Anyway, I saw that Glenn Beck was shedding some light on how most eugenicists have been and are “progressives”:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Looking for that last-minute gift to give to your friend or loved one? Know a young, pregnant girl who doesn’t know what to do? Give away a Christmas gift certificate from Planned Parenthood! Celebrate the birth of Christ with the death of an unborn child.

“Why not buy a loved one a gift this holiday season that they really need,” [Indiana Planned Parenthood CEO] Cockrum says in a press release LifeNews.com obtained. “The gift certificates are also a wonderful idea for that person in your life who puts everyone else first.”

This sounds like a commercial for a cheap electronic product that’s all the rage. Hmmm, should I give my sister a cell phone, or an abortion? Yes, this person puts everyone else first. So much so that an abortion is necessary to keep thinking about other people – it has nothing to do with the selfish idea of making her own life easier, of course not. She’s so selfless, I’ll go with the abortion. She deserves a break. A baby would just make her life way too complicated. It’s good they have these, otherwise she would have had to live with her decision to not be careful enough to not get pregnant.

Back to the article.
Reportedly, Cockrum requested in a press release for citizens to:

“please join Planned Parenthood of Indiana and give the gift of health this holiday season,”

yet Planned Parenthood Indiana’s Vice President Chrystal Struben-Hall confirms that buyers can give the “gift of death,” too.

“Gift of health”, “gift of death”, what’s the difference? Your health as a strong independent woman is more important than that life growing inside of you. Oh, wait, abortion activists say it’s just a jumble of cells that doesn’t mean anything, they must be right.

Gift of death, indeed.

While you’re with your family or friends celebrating the holiday season in whichever way you do and rejoicing over the wonderful presents you’ve received, remember that there are girls and women being given the ability to kill their unborn child at Christmas.

On August 1st a group of pro-lifers from Maryland was finishing up a day of activism [Pro-lifers stand in various locations, holding signs which show the truth about abortion. Often they will have warning signs making people aware of what they are about to see.] A State Trooper pulled over and told them to stop what they were doing. The trooper threatened them with arrest and refused to cite any law they were breaking. The trooper told one of the participants that “it did not matter what the law was, it only matted what he said it was”.

The group packed up and moved to a different jurisdiction. The trooper followed them and began to arrest them immediately when they set up again. 18 of the pro-lifers were arrested and hauled away without being told what law they had broken. They were not even read their rights. They were held overnight with out a phone call or any contact with their families.

Can we as Americans really just sit idly by and be silent while things like this go on around us? Even if we do not agree with what these citizens were doing, we should not allow them to be harassed because of their beliefs. They did nothing wrong!

The group has now all been released and the State Attorney has dropped all charges. This, however, is far from over. We cannot allow our civil rights to be violated in this manner and we cannot allow police to make up laws and arrest whoever they want. The more this happens without action being taken, the more our rights will be stolen.

We need to take a stand with this. We need to draw attention to this. We can’t just sweep this under the rug and say “oh well, it won’t happen to me”. If we let this go, there’s no telling how many times this will happen again.

Many people don’t agree with them, either with what they were saying or how they were saying it. But that does not mean that their rights should be violated. If they had been doing anything else – like protesting the Iraqi war – would this have been handled the same way? I don’t think so. Let’s raise awareness for this issue to prevent this from happening to other innocent civilians expressing their beliefs.
Tell your friends. Write a Myspace bulletin about it. Send emails. Get the news out.

I wanted to make sure you saw this letter to Pastor Rick Warren we have posted at RedState.  In light of the recent reports about Barack Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protect Act (legislation that would require life sustaining medical treatment for infants born alive despite an attempted abortion), the issues Hunter raises in this letter are too important to ignore.

We hope Pastor Warren will ask the tough questions, not just the popular questions.
Erick
 
The text of the letter, written by Redstate Contributor Hunter Baker, is below:

Dear Pastor Warren,

I am writing to you to express concern about something that may get lost when you host the candidate forum with John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback Valley Community Church which is likely to receive national attention. The decision to address you on this question in an open letter comes with some trepidation, but I have attempted to reach you through your media agency, the church email, and your personal email with no effect. I hope this message in a public forum will come to your attention instead of sitting unread in a pile of fan mail and requests for favors.

You see, I understand and appreciate who you are and what you’ve done. You are one of the most widely known pastors in the nation and have written one of the best-selling non-fiction books of the past several decades. I have many times walked into friends’ homes and have seen The Purpose-Driven Life sitting on coffee tables or bookshelves. When Time named you one of the most influential evangelicals in America, I agreed and applauded the selection.

During this period of well-deserved fame, you have been a good steward of the blessings God has provided. You gave away 90% of your massive royalties and repaid your church for years of salary. Instead of following the sometimes frivolous paths of other celebrity pastors, you focused in on the suffering of AIDS victims in Africa. You and your wife Kay have been outstanding role models. You have avoided making intemperate statements. Neither have you become some kind of caricature of the pastor in politics, ready to drop anything for a talking-heads appearance anywhere, anytime.

In your news release about the candidate forum, you suggest that you will avoid “gotcha” questions. The topics highlighted in the release are poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate and human rights with a special emphasis on character and leadership rather than programmatic details.

There is much to be said for rising above partisan politics. After all, the church is on a mission from God to all the earth. It is emphatically not intended to be a tool for either one of the political parties. We are after bigger game than a balanced budget, the right kind of welfare state, or term limits. We seek redemption for a world we believe has lost its way.

However, there are certain issues that demand the church’s involvement, issues of basic justice, issues of life and death. Perhaps the least ambiguous of those issues is the protection of babies throughout pregnancy and immediately after birth. We live in a culture that, strangely, acts as though unborn children are like genies that can be stuffed back into the bottle. We know that isn’t true. We know that abortions end with little piles of bloody flesh and bone. Fetuses don’t merely cease to exist. They experience violent physical death.

There are many doctrinal issues that divide Christians, but the protection of young life should not be one of them. Pastor Warren, as Protestants, we are part of a tradition that loves to point to the early church — the young church so pure in our estimation — still uncorrupted by the power of empire. That church, that persecuted church, was a tireless defender of life. Early Christians counseled against abortion and actively rescued infants exposed to the predators and the wild by Roman parents who vested few rights in human beings shortly after birth. A child of the wrong sex or one who looked weak could be abandoned. How strange it is that today a candidate claiming to be a Christian could oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act or a ban on partial birth abortion! To do so is to disclaim not only a major part of Christian teaching, but also a cultural advance in favor of protecting the weak and innocent.

Pastor, you know both John McCain and Barack Obama. You know where they stand on the protection of innocent human life. While it is a fine thing to allow both men to expound upon their experience, their leadership ability, and their attitudes toward challenges of the future like AIDS or climate change, I submit that you would do a disservice to your congregation and to the church at large if you host both candidates and ignore the issue that divides them more clearly than almost any other. Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to change his position on a number of issues, including drilling for oil, the way the Iraq war is conducted, and the proper understanding of gun ownership rights. But his position with regard to abortion rights is positively adamantine. Abortion on demand is non-negotiable. McCain, on the other hand, has consistently voted against a broad abortion license.

Some would respond to me, though I doubt you would, that I am emphasizing one issue unfairly. My answer is that this issue is basic. If the year were 1958, instead of 2008, do you think it would be right to host such a forum and ignore segregation, knowing one candidate was ardently in favor of the separation of the races? You and I both know that it would be wrong to gloss over a glaring breach of that kind. We both know many in the church were wrong in just that way. (It is a terrible irony of history that Mr. Obama now stands with those who favor the persistent removal of an entire class of human beings from legal protection through legal fiat. How I wish it were not so.)

My hope is that you will make no promise to leave the foundational issue of the sanctity of life untouched in this forum. If the lack of that promise means the forum may not take place, then I suggest it would be better to cancel it.

With respect,
Hunter Baker

It’ll be interesting to see if Rick Warren responds to Hunter Baker. I hope Rick doesn’t just give softball questions to Obama, the pro-abortion extremist, but he probably will, sadly.

Topeka, KS (LifeNews.com) — Very rarely does a sitting governor oppose fellow party members running for an election, but pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is doing just that. The potential Barack Obama running mate is attacking a pro-life Democrat and supporting his primary opponent because she disagrees with his abortion stance.

LifeNews has an article detailing more censorship of the pro-life message:

Detroit, MI (LifeNews.com) — The popular video sharing web site YouTube is the subject of criticism again for removing a pro-life video exposing abortion. In this new case, YouTube took down a video from Citizens for a Pro-Life Society showing an abortion center that was investigated for illegally dumping medical waste.

 We also need to emphasize responsibility. If a couple don’t want a child yet, perhaps they should use a condom… what an idea. There’s also adoption, for those who decided to not use a condom.

Pro-abortion people often invoke the “choice” mantra. I’m all for choice–choice of what cell phone plan to buy, choice of what kind of car to buy, choice of school to attend. Everyone is for the choice of consenting adults to choose whom to have sex with of course, and rapists should be put away for the rest of their lives. Conservatives are often for many choices, from school choice to choice of bars to allow smoking to choice of what kind of food to buy. Liberals are often against many choices, but for the “choice” to kill a child.

 So squawking “choice” means nothing. It must be made specific. And no one should have the “choice” to kill her or his own child, just because the child is related to them, whether that child’s unborn, partially-born, or newborn. It’s no coincidence that many of the pro-abortion pundits, such as Anna Quindlen of Newsweek, advocate not only abortion-on-demand, but also killing embryos for their stem cells. She also has defended infanticide, by coming to the defense of Andrea Yates when she drowned her five children in her tub, sickenly mocking her detractors as “yappers!” Pure evil.

Showing love and responsibility means standing up for what’s right, even if it’s unpopular. Sadly, many people are too preoccupied with being “hip” and are too ignorant to realize that evil is often excused in the name of groupthink. I’m all for choice, and people should mind their own business most of the time.

Those rare exceptions when the government does have an interest is people’s business includes when a child or other innocent human being is being killed. That’s actually inline with the idea of choice, since the child has no choice to live or die, but the abortionist can choose to kill or let the child live.

We’ve got a long list of reasons NOT to vote for the pro-abortion extremist Barack Obama, who not only supports killing the unborn but partially born and newborn as well! sick. You may not agree with all of the reasons not to vote for him, but everyone should agree killing innocent human beings is wrong. Check out the list here: Reasons NOT to vote for Obama

A common argument from pro-abortion activists is that women will die by the thousands if abortion is made illegal. In the 1960s, the argument was used to prompt the legalization of abortion. It is still used today.

The evidence against this myth actually comes from PRO-abortionists. Former director of Planned Parenthood gave information to the contrary in 1960:

“Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind…Second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians…Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist…So remember…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.”

Imagine the response! Someone for legal abortion was saying that it wouldn’t make a difference! If abortion is made illegal, women will still find physicians that will cater to their wants and perform abortions. There’s no need for the back-alley dangers that are suggested.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former director of NARAL (the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) now speaks against abortion. In 1979, Nathanson wrote a book, Aborting America, in which he wrote:

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”

Proof that the “thousands of deaths” are nothing more than a desperate scare tactic.
In 1972, the year before the Roe vs. Wade decision, the CDC reported ONLY 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. 39? That is a vast difference from the alleged 5,000-10,000.

 One could argue that abortions are more dangerous now that they are legal. Think about this:

How can there be any real safety in an environment where the main concern is to perform as many abortions as possible in order to increase the abortionist’s profit margin?

Abortionists want money. Abortions are their job, their way to get money. Can we honestly expect them to take precious time to go through every safety precedure if they are protected by law? The answer to that, quite simply, is no. Legalized abortion does not protect women. It does the opposite.