-life commentary. It‟s
also the home of America‟s best on-line forum, dedicated
exclusively to abortion where you can interact with people from all
over the country on both sides of the issue. Prolifeamerica.com
will make sure you‟re always up to date and it‟s a great place to
give us any comments or questions you have abortion, Life Talk or
any of the pro-life activities of Life Dynamics. You can also leave
your comments anytime 24 hours a day on our telephone feedback
line by calling 940-484-LIFE. So whether it‟s on line or by phone
we want to hear what‟s on your mind. If you leave your name &
number we just might call you back about being a guest on a future
edition of Life Talk.

That‟s all the time we have for this show, but we‟ll be back in
February, until then remember Life Dynamics is not here to put up
a good fight, we‟re here to win because winning is how the killing
stops. We‟ll see you next month.

								
To top