The Daily Show’s John Oliver caught Secular Pro-Life’s attention because of an ignorant remark he made about a North Carolina Senate bill that addressed both abortion safety regulations and Sharia law. Oliver said, “Let me just understand this: You’re adding abortion restrictions to legislation banning the making of laws based upon religious belief. That’s like passing a bill banning high fructose corn syrup, and adding a provision naming the state animal the gummy bear!”
But news reports, which Oliver apparently avoided, tell a different story: “The Senate bill was inserted into an unrelated House measure to prohibit North Carolina judges from applying part of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign law in certain cases.”
So was Oliver really out of the loop or did he intend to make a mockery of the fact that abortion is actually an act that results in death for a member of the human family?
In Virginia, the state’s abortion advocates are telling their supporters that the state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, is supporting pro-life pregnancy care centers, which the group claims manipulate and lie to women. In other words, if a pregnancy center shares the facts with an expectant mother—including the fact that she is carrying a baby—then they are misleading their clients! Oh really?
And it gets worse. In Wisconsin, the state attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, has said that the state’s three Catholic hospital systems may be violating the law by denying admitting privileges to abortion doctors. The state Department of Justice argues that “federal law ‘provides that hospitals accepting federal funds may not discriminate against a physician because that physician has participated in or refused to participate in abortions.’”
The state is appealing at this point, but one would guess that the pro-aborts will win this one, particularly in view of the fact that one of the physicians on the credentials committee of Wheaton Franciscan St. Joseph in Milwaukee has already said that he feels Catholic hospitals could be willing to grant privileges to abortionists.
And the list goes on and on. So the question is really as simple as this: Will the law change the way people perceive the child prior to birth or does the culture—composed of individuals like you and me—first have to see the baby as who he is so that everyone can understand that the act of abortion is a heinous crime?
In a challenging article, James Cole opines, “In a free republic citizens change laws by electing representatives and executives who reflect their wishes. This inescapably requires participation in politics and in lobbying. In America, to shun these areas because of temporary setbacks or one’s personal distaste for politics and the legislative process is to shirk our responsibilities to defend life.”
While he is correct, his premise is valid only if those voting are educated on fundamental truth—and then understand it and believe it. And that is where the problem comes into play.
The fact is that most Americans who want their wishes reflected by those they elect happen to be people who do NOT see the baby and who are so apathetic they do not care about abortion one way or the other.
If, on the other hand, these same citizens were asked to vote on whether or not it was preferable in law to regulate how mothers and fathers should go about taking the lives of their two-year-old children, do you think there would be room for debate in the first place? Don’t be silly. Of course not.
And that is the point. Abortion murders an individual human being every single time it occurs. Until that truth resonates with the folks casting the votes, who would be silly enough to think the problem will be solved politically?
Excuse me, people! We are talking about children; we are talking about human beings; we are talking about babies! Get it?