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.
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!
In February, a group of pro-abortion doctors penned a commentary explaining why the use of Mifepristone (RU 486) should be expanded. The doctors cited the safety and efficacy of the pill as reasons why it should be available at pharmacies. There have been many well-documented concerns about so-called do-it-yourself abortions, but there is another bothersome aspect that deserves some consideration. While many abortion advocates would like to claim otherwise, it’s no secret that many women suffer trauma after abortion. One of the many problems with do-it-yourself abortions is that the potential development of trauma is increased. This is due to a number of different factors, not the least of which is the environment in which the abortion takes place. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine discussing the risk of trauma associated with medical abortions.
The state of Oregon has long since been ground zero for radical, end-of-life ideology and legislation. It was the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide two decades ago, and since that time, the practice has grown in both social acceptance and legislative momentum. Sensing a momentum toward a more universal acceptance of physician-assisted suicide, and building on the success of the “right to die” movement, advocates are setting their sights on the as-of-now prohibited practice of euthanasia. To that end, legislators in Oregon have introduced two new bills, Senate Bill 494 and Senate Bill 893, that would create ambiguity in their end-of-life statutes and allow for legal euthanasia in some cases. This is not a surprising development, but for those who thought euthanasia would never rear its ugly, loathsome head in the United States, it’s here. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine explaining these two bills and why they are dangerous, and why we should think long and hard about espousing the values of the culture of death.
Last week on the radio show I was joined by Josh Brahm, founder and president of the Equal Rights Institute. We tackled the two most common forms of the bodily rights argument – the “sovereign zone” argument and the “right to refuse” argument. Very few people defend the pro-life position better than Josh Brahm, and this interview was especially insightful:
Oregon recently released in annual end-of-year report on physician-assisted suicide. The report documents that of 133 patients that received prescriptions for life-ending medication in 2016, only 5 of them were referred for counseling beforehand. The rates are about the same in the most recent report from Washington state. The laws themselves do a dreadfully poor job of prescribing protocol for handing mental health problems in patients with terminal illness, and doctors are under no obligation to request a mental health assessment unless they see fit. I wrote a post for Crisis Magazine discussing the failure of physician-assisted suicide laws to address mental health problems both in the laws themselves and in practice.
In this episode, I discuss refugee programs as a pro-life issue. I also tackle the Johnson Amendment, and what a new bill proposed in both houses of Congress would mean for religious freedom and the free speech of churches and pastors.