Tag Archives: Subsidies

Videos

Live Action’s Lila Rose debates pro-abortion activist

Leave a comment

I found this video of Lila Rose debating on the Live Action web site.

Are you wondering about that pro-abortion woman? Me too. So I found this interesting post on Captain’s Quarters (Ed Morrissey) about the pro-abortion woman. She wrote on the Daily Kos that she has a crush on Iran’s theocratic dictator Mahmoud Achmandinejad – even though she’s a Jewish lesbian! Very weird.

Planned Parenthood attemps to censor Live Action videos

In this related Life News story, I learned that Planned Parenthood attempted to censor the Live Action undercover videos on Youtube.

Excerpt:

A key part of Planned Parenthood’s counterattack against Lila Rose’s youth-led group, Live Action, and its staggered release early this year of damning videos depicting Planned Parenthood managers, “health professionals,” and other employees willing to welcome, advise and aid & abet purported “sex traffickers” and “pimps” was to get YouTube to suppress the videos on the basis that they violated YouTube’s published “privacy guidelines.”  This post recalls our long and ultimately successful effort to help Live Action defeat Planned Parenthood’s counterattack.

On their release last January, the Live Action videos “went viral,” winning hundreds of thousands of viewers online, and both sparking and helping to sustain a nationwide firestorm of outrage against Planned Parenthood’s willingness to use federal funds to support criminal exploitation of young people and sex slavery.  The epidemic of outrage prompted Congressional efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, by ending its federal subsidies.  Those efforts nearly culminated in a shutdown of the federal government, as House Republicans pushed the issue as far as they could in last minute White House negotiations over the federal budget.

The rest of the post documents the back and forth exchanges between Planned Parenthood and the Thomas More Society lawyers, as Planned Parenthood tries to censor the undercover videos that exposed them as being willing “…to do business with, and thereby aid and abet, sex traffickers and pimps of underage girls, many of whom … recently arrived in this country, imported here for lewd and immoral purposes in what could only be described as a form of sex slavery – an obscenely cruel bondage.” If you click through to read the whole thing, there is a happy ending, but only after some setbacks.

In other news, pro-lifers are asking New Jersey governor Chris Christie to veto Planned Parenthood funding again, after the Democrats in the Senate voted to restore subsidies to Planned Parenthood.

Related posts

News

Secular government uses your tax money to limit your religious liberty

2 Comments
Map of Canada
Map of Canada

Often, Christians, Jews and other religious people are swayed to vote for left-leaning parties in elections. The leftists promise all kinds of goodies that they will provide, freeing us from the responsibility to provide for ourselves. And they promise that it won’t cost us a thing, because they will take the money from our rich neighbors, or from some other group of people who, they tell us, have no right to their own money. Well, what happens when religious people trust the secular government and vote them into power in order to get these goodies?

This is what happens in Quebec. (H/T Don Surber)

Excerpt:

MONTREAL — The 3- and 4-year-olds at the Childcare Center of Hebrew Foundation were always excited on Fridays. They’d get to re-create the rituals their parents typically perform for Friday night dinner, an integral part of the Jewish Sabbath, or Shabbat.

On a rotating basis, each child would be designated, if female, to light candles and say a blessing or, as a boy, bless the challah bread. The “wine” would be grape juice.

But on Friday, there was no Shabbat simulation. And there probably never will be again, if the Quebec government can help it.

“My 4-year-old daughter is devastated she can’t do her Shabbat next year,” said Sandy Jesion, who sends his child to the daycare in Dollard-des-Ormeaux, a Montreal suburb where he lives.

Nor are there any more prayers before the mid-morning snack. No stories about Noah’s Ark. No recounting of the parting of the seas.

Don Surber writes:

But the center could prevent this if it refused government money.

From the Toronto Star: “As of last Wednesday, subsidized daycare and early-childhood learning centres in Quebec have had to abide by a new directive prohibiting religious activities, which the government expects to foster the integration of all children.”

Don’t get me wrong. Canadians should fight this. But the Childcare Center of Hebrew Foundation is not helpless. It could tell Quebec where it can shove that money.

Notice though, that a much better solution that not taking the subsidies is to NOT VOTE FOR THE TAXES in the first place. Vote to shrink government, and then you get to keep your own money and spend it as you see fit. Your employer gets to keep the money, so that he will be able to raise your salary, or to not LAY YOU OFF in a recession. It is never a good idea for religious people to give a secular government their money, or even their neighbor’s money. The secular government can never spend the money as efficiently as private citizens can. It’s your money – you keep it and spend it on helping others the way YOU think is best. And if you want to have a religious education, then that’s your decision. Don’t let the government use your money and then make that decision FOR YOU. Don’t let someone else take your money, or your neighbor’s money, or your employer’s money, and then use it to PUSH THEIR VIEW ONTO YOUR CHILDREN. You keep your money and raise your own children. You call the shots with the money you earn.

News

New study shows how taxpayer-funding increases number of abortions

1 Comment

From Life Site News.
Excerpt:

A major pro-life group is responding to the study released by a pro-abortion organization saying abortion rates have fallen for women as a whole but increased for women below the poverty line. The National Right to Life Committee blames taxpayer funding.

As LifeNews reported, the new study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology indicates the abortion rate has decreased in the United States — good news because it means more pregnant women are opting against having an abortion. However, the report presents news that should spark a drive to help more women below the poverty level find pregnancy resources and support because it indicates poor women are having abortions at a higher rate than before.

The new report was published by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group formerly affiliated with the Planned Parenthood abortion business. According to Guttmacher, poor women accounted for 42% of all abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 18% between 2000 and 2008, from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. In comparison, the national abortion rate for 2008 was 19.6 per 1,000, reflecting an 8% decline from a rate of 21.3 in 2000.

NRLC officials disputed Guttmacher’s claims that restrictions on abortion “disproportionately affect” poor women.

“Data showing an eight percent drop in abortion rates across the board from 2000 to 2008 are encouraging,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life director of education and research.

“Guttmacher suggests that higher abortion rates among poorer woman and abortion restrictions are somehow connected, yet it’s a thesis that goes undefended,” O’Bannon further noted.  “How common sense regulations like right-to-know laws, which tell women about abortion’s risks and alternatives which are better for both them and their unborn children, and similar protective measures, are supposed to hurt poor women is hard to fathom.”

The researcher says the overall downward trend seems to indicate that such laws, along with the assistance provided by pregnancy care centers, which provide lifesaving alternatives to abortion, are enabling more women to choose life for their unborn child. However, several states – California, New York and at least a dozen others – publicly fund abortion for poor women with taxpayer money, which O’Bannon blames for increasing the abortion rates for poor women receiving the free or reduced-cost abortions.

“While the abortion industry saw declines among most demographic groups, it just happened to see growth among women for whom states were covering abortion costs,” observed O’Bannon. “The fact is, when tax dollars pay for abortion, you get more abortion.”

[…]O’Bannon noted: “The abortion industry likes to argue that high abortion rates are due to insufficient government funding for ‘family planning,’ but the record seems at odds with that assertion.  As abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, abortions at their facilities have steadily increased at rates that very nearly match their increases in government funding.”

I really like when pro-lifers have thought about abortion as an economic problem, and are willing to embrace (in part) economic solutions. I know a lot of pro-lifers who will accept nothing less than a full ban on all abortions right now today. They do not understand incremental measures. The same pro-lifers who do not understand incremental pro-life policies usually don’t understand pro-life arguments either. They just haven’t thought about the issue as a problem to solve, but only as a hard-line pose to impress their friends.

These uninformed pro-lifers do not want to think about the causes of abortion, nor about the incentives to abort, nor about incremental measures that will reduce the number of abortions, such as parental notification laws, mandatory sonograms or waiting periods. Pro-life legislators can only legislate based on what the public opinion will support (and maybe a little bit over that line). In the meantime, there is a battle for public opinion that needs to be waged by each individual pro-lifer with his neighbors, using arguments and evidence that are convincing to the non-pro-life person (i.e. – not “The Bible says” or “The Pope says”, but “the statistics show” or “the science shows”).

Related posts