hypocrisy

New at Live Action: The Moral Consistency of Peaceful Pro-Life Activism

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In response to Robert Lewis Dear’s killing spree at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, pro-abortion columnist Jill Filipovic resurrected one of abortion supporters’ most insidious (and that’s saying something!) refrains in asking:

If you actually believe abortion is legal mass murder on par with the Holocaust, then how is it 100% wrong to kill abortion providers? Answer: most prolifers don’t even believe their own claims and don’t think abortion is quite the same as murder. Because it’s not.

This pops up every now and then among abortion defenders trying to trip up pro-lifers on our own principles. Slate’s Will Saletan accused pro-lifers who condemned the slaying of George Tiller of not “mean[ing] it literally” when we call abortion murder. Evangelical pastor-turned-humanist/atheist Bruce Gerencser asks “those who say abortion is murder” if “you support the execution of murderers.” Jason Brennan of the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog thinks it’s “implausible” and “absurd” for people who equate abortion with murder to confine themselves to stopping it through legal and peaceful means. California law blogger Mike Cernovich argues that peaceful pro-lifers are suffering cognitive dissonance, basing our beliefs “on psychological comfort rather than intellectual rigor.” We see it on a fairly regular basis in comment threads.

The truth is that this isn’t a sincere argument. They know they can’t win a fair argument on whether the unborn are human or abortion is killing, so they hope to indirectly discredit the truth by conjuring up inane reasons to claim we don’t believe it. So now would be a good time for a refresher course on the just use of force in a free society.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Pelosi Drafts Pope Francis to Fund Planned Parenthood

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

Ready for the most preposterous manifestation yet of Nancy Pelosi’s pro-abortion devout Catholic shtick? On Thursday, the House Democrat Leader invoked pro-life Pope Francis in the name of her pro-abortion agenda:

Republicans are moving forward with a GOP reconciliation package that once again lays the groundwork for another Republican government shutdown. It’s a waste of time. It will go nowhere in the Senate. It will be their 61st vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they will of course be wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, destroy the Affordable Care Act, dismantle newfound health security for millions of Americans.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead we could be working together recognizing a Republican Congress, a Democratic president, the ability for Democrats to use their leverage legislatively to have compromise for the good of the American people. That’s what Pope Francis told us to do. He said leaders should have transparency. That would be wonderful – openness, he said. He used the word openness and pragmatism, and he said we have to move forward for the good of the people. Let’s in the spirit of Francis do that.

Yes, Pelosi has devolved to arguing that the Pope wants politicians to accept a budget that gives millions of dollars to the abortion industry. Let that sink in a minute.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Media Sleaze Tries Tying Pro-Lifers to Rapist

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It may sound hyperbolic to claim the pro-abortion commentariat have sunk to a new low, but if this story doesn’t warrant it, nothing does.

Websites including Jezebel, Alan Colmes, Raw Story, Liberal America, and Addicting Info have seized upon the story of a pro-life protest against the Red River Women’s Clinic abortion mill in Fargo, North Dakota, and pro-abortion counter-protestor Nik Severson, during which it was stated that one of the anti-abortion protesters, Bartholomew Schumacher, was a convicted rapist.

Severson claims that when he told protesters about Schumacher’s record:

They called me liar, they screamed at me to leave. I showed a few of them the article and still they denied it. They called the cops on me and the police officer confirmed that the man was who I said he was. The “Christians” shook his hand and hugged him. It was the most disgusting thing I had ever seen in my life.

Jezebel, Addicting Info, and Raw Story un-skeptically repeat Severson’s accusation.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action – Obama Hypocritically Lectures Christians on Inclusion

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Monday, the New York Review of Books released a feature in which Barack Obama sat down with novelist Marilynne Robinson for a chat about the themes of her work, and a few strains of the president’s commentary were astoundingly hypocritical, even for him.

He can’t be that lacking in self-awareness…can he?

[P]art of our system of government was based on us rejecting an exclusive, inclusive—or an exclusive and tightly controlled sense of who is part of the community and who is not, in favor of a more expansive one.

Like, say, a certain class of people that you have enthusiastically chosen to deprive of their constitutional rights and subject to unthinkable violence based on nothing more than their developmental stage and that a major interest group supporting you wants them dead? How do any instances of “exclusion” – real and imagined alike – that Obama might have in mind possibly compare to gerrymandering children out of every American’s most basic protection as members of the community?

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Cecile Richards Lectures Pro-Lifers on Civility. Yes, Really

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a glowing interview/profile for the Guardian, Emma Brockes paints Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards as the noble victim of a pack of crazies at last week’s congressional hearing, without a hint of interest about her heroine perjuring herself regarding Planned Parenthood’s post-viability abortions, increasing abortion numbers corresponding to decreasing cancer services, and past mammogram claims, or the multiple federal laws her organization has broken.

In other words, it’s a day ending in Y. “Journalists” giving the abortion lobby a pass to lie with impunity is just one of the constants of the universe. But this piece does have one nugget of twisted originality: Richards claims she was “stunned by the total lack of civility” of Republican representatives.

A woman who defends her blood-stained cause through lies, personal attacks, and fear-mongering is crying civility? Really? Let’s review just how much Ms. Richards really values a respectful exchange of ideas.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Pro-Abortion TPM Writer Lies About Prenatal/Abortion Images

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Pro-aborts just can’t let go of Carly Fiorina’s challenge to watch the monstrous Planned Parenthood videos. Now, Talking Points Memo’s Sarah Erdreich tries to spin Fiorina’s flagrant act of honesty into “part of a long tradition of anti-abortion advocates who have no problem with lying about what abortion is and what it looks like to advance their agenda”:

Fiorina has refused to back down from her statement, even in the face of evidence that solidly refutes her assertion.

The “evidence” she cites is a report from PolitiFact, which is known to deceive when it comes to pro-life politicians, rating Fiorina’s claim “mostly false” because the baby onscreen was not the same one ex-StemExpress tech Holly O’Donnell witnessed, and because “We don’t know the circumstances behind this video: where it came from, under what conditions it was obtained, or even if this fetus was actually aborted (as opposed to a premature birth or miscarriage).”

Read the rest at Live Action News.

SCOTUS “Pregnancy Discrimination” Case Tempts Pro-Lifers to Flip-Flop on State Coercion

Calvin Freiburger Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The abortion debate ultimately concerns two concepts: the sanctity of human life and the proper application of civil law. Pro-lifers generally champion the latter, while abortion champions pervert it with convoluted judicial rulings that unjustly insulate their desired policies from the democratic process and regulatory mandates that illegally and unconstitutionally compel private citizens and organizations to do their bidding. They lost one such battle in 2014 when the Supreme Court ruled that forcing religious businesses to provide abortifacient drugs violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

But last December, 24 pro-life organizations took a more favorable view of federal workplace intervention. Led by Americans United for Life, a coalition of groups including the Susan B. Anthony List, American Life League, and Students for Life of America filed an amicus curiae brief in Young v. UPS, a Supreme Court battle over alleged pregnancy discrimination. AUL summarizes:

The case involves the 36-year-old Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and whether it offers any real protection to women who choose life for their unborn children. “Pro-life and pro-abortion advocates agree: This case is about protecting pregnant mothers from employment discrimination,” noted [AUL President & CEO Dr. Charmaine] Yoest. “Women should not suffer physical hardship at work or lose their jobs because they are having a baby. Most especially, pregnant mothers should not be refused the same accommodation offered others with similar work challenges” […]

Peggy Young was a driver for UPS when she became pregnant. Though other workers with similar work challenges received a “lighter duty” accommodation, Ms. Young was denied an accommodation during her pregnancy, in violation of the federal PDA. Peggy lost in the two lower courts.

The court ruled 6-3 in Young’s favor in June, and a few days ago she and UPS reached a settlement. But while the temptation to declare victory and move on is understandable, a few words are in order to remind fellow pro-lifers that limited-government, natural-rights principles are just as binding in sympathetic cases as unsympathetic ones. Continue reading →