Recently, the New York Times published a column claiming that Facebook is ignoring fake news masquerading as pro-life articles and viewpoints. Written by Rossalyn Warren, the column laments the fact that the massive social media platform has not done more to weed out what she refers to as misinformation coming from pro-life news sites. The major flaw in Warren’s column is obvious from the beginning. From the outset to the conclusion, she does very little to successfully explain why or how any of the articles, examples, or pro-life news sites that she identifies actually qualify as fake news. Ultimately, Warren is taking it upon herself to label as fake news any site that embraces an ideology that she herself does not agree with. She continually calls credibility of anti-abortion sites into question without doing anything to successfully prove a lack thereof. Her entire column rests on the premise that anti-abortion sites are full of misinformation and falsehoods, and yet her attempts to demonstrate her premise fall dramatically short. Warren’s condescending attitude toward people who oppose abortion is pervasive, and her column is as smug as it is uncompelling. I wrote a column for The Federalist responding to Warren’s column and explaining why she fails to accomplish her goal with it.
Here’s this week’s show with Josh Brahm of the Equal Rights Institute. We are talking about a pro-life argument that has the power to change minds on the spot: the equal rights argument. Take a listen to learn about the equal rights argument and why it is so effective:
Last weekend, the New York Times published an op-ed on abortion titled “Who Should You Listen to on Abortion? Women Who’ve Had Them”. As the title suggests, the idea is that as we form our opinions on the issue of abortion, we should give first consideration to those women who have actually had abortions. The premise underlying this idea is that if we knew or understood the reasons why women have abortions, we might realize that a woman taking the life of her child is really not as bad as we think. There are countless problems with the column published by the New York Times, but the biggest problem is that it fails to explain why a woman’s circumstances, difficult as they may be, should justify the taking of her child’s life. The truth is that in developing an understanding of why women choose the option to abort, we still will not find a good explanation of why that option should be legal. I wrote a response to this op-ed for The Federalist explaining that while women who’ve had abortions certainly deserve the opportunity to share their stories and experiences, the focal point of the abortion discussion is, and always should be, the unborn child.
Last week, the New York Times published an editorial titled “Why Abortion is a Progressive Economic Issue.” Prompted by chaos in the Democratic ranks over the issue of abortion, the article argued that because lower income women are more likely to choose abortion, and because economics are a strong consideration for women who choose to abort their children, one cannot separate the issue from other progressive economic issues. The editorial followed closely on the heels of a 10 campus “Abortion Positive” tour, which had the goal of promoting abortion as a social good. Yet to categorize abortion as an economic issue or a social good belies the reality of abortion, and ignores the very human being whose life hangs in the balance. One should never be distracted by the Left’s persistent attempts to categorize abortion as anything other than what it is. While economics may play a role in convincing mothers to choose abortion, at its core, abortion is a human rights issue. The reality is that abortion denies an entire demographic of innocent human beings their right to live. Attempts to subvert the rights of the unborn in favor of a mother’s rights is nothing more than an attempt to justify the killing of innocent human beings.
Click here to read The Left Wants to Make Abortion an Economic Issue to Sideline its Atrocities.
Time for some truth about what Planned Parenthood does and does not do.
Last week, the University of California, San Francisco, released the results of a study that claimed to show that abortion has no impact on a woman’s mental health. I wrote a response to the study for Crisis Magazine. In short, the study was flawed for several reasons, not the least of which is that it ignored the complexity of the post-abortion experience and the psyches of women who choose abortion. Studies such as this marginalize women who do suffer emotional anguish after abortion and attempt to delegitimize their experience. One look at the testimonies shows that many women do indeed suffer emotional anguish after an abortion.
The state of Texas recently enacted some new rules about the handling of fetal remains after abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine refuting some of the dishonest claims being made by abortion advocates in the wake of these new rules.
The other day a dear friend of mine (who also happens to be a Hillary Clinton supporter) and I were discussing the presidential candidates. She was saying that she doesn’t understand why so many people are supporting Donald Trump. She and I are on the same page as far as supporting the poor and the immigrant and Mr. Trump’s views do not seem to be in line with ours. I told her though, that if it comes down to Trump and Clinton, I will vote for Trump. I told her that I will always vote pro life which means I would never vote for Hillary Clinton, a person who supports abortion even into the third trimester.
My friend and I went back and forth having a civil discussion about it (a breath of fresh air in itself in this hot political environment). After our talk was all said and done, there was one thing lingered in my mind. She had asked, “Could you put the abortion issue aside and vote for the person who would be better for society in general?” Continue reading