Breaking News: Redefining Radical

Breaking News Archive 2011


Redefining Radical

During the 36 years that I’ve worked in the pro-life movement, I’ve seen countless examples of radical, pro-abortion activists at work. Their philosophy is built on a foundation of lies and sand because they lack legitimate arguments to support the killing of innocent unborn babies. Their unethical tactics date back to before 1973 when Dr. Bernard Nathanson, then a founding member of NARAL, admitted that they blatantly fabricated abortion statistics to make their case. Dr. Nathanson and his pro-abortion colleagues were shocked when the media accepted them lock, stock and barrel.

Most recently, we witnessed yet another pro-abortion activist willing to even deny scientific reality to promote their cause. This stone age, knuckle-dragging tactic attempted to demonized common-sense measures that seek to protect innocent babies, and was another desperate move on their part to marginalize the sanctity of life itself.

The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is the latest abortion ally to either display her total ignorance regarding basic scientific maters, or is heaping onto the already mountain of half-truths or outright lies to advance their pro-abortion agenda. Last week, the congresswoman told reporters that states enacting Personhood amendments defining life as beginning at fertilization are “an extreme and radical step” for a vast majority of Americans. Click here for more details.

Here’s a question that the congresswoman should be held accountable to answer: Since when did it become extreme and radical to affirm a basic scientific fact, especially when it comes to the beginning of human life?

She even went further to label Personhood amendments as a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on women that would “cripple a woman’s right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk.” The Personhood amendment she’s attacking was unfortunately defeated in Mississippi this week.

Showing her true colors as an ally of the abortion industry, Wasserman Shultz assailed modern science to protect the sacred cow of “reproductive choice”— a politically-correct term for abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy.

In addition, she’s advocating that society ignore the dangers inflicted on vulnerable women by the money-driven abortion industry. Wasserman-Shultz’s own rhetoric shows she is ignorant of basic scientific knowledge or that she’s lying to demonstrate a blind allegiance to her friends at Planned Parenthood. Click here for more details.

Either way, it’s a poor reflection on her intelligence/ethics, and enables and drives the massive abortion industry to victimize millions of women and their babies. Scruples aside, they have shown time and time again that they want to enslave women for the sake of a radical political agenda.

Pro-lifers themselves disagree whether or not a Personhood amendment is the right approach to ending abortion at this point in the battle. But regardless of our individual strategies to protect innocent human life, we all should speak out when the other side uses ignorance or lies against women and their babies.

For LIFE,
Bradley Mattes
Executive Director
Life Issues Institute

11/18/11

Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. Organizations and individuals around the world depend upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.

Receive information like this – in your Inbox.
Subscribe to our email updates here.

Bradley Mattes
President, Life Issues Institute

Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. For 25 years, organizations and individuals around the world have depended upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.

Life Issues Institute welcomes comments relevant to columns that are civil, concise, and respectful of other contributors. We do not publish comments with links to other websites or other online material.