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.
Pages to are hidden for
"1 2007"Please download to view full document