It doesn’t make sense from any angle.
The state of Oregon is in the process of enacting a law that would force taxpayers to fund abortions. HB 3391, The Reproductive Health Equity Act, passed the Senate last week on a party-line vote and aims to counteract the potential repealing of the Affordable Care Act. Planned Parenthood is one of the main sponsors of this legislation, and it’s clear that a substantial amount of this money would be allocated to the nation’s largest abortion provider. Yet individuals who reject government funding of abortion do so with good reason. While abortion advocates maintain that abortion is a woman’s right, it’s clear that the objective of every abortion is terminating a human life. Abortion is a direct violation of the innocent preborn child’s right to live and be safe from harm. The right to life is the first and foremost right given to all human beings, and as such, abortion is a human rights violation of the highest magnitude. The fact that abortion violates the rights of preborn children is exactly why no government has any business forcing taxpayers to violate their consciences to subsidize it. Founding Father James Madison called conscience an inalienable right, and the most sacred of property. Conscience rights matter, and taxpayers in Oregon are now being forced to violate their consciences and become complicit in a human rights violation. I wrote a post for The Federalist making the point that forcing taxpayers to participate in a human rights violation against their will is itself a human rights violation.
My takeaways from the 2017 National Right to Life convention:
In the latest episode, I wrap on the discussion on Primal Loss and provide a reminder, in case you forgot, that Planned Parenthood is nothing short of an evil empire.
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.
I was joined in studio last week by Ashley Riddle, president of Metro Pro-Life Advocates, to talk about sidewalk counseling and her recent interaction with a strange fellow outside an abortion facility.
A petition has been circulating recently asking for the signatures of mental health professionals who believe that Donald Trump is mentally unstable. Started by Dr. John Gartner, the petition now has almost 60,000 signatures. It seems that the infusion of political ideology into fields that have nothing to do with politics has reached a climax. Leftist mental health professionals are now weighing the ethical concerns of whether they have a “duty to warn” the world about how dangerous Donald Trump is. I wrote a post for The Federalist addressing these concerns and why ultimately, the Left has done nothing to earn our attention when it comes to ethical discussions.
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.
The first ever March for Science is happening this coming Saturday. Science enthusiasts from all over the world will gather in Washington D.C. and in over 500 satellite locations to support evidenced-based policy-making and easy access to scientific information. This is clearly a Leftist event and has the same sort of feel as the Women’s March back in January. Deep down, they are actually protesting Donald Trump and his “war on science” type of policies. Ostensibly, the march has nothing to do with abortion. But ironically, there are some incredibly pro-life statements on the march’s webpage. I wrote a post for The Federalist discussing some of these ironically pro-life statements and claiming that abortion defenders are the ones waging the actual “war on science”. I also give almost a dozen examples of abortion-loving Leftists being anti-science.
So with last Saturday being Holy Saturday, I did not do a new show. Rather, I took the opportunity to go back over seven months of shows and pick out my favorite clips and compile them into one show. It seems a bit presumptuous to call it a “best of”, but it was fun to go back and listen to some of these clips again!