A society that does not protect its most vulnerable is a society in deep trouble. Once again, a frightening new trend begins in California and is bound to spread:
Under this proposed new legislation, mothers would not be held criminally responsible for actively or neglectfully killing their hours-old to weeks-old infants. And depending on how a court defines the word “perinatal,” that timeframe could be expanded up to a year or more. This bill would also protect anyone who aids or assists the mother in exercising her “right” to kill and, furthermore, allows her to sue any law enforcement department which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing the baby.
We need a revival in our country. I know confrontation is difficult, but revival is possible only if we challenge those who see abortion as a necessary evil or some antiseptic process. It is easy to ignore abortion as someone else’s problem, and easy to refuse to look under the covers, but we all need to be forced to face evil when our silence permits it to flourish. We must say what we believe on important issues; we must change our opponents hearts and minds, not destroy them, if we are to save our nation.
My own position is clear and cannot be misunderstood: no abortion at any point during pregnancy. There is no compromise to be had at six weeks, fifteen weeks, or the current twenty-week standard of many states. We are talking about a human life lost, even if the mother is raped, so an inflexible, no compromise standard, is actually quite reasonable in this instance. Think about your own life; you have issues where there is no compromise. Given enough time, I’ll find your “no compromise” issue; they are not difficult to uncover. Don’t paint our abortion position as radical because it is not. Abortion is legalized murder. Is not the life of a child being ended? Why should any of us have the right to end another’s life, especially the life of society’s most vulnerable?
We have come a long way from Bill Clinton’s statement thirty years ago that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare”. The parameters have changed considerably. President Clinton’s position defined the outer limit of the pro-choice argument back then. Senator Chuck Schumer defines the new standard today:
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he huffed at a pro-abortion rally Wednesday. His goal: To intimidate the court to nix a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
That’s an outrageous threat.
Schumer now claims he misspoke. Despite his crystal-clear words, he says, he wasn’t vowing “violence” against the jurists — but “political consequences” for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the court backed the Louisiana law.
He misspoke? Senator Schumer was on the steps on the Supreme Court and he called the justices by name. The political expediency of the issue demands that Democrats keep the fires burning to continue to garner votes (as it does for Republicans as well, unfortunately).
Such threats and demonization of objectors are standard practice that keeps many cowed into silence. The downward slide is becoming more rapid. There seems to be no end to how far we can slide.
In our world of two political parties, abortion is an issue that divides us as much as any other. New ground needs to be continually ploughed to convince the electorate to continue to support their own party. “What have you done for me lately?” is the old saying. Such new bills as California’s is how the Democrats re-define the issue and motivator the base.
Elon Musk succinctly summarized the political situation in this tweet from last week. Per his own calculus, he was considered Center-Left in 2008 and without changing his own views, he is now considered Center-Right. His calculus is 100% accurate.
The Pro Choice Argument
The pro-choice advocates surely do not want to be defined as supporting child sacrifice, and they do indeed defend California legislators. They claim over-zealous pro-lifers have mischaracterized the bill. But do their arguments hold water?
The definition of “perinatal” is key to this discussion. Perinatal is that time before just before and just after birth.
[per″ĭ-na´t’l] relating to the period shortly before and after birth; from the twentieth to twenty-ninth week of gestation to 1 to 4 weeks after birth.
Many media outlets did their standard “fact check” after the charge was leveled. They say the bill does permit the killing of a healthy baby after birth. Here is one view (from Reuters) that I selected at random:
The bill doesn’t define what is meant by perinatal death. The Miami Standard reckons it is a fatality up to seven days after birth.
University College London Hospital clinical lecturer in infertility and a leading voice on medical ethics, Dr. Francoise Shenfield, told Reuters: “Definition of perinatal death is stillbirth, plus early neonatal deaths under seven days.”
Rather, the bill seeks to protect parents from legal prosecution if that perinatal death is the result of accidental causes, she said.
But why have a special bill for accidental deaths of newborns? Clearly, no jury in America and no reasonable prosecutor would convict a parent for a child’s accidental death, whether a newborn or not. Such deaths need to always be investigated, of course, because parents are sometimes responsible for these deaths. However, a new law is not needed to direct juries in these instances. Why does California create a special law for “perinatal” infants? So far, I see this as nothing more than a sleight of hand to push the boundaries of “reproductive rights” further.
Farah Diaz-Tello, J.D., Senior Counsel & Legal Director at If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, told Reuters, “The bill as written reinforces existing California law that protects people from being criminalized based on an accusation that something they did or did not do during pregnancy caused a certain pregnancy outcome.”
Can you be a bit more clear Ms. Legal Director? Are you pretending pro-life folks are leading an attack to prosecute parents who abort children? If there were such evidence, it would be highlighted in the article from the very start. You’re playing only on people’s stereotypes of those on the pro-life side of the argument. She continues:
She says that as written the bill “acknowledges, as do many other statutes across the country prohibiting criminalization of pregnancy outcomes, that sometimes an incident that occurs during pregnancy leads to the loss of the baby after it is born.”
Diaz-Tello provided a real life example to help explain a possible scenario where this might apply: “Including protections for parents who experience the trauma of ‘perinatal death’ as an outcome of pregnancy, ensures that a parent who did not go on bed rest [because their work arrangements did not allow for this, for example] can’t be prosecuted because the pregnancy-related loss occurred after delivery rather than during the pregnancy.”
Who is prosecuting parents for not getting enough bed rest during pregnancy? Why not give us a “real life example” that looks like actual real life, one that actually justifies the need for this bill? Name one instance when a woman was charged, much less convicted, for not getting enough bed rest during pregnancy. Who is even raising such criticisms in media? I daresay it has never happened. This looks more and more like a smoke-screen for a sinister hidden agenda.
California is also interested in becoming an “abortion sanctuary” using state tax funds to transport women and pay for their abortions if they are restricted in their home state.
“We’ll be a sanctuary,” Newsom said, adding he’s aware patients will likely travel to California from other states to seek abortions. “We are looking at ways to support that inevitability and looking at ways to expand our protections.”
This is the agenda. Abortion is the altar that unites so many Democrats, the issue for which they cannot ever stop seeking new ground to cultivate. They can’t let it go without risking permanent power loss. America’s abortion practices today are more extreme than almost any other outside of China and North Korea (which practice forced abortions). That tells you how far we have slipped when our abject moral code is only exceeded by atheistic societies who care little or not at all for the individual.
People in California were asked about this legislation. It apparently comes easy for some to justify a tenth month abortion. After all, if we can have abortions up to nine months, it is not too much of a step to end a life which has just barely begun. This video is frightening in itself:
Yet another bill of the same ilk was proposed in Maryland. Why are multiple states jumping on the bandwagon? Something to do with the upcoming Supreme Court decision? This is all a mischaracterization (i.e. “disinformation”) from the Right? You can decide for yourself.
Legislation proposed in the Maryland Senate would allow babies to be left to die for as long as the first 28 days after birth, according to analysis from a pro-life attorney.
Senate Bill 669 is also known as the Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022, but the problems go beyond the use of “person” in place of accurate references to women having babies. Senator William Smith, a Democrat, sponsored the legislation, which will have a hearing on March 15.
“[T]he bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion,” American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) attorney Olivia Summers wrote in her analysis.
This is because the legislation prohibits investigations and criminal prosecutions for women and medical professionals for a “failure to act” in relation to a “perinatal death.”
“In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death,” Summers wrote, “and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.”
She said that the language used is unclear, so the law could be interpreted to “prevent investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!”
The Maryland Code does not define “perinatal,” Summers said. A 2020 law does define “perinatal care” as the “provision of care during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum and neonatal periods.”
A definition on MedicineNet, a website owned by WebMD, defines it as “the 20th to 28th week of gestation” to “1 to 4 weeks after birth.”
I drift off topic slightly for just a moment. Many of you have probably know of this person, but I hadn’t, until I heard of her and her fiancé engaging in the ritual of drinking each other’s blood.
“It’s just a few drops, but yes, we do consume each other’s blood on occasion for ritual purposes only.
“I’m much more controlled,” the mom of three explained. “I read tarot cards, and I’m into astrology and I’m doing all these metaphysical practices and meditations. And I do rituals on new moons and full moons and all these things. And so, when I do it, it’s a passage, or it is used for a reason.
“And it is controlled where it’s like, ‘Let’s shed a few drops of blood and each drink it,’” she continued. “He’s much more haphazard and hectic and chaotic, where he’s willing to just cut his chest open with broken glass and be like, ‘Take my soul.’”
Ms. Fox’s comments come across as a defense of this pagan (what else to call it?) practice. It’s not quite so bad as you might originally think, she implies. Remember these folks in Hollywood tell the rest of us how to live our lives and what our values should be. Right. They lectured us last month at the Oscars, telling us it is ok to say the word “gay” and to repeat after them. How much further does the culture need to regress? Drinking each other’s blood as a ritual? It sounds demonic. It is okay to draw the line. Otherwise, they won’t stop here.
What does Megan Fox think about abortion? She thinks one aborted soul is communicating through a dog and is telling us that the choice was okay.
‘There’s a soul that’s around you and around your dog that was a child that was conceived at some point that’s yours. That’s over there with your mother and they do sort of watch over you through the dog,’ Megan said while claiming she’s not a psychic.
‘That’s specifically what I did get. There is a child spirit and that you should never feel like you f***ed up or you made a bad choice. Because that karma will always be settled in the future either in this lifetime or the next lifetime,’ Megan added.
Would it make you uncomfortable to be on this team? I would rather have C.S. Lewis on my team. I have no doubt this is what he would say about Ms. Fox if he were still alive today:
When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them, you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either. (from Mere Christianity)
Listen to sanity. Tell the crazies like Megan Fox, no. We will not tolerate any extreme. You have brought shame on yourself and the rest of us.
Why Has This Gone on So Long?
The unwillingness of so many pro-life folks to demand an end to all abortions (and compromise on a cutoff point) has allowed the issue has gone on for so long. The political anti-abortion (the “Big Baby” ) coalition has raised countless dollars to fight abortion, and yet they delivered little on the issue itself in the last fifty years? This is the scam. They certainly manage to elect many people, but that’s not what the battle should be about about. Wishy-washy Republicans have allowed Democrats to define this issue for fifty years. Abortion is a mortal sin, a great holocaust, a great shame for our great nation to account for. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for its sins; why should America be treated any better for our national mortal sins?
But then there is always hope. Slavery was another horrible sin of our past, but one we finally moved beyond (despite many trying to draw us back into this argument). Can we move beyond again?
I think Florida today is the antidote to the Hotel California. When the Disney corporation injected itself into the political arena recently, attacking Florida Governor DeSantis for the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” Bill, the state fought back. We need more such action. Disney had special tax privileges from the state of Florida, privileges that most in America have always believed corporations should not have (ask yourself how you would have reacted had Exon-Mobil had the same privileges?). Why should they be treated better than the rest of us?
Disney gained its privileges many years ago because they were seen as a corporation which supported the principles of our nation and the state of Florida. The recent comments from the Disney corporation show that their values are now inimical to parents and the principles this nation was founded on (an arguable point that I can expand in a future post). Ron DeSantis in the short clip below shows us how to fight back (advance to minute 31. The remarks are seven minutes long, followed by commentary from the panel. Steve Deace calls it the best seven minutes of political speech–ever).
If you want to complain about rich oligarchs, don’t look to Elon Musk who has accomplished much in his own right (another topic for a future post), but look instead to heiress, Abagail Disney, who has accomplished little in her own right, but thinks her views matter nonetheless:
Abigail Disney, the director and granddaughter of Disney’s co-founder Roy, shut down conservatives who attacked the company after it spoke out against Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” which was signed into law last month.
Appearing Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” Disney described the anti-Disney campaign as a “coordinated, strategic plan.”
“Disney seems like the biggest target because it’s so woven into families,” she told host Brian Stelter. “And so if you can create this idea that somebody’s in there trying to indoctrinate your child, my goodness, the paranoid imagination can run circles with that.”
It’s odd that that criticism of Disney never surfaced before their executive’s true nature, their “not-so-secret gay agenda” was revealed. Listen to the clip from Karey Burke and other Disney execs and ask yourself if something didn’t go wrong at Disney long ago?
The Hotel California
The song was released in 1976, when I was a kid. My own kids have never heard of the song. It was popular in its day and in some ways has proven prophetic today. I include a few excerpts from the song below.
There she stood in the doorway;
I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself,
‘This could be Heaven or this could be Hell’
Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place (Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year (Any time of year)
You can find it here
This is what your high school English teacher called “foreshadowing”. The Hotel California looks like Heaven, a close enough facsimile to draw you in, but it turns out to be an actual Hell.
The pink champagne on ice
And she said ‘We are all just prisoners here, of our own device’
And in the master’s chambers,
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can’t kill the beast
“They are prisoners of their own device” meaning they sold their souls for something enticing and they regret the choice now. I interpret the term “beast” as the devil (not sure what the band intended by this term, however). The devil cannot be killed by mankind, and once you given yourself over to the devil, it is difficult to turn back. He has these poor folks trapped. Too late now.
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
‘Relax, ‘ said the night man,
‘We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!’
Maybe you can leave the real Hotel California and its awful ideology behind. The opposing side may not suit you as well, but surely you cannot justify the Hotel California’s awful practices, practices that apparently have no bound?
I hope you realize the ideas of the pro-life folks are not so radical after all. The message of those of us who have always opposed abortion have not changed in fifty years. The message of the pro-choice crowd keeps expanding. Such is the political necessity of how the argument is framed these days. Maybe soon more will see the pro-choice movement is driven by demonic forces; these are good people who are badly influenced and their souls are in jeopardy. The pro-choice argument may at first seem reasonable, but once you have bitten that fish-hook, it draws you deeper and deeper into the Hotel California and its demonic intentions.
These demonic ideas will not be defeated until more of us stand up to oppose them. Don’t keep your thoughts to yourself. Don’t just shake your head. Don’t condemn others. Actively fight to defeat these ideas. We must win on the issue of life and other cultural issues. There is no future for our culture if we do not. Our economy, our political system, our very freedoms, and the souls of friends, neighbors, and children depend on us maintaining strong cultural values. The battle is being lost, but is not over. Let your voice be heard, please. Praise be Jesus Christ, now and forever.
For more of my thoughts on the topic of abortion: Life – Seek the Truth (seek-the-truth.com)