Thursday, July 2, 2020

The Vortex — Glory of War



The Vortex — Glory of War

5,113 views
Jul 2, 2020
179K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
Get the truth. Join Church Militant today: https://bit.ly/37rYn55
The Vortex, Headlines, The Download, Mic'd Up and more Catholic content!

Go to our website to watch thousands of hours of Catholic content.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/

Sign up for a Premium account.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/gopremium

Follow us on Social Media!
CM Twitter –
https://twitter.com/Church_Militant (@Church_Militant)
Michael Voris —
https://twitter.com/Michael_Voris
Christine Niles —
https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1
Facebook –
https://www.facebook.com/ChurchMilita... (ChurchMilitantcom)
Instagram –
https://www.instagram.com/churchmilit... (@churchmilitantcom)

Write to us!
Questions? editor@churchmilitant.com
Got a news tip? tips@churchmilitant.com
General inquiries: contact@churchmilitant.com

Martin Luther King Jr’s Niece: I Regret My Abortion, “It Killed My Child and Wounded Me”

 OPINION   ALVEDA KING   JUN 30, 2020   |   4:02PM    WASHINGTON, DC
The Supreme Court’s decision in the June Medical Services case totally disregards two classes of American people; the unborn and the women harmed by abortion. As someone who has had the misfortune of experiencing abortion, I am part of the Silent No More Campaign.
As a spokesperson for our awareness campaign, I joined hundreds of women hardened by abortion as we raised our voices to the Supreme Court in this case in an amicus brief, and we made clear that the abortionists who went to court to strike down this law are not the ones who are qualified to speak for women. On the contrary, we understand that laws are needed to protect women against an unscrupulous and unregulated abortion industry.
Abortion not only killed our children; it wounded us. That’s why Louisiana, and every other state, has the right to pass laws that are meant to protect both us and our babies. The Supreme Court does women a disservice by striking down this law. Please visit Prolife Praise Variety Show for upcoming reports on the “civil wrong” aspects of abortion.
My colleague Janet Morana, co-founder of Silent No More (a joint project of Priests for Life and Anglicans for Life) agrees: “At SupremeCourtVictory.com.
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. 
You can read our amicus brief, and the many other briefs that were submitted, which show that the abortionists do not have a “close relationship” with the women who get abortions. They are, rather, strangers, who do not have their best interests at heart. As dissenting opinions in today’s case stated, if someone wants to challenge this law in the lower courts, it should be someone who is actually injured by it. We know women are injured by abortion every day in this country. To read their stories, go to AbortionTestimonies.com.”
My colleague Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, adds, “We respect the state legislators of Louisiana and of so many other states who are doing what the Courts have already said they can do, namely, pass laws regulating abortion in order to protect the health and safety of women. Louisiana did that well in this case.The Supreme Court should not be asked to second-guess the judgment of the state legislature as to what will help the women of their state. The Courts have a role to judge the constitutionality of laws, not their wisdom.”
To see how our efforts are working, please visit End Abortion.US. The abortion rate in America is the lowest it has been since Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and in recent years states have passed more than 400 laws to protect the unborn. The number of freestanding abortion clinics in the U.S. has dropped from 2179 in 1991 down to 710 today. Additionally, President Trump has placed 200 anti-abortion judges on the federal bench.
LifeNews Note: lveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King is a leading pro-life voice who formerly had two abortions before having a faith conversion and she now is a speaker for and representative of the educational outreach of Priests for Life and the Silent No More network. Cynthia Collins, is a Global Advisor to Operation Outcry.

Doctors’ Group: To Get Around Abortion Limits, Kill Viable Babies and Leave Them Inside Mother

 INTERNATIONAL   SPUC   JUN 30, 2020   |   7:25PM    LONDON, ENGLAND
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has released new guidelines for healthcare professionals providing abortions during the Coronavirus pandemic.
The measures, which include deliberately leaving a dead baby inside a woman, are truly abhorrent, said SPUC’s Alithea Williams.

Kill first, remove later

The guidelines talk about performing feticide – actively killing the baby by lethal injection – and then removing the body later.
If a woman has Covid-19 and her “clinical condition prevents abortion, and she risks exceeding the gestation limit, feticide should be performed in collaboration with local fetal medicine services if necessary, to enable delay in the procedure to evacuate / empty the uterus,” the guidance says.
“Put simply, this means ending the life of the unborn baby in the sixth month of pregnancy, and then leaving the dead body inside the woman for an indeterminate amount of time,” Alithea Williams of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said. “Abortion is legal up to birth for suspected disability and cases when the mother’s life is threatened, so that’s not what we’re talking about here. In order to be concerned about legal limits, the RCOG must be talking about the abortion of a healthy baby to a healthy woman, just before the legal limit of 24 weeks. To be carrying out an abortion this late in pregnancy for clearly non-medical reasons is bad enough, but to deliberately carry out an incomplete abortion, leaving the woman carrying a dead baby for however long? That’s truly abhorrent.”

Making sure the baby is dead

RCOG guidelines on feticide state: “Where a decision to abort a pregnancy after 21 weeks and 6 days is taken, feticide should be routinely offered…in cases where…the abortion is not for fetal abnormality and is being undertaken after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation, failure to perform feticide could result in a live birth and survival, which contradicts the intention of the abortion.”[1]
Feticide is carried out through a lethal injection to the baby’s heart.
The RCOG maintains that a foetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks gestation. However, in a recent study published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, two researchers, one of whom identifies as pro-choice, agreed that unborn babies can feel some kind of pain by 12 weeks. They both recommend some kind of analgesia for late term abortions – something that does not happen in Britain.

What will this do to women?

SPUC’s Alithea Williams said: “The guidance on feticide is the most shocking aspect of this guidance. The idea of a woman having to carry a dead baby was used by those campaigning to legalise abortion in Ireland and Northern Ireland, but these abortion providers are advocating deliberately bringing such a horrendous situation about. The psychological affect this could have on a woman is just unimaginable. However, there are other very worrying aspects to this guidance. In particular, lessons are clearly not being learnt from the case of the remote abortion that took place at 28 weeks. On the contrary, the RCOG continues to extol the remote abortion regime. They acknowledge that it is possible that a small number of these medical abortions may have been carried out not in accordance with the law but they sweep this away as being simply an unfortunate inevitable consequence and of no importance. In reality, it is a major flaw within the law.”
She concluded: “It is deeply disturbing that a respected medical body could publish guidance like this. It is clearly more interested in supporting an extreme abortion agenda than in providing real care for women.”

New York Times Shocked to Learn Millennials and Minorities Oppose Killing Babies in Abortion

 OPINION   DAVE ANDRUSKO   JUN 30, 2020   |   7:12PM    WASHINGTON, DC
Last week we posted two stories about the unceremonious ouster of the CEO of  Planned Parenthood’s largest affiliate, following a barrage of charges from current and former staff of abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement.
Laura McQuade is white and judging by the frantic statements subsequently posted by PPFA headquarters and the board of Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, they grasped that many women of color were not happy with an organization founded by Margaret Sanger, who at the very least was a eugenicist, but was labeled by the over 300 staffers as “a racist, white woman.”
Talk about a classic canary in a coalmine scenario.
I thought of that PPFA disaster as I read a story about how pro-abortionists are having very limited success reaching out to “Gen Z,” those born after 1995 (women in particular), and Millennials. Naturally the story appeared (where else?) in the New York Times, the Abortion Industry’s house organ, written by Emma Goldberg.
The subhead reads,” Some Gen Z and millennial women expressed mixed feelings about the fight over abortion rights, viewing it as important but less urgent than other social justice causes.”
Some of the excuses—actually most of the excuses—were variations on a single theme. Having ready access to abortion, “it’s hard to imagine us going backward ” as one young woman put it.
So, one reason, they’ve grown accustomed to not even having to think about abortion being meaningfully restricted.
Another explanation they had difficulty getting energized is the way the older generation of pro-abortion women (code for White women) framed the issue. One woman told Goldberg
she wished that advocates would talk about the issue in a way that felt urgent to members of Generation Z and young millennials like her.
“It’s not that young people don’t care about abortion, it’s that they don’t think it applies to them,” she said. Language about “protecting Roe” feels “antiquated,” she added. “If I’m a high school student who got activated by March for Our Lives, I’m not hip to Supreme Court cases that happened before my time.”
The answer? Framing the issue as one of “reproductive justice”—defined by Goldberg as “racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to abortion.” A different “conversation” along different lines must take place between older and younger pro-abortion women.
Then an interesting nugget from Goldberg:
The generational shift is evident at national gatherings for abortion providers. Ms. [Johanna] Schoen [a professor at Rutgers] has attended the National Abortion Federation’s annual conference each year from 2003 to 2019. In recent years, she said, its attendees have grown more racially diverse and the agenda has shifted, from calls to keep abortion “safe, legal and rare” to an emphasis on racial equity in abortion access.
“The political questions and demands that the younger generation raises are very different,” she said. “There’s more of a focus on health inequalities and lack of access that black and brown women have to abortion.”
Three observations.
One, as these sorts of stories tend to be, it was built around interviews with “more than a dozen” young women, not a gigantic sample. And, of course, there are no pro-life women– “progressives” or otherwise—to be found.
Second, “abortion access” is a two-edged sword. To these “progressives,” it’s like a talisman with quasi-mystical powers.
Looked at from a different vantage point, however, women of color already have plenty of access. The result is given their percentage of women of child-bearing age, they already have wildly disproportionate numbers of abortions. Should being able to kill even more  babies really be seen as a sign of “progress”?
Third, there is one paragraph that is the key to the whole piece and probably why it was written (besides to coincide with yesterday’s Supreme Court abortion decision).
“But Gen Z women do not identify abortion as one of the most important issues to them, according to a 2019 survey from Ignite, a nonpartisan group focused on young women’s political education,” Goldberg writes. “On the right, meanwhile, researchers say that opposition to abortion has become more central to young people’s political beliefs.”
Being pro-life is far more important to conservative youth (and/or young people raised in a family that is faith-based) than being pro-abortion is to “progressives.” This drives the New York Times and PPFA nuts.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *