Klopfer’s ‘Garage of Horrors’: What abortion looks like

By John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris, Op-Ed Contributors

Last month more than 50 detectives entered the Illinois home of recently deceased abortion doctor Ulrich Klopfer. What they found was sickening: the medically-preserved remains of some 2,246 babies in boxes stored in his garage. And then just last week, the remains of another 50 babies were found in the trunk of his Mercedes Benz.

The attorney general of Indiana has launched an investigation, announcing that the babies’ remains have been returned to Indiana, where Klopfer had performed the abortions.

Unsurprisingly, the story prompted immediate comparisons with doctor Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors.” Back in 2013, Gosnell was convicted of murder and sentenced to three consecutive life terms when investigators discovered the remains of hundreds of dismembered babies in his squalid Philadelphia abortion clinic and his personal residence, and learned that he had performed illegal late-term abortions, as well as something called “snipping” that I won’t describe here.

While pro-lifers say Klopfer and Gosnell offer glimpses into the violent reality of abortion, defenders of so-called “reproductive rights” want to distinguish these houses-and-garages-of-horror from the practice itself.

Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, the current mayor of South Bend, Indiana, where Klopfer’s clinic was located, called the discovery “extremely disturbing,” but then said he didn’t want the investigation to get “caught up in politics” because “women need access to health care.”

Many, like Buttigieg, want to treat abortion doctors like Klopfer and Gosnell as bad apples spoiling the reputation of an otherwise noble profession. They might even call it “nut-picking” when pro-lifers point to these extra-disturbing cases, a term to describe using an extreme and crazy minority to unfairly tar the majority. Imagine all Christians being linked to Westboro Baptist, for instance.

But there are at least three reasons why pro-lifers have every right to hold up these sick and gruesome body-collectors as representatives of the pro-abortion movement.

First, the same people who call these stories “extremely disturbing” want even less oversight over the abortion industry. Kermit Gosnell was able to continue killing because pro-abortion officials turned a blind eye to him for three decades.

Klopfer was only shut down in 2016 after failing to notify police of a case of statutory rape, but when Indiana enacted a law requiring abortion clinics to properly dispose of fetal remains—exactly what Klopfer wasn’t doing—abortion defenders there fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. Thankfully, they lost.

Second, there’s evidence that mainstream abortion providers are just as willing to break the law as these so-called “bad apples.”

Remember those undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress—the ones showing top Planned Parenthood “suits” negotiating the price of baby body parts? David Daleiden, the guy behind those videos, is still defending himself in court, despite the fact that he caught Planned Parenthood admitting to illegal practices like modifying abortion procedures to get better organs.

And finally, it’s fair to link abortion giants with disturbed fetal body collectors because what happens in their sterile, well-lit, well-funded clinics is fundamentally no different from what happened in Klopfer’s and Gosnell’s clinics. Both places produce many, many tiny corpses.

A garage full of preserved bodies may be shocking, but is a clinic “biological waste storage facility” any less shocking? Isn’t the fully legal procedure that put those bodies there the thing that should really disturb us, keep us talking about it, and spur us to change our laws?

We need to be really clear about this. Mr. Mayor Pete, this is what that kind of “healthcare” looks like.

Don’t let anyone tell you Klopfer and Gosnell are just bad apples. What happens in every abortion clinic each day should horrify us every bit as much as what happens in these houses of horror.

Download MP3 Audio Here

Resources

Aborted fetuses found in Will County garage have been taken to Indiana, Stefano Esposito, Chicago Sun Times, October 3, 2019

The Remains of an Abortionist’s Day, Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, September 23, 2019

Originally posted at BreakPoint.

From BreakPoint. Reprinted with the permission of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. “BreakPoint®” and “The Colson Center for Christian Worldview®” are registered trademarks of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

Appeals court revives attack on nuns who refused to facilitate abortion

Now 9th Circuit decides what they should believe, and how deep their beliefs should be

Oct 24, 2019

Little Sisters at the Supreme Court (Image courtesy Becket Fund)

It was Barack Obama’s pro-abortion Washington insiders who took the broad outline created by Obamacare and wrote the rules that would require an organization of faithful Catholic nuns to fund abortion.

Which is just not going to happen.

And the Supreme Court has turned that idea down twice already, but the war against the Christian nuns still rages on inside the nation’s courtrooms.

The latest was this week’s decision at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges once again put themselves in the position of deciding what the nuns should believe, do believe, and how strongly they believe it.

The background is well-known: In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services under Obama’s administration created a federal demand that employers provide contraceptives, including the week-after pill, free-of-cost in their health insurance plans.

There were no exemptions for religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who help the poorest of the poor around the world who are at the end of their lives with nowhere else to go.

“These nuns have dedicated their lives to their faith and to serving the poor. Yet, these women were sued and told that they must violate their conscience by providing contraception through their insurance,” explained a report by the Family Research Council.

In 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected lower court decisions against the group, concluding the government should be allowed to “arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates the petitioners’ religious beliefs.”

In 2017, President Trump released an executive order directing federal agencies to address the faith objections to Obama’s plan. Shortly after followed a new federal rule.

But now state officials, in Pennsylvania and California, taking over for the Obama agenda, demanded at a state level that the nuns pay up for abortions.

Rulings from the 9th Circuit, and earlier the 3rd Circuit, have claimed that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to exempt the nuns from state demands.

The FRC, in a commentary, explained, “The Supreme Court needs to settle the debate and rule that the government cannot require people and groups to violate their conscience by providing contraceptive services. The court should uphold the HHS rule, which protects the inherent human right of religious liberty. This liberty promotes the common good and allows society to flourish. The Little Sisters of the Poor certainly promote the common good as they assist the poorest in society. Violating their conscience ought not to be a precondition for the Little Sisters assisting those most in need.”

The ruling from the 3rd Circuit already has been appealed to the Supreme Court, according to officials for Becket, which is representing them.

“Over the past three years the Supreme Court has twice protected the Catholic nuns, but the states have dragged them back to court,” Becket said. “In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Trump, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro threatened the Little Sisters’ ministry by challenging their religious exemption, forcing the Little Sisters to continue to defend themselves in court.”

The appeal to the high court explains: “Since late 2013, this court has repeatedly been presented with questions concerning the relationship between the federal contraceptive mandate and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the adequacy of ever-evolving government treatment of religious objectors. In a series of emergency orders, the court protected religious non-profits from facing large fines for noncompliance, but repeatedly refrained from expressing any definitive view on the merits of their RFRA claims.

“In its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, the court discussed the regulatory mechanism available to religious non-profits as one of the several less restrictive alternatives to the mandate’s treatment of religious for-profits. The court understood that there were ongoing challenges to the sufficiency of that mechanism under RFRA, and it emphasized that it was not deciding whether it was sufficient for those who object to it. Nonetheless, by pointing to it as a potential less restrictive alternative, the court seemed to assume that the executive branch had ample power to promulgate some sort of religious accommodation.

“In the fall of 2015, as scores of cases involving religious non-profits worked their way through the courts, the court granted certiorari to decide the RFRA question. But there too the court demurred: the unanimous eight-justice per curiam decision in Zubik noted the ‘substantial clarification and refinement’ of the parties’ positions and remanded for the parties to explore a resolution. Once again, the court seemed to assume ample authority on the part of the executive to accommodate religious exercise broadly enough to bring the litigation to an end.

“Three years later,” the brief says, “it is clear that the litigation will not end unless and until this court provides definitive guidance on the RFRA questions.”

The fight all stems from Obamacare, which requires companies to provide “preventive care” but does not define it. That was left to the bureaucrats in the Health Resources and Service Administration, who jumped at the opportunity to support the abortion industry by requiring “care” services.

At one point there were about 100 lawsuits against the mandate from religious groups and organizations who objected to being forced to violate their beliefs.

In fact, the government, both federal and the states of Pennsylvania and California, admitted women could have access to the contraceptives without the nuns’ participation.

Nevertheless, the states sued to demand submission to the pro-abortion agenda.

“This is a nonsensical political battle that has dragged on six years too long. These states have not been able to identify a single person who would lose contraceptive coverage under the new HHS rule, but they won’t rest until Catholic nuns are forced to pay for contraceptives,” said Mark Rienzi, president of Becket. “It is time for the Supreme Court to finally put this issue to rest.”

 

Original here

Why Do Pro-Life Leaders Demand Sanitizing Instead Of Ending Mass Murder?

When pro-life leaders get more upset over an abortionist keeping corpses in his home than they do over the murder of innocent babies, they legitimize abortion — and show themselves to be cowards.

Why Do Pro-Life Leaders Demand Sanitizing Instead Of Ending Mass Murder?

Oct 17, 2019

Imagine a world where bold men and women react to former abortionist Ulrich Klopfer keeping thousands of corpses in his house by bringing that horror to bear on the Indiana legislature and the Supreme Court for sanctioning the murders.

These men and women demand the establishment of equal justice and protection for all. They speak prophetically to a wicked and perverse generation that legalizes and regulates the exploits of serial killers. They call for the total and immediate abolition of prenatal murder.

But alas, the world in which we live bears no semblance. We live in a world where pro-life politicians and lobbyists express outrage at a serial killer for his regulatory violations.

Pro-Life Leaders’ Message Was Embarrassing

For instance, Americans United for Life Chief Legal Officer Steven Aden said, “Klopfer’s actions undoubtedly violated Indiana medical waste laws, but he didn’t care. Nor did he care that thousands of his patients did not give consent to allowing him to take the bodies of their deceased infants across state lines for an unknown reason. Was it for the purpose of personal, bizarre experimentation? Something else? He was effectively running an unlicensed cemetery.”

Or note the concerns of pro-life Indiana State Rep. Ron Bacon, who said, “We would like for an investigation done with the three counties involved to ensure that no fetal remains are being stored there and if Indiana fetal remains were illegally transported across state lines.”

Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter echoed the same, saying, “These sickening reports underscore why the abortion industry must be held to the highest scrutiny. We are calling on Indiana authorities to join in the investigation to determine if these fetal remains have any connection to abortion operations, or personnel, in Indiana.”

“This tragic case shows why abortion providers must be held to strict guidelines and face rigorous oversight,” said pro-life Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind. “I will be looking into federal legislation to ensure the remains of aborted babies are always treated with dignity, including the remains of chemical abortions.”

White House spokesman Judd Deere’s comments were chilling: “Murdering thousands of innocent babies is one thing, but preserving and hoarding their bodies like trophies is a new level of sickness. … A full investigation is needed to determine whether crimes were committed and if anyone else was involved.”

“Murdering thousands of innocent babies is one thing,” says the pro-life leader. I will not forget that line as long as I live.

Hygienic Disposal of Mass Murder Victims, Please

“Strict guidelines,” “rigorous oversight,” and “high scrutiny” for the Ulrich Klopfers of the world that they might dispose of their murder victims more hygienically and without crossing state lines is the pathetic cry of these pro-life leaders.

If they accomplish their objectives, these lobbyists and politicians will have accomplished nothing but sanitize and further legitimize abortion. Pro-choicers know this. It’s why rabidly pro-abortion Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is also investigating. He knows that pursuing this investigation and demonizing the deceased Klopfer distances the abortion industry from an enormous public relations liability.

Rather than sanitizing abortion, we must put it on trial before the public, engendering abhorrence for abortion itself, not for regulatory violations. The regulatory regime that is the pro-life legal strategy does not enable the movement to bring about the abolition of abortion. Regulating rather than abolishing abortion is the doom of the United States’ nearly 1 million annual abortion victims.

Many pro-life politicians and lobbyists have played directly into the abortion lobby’s hands. By regulating rather than abolishing, they’ve conceded that Roe v. Wade is a legitimate court opinion and, worse, that abortion is health care. If something is mass murder, you abolish it, and you don’t concern yourself with any opinions that you should allow it. But if it’s health care, regulate away.

The pro-life lobbyist and politician will respond by holding up a piece of paper showing a slight decline in abortion rates, to which abolitionists (those who demand the total and immediate abolition of the evil of the age) will respond, “Praise God for every life saved because of a regulatory sanitation of murder. But you see those 900,000 there who were murdered? They could’ve been saved if the multimillion-dollar pro-life industry would’ve stood against the Supreme Court rather than obsequiously obeying their every opinion that child sacrifice should be legal.”

Too Many Pro-Lifers Worship the Supreme Court as a God

The pro-life politician or lobbyist will object to the labeling of their bills as the regulatory sanitation of murder, but that’s what they are. C.R. Cali’s recently published book, “The Doctrine of Balaam,” explained it well:

Regulating abortions gives more than tacit permission; it definitionally governs, directs, and controls the killing of preborn children through rule and law. Rather than engendering an attitude of abhorrence for this slaughter, regulations legitimize the practice by dictating where, when, and how it is acceptable.

The pro-life-pro-choice paradigm does nothing but cement legal abortion’s status as health care and the Supreme Court’s status as our functional god. Too harsh, you say? “We could no sooner ignore SCOTUS than the force of gravity,” Texas Alliance for Life President Joe Pojman said in April to the Houston Chronicle, explaining his pro-life organization’s opposition to the Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act.

Unconditional submission to a legal-political institution akin to our acquiescence to a law of nature is nothing short of idolatry. Never mind that this submission entails obeying an order to allow serial killers to operate with impunity so long as they and those bringing their victims jump through a few pro-life hoops, and never mind that just about every state is disregarding a federal law, regulation, or court opinion on one or more other issues.

Among pro-life leaders, Pojman is the rule, not the exception. Bills to immediately abolish abortion and disregard Roe as the evil, unconstitutional, nonbinding opinion that it is have been introduced in six states. The primary opposition in four of those states (OklahomaTexasIndiana, and Idaho) has been pro-life Republicans, National Right to Life lobbyists, and Southern Baptist-affiliated conventions.

Why does the pro-life establishment get away with treating abortion like health care and the Supreme Court like a god? Because they’ve handed the reins of the movement to worldly pragmatists. The biblical term for such individuals is “fools.” Professing themselves to be wise, they regulate murder and oppose its abolition, telling their donors and supporters regulation is the best they can do and that the Supreme Court is due unconditional submission up to and including obedience to their orders to allow mass murder.

“This is the best way to fight abortion,” they say. “We have to be as wise as serpents.” As if Matthew 10:16 is commanding Supreme Court idolatry and the sanitation of murder.

Stop Playing Regulatory Games

Consider the statement of Abolish Abortion Indiana President Derin Stidd contrasted with the pro-life leaders at this article’s outset.

These people make their living by murdering babies by the thousands. They see the arms and the legs that they are ripping off of these little children every single day. They see the little faces staring up at them from the heads that they just tore off of the bodies of little innocent babies every single day. So, it’s hard for me to imagine how we could possibly be surprised when we hear of the other sort of evil things they are doing.

This man murdered thousands of little babies, and hardly anyone cares, but he takes their remains home, and now all of a sudden it’s a big deal. Why? Of course, the fact that he had the remains of over 2,000 dead babies in his home is disturbing, but it’s disturbing because he’s the one that killed those babies, to begin with. What’s even more disturbing than that is that virtually no one is disturbed that Klopfer killed the babies, only that he took their remains home. I find that to be disturbing.

Canadian activist Laura Klassen reacted along the same lines: “All this outrage over babies in jars … is amazing to me. We shouldn’t find it shocking that an abortionist kept over 2K dead babies as souvenirs. … [I]t should shock that this guy killed over 2K babies. Legally.”

This is the appropriate reaction to the remains of Klopfer’s thousands of victims. Not a call for stricter enforcement of laws against taking corpses across state lines. Nothing coming from a foundation of compromise and defeatism. No call for regulation that could’ve come from an abortion supporter as easily as from a pro-lifer. Just a simple expression of abhorrence for abortion and a demand for its abolition.

Stop playing regulatory games. And that is what’s going on. It’s a game. Pro-life lobbyists and politicians benefit immensely from regulating abortion and pretending it’s all they can do. Cease to be a part of it and demand abortion’s total and immediate abolition and Roe’s nullification. When more people demand abolition than the number of people who demand murder be more heavily regulated, abortion will be abolished — and not before.

Praise God, that day is coming near.

James Silberman is a writer bringing attention to the state-level efforts around the country to reject Roe and abolish abortion. Read the latest on these bills at James’s author page at The Resurgent and follow James on Twitter.
Photo Elvert Barnes/Wikimedia Commons

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/17/why-do-pro-life-leaders-demand-sanitizing-instead-of-ending-mass-murder/

Late-Term Abortionist Offers Mothers The Chance To Cuddle Their Dead Babies

The open practice of killing then cuddling does not simply represent a ghastly declaration that children are both fully human and disposable. It signifies a war against the mother-child bond.

Late-Term Abortionist Offers Mothers The Chance To Cuddle Their Dead Babies

The infamous abortionist LeRoy Carhart invites women to cuddle with their freshly killed babies. His clinic also offers them take-home keepsakes such as photographs and footprints of their child.

Carhart specializes in third-trimester abortions, those done when the baby is approximately 24 weeks of gestation and older. You may recall that he was at the center of the debate on partial-birth abortion when the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in 2000. Seven years later, the court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion.

As I’ll try to explain below, the open practice of killing then cuddling does not simply represent a ghastly declaration that children are both fully human and utterly disposable. It signifies a full frontal war against the mother-child bond itself, the bond which is the fount of all empathic human relationships. To scorn it so openly cultivates social acceptance of infanticide. And it insinuates mothers in that very acceptance.

We’ll Help You Feel Better About Killing Your Child

On page seven of a brochure posted on the website for Carhart’s abortion clinics in suburban Maryland and Nebraska, you can browse an array of post-abortion services that seem more in line for a mother grieving over an unexpected miscarriage than a woman intentionally aborting her baby.

Carhart’s practice brazenly uses the word “baby” instead of fetus. In Orwellian manner, he references “delivery” of the child rather than abortion. As if this is not destabilizing enough, the brochure goes on:

Many patients request a remembrance of their baby to take home with them. The following lists items and services that some of our patients have found helpful in their emotional recovery. Every family approaches this experience with their own unique emotional, spiritual, and cultural background. There is no right or wrong way, just ‘your way.’ Once the process of healing has begun, you may want to consider a token of the precious time you and your baby had together. All of these features of our program will be discussed with you while you are with us.

Ignoring the possibility that the entire killing process may itself be the “wrong way,” the brochure offers the following “Services After Your Delivery: Viewing your baby after the delivery; Holding your baby after the delivery; Photographs of your baby; Cremation services referral; Funeral arrangements referral; Footprints; Spiritual and ceremonial accommodations [through the facility’s partnership with pro-abort clergy of various stripes]; Remembrance certificate.”

The page also shows a photo of an open gift box containing a soft toy ducky, a tiny knit cap, footprints, and the open lid inscription: “In loving Memory of Baby Doe who lives in the hearts of Jane and John Doe.” In other words, the warped idea is to first exterminate your baby, then hug your baby.

Pushing the Overton Window to Infanticide

Abortionists no doubt develop weird pathologies brought on by their gruesome choice of work. Consider, for example, the cases of notorious late-term abortionists Kermit Gosnell and Ulrich Klopfer, both of whom ghoulishly hoarded human remains.

Most tend to be unapologetically aware that they are in the business of killing people. Veteran abortionist Forrest Smith recently testified that he believed Planned Parenthood was deliberately inducing live births in order to get fresh and intact fetal organs to harvest.

As an expert witness in the recent hearings of undercover investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, Forrest stated: “There’s no question in my mind that at least some of these fetuses were live births.” And this (emphasis added): “You can kill a human being, which I admit abortion is, but you have to do it in certain ways.” By which he meant, inside the womb, not outside.

Forrest also indicated that Delaiden only uncovered the tip of the iceberg in his work. Indeed, in other testimony at that hearing, we learned of more gruesome practices, such as keeping the hearts of live-born infants beating so they are of greater value to the labs that pay for them and the trafficking of whole bodies for experimentation. Such blatant examples of infanticide and human vivisection should sicken all but the most barbaric of us.

A New Surreality of In-Your-Face Abortion

The abortion industry and its promoters have always known full well that they market in the death of human beings. But today they flaunt that fact as never before. Gone are the days when pro-abort legislators would deny and squirm when asked if they support third-trimester abortion. Talk about “hard choices” or “keeping abortion rare” is quickly disappearing.

Instead, we hear Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatrician, calmly discuss what to do if an aborted child is born alive, and whether to kill it after consultation with the mother and doctor. We see New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo lighting up the Empire State Building in pink to celebrate a new law that specifically boosts third-trimester abortions.

A campaign encouraging women to proudly “shout” their abortions took off last year. There are even subreddits that indulge in talks about abortion fetishes, in which a woman deliberately gets pregnant, enjoying both the pregnancy and the abortion, as does the male partner. The list goes on.

All such developments are a logical part of the trajectory of the pro-abortion culture. Lies get less manageable over time. At some point when denials no longer work, we can expect to hear taunting admissions in the gangster spirit of: Yeah, I killed them, and I’d do it again, so whaddya going to do about it?

Maybe the fig leaf of denial was blown off by Daleidan’s exposes of Planned Parenthood and the grim cruelties of late-term abortion practices such as Gosnell’s and Klopfer’s. Maybe one of the reasons for the decline in abortion rates is that fewer buy the lines about “clumps of cells” and “reproductive health” anymore. If so, that would be a promising sign that conscience still has an effect on people. But something else is afoot.

An Ominous Shift in Mood

In this broader context, how do we make sense of Carhart’s open offer of the post-abortion cuddle option? After 45 years of doing late-term abortions, Carhart is no doubt familiar with the need for emotional recovery. At the same time, he seems content to admit to “delivering” killed infants.

Later, what does the woman do with the memory of cuddling, the photo, the footprints of her dead child?

It’s a twisted and Orwellian picture. On the one hand, the cuddle offer is logical in an upside-down and calculating sort of way. The maternal bond is compelling and strong, no matter how much licentious men, their feminist stooges, and the leftist media try to tell women it’s just a matter of choice.

So maybe there is a superficially calming effect on some women who hold the baby afterwards, especially if the corpse is in fresh enough condition to look asleep and still be warm. On the other hand, it serves the abortionist by directing all responsibility onto the woman. A subtext could easily be: “Here’s your dead baby. See. You signed onto this. I only did what you paid me to do. I delivered on your decision.”

Later, what does the woman do with the memory of cuddling, the photo, the footprints of her dead child? Does the knowledge of her baby’s face haunt her? Or does it just harden her heart, perhaps even leading to a perverse sense of empowerment, as the “shout your abortion” cohort would recommend? The haunting would be a sign of hope for the maternal bond, a sign of conscience. But the hardening of heart, I fear, is where we may be headed with all of this.

This shift in overall mood among many abortion proponents—from denial of killing a person to defiant acceptance of it—is the stuff that brutal societies are made of.

Reminiscent of Ancient Attitudes about Child Sacrifice

Callousness is one logical outcome of denial and regret. If we consider the practice of child sacrifice, we might ask how consenting mothers got through it without hardening their hearts. James Michener’s historical novel “The Source” contains a harrowing scene in which a husband insists his wife sacrifice their firstborn son to Malek, the pagan god of ancient Palestine.

‘Could we just run away?’ she pleaded.

‘Timna!’ The idea was blasphemous for Urbaal . . .

‘I will not surrender my son,’ she persisted. . . .

‘We all do,’ he reasoned gently. . . ‘It is to Melak that we look for protection.’

‘. . . Why must he be so cruel?’ Timna pleaded.

‘He does much for us,’ Urbaal explained, ‘and all he asks in return [is] our first-born sons.’

The husband not only views his son as a disposable object, but also anticipates the status he will get from community elders for being so willing to make the sacrifice. Later, Timna watches helplessly as her baby is thrown into the fire. She starts to cry, “but with his free hand Urbaal caught her by the neck and preserved the dignity of sacrifice. He saw that the priests had noticed his action and had smiled approval.”

Modernity offers many parallels to that story. Just as child sacrifice was a male-dominated institution in the ancient world, most of the front-line pushers for unrestricted abortion in modern times have been men. Abortion is also a means to improve or maintain social status. After all, the idols of modernity “do much for us.”

Abortion appeases many of these idols, including the idols of cash flow, career advancement, the meticulously planned life, relationship preferences, social status, body shape, self-will, and sundry other shiny objects. At the same time, the men who impregnated the women along with the priests of modernity are those who most demand the sacrifice. Her choice, you see.

So destroy your baby, then hug the body. This concept signifies a chilling new level of acceptance for infanticide. Nothing more, nothing less. It adds grave insult to grave injury. It doesn’t matter how few women actually undergo that process if it gains cultural acceptance. To accept it is to give a nod to infanticide, an open invitation to ever more barbarism.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow Stella on Twitter.
Photo NataszaBlack / NeedPix.com

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/03/late-term-abortionist-offers-mothers-the-chance-to-cuddle-their-dead-babies/

VIDEO A.G. Bill Barr: ‘In the Framers’ View, Free Government Was Only Suitable and Sustainable for a Religious People’

By CNSNews.com Staff | October 14, 2019

Attorney General Bill Barr at University of Notre Dame Law School, Oct. 11, 2019. (Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Bill Barr spoke at the University of Notre Dame Law School on Friday, saying that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that a “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.”

“In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings,” Barr said. “Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves, freely obeying the dictates of inwardly possessed and commonly shared moral values.

“And to control willful human beings with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s wills,” he said. “They must flow from the transcendent Supreme Being.

Watch video here

“In short,” he said, “in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people, a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and to manmade laws and had discipline to control themselves according to those controlling principles.”

Here is the transcript from the part of Barr’s speech where he said that the Framers believed that “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people:”

“So, the founders decided to take a gamble, and they called it a great experiment. They would leave the people broad liberty, they would limit the coercive power of the government, and they would place their trust in self-discipline and virtue of the American people. In the words of Madison: ‘We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves.’

“And this is really what they meant by self-government. It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislature. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

“But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings. Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves, freely obeying the dictates of inwardly possessed and commonly shared moral values. And to control willful human beings with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s wills. They must flow from the transcendent Supreme Being.

“In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people, a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and to manmade laws and had discipline to control themselves according to those controlling principles

“As John Adams put it: ‘We have no government armed with a power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.’

“And as Father John Courtney Murray observed: The American tenet was not ‘that free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.’”

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/bill-barr-framers-view-free-government-was-only-suitable-and


Bill Barr Flames ‘Unremitting Assault’ On Religion, Traditional Values During Notre Dame Visit

Kevin Daley | The Daily Caller October 13,, 2019

Concerted attacks on religious liberty have triggered a moral upheaval that contributes to deadly social pathologies, Attorney General William Barr said Friday at the University of Notre Dame.

“The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety,” Barr said. “It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.”

The attorney general said numerous measures of social decline are rising as religion recedes from public life, citing higher instances of drug addiction, mental illness, and suicide. Those outcomes are not random, but the fruit of a dedicated campaign against orthodox religious belief, Barr added.

“This is not decay,” Barr said. “This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”

Barr said state governments and municipal agencies have been at the vanguard of that effort, noting the board of education in Orange County, California, recently decided religious dissenters may not excuse their children from portions of the school curriculum broaching LGBT issues. Schools are the usual forum for attacks on religious liberty, Barr said.

In that connection, the attorney general noted the Department of Justice recently intervened in a dispute between a gay teacher and a Catholic high school near Notre Dame. The case arose when the Archdiocese of Indianapolis directed Cathedral High School to dismiss a teacher in a public, same-sex marriage or forfeit its Catholic affiliation. The high school did so. The teacher, Joshua Payne-Elliott, sued the school in turn.

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in the case Sept. 27, arguing that the lawsuit suppresses the archdiocese’s First Amendment right to expressive association, and impermissibly asks the court to interfere with internal church matters.

“The First Amendment precludes this court, a state actor, from cooperating in plaintiff’s attempt to stifle the archdiocese’s First Amendment right to expressive association,” the filing reads. “The First Amendment also precludes the court from entangling itself in a quintessentially ecclesiastical question: whether the archdiocese properly interpreted and applied Catholic doctrine. The First Amendment commits that question exclusively to the ecclesiastical tribunals of the church.”

Anti-Barr demonstrators picketed near the Notre Dame campus during the attorney general’s visit, according to the South Bend Tribune. Some protesters blew whistles in reference to a whistleblower complaint from the intelligence community concerning President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden’s business interests in Ukraine, and suggested Barr could support that effort. Hunter, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings.

The attending controversy prompted Notre Dame Law School Dean G. Marcus Cole to issue a statement defending academic freedom.

“Notre Dame Law School will neither endorse nor condemn invited speakers,” Cole said. “An institution of higher education must be a place where controversial ideas and points of view are expressed, heard, and discussed. This is such a place.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by Kevin Daley of The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Original here



 

 

Church takes worship service to ‘gates of Hell’

Congregation meets in shadow of Planned Parenthood

Jesus declared to his disciple Peter that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the church.

A congregation in Everett, Washington, is counting on that promise, taking its regular worship service to the shadow of abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood.

The multi-church effort, called the the Church at Planned Parenthood, explains on its website: “The Church at Planned Parenthood is NOT a protest. It’s a worship service at the gates of Hell. The Church at Planned Parenthood is a gathering of Christians for the worship of God and the corporate prayer for repentance of this nation, repentance for the apathetic church and repentance of our blood guiltiness in this abortion holocaust.”

The website says the effort is about “doing more.”

“We’ve got to put legs to our faith.”

It already has drawn opposition from the city, and the American Center for Law and Justice is now monitoring the response.

ACLJ said the church started hold monthly worship near the Planned Parenthood Everett Health Center in April. In June, police confronted members, explaining the city had adopted a new permitting structure that the church would have to follow.

In August, the Everett City Council passed an ordinance titled Interference with a Health Care Facility that enabled the city to prosecute offenses such as “making noise that unreasonably disturbs the peace within the facility.”

The ordinance encompasses any facilities that provide “health care services directly to patients,” ACLJ said.

Police have not yet moved to shut down the worship, “but the organization remains concerned that these recent actions by the city of Everett law enforcement and Everett City Council may signal that the city intends to interfere with the services soon.”

On behalf of the outreach, ACLJ wrote to the city to obtain additional information about the new ordinance.

“We remain determined to protect the rights of TCAPP and others to gather and pray on behalf of the unborn,” ACLJ said.

The website lists 14 pastors who support the effort.

Original here


The political usage of “judge not” in scripture to support abortion (or any other evil)

September 3, 2019

 

This brief article will address the wicked practice of people using God’s holy scripture to defend sin.

Here’s scripture that is so frequently wrested out of context:

Luke 6.36,37

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:”

For starters, I am not judging anyone, God will do all of the judging of people. I am abhorring evil & reproving the unfruitful works of darkness, (as God tells us Christians to do in scripture, as you will soon see).

I’m also telling the workers of iniquity that God offers them salvation in the risen Lord Jesus Christ by grace through faith. And I’m telling them that if He saved me in my wickedness, then He can do it for you too. If anyone hasn’t come to Him for salvation to be cleansed of their guilt, then they haven’t come to Him legitimately for salvation. We are all dead in our trespasses and sins apart from being saved, (Ephesians 2.1, Colossians 2.13).

[Moreover, if defenders of iniquity really embraced that section of scripture regarding “judge not” (as they define its meaning), then why would any abortion supporter defend the prosecution of any mother who kills one of her toddler children?

(Hypocrites of all ilk) wrest scripture out of context for their personal gain, just as false prophets do].

Why don’t these same people also reference the following scripture?

Isaiah 5.20

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Psalm 97.10

“Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.”

Romans 12.9

“Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.”

Ephesians 5.11

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Proverbs 6.16,17

“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,”

Killing defenseless children is wickedness, and claiming Holy scripture as a defense to do it is extreme wickedness! It’s blasphemy against God to use His words to defend evil!

Repentance unto God is the solution to these sins, but for such people who will not repent unto the Lord Jesus Christ, terror will overwhelm them at their judgment such as they have never known.

Matthew 24.51

“And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Hebrews 10.30,31

“For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

All glory to the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

https://logosdot.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/the-political-usage-of-judge-not-in-scripture-to-support-abortion-or-any-other-evil/

https://leeposkey.wordpress.com/2019/09/03/the-political-usage-of-judge-not-in-scripture-to-support-abortion-or-any-other-evil/