The presence of a life, is without a doubt, a miracle.  An unborn struggles, unknown what it means to exists, inside this sack of fluids in the womb.  This unborn is  uncertain about what it is to be alive.  We, as a society, take over its fate as we dictate its future with our laws when we determine when its presence is considered “viable”.  Our laws look to when it is legal to destroy it, or allow it to develop even if deformed.  Our laws give us “permission” to end a life, and create one in order to save another in stem cell medicine.

Before Roe v. Wade (1973) gave women the permission to determine whether or not to medically end their pregnancy in a “legal” way, abortion was being performed illegally by non-medical people.  Women sought to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies with dangerous procedures that oftentimes ended in their own death.  In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court was unable to make considerable ethical arguments for allowing the unborn child any rights; instead, the court argued with the logic that the 14^th amendment and the due process clause allowed women the right, to make decisions over their own body.  It argued mainly on the right to privacy and how the laws did not have the power to circumvent this right as it applied to people in the U.S., mainly women.

With that decision, the Court opened a Pandora Box that has been hovering over the U.S. and our social attitude toward life.  In their argument, however, the Court did not carry the argument onto the unborn.   Rather, they shied away from the application citing that the question  of viability and that the due process clause could not protect the rights of a human being, and in this case, a being that was not yet “viable.”  Since that time, the slaughter of lives has been approximately 52 million and counting.

If the ruling had gone against the granting of abortion rights, this would not have stopped  abortion and the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.  After all, as stated previously, women were having abortions performed under considerably dangerous conditions before the Roe decision.  What the ruling in  Roe v. Wade, did was to give permission to the act of ending a life.   The Court never stated that the abortion was good, moral, or just.  It merely stated that abortion could not be dictated to women and therefore, it was legal.

As in many instances where we use our laws to circumvent moral behavior, we find it logical rather than deplorable and use this as an excuse for behavior.  Such is the case in Roe.  For example,  women aged 20-29 between the years of 1999-2008 had the majority of abortions.   The income for these women ranged from $30, 000 to $50,000.  Among the many reasons cited for having an abortion, women stated that they did not know how to handle responsibility to someone else’s life.  They also stated that they did not want an interference with work or school, or the financial burden, followed by having a problem with the current marriage or relationship.  Further studies show that 50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).

Other Studies show that White women accounted for 36% of abortions, while non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and non-Hispanic women of other races for 9%.  Many of these women, in fact, 45% reported themselves as single or cohabitating with a boyfriend.

The Religious affiliations were high in number among those stating to be of Protestant faith with 37%, while Catholics were at 28%.  Despite these many statistics that I post because the breakdown of the numbers, I feel, would give an understanding for the act, it does not.  It serves little or no understanding as to the mindset of this disheartening behavior.

When women were asked why they were more likely to have an abortion, they stated because of fear.  A fear of disrupting a patterned life, losing a relationship, and the financial addition of another life.  While this is not an acceptable excuse for the abortion, could it be that women are not well informed for this responsibility?  Still, the income level for many of those having abortions do not fall into the poverty level.  While the majority of women having abortions do fall to Non-Hispanic white women, followed by Black women, then Hispanic women, the income level of these groups is still high enough to recognize that the financial burden is a weak excuse.

Moreover, the statistics can be gathered and the blame can be assessed over women.  But so what?  The fear that these women feel is real.  They feel a desperation that cannot be explained and our society does not teach them a “responsibility” to accept the consequences of their actions.  Instead, we craft laws that allow them to act  in the quickest and disheartening LEGAL manner available to them.  These laws are the “permission” that women need to act  upon their fear.

Today, thousands of Americans of all political persuasions mourn the ongoing tragedy of legalized baby-killing in this country. On this day in 1973, SCOTUS handed the American people the pile of legal gibberish known as Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion procedures during all moments of a pregnancy – even up until the very moment of birth itself. Over 50 million Americans have been killed by abortion in the 39 years that have passed since this tragic decision. That is 50 million too many.

While I am unable to attend the March for Life this year as I have in years past, I stand in solidarity with the countless number of pro-life Americans (including two of my younger brothers, who are joining in the March for Life today) in working and praying for an end to abortion. I also offer the GOP my gratitude for opening its doors to pro-life Americans such as myself looking for a political home. With the Obama administration and the Democratic Party at large opposing even the most modest regulations on abortion procedures, it’s safe to say that the ever-growing number of pro-life Americans will continue to be drawn to Republican candidates so long as the party continues to stand in favor of the unborn.

Unfortunately, the GOP has allowed Planned Parenthood and other abortion-aligned allies quite a bit more wiggle room in the GOP since 2008. No, I’m not talking about the nomination and election of staunchly pro-choice RINOs like Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), as bad as they are. I’m talking about the infiltration of the GOP and the Tea Party by anti-immigration organizations like NumbersUSA, FAIR, and the Minutemen – all of whom are either bankrolled and/or staffed by abortionists, eugenicists, racists, and other operatives from the culture of death. Yes, you read that correctly. Planned Parenthood and its allies in the abortion industry are directly connected to the “anti-amnesty,” “border security,” “anti-illegal immigration” movement in this country.

Let’s start with FAIR, the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform. FAIR openly advocates for strong enforcement measures like SB1070, E-Verify, and legal immigration caps, while opposing efforts to streamline legal immigration. This group is commonly cited when the issue of illegal immigration is raised in news reports, especially amongst conservatives; FAIR’s statistics have been used by Bill O’Reilly, Gov. Jan Brewer of AZ, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), among many others. It’s the largest and most well-funded organization of its type in the country.

FAIR was started by a man named John Tanton, who founded Planned Parenthood of Northern Michigan back in 1972. He continues to openly advocate for abortion, as his letters to supporters indicate quite clearly. His racism and anti-Catholic prejudice is clearly documented. But FAIR’s connections to the abortion rights movement run far deeper than Tanton; FAIR’s Board of Directors is a veritable laundry list of abortion advocates and pro-choice stalwarts. Sarah G. Epstein, FAIR’s Secretary, is on the Board for Planned Parenthood in Washington State. Alan Weeden, another member of FAIR’s Board of Directors, has connections with Planned Parenthood International. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), head of FAIR’s political outreach, is a pro-choice Republican. There’s even Joyce Tarnow, a Florida abortionist who famously said Haitian earthquake victims should “stew in their own juices,”who was until very recently listed on FAIR’s website as a member of their Board of Directors.

Another prominent “anti-illegal immigration” organization that is playing a particularly outsized role in the current GOP presidential primary is NumbersUSA, headed by Roy Beck. Beck is a close friend of John Tanton, and his website has advocated for “family planning services” (read: abortion). NumbersUSA is not content to end illegal immigration; for them, virtually all immigration must be slowed down or stopped. Unsurprisingly, this extreme and economically detrimental position has led many a racist into the ranks of the organization, and John Tanton has kept his close eye on the organization the entire time. NumbersUSA, too, has been actively supported and even cited by some grassroots conservative activists and tea party groups – a fact that should make every pro-life Republican and tea partier shiver.

It may not be immediately obvious to pro-lifers that abortion advocates and eugenicists should be so interested in immigration issues. I myself was incredulous when evidence of this connection was first presented to me. Since when does Planned Parenthood’s racist, abortion-supporting agenda have anything to do with immigration? Well, as anyone who’s viewed Maafa21 can tell you, the pro-choice movement has always about racism and eugenics, not empowering women, and the “anti-illegal immigration” movement has never been about “border security,” either. Allowing women to kill their own children is not a promotion of “women’s rights.” Likewise, allowing government to enter people’s homes and detain and/or separate them from their families does absolutely nothing to improve border security. Both acts do, however, violate human dignity – something the government is supposed to defend and protect, not violate.

Pro-life conservatives owe it to themselves to confront this menace head on. Conservative politicians cannot be allowed to advocate for Planned Parenthood’s agenda, whether its abortion “rights” or enforcing “the law.” Lincoln and Reagan had no place for such things, and neither should we.

####

Andy Kirchoff is the Illinois state leader for Cafe Con Leche Republicans, a national pro-immigrant Republican organization.

It’s been a tumultuous 3 years for the U.S. Catholic Bishops. The Obama Administration’s HHS mandate caught even the most liberal Catholic by surprise, and the economic recession has forced many a Diocese to either close or consolidate many parishes and schools. At the administrative level, the Bishops’ Conference is undergoing a period of “generational shift”: as many elderly Bishops retire, Pope Benedict XVI has often assigned young, conservative-leaning Priests to take their place. Many prominent laity have quietly retired from influential positions in the USCCB’s lobbying arm (the retirement of 30-year USCCB lobbying veteran John Carr being the most recent example), leaving a void that only the new “John Paul II” generation of Catholics seems eager to fill. Demographic shifts among the laity, largely due to immigration, continue to transform parishes and schools from “close-knit” mono-cultural institutions into multi-ethnic communities.

Needless to say, these changes are having profound impacts on the Bishops’ political advocacy. It has left them open to charges of “Republican partisanship” because of their strong pro-life advocacy and their admirable defense of their religious freedom, even as their lobbying efforts include promoting issues such as immigration reform, environmental sustainability, and other causes more often associated with political liberalism.

Additionally, for some Catholics, the Bishops’ efforts to be pro-life without being partisan aren’t enough. A petition to “stop the scandal” of Obama’s appearance at the Catholic Charities annual Al Smith Dinner has been making the rounds among conservative pro-life Catholics, despite Cardinal Dolan’s insistence that his decision to host the dinner doesn’t amount to an endorsement. Likewise for liberal Catholics, opposing Paul Ryan’s budget plan isn’t enough; no, protests at Georgetown University and castigations of Ryan “the Ayn Rand worshipper” are the response the Bishops should take, as far as these “more Catholic than the Pope” types are concerned.

The reality that escapes both of these sects (and other rabble-rousing groups within the Church) is that the Bishop’s methods of non-partisan advocacy is the correct course of action, from both a Catholic and a political point of view. Indeed, it is because of these lobbying methods that the USCCB commands bi-partisan respect on Capitol Hill. It’s also the reason why Obama’s HHS mandate is causing such angst among even the most liberal Bishops in the Conference today.

Catholics of all political persuasions would do well to support their Bishop’s recent advocacy campaigns, rather than whining that these efforts are somehow insufficient. As a Catholic who also happens to be a Republican, I applaud the Bishops’ method of utilizing their moral authority without descending into partisan politics. To quote my own Ordinary, Cardinal Francis George, “The Church cannot be seen as yet another political party, because it would lose its moral voice.”

Nowhere is the fruit of this strategy more apparent than in Arizona, where the Diocese has been careful to both praise Gov. Jan Brewer’s laudable pro-life/pro-religious liberty legislation as well as denouncing her trademark immigration legislation, sb1070.

Contrast the Diocese’s statement regarding HB2625…

“PHOENIX (May 11, 2012) — The Bishops of the Arizona Catholic Conference are grateful that Governor Jan Brewer has signed HB 2625 into law.
HB 2625 will be very helpful in protecting religious liberty for religiously affiliated employers who have an objection to abortion inducing drugs and contraceptives.

This new law will not preempt the HHS contraceptive mandate, if it is upheld. However, if it is not, religious freedom in Arizona will be better protected.

We also want to especially thank the bill’s sponsor Representative Debbie Lesko, as well as Senator Nancy Barto, for their tremendous effort in shepherding HB 2625 through the legislative process and their unwavering support of religious liberty.”"

…with their reaction to today’s injunction regarding sb1070:

PHOENIX (Sept. 19, 2012) — Yesterday, in accordance with the earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling on SB 1070, the injunction was lifted against the provision essentially requiring state and local officers to inquire about the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or arrested, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is not lawfully present in the United States.

With SB 1070 now in effect, it is imperative that racial profiling does not occur in its implementation. In particular, the Arizona Catholic Bishops are sympathetic to the difficult situation facing police officers throughout Arizona who will face intense scrutiny while trying to properly implement this new law without unjust discrimination.

As we noted in our earlier statements, this provision of law does not fix the broken federal immigration policy in our country, but has the possibility of heightening fear in the immigrant community, sowing seeds of distrust, and separating families.

Accordingly, the Arizona Bishops will continue to work with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in advocating for comprehensive immigration policy reform that will address needed border security, provide legal avenues for workers to assist employers in our country, and to resolve the legal status of nearly 12 million hard working people who now live in the shadows.”

These are very different reactions to very different pieces of legislation, but that doesn’t mean the Bishops are “showing weakness” or are “politically schizophrenic.” It’s an acknowledgement that morality transcends political partisanship. In a hyper-charged political environment, that’s a message that desperately needs to be heard, and one that all Americans – and indeed, all people – will benefit from.

So, fellow conservative Catholics: How about a prayer of thanksgiving for the Bishops, instead of a whining session? I guarantee you that Obama – who only reluctantly accepted Cardinal Dolan’s offer to pray at the DNC in Charlotte – fears the former more than the latter.