September 20, 2010

Please send me your comments!

By Dave Andrusko

Good evening, and thanks for reading Today's News & Views. Part Two explains why "none are so blind as those who will not see." Part Three is encouraging news from Nebraska as Enforcement Day beckons! Over at National Right to Life News Today (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org), you will read how pro-abortion Colin Powell was more right than he imagined when ever-so-mildly he critiqued President Obama. There is also a very, very helpful tool--an overview of those states that have early voting and when/how you can take advantage. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today todaveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

Now I REALLY know what it means when someone talks about an article or video going "viral"--zipping around the Internet with breakneck speed via use of social networks.

Congressman Chris Smith's op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post was online Saturday night. I don't know how many people contacted me directly starting around 10:00, or how many posted a link on their social networks, but it was a ton.

Since "Abortion does not further children's health" appeared in the Post, I cannot just reprint it here in TN&V. But I can give you the link and once you click on it you'll be taken there lickety-split: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091705303.html. (Be SURE to add your two cents worth in the comment section.)

"An army of health activists and world leaders will gather at the United Nations this week to review the eight Millennium Development Goals agreed to at the start of the century and to recalibrate and recommit to more effectively achieve them by 2015," Congressman Smith, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, tells us in his opening sentence. "The overarching and noble goal is reducing global poverty," he explains. "But the most compelling and achievable objectives -- huge reductions in maternal and child mortality worldwide -- will be severely undermined if the Obama administration either directly or covertly integrates abortion into the final outcome document."

Consider the importance of having this placed in a publication that still carries some considerable weight, especially in light of the reality that in the Internet Age everyone around the globe can read what Smith is arguing.

If you were new to this debate, you'd be agog at how the pro-abortion-to-the-hilt Obama Administration--and especially pro-abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--are trying to commandeer this saintly effort into the ranks of the Abortion Crusade.

Smith specifically mentions Clinton who, under persistent questioning by Smith at a committee hearing, "has said publicly that she believes access to abortion is part of maternal and reproductive health." That's hugely important for two reasons.

Pro-abortionists, here and abroad, have consistently treated the truth as if it were radioactive--because it is. People are quite capable of being "personally pro-choice" and saying No! to conflating programs to help women and children with slaughtering the unborn. Smoking out the Clintons of this world helps us to educate the public about their real agenda.

Also, it allows pro-lifers to show how out of step with recent statements and policy directives from nations like Canada and even, occasionally, from the UN. Smith refers to something we've written about several times in this space. "At the Group of Eight meetings in Canada this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper rebuffed Clinton's attempt to integrate abortion with initiatives to reduce maternal mortality." Smith writes. "He stated his opposition to funding abortions by saying: 'We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children and are used on the many things that are available to us, and, frankly, do not divide the Canadian population.'"

Of course, I want you to read the entire op-ed, so let me say just one more thing (besides a tip-of-the-hat nod to the spot-on comment that "Abortion is, by definition, infant mortality, and it undermines the achievement of the fourth Millennium Development Goal"). "Talk of 'unwanted children' reduces children to mere objects, without inherent human dignity and whose worth depends on their perceived utility or how much they're wanted."

While pro-lifers have made this point Day One, it cannot be restated often enough. When a child is labeled as "unwanted," we've objectified the child, turning him or her into a commodity that we keep if we "want it," or toss on the ash heap if we don't. It is difficult to overstate how significant it is to grasp that all of us--from the unborn child to the oldest and most sickly frail elderly person--has inherent human dignity that others cannot dole out or take away.

Take a moment to go to www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091705303.html and make your voice heard in the comment section.

Part Two
Part Three