Tag Archives: NARAL

Is Joe Biden a Roman Catholic? Where does he stand on abortion and religious liberty?

Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President
Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President

What does Joe Biden think about Roman Catholics? He might like you to believe that he’s a great friend of Catholics, so he can get their votes. But he’s very strongly in favor of abortion and infanticide. And he’s also opposed to religious liberty for Roman Catholics. How do I know? Because he said so himself.

Here’s the story from The Federalist:

Biden’s record is one of attacking nuns, not defending them. Last month, he pledged to overturn a Supreme Court decision that affirmed a group of nuns’ right to deny contraceptive coverage based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are a Catholic order that has existed since 1839 and serves impovrished elderly in over 30 countries, including the United States. In 2013, the Little Sisters sued the Obama-Biden administration’s Health and Human Services, seeking a religious exemption to providing contraceptives and abortifacients that went against their beliefs. After three years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in the Little Sisters’ favor in 2016.

When the Trump administration issued a new rule that expanded religious exemptions to include the Little Sisters, the state of Pennsylvania interfered, suing the administration to take protections away from the nuns. That case also made it to the Supreme Court, which again decided in favor of the Little Sisters in July 2020.

But the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Biden promised to take away the nuns’ hard-fought exemption if elected president.

“I am disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision,” Biden said in response. “If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy.”

So, not good on religious liberty, especially for Roman Catholics.

And here’s an interesting article from Life News, about Biden’s support for abortion. Is he a moderate?

NARAL, the pro-abortion political and lobbying organization, yesterday announced its endorsement of pro-abortion former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democrat nominee, for president.

If elected, Biden has promised to:

  • enshrine Roe v. Wade in federal law;
  • appoint justices who will uphold abortion on demand;
  • reverse the Trump Administration’s pro-life policies;
  • reverse President Trump’s Title X rule that prevents pro-abortion groups from promoting or referring for abortions;
  • promote abortion around the world by reversing the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used by abortion groups to perform or promote abortion overseas;
  • abolish the Hyde Amendment which prevents federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Joe Biden isn’t a Roman Catholic. Like all other Democrats, he’s an atheist. He doesn’t think that the Bible is an authority on truth or morality. I know, because I looked at his actions. His actions declare that he’s a pro-abortion, anti-Christian bigot.

Did “thousands of women” die in “back alley abortions” before Roe v. Wade?

I get into debates about abortion, and sometimes my opponent will complain that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then thousands of women would die in illegal abortions. Well, if that ever happens to you, this post will help you to know how to respond to it.

First of all, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then each of the 50 states would pass legislation deciding when abortions would be legal.

Here’s a map taken from the Washington Examiner:

Abortion rights after Roe v. Wade is overturned
Abortion rights after Roe v. Wade is overturned

Red states are more pro-life than blue states in this map. For example, New York is ranked #6, and Tennessee is ranked #45.

So, if a woman did have irresponsible sex with a hot bad boy, then she easily could terminate her child in one of the blue states.

Second, the number thrown around by abortion advocates is not accurate. It’s simply not true that “thousands of women” were dying from poorly-performed abortions when abortion was still illegal. Actually, abortions were performed by trained medical personnel, but it just wasn’t reported to the police.

Here’s a recent article from the radically leftist Washington Post:

Erica Sackin, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, directed us to a 2014 policy statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): “It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year and that unsafe abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths.”

There is no citation in the statement for the estimate of “as many as 5,000 annual deaths,” even though many of the other sentences are carefully documented. None of the citations around this sentence supports the figure, and there is no explanation about how it was calculated.

[…]Meanwhile, Sackin also sent a variety of reports, many of which were referenced in a footnote in a document published by NARAL Pro-Choice America. One of the citations especially caught our eye: Frederick Taussig, “Abortion Spontaneous and Induced: Medical and Social Aspects,” (1936).

Why was a study from 1936 being cited? Because in 1936, we didn’t have antibiotics! People were dying all the time from any kind of surgery – not just abortion.

More:

The advent of antibiotics such as penicillin and improved medical procedures suddenly made abortion less risky. Another prominent researcher, Christopher Tietze, argued in a 1948 paper that the number of deaths from abortion was rapidly declining because of three reasons: contraceptive methods had improved so fewer women were getting pregnant, abortion providers were getting better at avoiding infections, and many lives had been saved because of the introduction of sulfa drugs and penicillin.

[…]The data collected by Tietze showed 2,677 deaths from abortion in 1933, compared with 888 in 1945, with much of the decline in septic cases associated with illegal abortions. (The numbers also include deaths from “therapeutic abortions,” permitted by law, and “spontaneous abortions.”)

By 1959, a leading researcher wrote: “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 physicians. In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”

The writer was Mary Steichen Calderone, at the time medical director of Planned Parenthood. She attributed the decline in the mortality rate to antibiotics and the fact that 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by trained physicians.

OK, so abortion advocates cite the study from 1936, which already relies on questionable estimates, because they know that the later numbers are far, far lower – thanks to the widespread use of antibiotics. They’re lying, essentially, because lying helps them to persuade people who think with their feelings, and don’t look too closely at facts.

My third point is simple. Even if women hurt themselves during abortions, that wouldn’t be a reason to legalize abortion. Bank robbers hurt themselves during bank robberies, and drug dealers hurt themselves during drug deals. We do not legalize criminal activities just because criminals get hurt during the commission of those activities. So the real question is, what is the unborn? If the unborn is a living human being, then abortion on demand takes the life of an innocent human being without justification, and should therefore be illegal.

UPDATE: My pro-life friend Nathan sent me a fourth response:

There is a difference today that did not exist in 1973. We have a pro-life movement. We have over 2,000 pregnancy care ministries and clinics operating throughout the continental United States. I highly doubt these clinics will just disappear overnight if abortion became illegal nationwide. Women and children will still be in need, and the free market principles that enable charity to flourish will be there to help.

Given this reality, will proponents of abortion now finally step forward to help provide the support to women necessary so they never have to choose a back alley abortion? Given how they have worked themselves into a panic about rusty coat hangers, it seems they would be the most motivated to do so. The fact many don’t seem to want to do so is telling: They just want to justify their own support for abortion, regardless of whether it helps women or not.

Did “thousands of women” die in “back alley abortions” before Roe v. Wade?

I get into debates about abortion, and sometimes my opponent will complain that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then thousands of women would die in illegal abortions. Well, if that ever happens to you, this post will help you to know how to respond to it.

First of all, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then each of the 50 states would pass legislation deciding when abortions would be legal.

Here’s a map taken from the Washington Examiner:

Abortion rights after Roe v. Wade is overturned
Abortion rights after Roe v. Wade is overturned

Red states are more pro-life than blue states in this map. For example, New York is ranked #6, and Tennessee is ranked #45.

So, if a woman did have irresponsible sex with a hot bad boy, then she easily could terminate her child in one of the blue states.

Second, the number thrown around by abortion advocates is not accurate. It’s simply not true that “thousands of women” were dying from poorly-performed abortions when abortion was still illegal. Actually, abortions were performed by trained medical personnel, but it just wasn’t reported to the police.

Here’s a recent article from the radically leftist Washington Post:

Erica Sackin, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, directed us to a 2014 policy statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): “It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year and that unsafe abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths.”

There is no citation in the statement for the estimate of “as many as 5,000 annual deaths,” even though many of the other sentences are carefully documented. None of the citations around this sentence supports the figure, and there is no explanation about how it was calculated.

[…]Meanwhile, Sackin also sent a variety of reports, many of which were referenced in a footnote in a document published by NARAL Pro-Choice America. One of the citations especially caught our eye: Frederick Taussig, “Abortion Spontaneous and Induced: Medical and Social Aspects,” (1936).

Why was a study from 1936 being cited? Because in 1936, we didn’t have antibiotics! People were dying all the time from any kind of surgery – not just abortion.

More:

The advent of antibiotics such as penicillin and improved medical procedures suddenly made abortion less risky. Another prominent researcher, Christopher Tietze, argued in a 1948 paper that the number of deaths from abortion was rapidly declining because of three reasons: contraceptive methods had improved so fewer women were getting pregnant, abortion providers were getting better at avoiding infections, and many lives had been saved because of the introduction of sulfa drugs and penicillin.

[…]The data collected by Tietze showed 2,677 deaths from abortion in 1933, compared with 888 in 1945, with much of the decline in septic cases associated with illegal abortions. (The numbers also include deaths from “therapeutic abortions,” permitted by law, and “spontaneous abortions.”)

By 1959, a leading researcher wrote: “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 physicians. In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”

The writer was Mary Steichen Calderone, at the time medical director of Planned Parenthood. She attributed the decline in the mortality rate to antibiotics and the fact that 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by trained physicians.

OK, so abortion advocates cite the study from 1936, which already relies on questionable estimates, because they know that the later numbers are far, far lower – thanks to the widespread use of antibiotics. They’re lying, essentially, because lying helps them to persuade people who think with their feelings, and don’t look too closely at facts.

My third point is simple. Even if women hurt themselves during abortions, that wouldn’t be a reason to legalize abortion. Bank robbers hurt themselves during bank robberies, and drug dealers hurt themselves during drug deals. We do not legalize criminal activities just because criminals get hurt during the commission of those activities. So the real question is, what is the unborn? If the unborn is a living human being, then abortion on demand takes the life of an innocent human being without justification, and should therefore be illegal.

UPDATE: My pro-life friend Nathan sent me a fourth response:

There is a difference today that did not exist in 1973. We have a pro-life movement. We have over 2,000 pregnancy care ministries and clinics operating throughout the continental United States. I highly doubt these clinics will just disappear overnight if abortion became illegal nationwide. Women and children will still be in need, and the free market principles that enable charity to flourish will be there to help.

Given this reality, will proponents of abortion now finally step forward to help provide the support to women necessary so they never have to choose a back alley abortion? Given how they have worked themselves into a panic about rusty coat hangers, it seems they would be the most motivated to do so. The fact many don’t seem to want to do so is telling: They just want to justify their own support for abortion, regardless of whether it helps women or not.

Obama’s budget proposal would increase taxpayer funding of abortion

The Heritage Foundation explains.

Excerpt:

President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget released yesterday persists in entangling taxpayer dollars in the abortion industry.

Obama’s budget includes $327 million for Title X family planning programs, a more than $30 million increase over last year’s request. Title X is one of a number of sources of government funding to Planned Parenthood, which performs roughly one out of every four abortions in the United States and was recently accused of tacitly supporting infanticide.

In 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood received over $542 million in total taxpayer funding while performing a record 333,964 abortions. According to analysis by the Susan B. Anthony List, Planned Parenthood has performed almost 1 million abortions in the past three reporting years alone.

Even though the organization boasts the title of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood has ridden the waves of taxpayer funding to millions of dollars in annual surpluses. During its last reporting year, like many before it, Planned Parenthood saw a very comfortable income, reporting excess revenues exceeding $87 million and net assets of more than $1.2 billion.

How does Planned Parenthood feel about infanticide? Let’s see:

If the organization’s single-minded provision of abortion services isn’t enough to question the continual stream of federal tax dollars, recent disturbing admissions by a local Florida Planned Parenthood affiliate should at least raise scrutiny of the organization’s federal funding.

A few weeks ago, a local Planned Parenthood representative testified against a Florida bill that would require abortion doctors to provide emergency care for infants born after a failed abortion attempt. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” asked one Florida legislator during the hearing, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Instead of expressing the need to provide potentially life-saving medical care to the child, Planned Parenthood official Alisa LaPolt Snow simply responded, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

The Obama Administration also continues to export taxpayer funding of abortion, requesting $37 million for the United Nations Family Population Fund (UNFPA). Despite continued assertions that UNFPA has been involved in China’s coercive one-child policy, the U.S. government persists in sending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to an organization complicit in forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

Previously, I wrote about how Obama voted for infanticide several times and he opposed the ban on partial birth abortions.

Excerpt:

BAIPA [The Born Alive Infant Protection Act] (both the federal and Illinois state versions) on the other hand, was introduced to insure that babies who survive attempted abortions are provided the same medical care and sustenance as any other infant born alive. BAIPA was introduced after evidence was presented that babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions were simply discarded in utility closets without food, care, or medical treatment until they died.

As both Andy and I pointed out last night (and numerous times before), state senator Obama fought against the Illinois version of BAIPA that was identical in all material respects to the federal version. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed that he voted against the Illinois BAIPA because it failed to contain a “neutrality clause” making it clear that the bill did not affect the right to an abortion. This is false. Documents obtained by National Right to Life show that the Illinois BAIPA did, in fact, contain a neutrality clause identical to the federal version.

As noted yesterday, not one U.S. senator voted against  BAIPA. Even NARAL didn’t oppose it. At the time of the vote, CNN reported that NARAL’s spokesman said the following:

We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born.And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide. (Emphasis added).

The logical import of Obama’s vote against BAIPA is that he disagrees, i.e., once a baby has been targeted for abortion it thereafter has no inherent right to the food, comfort, and medical care provided to other babies born alive. Indeed, during Illinois state senate deliberations on BAIPA, Obama stated that one of his objections was that the bill was “designed toburden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Apparently, once the decision to abort has been made, a child is doomed even if born alive.

When it comes to abortion, there is no one more radical than Barack Obama.

Left-wing Democrat groups pack Stephen Colbert / Jon Stewart rally

Politco has the list of some of the left-wing Democrat special interest groups who attended the pro-Obama rally staged by left-wing radicals Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

Excerpt:

Abortion-rights supporters, marijuana fans, environmental activists, government watchdogs and the Democratic National Committee all will be cruising the Mall and spreading their messages in the hopes of winning hearts, minds and votes three days before Election Day.

— At least 100 MoveOn.org Political Action volunteers will serve 25,000 cups of hot chocolate that advertise a get-out-the-vote effort people can join by texting the organization.

— Public Citizen’s government watchdogs are giving out 5,000 signs featuring slogan-contest winners like “It’s a Democracy, Not an Auction,” chosen from 6,000 entries.

— Abortion rights supporters from NARAL will be trolling the Mall, metro stations and the bus parking lot at RFK Stadium, some in Lady Liberty costumes, rewarding people who sign up to volunteer with a sticker saying, “Vote Pro-Choice. Politicians Make Crappy Doctors” — also a product of a slogan contest.

— After the rally, the pro-pot activists at Students for Sensible Drug Policy are set to do eight hours of phone banking urging California voters to support Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in the state.

None of the groups quite know what kind of crowd to expect — MoveOn’s Ilyse Hogue called it a “huge mystery.” — but they figure it will probably be young, liberal and frustrated. Just the kind of folks whose untapped energy can be channeled into get-out-the-vote efforts.

Two clowns organizing a rally for the Clown-In-Chief. Yay! 10% unemployment! 3 trillion in budget deficits! Everyone laugh! It’s so funny!

The radically leftist New York Times reports that the Democratic National Committee will be heavily involved in the Colbert/Stewart rally.

Excerpt:

…the Democratic National Committee is doing everything it can to capitalize on the event.

Volunteers and staff members from the headquarters are greeting people as they get off of the buses or arrive in Washington on trains, armed with sign-up sheets for canvassing efforts in districts across the country.

And for those rally attendees who have not gotten enough of politics by the end of the rally, they can head over to the the committee’s headquarters a few blocks away, where there will be a phone bank. Committee officials said they expected to get at least 100 people there.

The rally had been a subject of concern for some Democrats, who said it would siphon the most active Democrats from around the country away from the get-out-the-vote efforts in their home states and districts.

But a spokeswoman for the Democratic committee’s Organizing for America said Saturday that the party is supportive of the Comedy Central hosts’ event.

“We think having people energized and enthusiastic in the final days before Election Day is great,” said the spokeswoman, Lynda Tran. “OFA is urging people to head from the rally to a phone bank or to pick up a canvass and go door to door to urge their friends, neighbors, and communities to head to the polls on Tuesday.”

Indeed. And the rally is supported by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Barack Obama’s old anti-American terrorist buddies, too.

Excerpt:

When comics Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert announced their rallies on the national mall scheduled for this Saturday, they may not have expected—or wanted—an endorsement from Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. But Ayers told the Ford Motor Company-sponsored Green Festival in Washington, D.C. last Saturday that the event will be a needed respite from the “Alice in Wonderland” world of military domination of the planet and wars waged by the U.S. “empire.”

The October 30 Stewart/Colbert rallies, dubbed “Restore Sanity” and “Keep Fear Alive,” are “worth attending,” Ayers said.

[…]Ayers and Dohrn had staged a fundraiser for Obama when he began his political career by running for the Illinois State Senate. Ayers and Obama served on a board and appeared at functions together. During the campaign, however, Obama tried to play down his relationship with the terror couple.

All of Obama’s buddies from Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are very excited about the rally. I’m sure Reverend Jeremiah Wright would approve, as well.