lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Cuomo threatens to ‘close the synagogues,’ churches if COVID-19 measures not followed

PETITION : No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus !
Sign the petition here .
NEW YORK , October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In a press conference on Monday , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo issued a threat to Orthodox Jews as well as to the wider religious community when he warned that he would take measures to close down synagogues and places of worship for violations of COVID-19 restrictions .
“ I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow , ‘ If you ’ re not willing to live with these rules , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ synagogues , ’ ” Cuomo declared .
Earlier in the news conference , he said , “ We know religious institutions have been a problem.
” Cuomo issued two conditions that would have to be met or closure would be enforced .
They have to agree that they are going to follow the rules and they have to agree that they are going to be a full partner in the enforcement of the rules , ” he said .
The governor also stated that unless religious communities agreed to follow his rules regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they would be forcibly shut down .
“ If you do not agree to enforce the rules , then we ’ ll close the institutions down , ” he said .
“ I am prepared to do that.
” The statements challenge the autonomy of churches as well as the free exercise of religious worship , as protected in the First Amendment .
Despite an apparent constitutional breach , Cuomo mentioned that he would not hesitate to close any place of worship should it be in violation of the measures in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We have to close a temple because it ’ s over 50 percent ?
I ’ ll do it , ” he said .
“ We have to close a Roman Catholic church ?
I ’ ll do it .
I had to close the St. Patrick ’ s Day parade .
I did it.
” Challenged as to whether he had the authority to enforce the closure of religious institutions , Cuomo replied , “ We believe we have the legal authority .
We will assert the legal authority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations .
Our legal authority was upheld .
I don ’ t like getting into a litigious situation with the religious community .
I have enough questions that I have to answer when I get to the Pearly Gates .
I don ’ t want to also be questioned as to why I was sued by the Catholic church or the Jewish community for closing temples .
So I have enough issues on my plate .
But yes , we believe we have the legal authority.
” The comment comes in tandem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ensure schools and religious institutions comply with the governor ’ s directives .
Members of this task force could possibly be stationed outside churches in order to ensure they did not exceed the maximum limit of people allowed inside .
Cuomo used an example to paint a picture of a draconian future : “ You ’ re going to be stationed in front of St. Peter ’ s Church .
The capacity is 150 .
You stand at the front door .
When they go over 75 , you close the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have any problem , the state police officer is down the block and he ’ ll come help you .
”

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.
NEW YORK, October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In a press conference on Monday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a threat to Orthodox Jews as well as to the wider religious community when he warned that he would take measures to close down synagogues and places of worship for violations of COVID-19 restrictions.
“I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow, ‘If you’re not willing to live with these rules, then I’m going to close the synagogues,’” Cuomo declared. Earlier in the news conference, he said, “We know religious institutions have been a problem.”
Gov. Andrew Cuomo: “I have to say to the Orthodox community tomorrow, 'If you're not willing to live with these rules, then I'm going to close the synagogues.'” pic.twitter.com/QWOPvZMbFI — The Hill (@thehill) October 5, 2020
Cuomo issued two conditions that would have to be met or closure would be enforced. They have to agree that they are going to follow the rules and they have to agree that they are going to be a full partner in the enforcement of the rules,” he said.
The governor also stated that unless religious communities agreed to follow his rules regarding the wearing of masks and physical distancing, they would be forcibly shut down. “If you do not agree to enforce the rules, then we’ll close the institutions down,” he said. “I am prepared to do that.”
The statements challenge the autonomy of churches as well as the free exercise of religious worship, as protected in the First Amendment. Despite an apparent constitutional breach, Cuomo mentioned that he would not hesitate to close any place of worship should it be in violation of the measures in place to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. “We have to close a temple because it’s over 50 percent? I’ll do it,” he said. “We have to close a Roman Catholic church? I’ll do it. I had to close the St. Patrick’s Day parade. I did it.”
Challenged as to whether he had the authority to enforce the closure of religious institutions, Cuomo replied, “We believe we have the legal authority. We will assert the legal authority. We have been sued by the religious organizations. Our legal authority was upheld. I don’t like getting into a litigious situation with the religious community. I have enough questions that I have to answer when I get to the Pearly Gates. I don’t want to also be questioned as to why I was sued by the Catholic church or the Jewish community for closing temples. So I have enough issues on my plate. But yes, we believe we have the legal authority.”
The comment comes in tandem with the formation of a task force that would ensure schools and religious institutions comply with the governor’s directives.
Members of this task force could possibly be stationed outside churches in order to ensure they did not exceed the maximum limit of people allowed inside. Cuomo used an example to paint a picture of a draconian future: “You’re going to be stationed in front of St. Peter’s Church. The capacity is 150. You stand at the front door. When they go over 75, you close the door and call me. And if you have any problem, the state police officer is down the block and he’ll come help you.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Hillary Clinton: Young people leaving church because Christianity ‘judgmental, alienating’

October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in a podcast interview that young people are leaving the church because Christianity is “ so judgmental , so alienating.
” Clinton made several startling statements as she interviewed Pastor William J. Barber II of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro , North Carolina .
During the course of her podcast , after she claimed to be a follower of Jesus , Clinton insisted that “ Jesus and justice are the same thing , ” declaring that Black Lives Matter — whose manifesto reveals the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ theological statement ” and suggested that the U.S. is now at an important moral inflection point , the result of a “ very deliberate , concerted effort by one political party to basically try to own Christianity.
” “ When you think about what 's happening in our country right now , do you see that maybe we are finally going to have the moral reckoning that has been distorted and perverted and postponed for so long ?
” she asked her guest .
“ This should also be a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at itself and try to figure out how it can be a real partner in this moment of moral awakening , ” said Clinton , asserting that Christian churches should be defined by social justice .
“ A lot of young people are leaving the church , in part because the way they understand what Christianity has become is , you know , so judgmental , so alienating , ” claimed Clinton .
During her 2016 campaign for president , Clinton said supporters of then-candidate Trump were “ deplorables.
” Not long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then–Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed that top Clinton advisers held that Catholic beliefs are “ backwards ” and conservative Catholics were responsible for “ an amazing bastardization of the faith .
”

'This should also be a time for the church to take a hard look at itself,' Clinton said, referring to the age of Black Lives Matter.
October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in a podcast interview that young people are leaving the church because Christianity is “so judgmental, so alienating.”
Clinton made several startling statements as she interviewed Pastor William J. Barber II of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina.
During the course of her podcast, after she claimed to be a follower of Jesus, Clinton insisted that “Jesus and justice are the same thing,” declaring that Black Lives Matter — whose manifesto reveals the organization to be anti-Christian and anti-family — is a “theological statement” and suggested that the U.S. is now at an important moral inflection point, the result of a “very deliberate, concerted effort by one political party to basically try to own Christianity.”
“When you think about what's happening in our country right now, do you see that maybe we are finally going to have the moral reckoning that has been distorted and perverted and postponed for so long?” she asked her guest.
“This should also be a time for the church to take a hard look at itself and try to figure out how it can be a real partner in this moment of moral awakening,” said Clinton, asserting that Christian churches should be defined by social justice.
“A lot of young people are leaving the church, in part because the way they understand what Christianity has become is, you know, so judgmental, so alienating,” claimed Clinton.
During her 2016 campaign for president, Clinton said supporters of then-candidate Trump were “deplorables.” Not long after that statement, hacked emails from then–Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed that top Clinton advisers held that Catholic beliefs are “backwards” and conservative Catholics were responsible for “an amazing bastardization of the faith.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--New Jersey Dems panic over pro-life Barrett’s nomination to Supreme Court, move to codify Roe

October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In the wake of pro-life Judge Amy Coney Barrett being nominated by President Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court , Gov .
Phil Murphy of New Jersey is rushing towards codifying Roe v. Wade .
To codify , to make into law , means that the Democrat governor seeks to legislate abortion into New Jersey state law .
Barrett is a pro-life Catholic and an originalist when it comes to the Constitution .
Murphy fears her appointment could potentially mean a future where Roe v. Wade would be overturned .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more acute , ” Murphy said .
“ Justice Ginsburg ’ s life work gives us the courage to do more than sit idly by as New Jersians wonder aloud whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade .
We are seizing the moment to codify everyone 's full reproductive rights into law .
This means that rather than relying on case law , New Jersey 's laws on the books will state that this is plain and clear.
” States have been legislating their own abortion restrictions since Roe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion .
The governor seeks to be on the offensive by pushing the aggressive Reproductive Freedom Act .
Murphy vowed not only to fight to keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned , but to make sure it would be paid for and covered by private health insurance .
The bill pushes for deregulations .
According to New Jersey Right to Life , if the bill were passed , it would , “ allow abortions to be performed by non-physicians and permit abortions beyond 14 weeks gestation to be performed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Lady Tammi Murphy , along with other pro-abortion state Democrat leaders , including NJ Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg , Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle , and Lieutenant Gov .
Sheila Oliver , addressed New Jersians on Sunday in a live-streamed video .
Their introductions were made by a New Jersey Planned Parenthood Action Fund spokeswoman , Kaitlyn Wojtowicz , who thanked them all for their “ steadfast commitment to reproductive access.
” Murphy and first lady sat side-by-side as he spoke about his renewed fervor to expand abortion since the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy Alliance of New Jersey , a Christian public policy partner of Focus on the Family , is pushing back against the governor ’ s bill proposal .
The bill is being promoted to New Jersians this month , the same month that Murphy declared it to be a “ remembrance month ” for “ pregnancy and infant loss.
” Shawn Hyland , Director of Advocacy at Family Policy Alliance NJ responded to the proposed bill : “ At the beginning of the solemn month , it is the epitome of hypocrisy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion proposal ... We call on Governor Murphy and the pro-abortion Contingent in the NJ legislature to stop promoting policies that legally advance genocide in the Garden State .
”

The bill would allow abortions to be performed by non-physicians and permit abortions beyond 14 weeks gestation to be performed in an office setting
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – In the wake of pro-life Judge Amy Coney Barrett being nominated by President Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court, Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey is rushing towards codifying Roe v. Wade. To codify, to make into law, means that the Democrat governor seeks to legislate abortion into New Jersey state law.
Barrett is a pro-life Catholic and an originalist when it comes to the Constitution. Murphy fears her appointment could potentially mean a future where Roe v. Wade would be overturned.
“The intensity of our passion has only gotten even more acute,” Murphy said. “Justice Ginsburg’s life work gives us the courage to do more than sit idly by as New Jersians wonder aloud whether the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. We are seizing the moment to codify everyone's full reproductive rights into law. This means that rather than relying on case law, New Jersey's laws on the books will state that this is plain and clear.”
States have been legislating their own abortion restrictions since Roe, but Democrats historically oppose any limits on abortion. The governor seeks to be on the offensive by pushing the aggressive Reproductive Freedom Act. Murphy vowed not only to fight to keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade ever be overturned, but to make sure it would be paid for and covered by private health insurance. The bill pushes for deregulations. According to New Jersey Right to Life, if the bill were passed, it would, “allow abortions to be performed by non-physicians and permit abortions beyond 14 weeks gestation to be performed in an office setting.”
Murphy and First Lady Tammi Murphy, along with other pro-abortion state Democrat leaders, including NJ Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, and Lieutenant Gov. Sheila Oliver, addressed New Jersians on Sunday in a live-streamed video. Their introductions were made by a New Jersey Planned Parenthood Action Fund spokeswoman, Kaitlyn Wojtowicz, who thanked them all for their “steadfast commitment to reproductive access.” Murphy and first lady sat side-by-side as he spoke about his renewed fervor to expand abortion since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey, a Christian public policy partner of Focus on the Family, is pushing back against the governor’s bill proposal. The bill is being promoted to New Jersians this month, the same month that Murphy declared it to be a “remembrance month” for “pregnancy and infant loss.”
Shawn Hyland, Director of Advocacy at Family Policy Alliance NJ responded to the proposed bill: “At the beginning of the solemn month, it is the epitome of hypocrisy to today announce his support for a radical abortion proposal…We call on Governor Murphy and the pro-abortion Contingent in the NJ legislature to stop promoting policies that legally advance genocide in the Garden State.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Glenn Beck: I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, but I will this time – he keeps his promises

October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Political commentator and radio personality Glenn Beck recently tweeted his support For Donald J. Trump in this year ’ s presidential election .
“ Who didn ’ t vote for @ realDonaldTrump in 2016 - but will in 2020 like me ?
” he tweeted on Oct. 5 .
Beck seems to be trying to drum up support from others who felt the same way he did in 2016 about then-presidential candidate Trump .
At the time , Beck was considered part of what was known as the ‘ Never Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who , because of Trump ’ s tone , lifestyle , wealth , or for whatever reason , could n't bring themselves to vote for Trump in 2016 and were often very adamant about it .
According to the New York Times ( October 11 , 2016 ) , Beck said that opposing Trump was the “ moral , ethical choice ” because Trump was “ an immoral man who is absent decency and dignity.
” The clearly converted Beck added in his recent tweet , “ He may be the first politician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word .
”

'Who didn’t vote for @realDonaldTrump in 2016 - but will in 2020 like me?'
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Political commentator and radio personality Glenn Beck recently tweeted his support For Donald J. Trump in this year’s presidential election.
“Who didn’t vote for @realDonaldTrump in 2016 – but will in 2020 like me?” he tweeted on Oct. 5.
Beck seems to be trying to drum up support from others who felt the same way he did in 2016 about then-presidential candidate Trump.
“I can’t be alone. I couldn’t vote for him either last time. I just didn’t trust he would do what he promised.”
At the time, Beck was considered part of what was known as the ‘Never Trump’ crowd of conservatives.
These were people who, because of Trump’s tone, lifestyle, wealth, or for whatever reason, couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump in 2016 and were often very adamant about it.
According to the New York Times (October 11, 2016), Beck said that opposing Trump was the “moral, ethical choice” because Trump was “an immoral man who is absent decency and dignity.”
The clearly converted Beck added in his recent tweet, “He may be the first politician in my lifetime that DID keep his word.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Trump: Biden and Dems support ‘execution’ of newborns

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Democrats ’ abortion policy is so extreme that they support “ execution ” of newborns , President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter today .
At an NBC town hall in Miami this week , a questioner asked what Joe Biden would do to protect women ’ s so-called “ reproductive rights ” if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court .
Biden responded that should Coney Barrett be confirmed and overturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court decision imposing abortion on demand across the country ) , “ the only responsible thing to do would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land .
That ’ s what I would do.
” Trump followed up his tweet by pointing out Biden ’ s 2017 endorsement of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam .
Northam ’ s January 2019 comments on late-term abortion seemed to imply the possibility of infanticide .
Trump has periodically reminded voters of the radical pro-abortion stance that is characteristic of Democrat Party politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said that “ virtually every top Democrat also now supports late-term abortion , ripping babies straight from the mother ’ s room , right up until the moment of birth.
” He then recalled Northam ’ s comments before saying that he has asked Congress “ to prohibit extreme late-term abortions because Republicans believe that every child is a sacred gift of God.
” Trump rips Democrats for allowing doctors to ‘ execute the baby ’

URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Democrats’ abortion policy is so extreme that they support “execution” of newborns, President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter today.
Wow. Joe Biden just took a more Liberal position on Roe v. Wade than Elizabeth Warren at her highest. He also wants to PACK our great United States Supreme Court. This is what the Dems will do. Remember as they try changing positions before elections end. GET OUT AND VOTE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020
At an NBC town hall in Miami this week, a questioner asked what Joe Biden would do to protect women’s so-called “reproductive rights” if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court. Biden responded that should Coney Barrett be confirmed and overturn Roe v. Wade (the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision imposing abortion on demand across the country), “the only responsible thing to do would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”
Trump followed up his tweet by pointing out Biden’s 2017 endorsement of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam.
Biden and Democrats just clarified the fact that they are fully in favor of (very) LATE TERM ABORTION, right up until the time of birth, and beyond – which would be execution. Biden even endorsed the Governor of Virginia, who stated this clearly for all to hear. GET OUT & VOTE!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020
Northam’s January 2019 comments on late-term abortion seemed to imply the possibility of infanticide. Trump has periodically reminded voters of the radical pro-abortion stance that is characteristic of Democrat Party politicians. In an August 2019 campaign speech, he said that “virtually every top Democrat also now supports late-term abortion, ripping babies straight from the mother’s womb, right up until the moment of birth.” He then recalled Northam’s comments before saying that he has asked Congress “to prohibit extreme late-term abortions because Republicans believe that every child is a sacred gift of God.”
RELATED:
Planned Parenthood gave Northam damage-control talking points after pro-infanticide interview
Trump rips Democrats for allowing doctors to ‘execute the baby’
Virginia Gov. supports infanticide of babies born alive after failed abortions
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Supreme Court to issue first post-Ginsburg abortion decision on RU-486

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The U.S. Supreme Court could be days away from issuing a decision on federal regulations banning the abortion pill from being administered without an in-person doctor ’ s visit , its first abortion-related action since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
In July , District Judge Theodore Chuang agreed to the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union ’ s ( ACLU ’ s ) request to allow mifepristone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cocktail RU-486 , to be taken home without medical supervision , arguing that the requirement posed a “ substantial obstacle ” during the COVID-19 emergency , and ruled that , “ particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur.
” The U.S. Food & Drug Administration ( FDA ) appealed the ruling , and in August the U.S. Justice Department called on the nation ’ s highest court to render an immediate verdict on the temporary suspension .
The Supreme Court could announce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS News reported Monday .
Without the pro-abortion Ginsburg , who died last month at age 87 , it is assumed the majority of the current eight-person court would be sympathetic to the Trump administration ’ s position .
During periods with a vacancy on the nine-seat court , a 4-4 tie would allow the lower court ruling in the case to stand ( in this case Chuang ’ s decision favoring the abortion lobby ) , but would not set a binding precedent for the rest of the country .
“ By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nationwide basis , the district court has irreparably harmed both the government and the public more generally , ” the Justice Department argued .
“ Even if the FDA ultimately prevails on the merits , the risks to patients , and any harms that materialize , can not be undone .
Those costs outweigh any burdens associated with a one-time clinic visit to receive a drug that is merely one means of obtaining an abortion.
” “ This lethal drug that the FDA permits for killing innocent preborn children during the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous for women , ” added a coalition of pro-life groups that includes Live Action , Samaritan 's Purse , Heritage Action , and more .
“ According to the FDA ’ s adverse event reporting system , the abortion pill has resulted in over 4,000 reported adverse events since 2000 , including 24 maternal deaths .
Adverse events are notoriously underreported to the FDA , and as of 2016 , the FDA only requires abortion pill manufacturers to report maternal deaths.
” The case also offers a preview of sorts on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going forward .
In the next two months , the court is expected to be joined by Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg .
Widely regarded as a pro-life originalist , Barrett was a member of Notre Dame ’ s Faculty for Life group , is reported to have signed another letter published by Becket Law criticizing the Obama administration ’ s contraception mandate , and signed a 2006 ad declaring “ we … oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also written multiple articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine , which grants weight to past rulings ’ status as precedent , regardless of whether they were rightly decided .

The high court is expected to issue a ruling on a temporary suspension that allows the abortion pill to be taken at home without a visit to a doctor.
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Supreme Court could be days away from issuing a decision on federal regulations banning the abortion pill from being administered without an in-person doctor’s visit, its first abortion-related action since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In July, District Judge Theodore Chuang agreed to the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU’s) request to allow mifepristone, the first half of the chemical abortion cocktail RU-486, to be taken home without medical supervision, arguing that the requirement posed a “substantial obstacle” during the COVID-19 emergency, and ruled that, “particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur.”
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) appealed the ruling, and in August the U.S. Justice Department called on the nation’s highest court to render an immediate verdict on the temporary suspension.
The Supreme Court could announce a decision “any day now,” CBS News reported Monday. Without the pro-abortion Ginsburg, who died last month at age 87, it is assumed the majority of the current eight-person court would be sympathetic to the Trump administration’s position.
During periods with a vacancy on the nine-seat court, a 4-4 tie would allow the lower court ruling in the case to stand (in this case Chuang’s decision favoring the abortion lobby), but would not set a binding precedent for the rest of the country.
“By suspending enforcement of the safety requirements on a nationwide basis, the district court has irreparably harmed both the government and the public more generally,” the Justice Department argued. “Even if the FDA ultimately prevails on the merits, the risks to patients, and any harms that materialize, cannot be undone. Those costs outweigh any burdens associated with a one-time clinic visit to receive a drug that is merely one means of obtaining an abortion.”
“This lethal drug that the FDA permits for killing innocent preborn children during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy is also highly dangerous for women,” added a coalition of pro-life groups that includes Live Action, Samaritan's Purse, Heritage Action, and more. “According to the FDA’s adverse event reporting system, the abortion pill has resulted in over 4,000 reported adverse events since 2000, including 24 maternal deaths. Adverse events are notoriously underreported to the FDA, and as of 2016, the FDA only requires abortion pill manufacturers to report maternal deaths.”
The case also offers a preview of sorts on how abortion-related cases will fare before the court going forward. In the next two months, the court is expected to be joined by Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg.
Widely regarded as a pro-life originalist, Barrett was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group, is reported to have signed another letter published by Becket Law criticizing the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, and signed a 2006 ad declaring “we … oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” She has also written multiple articles critical of the stare decisis doctrine, which grants weight to past rulings’ status as precedent, regardless of whether they were rightly decided.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--BREAKING: Netflix indicted in Texas over ‘Cuties’ film sexualizing children

PETITION : Authorities must shut down Pornhub after showing videos of 15-year-old trafficking victim !
Sign the petition here .
TYLER COUNTY , Texas , October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Video streaming giant Netflix has been indicted in a Texas court over its hosting of the controversial French film Cuties , and now faces charges of distributing material that amounts to child pornography .
Cuties , which is about the controversial world of child dance competitions and has been characterized by its defenders as a critique of that world , has come under fire for including footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts and displaying partial underage nudity .
On Monday , Texas Republican state Rep. Matt Schaefer revealed that a grand jury has formally indicted Netflix for “ promotion of lewd visual material depicting [ a ] child ” : By releasing Cuties on its platform , the indictment says , Netflix “ did then and there knowingly promote visual material which depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in sex , and has no serious literary , artistic , political , or scientific value.
” “ It ’ s clear that the Cuties have learned their sexualized moves from watching older girls and women dance both in real life and , mostly , on social media , ” according to Focus on the Family ’ s Plugged In review of the film .
“ The Cuties show Amy a video of teenage girls dancing in crop tops and short shorts , where one girl ’ s bare breast is momentarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high school , which obviously means she ’ s being depicted as a teen.
” “ The more that Amy posts sexualized pictures on social media , the more she receives likes and affirmation and wants to post more , ” the review continues .
“ This goes to an extreme level when Amy uses the phone to take a picture of her genitals and posts them on social media .
We don ’ t see the picture , but we do see her pull down her pants and underwear to take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment of desperation to try to gain more attention and more likes for her group.
” “ The Cuties final , truly hypersexualized dance routine in a competition finds them once again mimicking just about every sexual pose and movement you can imagine that they ’ ve seen in videos , ” the review goes on .
“ The crowd roars approvingly at first , and the judges seem to encourage them .
As they pout and writhe about , however , the crowd and judges get increasingly uncomfortable with their routine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critiques the overly sexualized moves that the girls have adopted.
” Netflix has yet to publicly address the indictment , which was filed on September 23 , but Cuties has been a focal point of controversy for the company for some time now .
Several Republican U.S. senators , including Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas , have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to examine what federal laws on child pornography Netflix may have violated , while Josh Hawley of Missouri and Mike Lee of Utah have written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One prominent Democrat , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii , has also condemned the film .
More than 650,000 people have signed a Change.org petition calling on people to cancel their Netflix subscriptions over the film .
LifeSiteNews has similar ongoing petitions over the company ’ s previous attacks on Christianity and the right to life .

PETITION: Authorities must shut down Pornhub after showing videos of 15-year-old trafficking victim! Sign the petition here.
TYLER COUNTY, Texas, October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Video streaming giant Netflix has been indicted in a Texas court over its hosting of the controversial French film Cuties, and now faces charges of distributing material that amounts to child pornography.
Cuties, which is about the controversial world of child dance competitions and has been characterized by its defenders as a critique of that world, has come under fire for including footage of actual minors engaging in sexually suggestive acts and displaying partial underage nudity.
On Monday, Texas Republican state Rep. Matt Schaefer revealed that a grand jury has formally indicted Netflix for “promotion of lewd visual material depicting [a] child”:
Netflix, Inc. indicted by grand jury in Tyler Co., Tx for promoting material in Cuties film which depicts lewd exhibition of pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 yrs of age which appeals to the prurient interest in sex #Cuties #txlege pic.twitter.com/UJ1hY8XJ2l — Matt Schaefer (@RepMattSchaefer) October 6, 2020
By releasing Cuties on its platform, the indictment says, Netflix “did then and there knowingly promote visual material which depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created, which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
“It’s clear that the Cuties have learned their sexualized moves from watching older girls and women dance both in real life and, mostly, on social media,” according to Focus on the Family’s Plugged In review of the film. “The Cuties show Amy a video of teenage girls dancing in crop tops and short shorts, where one girl’s bare breast is momentarily exposed. That girl goes to their high school, which obviously means she’s being depicted as a teen.”
“The more that Amy posts sexualized pictures on social media, the more she receives likes and affirmation and wants to post more,” the review continues. “This goes to an extreme level when Amy uses the phone to take a picture of her genitals and posts them on social media. We don’t see the picture, but we do see her pull down her pants and underwear to take the pic. Amy does this in a moment of desperation to try to gain more attention and more likes for her group.”
“The Cuties final, truly hypersexualized dance routine in a competition finds them once again mimicking just about every sexual pose and movement you can imagine that they’ve seen in videos,” the review goes on. “The crowd roars approvingly at first, and the judges seem to encourage them. As they pout and writhe about, however, the crowd and judges get increasingly uncomfortable with their routine, one of the ways the film itself critiques the overly sexualized moves that the girls have adopted.”
Netflix has yet to publicly address the indictment, which was filed on September 23, but Cuties has been a focal point of controversy for the company for some time now.
Several Republican U.S. senators, including Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to examine what federal laws on child pornography Netflix may have violated, while Josh Hawley of Missouri and Mike Lee of Utah have written to Netflix itself about the matter. One prominent Democrat, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, has also condemned the film.
More than 650,000 people have signed a Change.org petition calling on people to cancel their Netflix subscriptions over the film. LifeSiteNews has similar ongoing petitions over the company’s previous attacks on Christianity and the right to life.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Videos adjuntos: Los manifestantes de izquierda ladran como perros contra la manifestación a favor d

Videos adjuntos: Los manifestantes de izquierda ladran como perros contra la manifestación a favor del matrimonio

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful , respectful comments that add useful information or insights .
Demeaning , hostile or propagandistic comments , @ @ @ @ @ the storyline , will be removed .
LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging @ @ @ @ @ or other disputes between commenters .
Multiple comments from one person under a story are @ @ @ @ @ three ) .
Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed ( Internet shouting ) .
@ @ @ @ @ , pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments .
Comments under @ @ @ @ @ represent the views of LifeSiteNews .

5 de octubre de 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Han surgido videos que muestran que los activistas homosexuales y los manifestantes anti-Trump han comenzado a ladrar literalmente en la cara de su oposición.
Los miembros del grupo Católico laico TFP Student Action realizaron un testimonio público de matrimonio en Varsovia, Polonia. Durante la campaña de cuatro días, participaron en debates callejeros, repartieron volantes y rezaron el rosario en la plaza pública. Sin embargo, los activistas LGBT rechazaron rápidamente el debate racional utilizando ladridos de perros.
En una publicación en Facebook, TFP Student Action informa que los manifestantes recurrieron a “ladrar, gritar y escupir.” La respuesta a estos testigos públicos de los valores tradicionales a menudo es acalorada, pero los voluntarios de la TFP nunca se habían encontrado con una forma de protesta tan inquietante.
El extraño fenómeno no es de ninguna manera aislado, con un comportamiento similar dirigido contra los partidarios del presidente Donald Trump. Un video capturado en Clermont, California, muestra a los manifestantes acosando a los partidarios de Trump en la acera. La grabación contiene imágenes de un grupo de mujeres que ladra maniáticamente y empuja agresivamente sus caras frente a los partidarios de Trump. Una mujer intenta razonar con uno de los manifestantes que ladra pero no puede hacerse oír. En lugar de participar en un debate político, el grupo feminista simplemente intenta ahogar cualquier conversación posible.
Una tercera instancia de tal comportamiento se publicó en TikTok . El clip muestra a un hombre tratando de predicar en medio de la calle mientras un grupo de mujeres intenta ahogarlo con ladridos. Las mujeres siguen al predicador mientras camina. Las imágenes continúan mostrando a un ciclista deteniéndose para razonar con los imitadores caninos mientras continuaban causando una escena de caos.
La tendencia parece ser más siniestra que simplemente ridícula. TFP Student Action menciona que tal acción demuestra el efecto que tiene el comportamiento pecaminoso en una persona. Los manifestantes pro-homosexuales dan un ejemplo de cómo “la revolución sexual degrada al individuo que cede a sus bajas pasiones animales.”
El Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica afirma que “los actos homosexuales son intrínsecamente desordenados. Son contrarias a la ley natural.” (CCC 2357). Cuando uno rechaza la ley natural a tal punto, también rechaza los principios de la razón y el sentido común. Las voluntarias de la TFP declararon que “el [comportamiento] pecaminoso tiene un impacto en la conducta humana,” lo cual está atestiguado por las acciones de las feministas que ladran.
Los casos recurrentes de manifestantes de izquierda que recurren a ruidos irracionales en lugar de palabras inteligibles dan fe de la veracidad de estas palabras del Catecismo. Ladrar imitando animales irracionales, en lugar de usar los poderes de la razón, presenta una imagen similar a la posesión demoníaca.
Your support makes stories like this possible!
LifeSiteNews is completely donor supported, allowing us to report on what truly is happening in the world, free of charge and uncensored. A donation to LifeSite will ensure millions around the world can continue to come to our site to find the truth people are so desperately searching for on life, faith, family and freedom.


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Pro-life evangelicals for pro-abortion Joe Biden: Seriously?

URGENT PETITION : Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade !
Sign the petition here .
October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In a period of less than 10 minutes on Monday , I read an about candidate Joe Biden ’ s extreme pro-abortion views , and then was sent a link to the for “ Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden.
” The article cited Biden ’ s response to a question about abortion rights , where he addressed the potential of Amy Coney Barrett becoming a Supreme Court justice .
Should that be the case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn Roe v. Wade , “ the only thing , the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land .
That ’ s what I would do.
” This is in harmony with the Democratic platform , which plainly , “ We will repeal the Hyde Amendment , and protect and codify Roe v. Wade.
” In that light , how can you identify as a “ pro-life ” evangelical who supports Biden ?
Wouldn ’ t that be like declaring yourself a pro-abolition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic candidate who ran against Abraham Lincoln in 1864 ?
Or like declaring yourself an anti-segregation supporter of George Wallace ?
How can you identify as “ pro-life ” and yet actively campaign for the party of abortion ?
The pro-Biden website states this , in all caps : “ AS PRO-LIFE EVANGELICALS , WE DISAGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION .
BUT WE BELIEVE A BIBLICALLY SHAPED COMMITMENT TO THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE COMPELS US TO A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE THAT AFFIRMS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TO END.
” In other words , while we think the slaughter of tens of millions innocent babies is a bad thing , and we ’ re willing to sacrifice their lives before they even enter this world , we do prefer the other policies of the Democrats , so they get our vote .
Seriously ?
How much different is this than saying , “ While we have a problem with Pol Pot ’ s genocidal policies , we do think his other reforms serve in the best interest of the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” To be clear , I am not comparing Joe Biden to Pol Pot ( please repeat that 10 times slowly , since I am not making that comparison ) .
But I am comparing the slaughter of the unborn to other mass moral atrocities , and for good reason .
Thus , I find any evangelical justification of a vote for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate and party to be unethical .
( Yes , this is my personal opinion .
Each of us will give account to God , and He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , do these evangelical leaders justify their position ?
They state , “ Many things that good political decisions could change destroy persons created in the image of God and violate the sanctity of human life .
Poverty kills millions every year .
So does lack of healthcare and smoking .
Racism kills .
Unless we quickly make major changes , devastating climate change will kill tens of millions .
Poverty , lack of accessible health care services , smoking , racism and climate change are all pro-life issues.
” And this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-abortion candidate ?
A candidate who wants to be sure that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land ?
A candidate who , during the campaign , reversed his longstanding support of the Hyde Amendment ?
I agree that poverty kills , but Trump ’ s economic policies have helped alleviate poverty , not accelerate poverty .
As for lack of healthcare , both parties want good healthcare for all Americans but simply differ on the best way to achieve that .
As for smoking — yes , smoking — what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a vote for Biden ?
Does Trump , himself a non-smoker , encourage Americans to smoke ?
Would a vote for Biden be a vote against smoking ?
As for racism killing people , perhaps what kills people is the stoking of racism , especially by the left ?
As for Americans literally killed because of racism every year , as tragic as even one such death would be , that number pails in comparison to the 700,000 ( ! )
babies killed in their mother ’ s wombs every year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been twice as high . )
As for climate change and what should be done about that , there is intense scientific debate about the subject .
Yet , for these very reasons , we are being told not to vote for the strongest pro-life president we have ever had and rather to vote for the most radical , pro-abortion ticket in our nation ’ s history .
These pro-Biden evangelicals claim that “ the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden : accessible health services for all citizens , affordable childcare , a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty.
” Oh yes , if we vote Democrat , they will help these poor women out of their poverty , and thus abortions will be reduced .
In all honesty , I ask : Can you really say those words with a straight face in the presence of a holy God ?
Are you not perhaps driven more by deep opposition to Trump ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this movement ’ s leaders ) than by the hope that a vote for Democrats will help save babies ’ lives ?
The statement concludes with , “ For these reasons , we believe that on balance , Joe Biden ’ s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump .
Therefore , even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion , we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.
” Tell that to the more than 60 million babies slaughtered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ babies viciously terminated in the third-trimester , some of them with their brains sucked out while still alive .
And tell that to , a registered nurse from Dayton , Ohio , who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17 , 1995 about what she witnessed when assisting a doctor abort a baby boy just over 26 weeks old .
She that the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “ delivered the baby ’ s body and arms – everything but the head .
The doctor kept the baby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The baby ’ s little fingers were clasping and unclasping , his feet were kicking .
Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head , and the baby ’ s arms jerked out in a flinch , a startle reaction , like a baby does when he thinks he might fall .
The doctor opened up the scissors , stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby ’ s brains out .
Now the baby was completely limp.
” These “ pro-life ” evangelicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported these barbaric procedures for years .
Indeed , they are calling on other Christians to vote for the party that opposes the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act , which would guarantee medical care for a baby that survives abortion .
In fact , as senator , vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris against this very Act , and “ earlier this year she voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act , which would have protected unborn babies from abortion procedures after the point at which they can feel pain ( 20 weeks ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they “ oppose ‘ one issue ’ political thinking because it lacks biblical balance.
” With all respect , I say this : Do not talk to me about “ biblical balance ” while urging evangelical followers of Jesus to vote for the party that justifies the slaughter of more than 60 million babies in their mother ’ s womb and will fight tooth and nail to codify Roe v. Wade .
Any mention of “ biblical balance ” that doesn ’ t start with concern for the shedding of innocent blood is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer biblical .

‘I find any evangelical justification of a vote for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate and party to be unethical.’
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In a period of less than 10 minutes on Monday, I read an article about candidate Joe Biden’s extreme pro-abortion views, and then was sent a link to the home page for “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden.”
The article cited Biden’s response to a question about abortion rights, where he addressed the potential of Amy Coney Barrett becoming a Supreme Court justice. Should that be the case, he said, and should the court overturn Roe v. Wade, “the only thing, the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”
This is in harmony with the Democratic platform, which plainly states , “We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify Roe v. Wade.”
In that light, how can you identify as a “pro-life” evangelical who supports Biden? Wouldn’t that be like declaring yourself a pro-abolition supporter of George B. McClellan, the Democratic candidate who ran against Abraham Lincoln in 1864? Or like declaring yourself an anti-segregation supporter of George Wallace? How can you identify as “pro-life” and yet actively campaign for the party of abortion?
The pro-Biden website states this, in all caps: “AS PRO-LIFE EVANGELICALS, WE DISAGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION. BUT WE BELIEVE A BIBLICALLY SHAPED COMMITMENT TO THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE COMPELS US TO A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE THAT AFFIRMS THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE FROM BEGINNING TO END.”
In other words, while we think the slaughter of tens of millions innocent babies is a bad thing, and we’re willing to sacrifice their lives before they even enter this world, we do prefer the other policies of the Democrats, so they get our vote. Seriously?
How much different is this than saying, “While we have a problem with Pol Pot’s genocidal policies, we do think his other reforms serve in the best interest of the country, and so he gets our vote.”
To be clear, I am not comparing Joe Biden to Pol Pot (please repeat that 10 times slowly, since I am not making that comparison). But I am comparing the slaughter of the unborn to other mass moral atrocities, and for good reason. Thus, I find any evangelical justification of a vote for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate and party to be unethical. (Yes, this is my personal opinion. Each of us will give account to God, and He is the ultimate judge.)
How, then, do these evangelical leaders justify their position? They state, “Many things that good political decisions could change destroy persons created in the image of God and violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty kills millions every year. So does lack of healthcare and smoking. Racism kills. Unless we quickly make major changes, devastating climate change will kill tens of millions. Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues.”
And this is the justification for voting for a pro-abortion candidate? A candidate who wants to be sure that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? A candidate who, during the campaign, reversed his longstanding support of the Hyde Amendment?
I agree that poverty kills, but Trump’s economic policies have helped alleviate poverty, not accelerate poverty.
As for lack of healthcare, both parties want good healthcare for all Americans but simply differ on the best way to achieve that.
As for smoking — yes, smoking — what on earth does that have to do with a vote for Biden? Does Trump, himself a non-smoker, encourage Americans to smoke? Would a vote for Biden be a vote against smoking?
As for racism killing people, perhaps what kills people is the stoking of racism, especially by the left? As for Americans literally killed because of racism every year, as tragic as even one such death would be, that number pails in comparison to the 700,000 (!) babies killed in their mother’s wombs every year. (In years past, that number has been twice as high.)
As for climate change and what should be done about that, there is intense scientific debate about the subject.
Yet, for these very reasons, we are being told not to vote for the strongest pro-life president we have ever had and rather to vote for the most radical, pro-abortion ticket in our nation’s history.
These pro-Biden evangelicals claim that “the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child,” and so “we appreciate a number of Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden: accessible health services for all citizens, affordable childcare, a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty.”
Oh yes, if we vote Democrat, they will help these poor women out of their poverty, and thus abortions will be reduced.
In all honesty, I ask: Can you really say those words with a straight face in the presence of a holy God? Are you not perhaps driven more by deep opposition to Trump (as expressed quite forthrightly in other writings by some of this movement’s leaders) than by the hope that a vote for Democrats will help save babies’ lives?
The statement concludes with, “For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.”
Tell that to the more than 60 million babies slaughtered since 1973. Tell that to the babies viciously terminated in the third-trimester, some of them with their brains sucked out while still alive.
And tell that to Brenda Pratt Shafer , a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995 about what she witnessed when assisting a doctor abort a baby boy just over 26 weeks old.
She stated that the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “delivered the baby’s body and arms – everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”
These “pro-life” evangelicals are voting for the party that has supported these barbaric procedures for years. Indeed, they are calling on other Christians to vote for the party that opposes the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would guarantee medical care for a baby that survives abortion.
In fact, as senator, vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris voted against this very Act, and “earlier this year she voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, which would have protected unborn babies from abortion procedures after the point at which they can feel pain (20 weeks).”
Yet these enlightened evangelicals state they “oppose ‘one issue’ political thinking because it lacks biblical balance.”
With all respect, I say this: Do not talk to me about “biblical balance” while urging evangelical followers of Jesus to vote for the party that justifies the slaughter of more than 60 million babies in their mother’s womb and will fight tooth and nail to codify Roe v. Wade.
Any mention of “biblical balance” that doesn’t start with concern for the shedding of innocent blood is so far out of balance it is no longer biblical.
Follow Michael Dr. Brown is the author of more than 35 books, including Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People, which has been translated into more than twelve languages, the highly acclaimed five-volume series, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, a commentary on Jeremiah (part of the revised edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary), and several books on revival and the Jesus revolution. His most recent book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?
Share


lifesitenews--2020-10-06--Why the pro-life movement is about ending abortion. Period.

October 6 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The End-It Movement is not really pro-freedom .
The movement that says they fight to end slavery and human trafficking worldwide is virtually silent on abortion , poverty , homophobia , police brutality , and unjust immigration laws .
You can ’ t be pro-freedom while also picking and choosing whose freedom is worth fighting for .
What about the poor , the unborn , people of color , and refugees seeking safety in America ?
Do their lives not matter to the End-It Movement ?
Apparently not .
Being pro-freedom is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s about supporting the freedom and worth of all lives , not just the ones being enslaved .
I hope you didn ’ t take this silly accusation seriously and I certainly hope you weren ’ t persuaded by it .
However , replace the phrase “ End-It ” with “ Pro-Life ” and this accusation would magically transform into a “ persuasive ” piece of rhetoric parroted by human rights activists , religious leaders , and politicians .
My satirical critiques of the End-It Movement are incredibly disingenuous .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement has a singular mission .
While members of the End-It Movement almost assuredly stand against racism and police brutality , they have chosen to devote their lives and careers to ending slavery .
How will burdening them with solving countless other injustices enable them to end the one they have chosen to focus on ?
As Frederick the Great allegedly said , “ He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere.
” One might also remind my satirical self that the phrase “ End-It ” is not referring to ending all forms of injustice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task ?
Rather , it specifically refers to ending slavery and human trafficking .
The same holds true for the pro-life movement .
Over the last decade , it has become popular to say , “ You ’ re not really pro-life unless… ” and then fill in the blank with some responsibility or requirement the critic demands the pro-life movement or individual must meet in order to be worthy of the “ pro-life ” title .
This accusation has been levied against the pro-life movement by our enemies for a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by those who claim to be our allies .
In each case , their selective application of this rule – that individuals and movements must advocate for all life and fight all injustice – gives away the game .
By only levying such accusations against the pro-life movement , they prove that they either don ’ t see the pro-life movement as all that great or they don ’ t see abortion as all that bad , or both .
Consider these analogous examples .
Could the “ you ’ re not pro-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these questions ?
• Was Oskar Schindler not really anti-holocaust for only focusing his energy and wealth on saving Jews ?
• Were Abolitionists not truly anti-slavery because they only sought to abolish one type of evil ?
• Is the International Justice Mission lacking in justice for only working to establish justice for slaves ?
Obviously , it would be fundamentally unserious to answer ‘ yes ’ to any of these questions .
Likewise , I would propose that it is an equally unserious position to suggest that the pro-life movement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life unless they ’ re advocating for and defending all lives .
Our critics argue that the word “ life ” in the term “ pro-life ” is intentionally broad in order to include all life .
This is incredibly cynical because everyone knows that when asked whether they ’ re pro-life or pro-choice , they are being asked whether they are for or against abortion .
They are not being asked whether they ’ re for ALL choices or against ALL lives .
These “ whole-life ” proponents criticize the pro-life movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal and unthinkable , insisting that being pro-life means not getting to choose which “ life ” you will stand for and protect .
Yet , missing from all of their critiques is what they would have us do in the real world in order to deserve wearing this new “ pro-life ” label .
Should pro-life advocates fight sex-trafficking on Monday , work for police reform on Tuesday , volunteer at the soup kitchen on Wednesday , lobby for a living wage on Thursday , and then fight abortion on Friday ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wonder ” about the “ silence ” of the pro-life movement when a national debate erupts over either a real or contrived injustice .
Anything from a suspected racially-motivated shooting , to children being separated from their parents at the southern border , even to the debate over universal healthcare .
If it ’ s an issue that the “ whole-life ” progressive can tangentially relate to the word “ life , ” then the pro-life movement will be attacked and accused as frauds with a fetus-obsession , whose compassion , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nine-month expiration date.
” ( 1 ) It goes without saying that no other organization or movement is slandered in this way .
The International Justice Mission , End-It , Invisible Children , The American Cancer Society , Susan G. Komen , and hundreds more , all with a very narrowly defined mission somehow escape criticism .
Despite the unfair accusations hurled by our critics , the pro-life movement is incredibly generous and committed to the life of children and families , even after birth , boasting nearly 2,800 pregnancy resource center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations .
These clinics outnumber the 1,800 abortion clinics , many of whom rely on federal funding .
( 2 ) These non-profit pregnancy centers provide free ultrasounds , free STD testing , abortion-alternatives , parenting classes , skills-building courses , baby clothes , diapers , and in many instances , even free housing .
According to Philanthropy Roundtable , the most generous Americans are conservative , religious individuals ( the majority of the pro-life movement ) with a moderate income .
( 3 ) A movement comprised largely of Protestants and Catholics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both believe and practice what Scott Klusendorf calls a broad and inclusive ethic .
“ But it does not follow that the operational objectives of the pro-life movement must be broad and inclusive as well.
” ( 4 ) Unfortunately , this painfully obvious point is lost on woke pastors like Eugene Cho , who personally opposes abortion but supports keeping it legal , and insists that being pro-life means : Eugene Cho is living in fantasy land if he honestly believes the pro-life movement can successfully shoulder his job description for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s America that they aren ’ t really opposed to the legal enslavement and brutalization of African-Americans , even while they spend all day seeking its abolition , because being an abolitionist means more than just a singular focus on freeing slaves .
Not just African-American lives , but slaveholders ’ lives too .
Not just African-Americans , but indigenous Africans too .
Abolitionism should not just be an anti-slavery conviction .
It is so much more .
Abolitionists have to address the underlying causes that lead plantation owners to purchase black men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They must come alongside poorer plantation owners whose income will be devastated if they free their slaves .
If the abolitionist movement had taken the advice and demands of today ’ s “ whole-life ” progressives seriously , the abolitionist movement would have collapsed in on itself and perhaps extended the horrific practice many decades .
Abolishing an evil that had been practiced around the world in nearly every society for many thousands of years was a large enough challenge without demanding that abolitionists assume responsibility for a cornucopia of other societal ills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for today ’ s abolitionists in the pro-life movement ?
In fact , from a pure body-count calculation , abortion in America has taken far more lives than slavery ever did .
Abortion is arguably the greatest human rights violation in human history , with 63 million murdered pre-born children in America since 1973 , and well over 1.5 billion children killed worldwide since 1980 .
( 6 ) If state-sanctioned killing of these numbers doesn ’ t justify a movement devoting all its time and resources towards bringing about its end , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustice “ whole-life ” advocates would find evil enough to justify a single-mission movement .
If “ consistent-life ethic ” proponents had their way , the pro-life movement ’ s goal – to end the legally sanctioned slaughter of little humans in their mother ’ s wombs – would become nearly unachievable .
Many more babies would be killed while their only defenders willingly abandoned their post to pursue justice for ALL people , none of whom it is currently legal to kill .
Along with Hadley Arkes , I can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed allies of the pro-life movement , “ whether the issue did not come down to this : that in their heart of hearts , some of our ‘ friends ’ really were not possessed by a lively sense that there were real human beings getting killed in these surgeries.
” ( 7 ) Why else would they seek to fragment the only movement committed to the pre-born ’ s protection ?
Some “ whole-life ” advocates such as Russell Moore admit that the selective application of this rule to the pro-life movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ don ’ t have to share a comprehensive program on everything in order to be a pro-life movement , ” ( 8 ) but then he immediately flips and asks , “ why isn ’ t the pro-life movement committed to the whole person ?
” ( 9 ) This is tantamount to asking Oskar Schindler why , after saving 1200 Jews from the holocaust and exhausting his net worth to do so , he didn ’ t help provide housing , schools , mental health sessions , daycares for single parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , there is only one class of human beings in this country that have been denied the right to life , and re-enshrining that right is both a worthy and gargantuan goal , whose success will be determined by the commitment of its advocates .
Demanding that the pro-life movement commit themselves to the “ whole person ” will only dilute organizational resources away from saving babies whose lives are being targeted , particularly when , as John Ensor points out , “ many of those other issues already have personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life organizations.
” ( 10 ) Pretending that quality of life outside the womb is morally equivalent to protection of life in the womb is outrageous .
And as Scott Klusendorf points out , “ attacking pro-lifers as hypocrites for not exhausting their scarce resources fighting every injustice imaginable ” ( 11 ) is more outrageous still .
Working to increase quality of life outside the womb is an honorable calling .
But far more important is securing that first and most important of all rights for those who don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure it : Life for the unborn .
Abraham Lincoln understood the importance of a singular focus .
He knew that while there were many worthy causes to pursue , slavery took the dominant position in American life .
There were two reasons for this .
First , slavery was an order of evil unlike any other at the time .
It represented the grossest inversion of the natural order that “ all men are created equal , ” meaning that “ no man is by nature the ruler of other men in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ruler of dogs and horses , and God was by nature the ruler of men.
” ( 12 ) In a Judeo-Christian society that understood people to be image-bearers of God , slavery was both an affront to the victims who bore intrinsic dignity and to God who created them .
Second , slavery could not be tolerated because of the threat it represented to natural rights , which provides the foundation for self-government .
Lincoln understood that in accepting the institution of slavery and the premises that made it plausible in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all men are created equal , our Republic would be “ putting in place the premises that justified ( our ) own enslavement.
” ( 13 ) In allowing some people the right to decide who are truly people or not , America was rejecting the idea of natural rights , therefore converting all rights into rights of positive law .
Lincoln understood that in eradicating slavery and ensuring that the promises of the Declaration were granted to the slaves , he was further enshrining freedom for all people .
Lincoln grasped what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as long as a pure majority could create or deny rights to their citizens , there could be no natural rights that apply to all people .
By grounding natural rights in our shared human nature , not only was Lincoln eradicating the premises of slavery , but he was also establishing the idea of human equality .
Lincoln communicated all of this in one sentence speaking before Congress on December 1 , 1862 : “ In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free.
” ( 14 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our republic in the 19th century , so is abortion today .
Abortion is evil for the same reasons that slavery is evil : It denies the personhood of its victims to justify their mistreatment .
If the abolitionists of slavery were justified in their narrow-minded focus of ending slavery for its affront to human dignity and its threat to natural rights and self-government , the abolitionists of abortion are more than justified in doing the same for the same reasons .
Any critiques to the contrary prove that such critics either don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully human , or if they do , they don ’ t believe abortion to be a morally equivalent evil to slavery , simply proving that they were never with us in the first place .
Just as being an abolitionist only required that you oppose slavery and seek its abolition , being pro-life only requires that you oppose abortion and seek its abolition .
That ’ s it !
As my friend and fellow pro-life advocate Marc Newman has said , “ Individuals and organizations that make it their exclusive mission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell-bent on butchering them have nothing to apologize for .
They don ’ t need additional causes ; they need additional support.
” ( 15 ) 1 https : //johnpavlovitz.com/2016/10/12/fellow-white-christian-friends-i-wish-you-really-were-pro-life/ 2 https : //pregnancyhelpnews.com/phc-10-numbers 3 https : //www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives 4 https : //www.desiringgod.org/articles/all-we-did-was-survive 5 https : //www.facebook.com/eugenecho/photos/a.193666537346403/1304212106291835/ ?
type=3 & theater 6 http : //www.numberofabortions.com 7 Arkes , Hadley .
Natural Rights & the Right to Choose ( New York : Cambridge University Press , 2002 ) 158 .
8 https : //www.russellmoore.com/2018/04/20/what-does-it-mean-to-be-prolife/ 9 Ibid 10 https : //www.desiringgod.org/articles/all-we-did-was-survive 11 https : //townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2018/01/22/the-essential-prolife-argument-keep-the-main-thing-the-main-thing-n2437702 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Right to Choose ( New York : Cambridge University Press , 2002 ) 158 .
16 13 Ibid , 165 14 https : //millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-1-1862-second-annual-message 15 https : //townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2018/01/22/the-essential-prolife-argument-keep-the-main-thing-the-main-thing-n2437702

If 'consistent-life ethic' proponents had their way, the pro-life movement’s goal – to end the legally sanctioned slaughter of little humans in their mother’s wombs – would become nearly unachievable.
URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
October 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The End-It Movement is not really pro-freedom.
The movement that says they fight to end slavery and human trafficking worldwide is virtually silent on abortion, poverty, homophobia, police brutality, and unjust immigration laws. You can’t be pro-freedom while also picking and choosing whose freedom is worth fighting for. What about the poor, the unborn, people of color, and refugees seeking safety in America? Do their lives not matter to the End-It Movement? Apparently not. Being pro-freedom is about more than just being anti-slavery. It’s about supporting the freedom and worth of all lives, not just the ones being enslaved.
I hope you didn’t take this silly accusation seriously and I certainly hope you weren’t persuaded by it. However, replace the phrase “End-It” with “Pro-Life” and this accusation would magically transform into a “persuasive” piece of rhetoric parroted by human rights activists, religious leaders, and politicians.
My satirical critiques of the End-It Movement are incredibly disingenuous. In reality, I am very glad this movement has a singular mission. While members of the End-It Movement almost assuredly stand against racism and police brutality, they have chosen to devote their lives and careers to ending slavery. How will burdening them with solving countless other injustices enable them to end the one they have chosen to focus on? As Frederick the Great allegedly said, “He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere.” One might also remind my satirical self that the phrase “End-It” is not referring to ending all forms of injustice. Who could reasonably accomplish such a task? Rather, it specifically refers to ending slavery and human trafficking.
The same holds true for the pro-life movement.
Over the last decade, it has become popular to say, “You’re not really pro-life unless…” and then fill in the blank with some responsibility or requirement the critic demands the pro-life movement or individual must meet in order to be worthy of the “pro-life” title. This accusation has been levied against the pro-life movement by our enemies for a long time, but it is now being repeated by those who claim to be our allies. In each case, their selective application of this rule – that individuals and movements must advocate for all life and fight all injustice – gives away the game. By only levying such accusations against the pro-life movement, they prove that they either don’t see the pro-life movement as all that great or they don’t see abortion as all that bad, or both.
Consider these analogous examples. Could the “you’re not pro-life unless” critics honestly answer yes to these questions?
Was Oskar Schindler not really anti-holocaust for only focusing his energy and wealth on saving Jews?
Were Abolitionists not truly anti-slavery because they only sought to abolish one type of evil?
Is the International Justice Mission lacking in justice for only working to establish justice for slaves?
Obviously, it would be fundamentally unserious to answer ‘yes’ to any of these questions. Likewise, I would propose that it is an equally unserious position to suggest that the pro-life movement and the people in it are not really pro-life unless they’re advocating for and defending all lives.
Our critics argue that the word “life” in the term “pro-life” is intentionally broad in order to include all life. This is incredibly cynical because everyone knows that when asked whether they’re pro-life or pro-choice, they are being asked whether they are for or against abortion. They are not being asked whether they’re for ALL choices or against ALL lives.
These “whole-life” proponents criticize the pro-life movement for our narrow-minded commitment to making abortion illegal and unthinkable, insisting that being pro-life means not getting to choose which “life” you will stand for and protect. Yet, missing from all of their critiques is what they would have us do in the real world in order to deserve wearing this new “pro-life” label. Should pro-life advocates fight sex-trafficking on Monday, work for police reform on Tuesday, volunteer at the soup kitchen on Wednesday, lobby for a living wage on Thursday, and then fight abortion on Friday?
Still other “whole-life” advocates openly “wonder” about the “silence” of the pro-life movement when a national debate erupts over either a real or contrived injustice. Anything from a suspected racially-motivated shooting, to children being separated from their parents at the southern border, even to the debate over universal healthcare. If it’s an issue that the “whole-life” progressive can tangentially relate to the word “life,” then the pro-life movement will be attacked and accused as frauds with a fetus-obsession, whose compassion, the self-important John Pavlovitz writes, “has a nine-month expiration date.” (1)
It goes without saying that no other organization or movement is slandered in this way. The International Justice Mission, End-It, Invisible Children, The American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen, and hundreds more, all with a very narrowly defined mission somehow escape criticism.
Despite the unfair accusations hurled by our critics, the pro-life movement is incredibly generous and committed to the life of children and families, even after birth, boasting nearly 2,800 pregnancy resource center locations, almost entirely funded through private donations. These clinics outnumber the 1,800 abortion clinics, many of whom rely on federal funding. (2) These non-profit pregnancy centers provide free ultrasounds, free STD testing, abortion-alternatives, parenting classes, skills-building courses, baby clothes, diapers, and in many instances, even free housing. According to Philanthropy Roundtable, the most generous Americans are conservative, religious individuals (the majority of the pro-life movement) with a moderate income. (3)
A movement comprised largely of Protestants and Catholics, the individuals in the pro-life movement both believe and practice what Scott Klusendorf calls a broad and inclusive ethic. “But it does not follow that the operational objectives of the pro-life movement must be broad and inclusive as well.” (4)
Unfortunately, this painfully obvious point is lost on woke pastors like Eugene Cho, who personally opposes abortion but supports keeping it legal, and insists that being pro-life means:
“Not just American lives, but Syrian lives. Not just Christian lives, but Muslim lives; To be pro-all-life is to acknowledge the systemic injustice that operates against indigenous and black/brown folks in our culture. To be pro-all-life is to be broken by LGBTQ youth that are 3 to 4 times more likely to attempt suicide. And the list goes on… Pro-life should not just be an anti-abortion conviction. It is so much more. We have to reduce the demand for abortion… we must come alongside the poor and low-income women… we must come alongside single mothers… we must engage and support those called to foster care and adoption. (5)
Eugene Cho is living in fantasy land if he honestly believes the pro-life movement can successfully shoulder his job description for us.
Imagine telling abolitionists in 1850’s America that they aren’t really opposed to the legal enslavement and brutalization of African-Americans, even while they spend all day seeking its abolition, because being an abolitionist means more than just a singular focus on freeing slaves. Not just African-American lives, but slaveholders’ lives too. Not just African-Americans, but indigenous Africans too. Abolitionism should not just be an anti-slavery conviction. It is so much more. Abolitionists have to address the underlying causes that lead plantation owners to purchase black men and women in the first place. They must come alongside poorer plantation owners whose income will be devastated if they free their slaves.
If the abolitionist movement had taken the advice and demands of today’s “whole-life” progressives seriously, the abolitionist movement would have collapsed in on itself and perhaps extended the horrific practice many decades. Abolishing an evil that had been practiced around the world in nearly every society for many thousands of years was a large enough challenge without demanding that abolitionists assume responsibility for a cornucopia of other societal ills.
Why should it be any different for today’s abolitionists in the pro-life movement?
In fact, from a pure body-count calculation, abortion in America has taken far more lives than slavery ever did. Abortion is arguably the greatest human rights violation in human history, with 63 million murdered pre-born children in America since 1973, and well over 1.5 billion children killed worldwide since 1980. (6) If state-sanctioned killing of these numbers doesn’t justify a movement devoting all its time and resources towards bringing about its end, it’s hard to imagine what injustice “whole-life” advocates would find evil enough to justify a single-mission movement.
If “consistent-life ethic” proponents had their way, the pro-life movement’s goal – to end the legally sanctioned slaughter of little humans in their mother’s wombs – would become nearly unachievable. Many more babies would be killed while their only defenders willingly abandoned their post to pursue justice for ALL people, none of whom it is currently legal to kill.
Along with Hadley Arkes, I can’t help but wonder in regards to the supposed allies of the pro-life movement, “whether the issue did not come down to this: that in their heart of hearts, some of our ‘friends’ really were not possessed by a lively sense that there were real human beings getting killed in these surgeries.” (7) Why else would they seek to fragment the only movement committed to the pre-born’s protection?
Some “whole-life” advocates such as Russell Moore admit that the selective application of this rule to the pro-life movement is unreasonable and even says that we “don’t have to share a comprehensive program on everything in order to be a pro-life movement,” (8) but then he immediately flips and asks, “why isn’t the pro-life movement committed to the whole person?” (9) This is tantamount to asking Oskar Schindler why, after saving 1200 Jews from the holocaust and exhausting his net worth to do so, he didn’t help provide housing, schools, mental health sessions, daycares for single parents and universal healthcare for those who survived.
Today, there is only one class of human beings in this country that have been denied the right to life, and re-enshrining that right is both a worthy and gargantuan goal, whose success will be determined by the commitment of its advocates. Demanding that the pro-life movement commit themselves to the “whole person” will only dilute organizational resources away from saving babies whose lives are being targeted, particularly when, as John Ensor points out, “many of those other issues already have personnel and resources that dwarf those of dedicated pro-life organizations.” (10)
Pretending that quality of life outside the womb is morally equivalent to protection of life in the womb is outrageous. And as Scott Klusendorf points out, “attacking pro-lifers as hypocrites for not exhausting their scarce resources fighting every injustice imaginable” (11) is more outrageous still. Working to increase quality of life outside the womb is an honorable calling. But far more important is securing that first and most important of all rights for those who don’t have it and can’t work to secure it: Life for the unborn.
Abraham Lincoln understood the importance of a singular focus. He knew that while there were many worthy causes to pursue, slavery took the dominant position in American life. There were two reasons for this.
First, slavery was an order of evil unlike any other at the time. It represented the grossest inversion of the natural order that “all men are created equal,” meaning that “no man is by nature the ruler of other men in the way that men are by nature the ruler of dogs and horses, and God was by nature the ruler of men.” (12) In a Judeo-Christian society that understood people to be image-bearers of God, slavery was both an affront to the victims who bore intrinsic dignity and to God who created them.
Second, slavery could not be tolerated because of the threat it represented to natural rights, which provides the foundation for self-government. Lincoln understood that in accepting the institution of slavery and the premises that made it plausible in the first place, namely that not all men are created equal, our Republic would be “putting in place the premises that justified (our) own enslavement.” (13) In allowing some people the right to decide who are truly people or not, America was rejecting the idea of natural rights, therefore converting all rights into rights of positive law.
Lincoln understood that in eradicating slavery and ensuring that the promises of the Declaration were granted to the slaves, he was further enshrining freedom for all people. Lincoln grasped what all the founders took as self-evident, that as long as a pure majority could create or deny rights to their citizens, there could be no natural rights that apply to all people. By grounding natural rights in our shared human nature, not only was Lincoln eradicating the premises of slavery, but he was also establishing the idea of human equality. Lincoln communicated all of this in one sentence speaking before Congress on December 1, 1862: “In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free.” (14)
As slavery was a litmus test of our republic in the 19th century, so is abortion today. Abortion is evil for the same reasons that slavery is evil: It denies the personhood of its victims to justify their mistreatment.
If the abolitionists of slavery were justified in their narrow-minded focus of ending slavery for its affront to human dignity and its threat to natural rights and self-government, the abolitionists of abortion are more than justified in doing the same for the same reasons. Any critiques to the contrary prove that such critics either don’t believe the unborn to be fully human, or if they do, they don’t believe abortion to be a morally equivalent evil to slavery, simply proving that they were never with us in the first place.
Just as being an abolitionist only required that you oppose slavery and seek its abolition, being pro-life only requires that you oppose abortion and seek its abolition. That’s it! As my friend and fellow pro-life advocate Marc Newman has said, “Individuals and organizations that make it their exclusive mission to save these human beings from a culture hell-bent on butchering them have nothing to apologize for. They don’t need additional causes; they need additional support.” (15)
______
1 https://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/10/12/fellow-white-christian-friends-i-wish-you-really-were-pro-life/
2 https://pregnancyhelpnews.com/phc-10-numbers
3 https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives
4 https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/all-we-did-was-survive
5 https://www.facebook.com/eugenecho/photos/a.193666537346403/1304212106291835/?type=3&theater
6 https://www.numberofabortions.com
7 Arkes, Hadley. Natural Rights & the Right to Choose (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 158.
8 https://www.russellmoore.com/2018/04/20/what-does-it-mean-to-be-prolife/
9 Ibid
10 https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/all-we-did-was-survive
11 https://townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2018/01/22/the-essential-prolife-argument-keep-the-main-thing-the-main-thing-n2437702
12 Arkes, Hadley. Natural Rights & the Right to Choose (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 158. 16
13 Ibid, 165
14 https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-1-1862-second-annual-message
15 https://townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2018/01/22/the-essential-prolife-argument-keep-the-main-thing-the-main-thing-n2437702
Share