Fall 2010 Update



"The Tempest" by John William Waterhouse

 Lots of stuff going on, and it's been forever since I've written. Let's bullet point!

Last Wednesday night was the Dallas screening of Carol Everett's documentary, Blood Money: The Business of Abortion. It was profoundly effective, moving, and important. I bought a copy of the DVD and plan to force-feed it to whoever will let me. (That's kind of an oxymoron, huh?)

Did a shift for 40 Days for Life the other night, and may attend the closing rally tomorrow night at Shiloh Worship Center in Garland. Carol Everett will be there as well.

It's Halloween! I'll be going to a party at the Delarosa's this evening, dressed as either as a grunge chick or Red Riding Hood, depending on which is easier.

Southwestern Women's Surgery Center in Dallas at Greenville and Royal, where Dr. Curtis Boyd commits abortions up to 24 weeks (about 6 months), has been open for one year this week. Prayer and action are needed to get this place closed.

I am thinking of going through training at Catholic Pro-Life Committee to either do sidewalk counseling or join the speaker's bureau. Haven't decided yet what I should do.

October is Respect Life Month, but it's also Breast Cancer Awareness month, which is ironic, to say the least. Since I shop at Tom Thumb, every time I check out, I get asked, "Would you like to donate a dollar to cure breast cancer?" And I say, "Is it Susan G. Komen?" And they say, "Yes!" And I say, "Absolutely not!" I am thinking about getting little cards printed up with the words pinkmoney.org /  Your heart's in the right place but your money isn't" and just handing one over whenever someone mentions Komen. It's easier than explaining that Komen gave $7.5 million to Planned Parenthood last year, and why that's antithetical to their mission of ending breast cancer.

If you would like to volunteer or have questions about the pro-life movement, the New Feminism, or just want to send me hate mail or large sums of money, you can reach me here.

I hope to be updating this more often from now on. I'm also going to be starting a new blog solely for my comedy writing. I kind of have a split personality: half funny/irreverent, half super duper serious. But this is healthy. We need to have both great joy and great gravity in our hearts, because some things naturally and rightly cause rejoicing, while others cause sorrow and anger. A healthy soul recognizes that the universe contains much of both.

The Party of Death

In his book The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, Ramesh Ponnuru explains how the leadership of the Democratic party shifted from a conglomerate of pro-life and pro-choice politicians to a party that is synonymous with across-the-board social liberalism, especially abortion "rights." In 2006, Ponnuru predicted that if the Democrats continued on their current path towards more and more radical support of no-holds-barred elective abortion, they would begin to seriously alienate their base.

Look what happened last night.

Bart Stupak (D-MI) disappointed pro-lifers all over the country when he fell for Obama's ridiculous executive order ploy. But according to this video taken last year in Cheboygan, he never planned to hold firm. Take a look here.

Note that his constituents were booing when the camera stopped filming.

Also, in a March 19 press release, Stupak reveleaed that his state had been the recipient of a $700K FAA grant. Just coincidence, surely. While the left-leaning media screams that there is "no proof" that Stupak took an executive bribe, and that many other states have also been awarded FAA airport improvement grants, a cursory glance reveals that Michigan got significantly more money than most, if not all, the other states.

But it's probably just a coincidence.

In his book, which is highly recommended reading for all pro-life activists, Ponnuru devotes an entire chapter to an analysis of polls taken in the U.S. regarding abortion and other bioethics issues, and what he found is that Americans favor far more restrictive abortion laws than their pro-choice representatives in Congress, the White House, and the courts. Ponnuru's analysis found that most people who favor legal abortion would restrict it to only the first trimester; some are even unaware that late-term abortions are legal on demand in this country.

Ponnuru's hypothesis was proven last night when a Democratic majority in Congress enacted sweeping new legislation which, according to every major poll taken in the past several months regarding health care reform, is not desired by the American people.

This is grisly proof that Democratic politicians have gotten too radical for their base. They have moved further left of center than the average Democrat.

Come election season, a cold November rain is going to fall on representatives who ignored their constituents.

This blog was cross-posted from LiveAction.org.

But She Shoots Wolves!

I freely admit I am new to conservatism. When Sarah Palin was campaigning for the vice presidency, I was vehemently condemning more or less everything about her. I shared her belief in the sanctity of life, but that was about it.

Today, I am far more educated, and when I say "educated" I mean more truly knowledgeable, not just more skilled at repeating talking points, which is what "educated" meant to me when I was a radical left-wing pro-choice agnostic. I have spent countless hours in the past few months, to the increasing detriment of what was once a thriving social life, tracking down footnote after footnote, following the references and citations where they lead. I have more or less constant headaches from eye strain, my back hurts all the time, and I am thinking of hiring a research assistant just to field arguments from Facebook friends. Do you know anybody who'll work for cookies and gold star stickers?

When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I read books by Al Franken and Michael Moore (yes, on purpose) condemning Ann Coulter as a lying liar who lies. In the few years in which I was deeply interested in liberal politics, I admit the only thing I ever read by Ann Coulter was the famous quote extracted from her column published in Human Events three days after 9/11. It said, referring to Muslim terrorists and those who sheltered them, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." I remember the "moral" outrage I felt (I put the word "moral" in quotations because I had no morals to speak of then) at reading that quote, and I remember reading or hearing Ann referred to in the "mainstream" press as a hateful, venom-spouting polemicist skeleton. A lot of the vitriol was mixed with a weird amount of reference to her physical attractiveness, but I ignored the obvious sexism because it didn't suit my purpose at the time, which was to reaffirm my current beliefs that Ann was a lot like a cockroach, if you could imagine a cockroach who was also a willowy blonde WASP from Connecticut. (Most of us can.)

I didn't read even a single column of Coulter's, but that didn't stop me from bitching about how hateful and dishonest and horrifying she was whenever anyone mentioned her name (usually to bitch about how hateful, dishonest and horrifying she was). I can't remember which, and can't stomach the thought of tracking it down seeing as how I'm not getting paid, but it was either Franken or Moore who accused Ann Coulter of citing phony or misleading sources, when she cited anything at all. I took the liberty of tracking down a random selection of footnotes from her most recent book, and found to my total lack of surprise that they were neither phony nor misleading.

It's an uncomfortable feeling, finding out that a lot of what you believed was utter rubbish, such as that Bill Clinton is an honorable human being and Sarah Palin is a moron.

All I knew about Sarah Palin when I commenced to hate her was that she was a conservative, her daughter was knocked up, and the religious right LOVED her. I also found out pretty quickly, via an email forward, that she shot wolves from helicopters. As a lover of animals, this disgusted me. I watched a video online of Ashley Judd condemning Palin for destroying Alaskan wildlife, which should have been my first clue that Palin wasn't all bad. Judd, after all, is an outspoken proponent of Planned Parenthood and opponent of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. How I was able to take seriously Ashley Judd weeping for "defenseless" anything is beyond me.

In true liberal form, I started emailing this video to everybody I knew, proclaiming loudly that the media was covering it up, although I had personally found the information via the media. A Google search for "Palin shooting wolves" done today gets 176,000 hits, the first few pages of which almost exclusively contain material which (a) was published before March 2009, and (b) fails to defend Palin's actions in any meaningful way. Instead, headlines scream: "Sarah's Cruel Streak" and "Alaska's Dead Wolf Pups Demand Justice." The left does this all the time and I know because I did it all the time. I would find a million references in the press to something "the right" was "covering up," get really pissed about the conspiracy, and tell everyone I knew about it. This happened all the time, from Halliburton to Guantanamo to Dick Cheney being the ogre under the bridge from The Three Billy Goats Gruff. (Not yet confirmed.)

I ignored the obvious, sexist jab at Palin made by Obama (the "lipstick on a pig" remark) and I laughed at the callous, though very funny, jokes my friends made about her baby. Sample exchange:

Me: She named her new baby something weird, too. Trig.
Friend: Guess what class he'll never be in.

Really funny, but totally mean. I admit it: I laughed. I thought about the hundreds of thousands of babies with Down syndrome who are aborted every year, and I was very glad she kept her baby, and glad she encouraged her daughter to keep her baby, but I still laughed. And I defended David Letterman when he made the terribly inappropriate joke about Bristol Palin, a teenager, on his talk show.

Why? Why did I hate her so much?

I honestly don't know. Maybe because it's what everyone else was doing. All the smart people are liberal! Tina Fey, who is so intelligent and funny and cool, nailed Palin to the wall on SNL. Everybody smart thought Palin was stupid, backwards, and contrived. And I'm smart! Ergo, I should find Palin stupid. Right?

This is the kind of non-thinking I did for years as a liberal. I absorbed the default position on every issue from media and pop culture, gleaned the talking points, and let 'er rip.

Sarah Palin was the target of blatant sexism during the 2008 campaign. For an idea of how she was perceived by liberals, Google her image now and you will find a plethora of images of her head pasted onto the bodies of naughty secretaries with their blouses popping open. Most of them accompany websites that denigrate Sarah's politics and beliefs. Conservative, pro-Palin websites do not indulge in fantastical images of her behaving like a soft-core porn star because they respect her.

Then there was Obama's "lipstick" remark, and the constant noise from the "feminist" camp about everything from her parenting skills to her "anti-woman" pro-life stance. While they should have been praising her for raising five children in a loving marriage to her high-school sweetheart as she ascended to governorship of a state and candidacy for the vice presidency of the United States, they called her, the only woman in the race with executive experience, a vacuous, vapid, ridiculous floozy. Meanwhile, liberal "men" blogged about her stupidity while in another browser window they collected photos of her for an... ahem... personal file. Ann Coulter is absolutely right: from Ann herself to Sarah Palin to Carrie Prejean, people go nuts lust-hating beautiful conservative Christian women.

Sarah Palin was the target of a pro-Obama (prObama?) media. While they lobbed him softballs about how hard it must be to be a black man in his position, and how hard it must be to be attacked by the right wing conspiracy, and how hard it must be to be so brilliant and so handsome at the same time, Palin was being asked tough questions, some of which were pointedly obscure or vague (experts had to point out later that there really was no one policy or group of policies that could be pointed to as the "Bush doctrine").

In a move typical for the prObama media, they went after divorce records -- not Sarah's but her alleged lover's. They found not a shred of evidence that she'd had an affair with Brad Hanson or Scott Richter, so eventually they had to shut up about it. I'm sure they sent her and her family a heartfelt letter of apology, just as I'm sure Judas and Hitler regularly go ice-skating together in Hell.

I defend Sarah now because in these instances she deserves to be defended. I do not defend her for shooting wolves from a helicopter or for encouraging others to do so. From what I have learned, this is not a terribly controversial activity in Alaska, where moose, caribou and other herd animals are depended on for food by many people and high predator populations can lead to food shortages. The majority of the few wildlife and hunting experts whose opinions I read online (3 out of 4) said that bear populations need more culling than wolves. Nevertheless, Palin is far from rare in believing Alaskan wolf populations have to be thinned by humans for various reasons.

I disagree with Sarah on this. I don't think she should shoot wolves, and I don't think anyone else should without a damn good reason, such as being in immediate danger from one.

But the same so-called bleeding hearts who tear their hair out with grief for the poor wolves who threaten human food supplies defend a woman's right to have her child murdered in the womb for any old reason at all, such as that she prefers a boy and is pregnant with a girl, or doesn't want to lose her figure, or can't stand the thought of having Bill Clinton's baby. All I can say is: give me a break. Please. Cut out the crocodile tears. This "defenseless" animal is a predator who had at least a shot at life. It's an animal. If it were hungry and you were nearby, it would rip your throat out without a second thought. The victim of abortion is a truly defenseless, utterly trapped and dependent human child. How dare you weep for the hundreds or thousands of predators culled by hunters in the wilderness while simultaneously dismissing without a thought the millions of human babies killed every year legally in your very own neighborhoods?

The attack on Sarah Palin is rife with double standards, sexism, hypocrisy, irrationality, and the left's typically twisted "moral" posturing. And it is not over. The way it looks now, Sarah is a "definite maybe" for 2012, and it will only get worse. As Obama and his supporters, who include the entire establishment media, try desperately to save his presidency for a second term (which, at the rate he's going now, will be desperate indeed) the attacks on Palin will only worsen and increase.

This time, though, for what it's worth, they won't have me on their side.

A slightly modified version of this blog was posted at Modern Conservative.

A Week of War

This Friday, Congress will vote on President Obama's health care reform bill. If it passes, it will be the greatest threat to the physical life of the unborn and the spiritual life of the human family since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and others have vociferously argued in the press that this bill will not use taxpayer money for abortions, will not expand abortion rights, and is not a partisan, pro-choice piece of legislation.

In response to each of them, I can only echo Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC): "You lie!"

On July 30, 2009, Democrats in the Senate saw to it that a proposal to add explicit language to the bill, stipulating that no public funds would be used to finance abortion, was voted down. If they really intended to protect public money from paying for abortions, why not put it in the bill?

According to a non-partisan, non-biased analysis by the Associated Press (which, when it sides, sides with the left), Obama's health care bill would allow coverage for abortion. Also, the bill's particularly vague language makes it ripe for interpretation by activist courts and the Federal Health Commission -- almost all of which skew pro-choice.

We learned in an analysis of the bill distributed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) that about $7 billion earmarked for Community Health Centers does not fall under the protection of the Hyde Amendment, leaving it wide open to be used for elective abortions.

A vast majority of moderate, conservative and non-partisan analyses of Obamacare agree: this bill will eventually, if not immediately, require each and every one of us, free Americans all, to see our tax dollars spent on other people's elective abortions. And if we refuse to pay in, according to the same legislation, we will be subject to fines which will make their way directly to the coffers of the publicly funded health care program. In other words, in order to keep our money from funding abortion, we will have to refuse to participate in the program, refuse to pay the fine, and accept whatever punishment is meted out.

I don't know about you, but I will literally -- literally -- go to prison before I will let even one red cent of my money be used to pay for someone else's elective abortion. And I am not the only one.

Whether you agree with socialized medicine or not, you have to admit that it is contrary to the principles on which our country was founded, and for which its citizens have always stood. This health care program will strip the United States of our identity as a bastion of liberty and individuality.

Recently I overheard a middle-aged black man and a younger white woman discussing the health care debate in the advising center of my college. I heard the black man say to the woman, "What these people need to understand is, it's legal. They may not like abortion, I may not like abortion, but the fact is, it's legal, and they need to accept it."

I desperately wanted to lean across and say to the man, "Slavery was legal once, too." But I decided to err on the side of politeness and decorum.

This week, I urge you not to make the mistake I made. Leave decorum behind. We shouldn't worry about hurting anyone's feelings when we're at war. We are on a battlefield at this very moment, and it is not a metaphorical battlefield of ideals and philosophies. Lives are very literally at stake, and not just a few: thousands, even millions.

If President Obama and his supporters have their way, it will become even easier and cheaper to have your unborn child killed in our country. And you and I will be forced to foot the bill.

If you know in your heart this is unacceptable, if you are determined to win this war for the lives and souls of your generation and the one to come, act today!

There are many things you can do this week to get the word out about the upcoming vote, but the most important thing you can do is call the wavering Congressional Democrats! We need them to vote NO! Let them know you support them even if their fellow Democrats do not. Their contact info is here. Get everyone you know to call them. Post it on your Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. Invite friends over for an informal phone bank. Draft a simple email and forward it to your whole address book so everyone you know can send it to a Congressman, too.

We're all busy. We all have too much on our plates: work, school, family, boyfriends and girlfriends. A few minutes out of your day can save lives. Don't hesitate. A few phone calls now could avert a serious crisis to come.

If you are looking at this blog, it means you care. It means you are a fighter. Don't be silenced because you're too busy watching "American Idol" or playing your X-Box. That's what they want. They want a youth that is disengaged and easily distracted. They are counting on us to roll over and play dead. Disappoint them.

If those in power insist that we are no longer "the land of the free," they will learn very quickly that we are still "the home of the brave."

Kristen Walker is Vice President of New Wave Feminists for Life, a Dallas-based organization intent on returning virtue and morality to women’s empowerment.

Conservative Punk

I stumbled across a website that has me feeling delightfully heartened. It's called Conservative Punk. Before I write more about it I'm going to do a bit more research, but I just had to share this excellent 2003 interview with the late music icon Johnny Ramone, of legendary punk band The Ramones, in which he shares his conservative views and support for the military.

We need to spread these kinds of things around so that people who think rock and punk are only for left-wingers can understand that they are espousing the kind of conformity they claim to despise. If they won't listen when I say it, they will certainly listen to Johnny Ramone!

Coming Out

As I learned in Political Science 101, political socialization is a lifelong process. Thus, it is no surprise that it took me 30 years to become a conservative. I hesitate to even write that word, because I have been indoctrinated to believe that "conservative" is a dirty word, synonymous with cruel, lying, ignorant, bigoted, fanatical, brainwashed, and stupid. If it is difficult for those of the Millennial generation -- those born in the 80s through mid 90s -- to declare themselves, let alone become, conservative, it is far more difficult for Gen Xers. Our entire identity was rebellion against the establishment, to the point that even our jeans were not allowed to be clean or fit properly until we were well into our 20s. (Mine are still questionable.) This mindset of radical liberalism became so prevalent that it is now its own institution, with its own protocol and dogma.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Gen Xer, it was inevitable that I rebel against it.

What I have learned over time is that modern liberalism is sentimentalism without substance. It's all very fine and good to see someone in trouble -- say, an out-of-work single mother -- and want to help her. The difference between modern liberals and modern conservatives is that liberals want to hand her a chunk of other people's money, while conservatives would prefer that she be empowered to earn a chunk of money, and keep earning more chunks, and keep that money to spend as she sees fit, rather than having to give large chunks of it away to perpetuate an endless cycle of need.

The other -- probably more important -- difference is that modern conservatives feel it is necessary for the good of the single mother, and by extension society itself, to point out the mistakes (conservatives believe in mistakes) that led her to be in a position so desperate that she requests a chunk of money from the taxpayers in the first place. Among the mistakes conservatives would point out are a failure to follow the basic tenets of sexual morality (conservatives believe in morality) such as having sex with someone she was not married to. Children of single mothers are more likely to do poorly in school, have sex as teenagers, and become single mothers or absent fathers themselves. At some point someone's got to stop the cycle of terrible decision making by pointing out that some decisions are terrible. Liberals would rather we affirm the "valid choices" of promiscuity and irresponsibility and instead teach our first-graders how to apply condoms and choose the IUD that's right for them.

The great Catholic writer and philosopher Peter Kreeft points out that the reason why the God of the Old Testament is often seen as cruel when compared to Christ (usually by whiny atheists who don't believe in the Bible anyway) is because compassion without justice is mere sentiment, and God had to instill a sense of justice -- a sense of right and wrong (something else liberals don't believe in) -- in His people before they could understand real love, a love with muscle. Love without muscle becomes something puny, that thing the liberals call "tolerance." Tolerance implies putting up with something. It invokes images of nameless masses, not separate individuals. It is not the hearty Christian love the Greeks call agape, which is true charity, which is not only active, vivid, and honest, but gets things done. Agape requires accountability. A parent doesn't teach her child responsibility, doesn't in fact teach her child anything of use, by giving her whatever she wants no matter what. That is simply not love. It is easy, and it makes the child temporarily happy, but it is not love. Ultimately, it's not even a particularly nice thing to do.

This is why liberal attempts to recast Christ as a misty-eyed hippie are so ridiculous. Yes, Jesus rescued the woman about to be stoned for committing adultery, but He also told her, "Go, and sin no more." This incident, among hundreds of others, implies that Jesus believed there was such a thing as sin, which immediately takes Him out of the running for hippiedom in particular and modern liberalism in general... although it never fails to confuse me why people who don't believe in Jesus want Him on their side so badly. It also tells us, more specifically, that Jesus believed adultery was a sin -- a decidedly un-liberal point of view. If He were a liberal, He would have instead said, "Go, and do whatever you want with whoever you want. Here are some condoms and, just in case, the number to your local Planned Parenthood and Medicaid office."

If you are wondering how I went from being the far-left radical I was at 22 to the conservative Libertarian/Republican I am at 30, the answer is complex... unless of course I strip it down to first causes and just say: God did it. Because that is the truth. It is also exactly the kind of answer that drives liberals crazy. I know this because I was one, remember? That phrase -- "God did it" -- is where I probably would have stopped reading and started ranting about the irrationality of belief in an interventionist deity and quoting loudly from Beyond Good and Evil.

My conversion to conservatism began with my conversion to Catholicism, and my conversion to Catholicism began with my conversion to pro-life from a default pro-choice position that was part-and-parcel with my liberal mindset, although I had never honestly considered the issue seriously by itself. No, I don't think you necessarily have to be a conservative or a Christian to be pro-life, but I think if you are going to be intellectually honest, if you are going to follow the pro-life argument to its logical conclusion, you are going to end up somewhere around conservative Christian. Recognizing the sanctity of life is recognizing that there is God, whether you want to call It that or not, and recognizing the right to life is going to cause you to ask some serious questions of modern liberalism, such as: how can the party that proclaims itself the champion of the poor and defenseless condone the ultimate in might-makes-right thinking? How can the same jerk in your workplace with the skinny jeans and ironic beard who got all up in your face about the innocent children dying in Darfur calmly dismiss the innocent children dying in their mothers' wombs at the rate of 1.2 million per year in the U.S. alone?

It's because liberals, for all their posturing about compassion, hold a functionalist view of humanity. That's because they have replaced Christ with Darwin, and they believe the solution to poverty is to kill poor people. (See Planned Parenthood.) One thing is for sure: it works! Just like blowing up your house will rid you of your termite problem. This is as brilliant as advocating that we cut off our feet because our pants don't fit. Your pants exist for your legs, not the other way around. These are the same idiots who recommend we conquer child abuse by killing children before they leave the womb, while suggesting we don't care about child abuse because we encourage people not to kill their unborn children. Then when we suggest people not have sex unless they fully intend and expect to make and subsequently care for a baby, we are accused of being Puritanical tyrants.

Having developed a healthy distaste for nonsense, I can no longer call myself a liberal, and having decided that, my only recourse is conservatism, which looks better and better the more I learn, the more I experience, and the more I think of Barack Obama, a black man, giving a speech at a conference for Planned Parenthood, your friendly neighborhood genocide factory, which has killed more black people than the KKK could ever dream of, and which operates legally in thousands of low-income minority neighborhoods around the world. How could I not identify with the only political ideology in the U.S. that recognizes this and condemns it? How could I not be proud to identify with that ideology, in an age when it is terribly unpopular to condemn anything besides condemning things? (Intolerance is the only remaining sin, according to liberals.)

Admittedly, I still have a lot to learn and wrestle with where conservatism is concerned. I am still learning about so many issues: civil unions, states' rights, isolationism vs. interventionism, the free market, the Fed, etc. But like St. Anselm, I belive in order that I might understand. And I refer here to Christianity, because where conservatism departs from Christianity -- and I am beginning to see that it rarely does -- I shall happily depart from conservatism.

The really difficult part is just beginning. I have to "come out." I have to admit to my peers, the people with whom I have identified and fraternized my entire life, that I am not one of them in a very fundamental and important way. I have to tell them that I can no longer support Barack Obama, that I am no longer convinced Ann Coulter is the Antichrist, and that there really is a liberal bias in the media. I am going to lose friends -- dear ones. And I am going to be faced with questions I probably can't answer just yet. But this is a part of life, if you're living it right: standing up for what you believe in, even when it's very unpopular.

I must become and remain a conservative pro-life Christian who speaks her mind as nonchalantly and unapologetically as pro-choice liberal atheists speak theirs. This is not easy. It means being ready to defend my position almost constantly, which is both tiresome and daunting. But it is necessary. Pro-choice liberals don't get up in the morning knowing they're going to have an abortion debate with someone, because theirs is the default position, at least in my age group. But to be a defender of righteousness, you must be perpetually armed and ready for battle, because your foe never sleeps. He is everywhere. He is lurking on Facebook right now, poised to click on the link to this blog and say insulting things, knowing he will be backed up by many anonymous commenters.

But once the friendly fire stops and the smoke dies down, I will be stronger and wiser for this experience. I will know who my friends are, and at long last, they will know who I am. Eventually, everyone will get used to the fact that I can no longer hide my beliefs. I will feel better, and they will get over it.

Meeting new people will be a bit trickier. I don't fit the conservative Christian profile. I'm not married and I have no kids. I work in the music industry. When it comes to other Gen Xers, I've read the same books, spouted the same arguments, made the same Rush Limbaugh jokes. I listen to the same music, go to the same places, sound the same, eat and drink the same stuff, wear the same Converse sneakers. I even have a facial piercing and tattoos. (When I voted in the GOP primary recently, the elderly gentleman who checked me in said, "You know you're at the Republican polling location, right?") I don't look the part, and this isn't going to change. On the outside I look just like your average 30-year-old MSNBC-watching Palin-basher.

They will never see me coming.

This blog was cross-posted to Modern Conservative.

Reality Bites Back

I love Reality Bites.

For those of you have led deprived lives, Reality Bites is the ultimate Generation X movie. It defined the mid-90s the way The Breakfast Club defined the mid-80s.

In the film, a beautifully waifish recent college grad (and valedictorian) Lelaina Pierce, played by Winona Ryder without a bra, shares an apartment with her sarcastic, promiscuous roommate Vicky (Janeane Garofalo before she was so shrill and off-putting), a manager at the Gap whose super-short bangs, vintage polyester thrift-store dresses, and love for disco influenced my coming-of-age to a startling degree. I knew I could never be as wee or precious as Lelaina, but boy, did I ever master the Vicky look.

Lelaina and Vicky have allowed their friend Troy (Ethan Hawke) to live with them since he lost his job at a news stand for stealing a Snickers. With his longish, unwashed hair and ill-fitting, rumpled jeans and tees, his surly demeanor and snide, ironic pseudo-philosophical comments, Troy was basically the poster boy of grunge angst and -- believe it or not -- total grunge hotness.

Sammy (Steve Zahn) completes the ensemble as the quiet, sensitive gay friend who is scared to come out to his parents.

So, Lelaina is a wannabe filmmaker working as a production assistant for a cheesy morning talk show. She gets fired for humiliating her jerk of a boss on air, and conflict erupts when she spends hours running up a phone bill with a psychic friend and can't pay for it. Meanwhile, she is dating Michael (Ben Stiller, also the director) a well-meaning yuppie who works for the make-believe version of MTV. He loves Lelaina's documentary footage of her super-90s friends and all their marketable grungeness: Vicky waiting for the results of her AIDS test, Sammy rehearsing his "I'm gay" speech to his mom, Troy smoking a lot and acting like a jerk, etc. Lelaina, desperate for money but afraid of selling out, lets Michael take her footage to the head honchos at the station, who of course chop it up and turn it into something horrifyingly commercial. Lelaina runs off and, eventually, ends up living happily-ever-after with Troy and his acoustic guitar and paperback copies of Nietzsche or whatever.

So. Why do I bring this movie up on this blog?

First off, let me say: I love this movie. I have loved it since I was 14. It was everything I wanted to be when I was a teenager, and when I look back, it was kind of a lot of what I was in my teens and 20s. The era in which you come of age somewhat defines you forever. Most of us Gen-Xers will always be grunge on one level or another. There are hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings today who still turn it up when the Violent Femmes come on the radio (if they ever do anymore), will always swear by Doc Martens, can't quite kick the Marlboro habit, feel most comfortable in a dirty coffee shop, occasionally dye their hair a weird color, and if they could wear whatever they wanted, might very well opt for denim and flannel.

I've seen this movie at least two dozen times, probably more. I feel like I was with them when they danced to My Sharona in the gas station, when Troy told Lelaina that dress made her look like a doily (it sort of did), when Lelaina explained to Michael about the joys of a Big Gulp, and when Vicky was late for her jean-folding seminar at the Gap. And while there is a lot to avoid about the lifestyle embraced by Lelaina, et. al. (promiscuity, cigarettes, living in Houston) there is also a lot, looking back, that is of value. This film was made just before the explosion of the Internet. Twenty-four hour cable news was just taking off. 9/11 was unimaginable. Things really were simpler. And most important, there was an earnestness that is now unheard of. The music of the time captured this. While I don't condone the lifestyle (or death style) of Kurt Cobain, the depth of sincerity he embodied and reflected is all but completely missing today. Yeah, he was a sad, desperate, lost guy, but he meant it. Today, nobody means anything. Everything is ironic, sarcastic, or some kind of shortcut -- a Tweet, a status update, or a joke.

So when I saw that this film was on HBO the other night, I watched it. I walked down memory lane, and thought about the life I used to have: Red Hot Chili Peppers cassettes in the front seat of my minivan, thrift store jeans and Marlboro reds, burgundy lipstick and a boyfriend whose hair reached halfway down his back. It gave me a bittersweet feeling, and I felt as I watched it that I would probably never be able to make my future children understand how much I identified with Lelaina, Vicky, Troy, and Sammy.

As I was watching, I heard something I had never noticed before. I rewound it and played it again. And again. I sort of couldn't believe I was hearing it, but I was.

Near the beginning of the film, there is a scene in which Lelaina comes home to find her roommate and friends smoking pot in the living room. Sammy asks if Lelaina will loan them money for a pizza, and Troy mentions that Domino's takes a check. Lelaina says no, because "the owner of Domino's supports Operation Rescue." Then Vicky says something like, "Oh, who gives a shit, I'm starving!"

Operation Rescue is a pro-life organization. While I don't necessarily agree with all their tactics (they are very aggressive and a large part of their activism involves graphic images), they do considerable good for women and the unborn. They are largely responsible for the conversion of Norma McCorvey, formerly known as Jane Roe (this according to McCorvey herself).

I had to play this back again and again, and I felt sadder every time. I felt sort of... betrayed. Here is this film that I felt defined me and my generation and my youth, and with one comment they completely excluded me, forever.

Oh, well. It's just a movie, after all. When I watch it now, I see how silly it is. Ben Stiller's hair looks ridiculous and his advances toward Lelaina seem a little lecherous and desperate (she had to be like 10 years younger than him.) Troy comes across as a posturing, juvenile douchebag. Vicky is already showing signs of the strident harpy Janeane would become. And Lelaina, for all her adorable awkwardness, doesn't seem too far from the unstable 30-something caught on camera with a bag full of stolen Saks clothes and pain pills.

After the initial shock of Lelaina's comment, I got over it a bit, but I still feel saddened.

Then again, in the mid-90s, if I had known who Operation Rescue were, I would have said, "Right on!" to Lelaina.

I guess we've all grown up, in our own way.

The Book of Eli (Warning: Here Be Spoilers!)

After reading a review in the Dallas Observer, I thought the premise seemed interesting: In a post-apocalyptic America, a man named Eli (Denzel Washington), in possession of the only remaining copy of the Bible, has to protect it, using bad-ass fighting skills and gratuitous violence, from those who would use it for corrupt ends. This brought up all sorts of questions: Why does this particular guy have the only Bible? Was he chosen by God or man? How on earth could every Bible but one be destroyed, and why? And just how awesome are these fight scenes? Will there be swords? (I love swords.)

My questions were answered. (Eli had a sword, and it was fantastic.) It was fun and interesting; I love a good post-apocalyptic story, and this one had some high points. But troubling issues were brought up.

I was totally with Eli right up until the end, when he delivered the Bible to the unknown place to which God had been leading him, and it turns out to be (wait for it) San Francisco. More specifically, Alcatraz. That's right, the protective fortress of the Word of God is a former notorious prison, on an island adjacent to a city so self-important, pretentious, proud, and morally relativistic it makes Gomorrah look like Grover's Corners.

I wasn't too surprised. Throughout the film, characters had mentioned that all Bibles had been destroyed because many blamed the apocalypse on the Book. I rolled my eyes a little, but only a little. I wanted to see where this was going. I shrugged it off, but remained wary.

Back to Alcatraz: the last bastion of learning, art, and culture is secreted away inside the actual prison. I was reminded of descriptions of medieval monastic life, where monk-scribes faithfully copied by hand the works of Greek and Roman masters, carrying out by candlelight the thankless task of preserving civilization. (To this day we accuse the Church of eschewing or proscribing learning, literature, art, and science, when She almost single-handedly preserved these things through the Dark Ages.)

I wondered if the allusion to monasticism was intentional, and if so, why make the "monastery" a prison? But no matter.

The ostensible leader of the cultural enclave inside Alcatraz is an aging fellow (Malcolm McDowell) with long white hair and the loose, monochromatic clothing of a guru. He looks and speaks like a Berkeley professor, expressing interest in Eli's claim that he has the last copy of the Bible, but no more than he would in, say, the last Complete Works of Shakespeare. There is no adoration, no religious awe. But I think the point is the world has "moved on" to the point where, for our own safety, we are "beyond that now." That's what I was getting.

I will fast forward to the last shot of the film, in order not to completely give away the ending. Now, keep in mind that the film has "proven" to us that Eli is a servant of God, that he had divine protection, abilities, and insight, and that God Himself led Eli to the last Bible and intervened so that he could carry it safely to (ahem) Alcatraz. Keep that in mind.

The last shot: the white-haired hippie Berkeley professor places the Bible on a shelf between the Torah and the Koran.

That's it.

It wasn't placed above them, or on a shelf by itself. It was placed between them. And the Torah and the Bible were not a little bit separate from the Koran. They were all pushed right together. Hmmm.

If the rest of the film had been about a regular guy using his own guts and brains and skills to get the Bible somewhere, this ending would have been appropriate. But instead we had a Messenger of God, divinely led, protected and propelled by miracles, all so that this Book could be saved. And this Book, once it is saved, is placed on a shelf between the Torah and the Koran, which is obviously meant to symbolize that these faiths are interrelated and none is greater than the other.

I still haven't figured out if this was an unintentional case of being ideologically inconsistent, or an intentional one, because either way it is inconsistent.

One might argue that the same God is the God of the people of all three of these books, but then why wasn't the film about all three of the books being shepherded through the valley of darkness, instead of just the One?

I was disappointed. For a while I was cautiously optimistic, believing that I was watching a film about God, and not as a concept synonymous with "luv" or "tolerance" or "being nice," but as a real Personality, a true Deity with an agenda, acting in history through a messenger. How refreshing, I thought. How, well, Biblical! Like in the Old Testament, God was present through affliction, torment, providence, grace, lust, women, bloodshed, and death. Like in the Old Testament, God did not require great genius of his hero, only great faith.

But that ending took all the bite out of the story. It contradicted everything that went before it, denying the holiness and divinity of the Book it just spent nearly two hours establishing, never mind that the Book itself claims holiness and divine inspiration.

Does it make you think of human history, of our own journey toward the end of things? Humans imagine an Apocalypse, but we are so proud we can only imagine that after the dust settles and the ash falls, everything goes on as usual, that God gets put back on a shelf and we continue working towards "true" enlightenment.

Two lines from the Book come to me now:

"Woe to you who cry 'Peace! Peace!' when there is no peace."

And, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." The Lord Himself said that.

New Developments

Although my readership as of right now is basically Zero, I'm going to carry on as though I have a readership of thousands. "Fake it till you make it." If hip-hop artists have taught me anything, it's that.

I've recently begun blogging for LiveAction.org, so a lot of my strictly abortion-focused writing will probably go there. I will continue to do what I can to grow this blog, writing about spiritual war and the culture war more broadly, including issues of faith, morality, virtue, post-modernism, and so forth.

On a personal note, I've decided to return to school. Due to the large amount of time that's passed since I was enrolled and the customary changes in curriculum and courses, I will be left with only a fraction of my credit hours; I will return as a second semester freshman. Humbling? Why, yes! But humility is an important virtue and one I am sometimes lacking. I've done some figurin', and it looks like if I get started in earnest now, I can have my PhD before I turn 40. The idea is to do a couple semesters at Richland, then somehow acquire the money (scholarships, loans, grants, selling kidneys, etc.) to transfer to the University of Dallas, a well-regarded private Catholic liberal arts school in Irving. They have a Comparative Literary Studies B.A. that looks completely wonderful.

Meanwhile, New Wave Femmes are increasing our Facebook presence and gearing up to protest the annual Planned Parenthood luncheon at the Anatole Hotel one month from today. A planning meeting is tentatively scheduled for next month, at which we will begin formulating our big schemes for the coming year.

If you haven't yet, please visit New Wave Femmes on Facebook and add us!

More to come soon...

Eye Witness Testimony

Courtesy of LiveAction.org, a much needed youth-led media assault on abortion.

What follows is the testimony of Abby Johnson, former executive director of the Bryan, TX, Planned Parenthood. After being told in no uncertain terms by her supervisor that committing abortions, not preventing them, was to be her priority, Ms. Johnson realized she had ideological differences with PP. It wasn't until the incident she describes below that she realized the extent of what she had been contributing to.

Marching for Life

All across the country this week, protesters gather to mourn the day 37 years ago when Roe v. Wade was filed in Dallas, TX. Appropriately, the first major gathering was held right here in Dallas, at the source of the river, on January 16th.

At 10:00 a.m., a memorial Mass was concelebrated by the Bishops of Dallas and Ft. Worth at the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, that imposing High Victorian Gothic edifice of red brick smack-dab in the middle of the downtown Arts District.

The highlight of this Mass -- aside from, of course, the Eucharist -- the Rose Procession moves me to tears every time I see it: one person born each year since Roe in 1973 carries a rose for the approximately 1.2 million children lost to abortion the year he or she was born. As each places a rose in the basket in front of the altar, a bell is rung. The final rose bearers are themselves borne by a parent or grandparent. (The 2009 representative was asleep on his daddy's shoulder.)

Finally, a pregnant woman, her hair covered with a mantilla, carried the last rose and placed it in the basket. The bell sounded. She turned and stood, her full belly suspended over the basket of roses, the icon of the Virgin of Guadalupe above and behind her bowed and covered head. A beautiful picture, and I couldn't help but hear Mary's timeless Fiat in my head as I saw it.

I exited the sanctuary to find myself standing above a sea of people. While we were inside, thousands had gathered outside in the plaza, awaiting the March. Because the president of New Wave Femmes and her son were in the Rose Procession, and we had to go back to the car to get our banner, we were at the end of the line.

The March was different from previous years; the biggest difference was that we were confined to the sidewalks, so the route that should have taken us 30 minutes took an hour. Also, the rally that usually took place in the street outside the federal building was now in a parking lot. We froze in the shadow of skyscrapers, but it was worth it to hear uplifting speakers, such as Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Kyleen Wright of Texans for Life Coalition.

The March for Life has two purposes: one, it is a powerful public witness. It says to our city -- and the nation, if the media will report the truth -- that pro-lifers are not a few hundred fringe religious fanatics, but a large, vocal, powerful community with a voice. Its other purpose is edification. It brings us together in one place to remind us that we are not alone, that others see the Truth as we do. Gifted speakers rally us and lift our spirits before sending us back out to fight the good fight.

An interesting thing happened after the March: the New Wave Femmes, honoring tradition, met at a Chili's in North Dallas. When I arrived, I heard that one of our members, Jackie, was bringing a "new friend" she met at the March. Knowing Jackie, this didn't surprise me. Her new friend was an 18-year-old vegan who talked a lot about her art collective; she reminded me of people I knew in Austin and San Francisco: the same loopy, navel-gazing "spiritual but not religious" Whole Foods philosophy.  Destiny said she had seen her across the street from the March, holding a sign that said something about acceptance and tolerance. Destiny asked her if she was a counterprotester, and the girl -- we'll call her Leslie -- said no, but not with much conviction.

I found out later that she spoke to a reporter for the National Catholic Register and called us hypocrites who were overpopulating the world.

I am so proud of Jackie and the rest of the New Wave Femmes for welcoming her to our table and showing her that we are intelligent, kind people with a sense of humor, not the beady-eyed zealots she probably imagined. It was a powerful witness to the only counterprotester at the March; maybe we gave her some food for thought to go with her veggie burger.

This video courtesy of Fallible Blogma. The girls holding signs reading The Strong Choose Life and Empowered by Birth are Destiny and Julie of New Wave Femmes.

Attention, Dallas County Voters!

No matter your political party, you can make your pro-life voice heard in the upcoming Republican primary on March 2. State Bill 182 will require medical personnel to show women considering an abortion an ultrasound and make them listen to the fetal heartbeat. There's a reason why Planned Parenthood and other pro-aborts have fought long and hard against these "informed consent" laws: they work. When the doctor or tech is required by law to "describe the features of the ultrasound, including fetus size," women begin to understand that what they're about to do is not flush away some tissue but kill a baby.

Read a brief article about the bill here. The bill itself is located here.

If you're not registered to vote, click here to get that way now! The deadline is February 1st.

The Feminist Case Against Abortion

Former Feminists for Life of America president Serrin Foster's wonderful 1999 speech can be found here. (Scroll down to pg. 28.)

An excerpt:

Without known exception, the early feminists condemned abortion in the strongest terms.

Susan B. Anthony’s and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s radical feminist newspaper, The Revolution, called abortion “child murder.”

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women’s convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of “infanticide” and said, “When we consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

Since there were no American laws to protect women and children from abortion, the early feminists worked to outlaw abortion. (This is the dirty little secret of women’s studies departments across the United States.) Feminists, doctors, and the media worked together in an uneasy alliance for anti-abortion laws.

The feminists agreed with doctors and the media about providing legal protection for the unborn, but they disagreed sharply on the reasons that women had abortions—and on their proposed remedies.

Male physicians blamed the woman, saying that if she just did what men said, she wouldn’t have gotten herself into “trouble.”

Feminists argued that women who had abortions were responsible for their actions, but women resorted to abortion primarily because of their lack of autonomy within the family and society and their lack of financial resources and emotional support.

A passage in Susan B. Anthony’s and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s newspaper, The Revolution, states:

Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the des- peration which impelled her to the crime!

The first woman to run for president, Victoria Woodhull, said: “Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, or think of murdering one before its birth.”

Some—who begrudgingly admit the early American feminists were anti-abortion—have suggested that the reason was the Victorian attitude about sex. That’s not true either.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton shocked Victorian society by parading around in public visibly pregnant. She raised a flag to celebrate the birth of a child in a time when children were not seen in socie- ty until the age of two. She celebrated womanhood. She was “in your face” about her ability to have children.

Yet like today’s pro-life feminists, early feminists recognized that women do not have to bear children to share in this celebration of womanhood.

Susan B. Anthony was once complimented by a friend who thought that she would have made a wonderful mother. Anthony responded, “Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.”

Read the full speech on pg. 28 and marvel at the wisdom of Ms. Foster and the Feminists for Life.

Pope Benedict Speaks

Thanks to Jill Stanek for posting this on her wonderful blog.

If we wish to build true peace, how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn? It is in man's respect for himself that his sense of responsibility for creation is shown...

Furthermore, as I noted during the recent FAO World Summit on Food Security, 'the world has enough food for all its inhabitants' provided that selfishness does not lead some to hoard the goods which are intended for all.

~Pope Benedict XVI, making it clear that abortion is not an acceptable means of protecting the environment, as quoted by Zenit, January 11.

Taking a functionalist view of humanity is typical of people who argue for abortion. Overpopulation is no argument for murder. Society is a way of structuring civilization, created by humans, for humans. It is a tool intended for our benefit, not the other way around. If society is broken -- in other words, if some people have plenty of space, food, and other necessities, while others have too little to survive -- we should no more consider killing people than we would consider cutting off our feet if our pants didn't fit.

Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated in the West by people who would rather advocate killing "extraneous" humans than give up their Xbox 360 to feed a hungry child.

"What Is A Saint?"

It's short and simple, and it's one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. It was (of course) written by Dr. Peter Kreeft. Found at Catholic Education Resource Center:

Saints are not freaks or exceptions; they are the standard operating model for human beings.

Because, as Charles Peguy put it, “life holds only one tragedy, ultimately: not to have been a saint."

Saints are not freaks or exceptions. They are the standard operating model for human beings. In fact, in the biblical sense of the word, all believers are saints. “Sanctity” means holiness. All men, women and children, born or unborn, beautiful or ugly, straight or gay, are holy, for they bear the image of God.

Saints are not the opposite of sinners. There are no opposites of sinners in this world. There are only saved sinners and unsaved sinners. Thus holy does not mean “sinless” but “set-apart:” called out of the world to the destiny of eternal ecstasy with God...

I highly recommend you continue reading here.

Brave New World

Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

Just came across this 2006 article from LifeSiteNews.com. Here is an excerpt:

Concerned Women for America says that poor women are being paid up to $200 dollars to have their unborn children killed between 8 and 12 weeks gestation when the foetuses are “harvested” for their stem cells, which are then sold to exclusive cosmetic clinics.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior Fellow of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, said “It is hard to believe that such atrocities are going on today. These exclusive and exorbitant treatments are available in such varied locales as Barbados, Moscow, Dominican Republic and in Rotterdam.”

“Not only is the origin of the foetuses immoral and inhumane; there are medical problems and complications associated with the injections. This savage and repulsive ‘brave new world’ of human sacrifices in the quest for eternal youth is a prime example of the end results when all moral boundaries are destroyed,” Crouse continued.

Read the full article here.

The Culture War

Besides perhaps G. K. Chesterton, no writer has played a bigger part in the formation of my faith than Dr. Peter Kreeft. A Calvinist turned Catholic, he is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and the author of somewhere around 40 books on Christianity, culture, theology, philosophy, and social issues. His entire body of work is, to me, the most compelling evidence there is that reason and faith are not enemies, but best friends.

Recently, over the course of a year or so I began to turn away from orthodox Catholicism. I began to live in the world. For several months, I could feel God beginning to call me back. Ultimately, He used Dr. Kreeft's book, You Can Understand the Bible, to win back my soul. A loving, worshipful, enlightening exploration and synopsis of each book of Scripture, this book acquainted me with God again by whispering excerpts of His love letter to me -- the Bible -- into my ear and explaining to me their significance and meaning. I highly recommend this book to everyone who wants to learn more about God and Who He really is.

Dr. Kreeft is a warrior for Good, and therefore for God. His writing teaches you how to fight the good fight. For example, it is profoundly important that pro-life activists be able to make a sound secular argument against abortion. I was a liberal agnostic when I was converted to pro-life. It took one Conversation (I capitalize it because it was probably the most important conversation of my life) with a Catholic to change my mind. She didn't mention God, which would have turned me off right away. She used reason and an appeal to human rights -- which, like most liberals, I was all for! -- to change my mind. She also, with my permission, showed me some photographs that sealed my conversion instantly. A picture truly is worth a thousand words, and it's impossible to look at an image of a broken, mangled little baby's body and not know in your very soul that it is WRONG. I had an instant, irrevocable, visceral reaction that I can still recall. It was a horrifying, soul-shattering experience that I liken to Paul's on the road to Damascus. Although my realization that I had been addressed by Christ would not happen instantly, I saw the face of God in those children just as surely as Paul heard His voice.

Although I had been vocally, stubbornly, even angrily anti-Christian for years, almost exactly one year after the Conversation that made me pro-life, I was received into the Catholic church. A coincidence? I don't think so. In fact, I no longer believe in them. But my story is important for Christians to hear because many of them think they are somehow thumbing their nose at faith when they do not mention God in their pro-life argument. I say, tailor the argument to the person. God will use any foothold he can get in a person's soul. Once I recognized that Catholics were absolutely right about abortion, it made me wonder what else they were right about. The Truth really will set you free, and the Truth -- not to mention the Way and the Life -- is not just an idea, but a Person. Saying yes to Truth is, whether we know it at the time or not, saying yes to Him.

I strongly suggest you visit Dr. Kreeft's website, http://www.peterkreeft.com/, and visit the Featured Writing and Featured Audio sections. Please note there is a small link at the bottom of those pages where you can find more writing and audio. Read everything you can of his. His words will strengthen your faith and your power to reason. In particular, I urge pro-lifers to read "The Argument for Personhood." It is a sound, and in my opinion irrefutable, secular argument against abortion.

I also strongly urge you to read his writing on spiritual warfare, available on his website and also at http://www.catholiceducation.org/. (Enter his name into the search box for pages of his articles.)

I would like to post here a brief excerpt from "A Defense of Culture War: A Call for Counterrevolution." This is itself an excerpt from his book How to Win the Culture War by Intervarsity Press. The following excerpt specifically concerns abortion:

Even people who identify themselves as "pro-choice", like President Clinton, say they want to reduce the number of abortions. This means they, too, assume abortion is bad, for no one wants to reduce the number of something good. Surely the deliberate killing of unborn children is not something good!

Most Americans will not deny that abortion is at least a moral tragedy. But it is more than that. It is a barbaric act that degrades a civilization.

Polls repeatedly show that the majority of Americans are ignorant of the basic facts about abortion:

the stages of development of life in the womb: just what it is that is aborted;

the biological and medical facts about just how an abortion is performed. You can see absolutely anything today on TV or MTV or HBO except the most frequent medical procedure in America. There is a total media censorship of the facts;

the numbers: more than one and a half million abortions per year. One out of every three children conceived in the United States is aborted;

the fact that Roe v. Wade did not restrict abortions, but any woman in America can get an abortion for any reason at all (including sex selection: wanting a son, therefore aborting a daughter) at any time whatsoever;

the fact that abortion clinics are not legally subject to the same stringent standards of sanitation and safety as all other medical facilities;

that the anti-abortion movement is much larger than the civil rights movement of the sixties ever was, in numbers of participants and numbers jailed, but the media simply black out these facts;

that an overwhelming number of women who have had abortions say they regret it later and wish they had not done so;

that post-abortion trauma is common and crushing; that most women who abort—by their own admission—do not believe their "fetus" was "only tissue" or "only potential life" but believe they killed their baby; and this sense of guilt haunts them for life if not dealt with. But this fact is also denied or censored by a total media blackout.

Abortion splits the family in a literal and lethal way. It literally rips mother and child apart. And it desensitizes us in a gruesome way. We are starting to see the next stage in our "culture of death"—legalized suicide and euthanasia. The same principle that justifies killing at one end of life justifies it at the other: we will dispose of unwanted people.

Read the full article here at Dr. Kreeft's website.

Definition

I found this on A Conservative Blog for Peace, which is always a great read.

"What is ‘tolerant conservatism’?

Charity and discretion about people’s failings while at the same time not making excuses for those vices either.
Don’t ask, don’t tell, we give you your space and God forgives but we don’t teach that it’s not a sin."
(The man who coined the term? The Right Rev. Peter Robinson, Rector of St. Paul's Anglican Church, Prescott, AZ.)

I like this definition, except maybe for the "don't ask, don't tell" part. I need to think that bit over before I decide.

This weekend some core members of New Wave Femmes gathered to make signs for next weekend's Roe v. Wade memorial events in downtown Dallas. (There will be a memorial mass for the approximately 50,000,000 children killed in the U.S. since abortion was legalized in 1973, followed by a rally and a peaceful march to the federal courts building and back.)

It was a wonderful experience of fellowship for NWF, with probably too much wine. We spent hours discussing matters of faith, morals, womanhood, sex, hair dye, swearing, attractive monks, ghost hunting, bean dip, and more.

What came out of this evening of work and fun, other than attending Mass with a pounding headache, were some dynamic ideas about where New Wave Femmes is going and what the next year might have in store for us. Together we can do a great deal to help women and children, and the men who love them.

Later I'll be posting more about NWF, but meanwhile I am reflecting on the definition of "tolerant conservatism" and what it means for our organization.

While discussing what we should print on our signs for the rally and march, knowing that there will be press there and whatever we write might be on the 6 o'clock news, I found myself saying to the other girls: "Never apologize for telling the Truth." I want to capitalize truth because I do believe there is an objective Truth that exists independent of what (or whether) we think about it. While we want to be nurturing to people, to show them compassion and act always from love and kindness, we are only doing them a disservice if we lie to them.

That's why I like, for the most part, the term "tolerant conservatism" and the way it's defined. It is possible to love people and even understand why they do what they do without condoning it.

"What to Expect When You're Aborting"

I just found a website that filled me with sadness. It's the blog of a young woman who had an abortion. The description says: "I'm 23, I'm knocked up, I'm not keeping it. You can fuck yourself Judd Apatow." (She is referring to the director of the film Knocked Up, in which a young professional woman, played by Katherine Heigl, becomes pregnant during a one night stand and, despite her mother's advice that she abort this one so later she can get married and have "a real baby," decides to keep it.)

"What to Expect When You're Aborting" treats the subject of the author's abortion with a sort of dark, dry humor. I can identify with her sense of humor, but not about this particular subject matter. While she seems to obliquely admit to having an emotional response to the experience, in the few posts I read, she has the bitter, snarky tone I've found common to pro-abortion activists.

The pro-choice anger has always struck me as interesting. You'd think we'd be the bitter ones; they have what they want: abortion is legal. But consistently I find pro-lifers to be hopeful, caring people, while there seems to be a lot of barely-concealed rage from pro-aborts. I know this is true because I was one, and I felt the rage. It was a feeling of "How dare they tell us what to do!" It was the anger of indignation, which is self-focused. Now, as a pro-lifer, I feel the the righteous anger that is focused on others -- the innocent, misguided, and lost -- and tempered by sadness and love. It is a totally different feeling.

I remember in particular some photos taken at a pro-life march in San Francisco -- in the lions' den! Having lived in San Francisco, I could almost have predicted the content of those photos. The pro-lifers had been taught to be quiet, respectful, and prayerful. The pro-aborts -- many of them -- were out of control. Several women were dressed in all white, with their crotches splattered with red paint and wire hangers hanging off their clothes.

The author of "What to Expect..." makes it clear that she's not interested in debate, but she certainly can't stop us from praying for her. What she is doing is not only activism -- and it is activism, make no mistake, as surely as this blog is -- but also a cry for help that she might not even be aware she is making.

Pro-lifers need to read these sorts of blogs. We need to get to know the women we are trying to help. We need to understand the way she thinks, why she did what she did, how she feels about it. It is essential to what we are trying to do here. We're not just saving babies, we're saving women, too.

We should also stay abreast of news, events, victories, setbacks and trends in the pro-choice community. "Know your enemy" is a rule of warfare. But remember: although we have to study the pro-choice movement to know how they think, what they fear, and how to fight them, they are not really our enemy. Just like the women who abort, they are the people we are trying to save. Evil is the real enemy, and it comes from a place darker than any on this earth, and an Enemy crueler than any earthly foe.

The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: It's Real

Special thanks to Leslie for posting this on her wonderful blog, THE PASSIONATE PRO-LIFER. She reposted from Black Christian News.


"Although the study was published nine months ago, the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."

Less than two months since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%."

Click here to read more.

A Black Pastor Speaks: "My People Are Dying"

One of the most eloquent and moving essays about the genocidal nature of abortion I have ever read:

Walter Hoye


December 25, 2009

On more than one occasion it has been suggested to me … to wait.

The cause is just, but wait.

The cause is worthy, but wait.

The cause is righteous, but wait.

That is, wait for a more opportune or favorable time to pursue the just, worthy and righteous cause of the California Human Rights Amendment.

This suggestion to wait, has come to me by way of men and women:

• Who love me and have proven themselves under trying circumstances to be my friends.

• Whom I highly respect, whose moral credentials are infinitely greater than mine.

• Whose wisdom has been tried, forged in the raging fires of spiritual warfare and found true.

• Whose commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ is beyond question.

• Whose lives reflect the sacred beauty of sacrifice for “love’s sake” itself. (Philemon 1:9)

To each and everyone of these wonderful saints of God, I want to say thank you for the time you have spent with me. Thank you for your wisdom, for your prayers and for your love. I want you to know that I have taken every word to heart.

Yet, I cannot wait.

With all due respect, I cannot wait for a more opportune or favorable time to pursue the just, worthy and righteous cause of the California Human Rights Amendment.

You see, my people are dying.

Arnold M. Culbreath, the Urban Outreach Director for “Protecting Black Life,” reports since 1973, over 14.5 million black babies have been killed by abortion and that 1,200 black babies die by abortion daily.


My people are dying.

According to Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, Black women are nearly five (5) times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion.

My people are dying.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) report entitled, “Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2006,” the abortion ratio among black women, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, is 450 abortions per 1,000 live births. The abortion ratio for Black women far exceeds the abortion rate for any other people group.

Considering the fact that abortion is not the only reason a baby in the womb of his or her mother dies, today a Black American child has less than a 50% chance of being born. It is safer on the streets for a Black child in the worse neighborhoods America has to offer than on the inside of the womb of his or her mother.

My people are dying.

Abortion remains the leading cause of death in the Black America. Abortion alone accounts for three (3) times more deaths in our community than HIV/AIDS, Violent Crimes, Accidents, Cancer, and Heart Disease combined.

My people are dying.

The U.S. fertility rate is an indicator that shows the potential for population change in the country. A rate below 2.1 indicates populations decreasing in size and growing older. Today, according to the 2006 U.S. Census, our fertility rate is below the replacement level at 1.9. Black America is no longer replacing herself.

My people are dying.


According to the National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11, the abortion rate among married Black American women is three (3) times greater than it is among white women.

My people are dying.

Again, according to the National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 58, No. 4, October 14th, 2009, today for every 100 Black babies born alive, there are another 77 Black babies killed by abortion. Said another way, for every 1 Black baby born alive, practically 1 Black baby is killed by abortion.

My people are dying.

According to the archives at the Tuskegee Institute, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Negroes were lynched by the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) in the United States of America. Today, abortion in the Black community kills more Black Americans in less than three (3) days than the Klu Klux Klan could kill in eighty-six (86) years.

My people are dying.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), since 1973 (i.e., the year abortion was legalized in the U.S.) more Black American babies have been killed by abortion than the total number of Black American deaths from all other causes combined.

My people are dying.

If we were to ask the average high-school student how many U.S. soldiers died in the Vietnam War, the most probable answer would be roughly 58,000. This is the number of American military personnel deaths. Today more black babies are killed in less than two (2) months from abortion than the total number of American military personnel that died in the Vietnam War.

My people are dying.

According to a study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 13 Number 4, Winter 2008, entitled “Does Induced Abortion Account for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and Violate the Nuremberg Code?” Black American women have three (3) times the risk of suffering an early preterm birth (EPB, birth under 32 weeks) and four (4) times the risk of an extremely preterm birth (XPB, birth under 28 weeks).

This report, authored by Brent Rooney, M.Sc., Byron C. Calhoun, M.D., M.B.A. and Lisa E. Roche, J.D., reports a “statistically significant” increase in the risk of EBP or XPB in women who have a history of induced abortion (IA) when compared to women with no history of induced abortion.

When one considers the fact that XPB babies have a 129 times higher risk of being born with the horribly debilitating effects of cerebral palsy (CP) and that according to Rooney, Calhoun and Roche, “about 43% of pregnancies in Black American women end in induced abortion” alone and when you understand that these numbers describe a rate of death in the Black community that only reflects the impact of induced abortion, you are at a point where you are beginning to understand that …

My people are dying.

The targeting of Black America by eugenic minded, pro-abortion forces is easy to see when you consider that black Americans make up about twelve (12) percent of the population of the United States of America and yet according to Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute, 37 percent of all abortions in the country are performed on Black American women and their preborn children.

In other words, twelve (12) percent of the population of this country, Black Americans, is responsible for thirty-seven (37) percent of all abortions in the United States of America.

If you consider about half of Black America is female then you’re looking at around six (6) percent of the population of this country being responsible for thirty-seven (37) percent of all abortions in the United States of America.

If you consider child bearing age from 15 to 44 then you’re looking at around three (3) percent of the population of this country, Black Americans, being responsible for thirty-seven (37) percent of all abortions in the United States of America.

Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council says:

“Preliminary data currently being compiled on all abortion facilities in the U.S. shows that over twenty (20) states have abortion facilities in areas where the African-American population is fifty (50) percent or higher,”

Tony goes on to say:

“In fact, ten (10) states and in Washington, D.C. have abortion centers located exclusively in minority areas.”

I cannot wait, my people are dying.

Abortion is the Darfur of the Black American community.

If nothing changes.

If America does not become more efficient at killing babies in the womb of their mothers in the future.

If we do not take into consideration the number of chemical abortions.

If the rate of death, due solely to the impact of induced abortion in the Black community, remains constant and does not increase or decrease over time.

Black America will face the very real possibility of being an endangered species by the year of our Lord Jesus Christ two thousand one hundred (2100).

That is, I said, if nothing changes …

However, everything is changing.

If [Alleged] President Obama is successful in his efforts to install his health care vision for America, the numbers of Black babies killed by abortion will skyrocket.

Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has said:

“Those of us who care about the civil rights of all Americans, born and unborn, oppose Obamacare because we oppose the expansion of the most racist industry in America – the abortion industry.”

Frankly, time for my people is running out.

The time for me to act is now.

I simply cannot wait.

Perhaps others can afford to wait.

Nevertheless, I cannot wait because the abortion numbers are higher in my community, among my people than in any other people group.

Perhaps others can tell the future.

However, I do not have the power to tell the future.

I can only tell you about the One who holds the future.

Perhaps others are wiser than I am.

After all there are “certain political realities” at work in our world today and the mere presence of such realities surely calls for an experienced hand.

While I am sure others are wiser, have more experience and know how to come in and go out, I still cannot wait.

I cannot wait for …

• Public opinion to favor me.

• Political equity or capital necessary to guarantee victory to be voted into office.

• Proper funding required to meet the surely inevitable challenges that will come.

America is changing, my people are dying and I cannot wait.

I believe faith in Christ along with a repentant heart will allow us to receive His forgiveness and boldly face the wickedness in high places that walks among us today.

I believe such faith in Christ will allow His Body and Bride to perform the works of life that will overcome the works of death.

I believe the California Human Rights Amendment, by embracing the issue of “Personhood,” addresses the most profound and the most serious ethical dilemma this country has ever faced.

I believe the California Human Rights Amendment offers all of us an unprecedented opportunity for dialogue centered on the core issue of the abortion debate, the “humanity” of us all.

Imagine the power of Christ at work in us as we engage the culture for His sake by asking such questions as:

What does it mean …

• To be made in the image of God?

• To be fearfully and wonderfully made?

• To be respected as a person?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in defense of his belief in “Nonviolence” said:

“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. It is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals. Both a practical and a moral answer to the Negro’s cry for justice, nonviolent direct action proved that it could win victories without losing wars, and so became the triumphant tactic of the Negro Revolution of 1963.”

I believe the California Human Rights Amendment today is what nonviolent direct action was to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. It is a powerful, just and righteous weapon.

I believe the California Human Rights Amendment “ennobles the man who wields it.” It is the kind of weapon that God favors and will honor as His people engage the world around them in dialogue for Christ’s sake.

I believe the California Human Rights Amendment is both a practical and moral answer to the preborn’s cry for justice, for righteousness and for life itself.

I believe, on this side of heaven, it is never too late to start doing right.

Maybe you believe in God the same way I do and/or maybe you see the same divinely inspired opportunity that is set before us today, as I do?

If you can, then help me today, because you cannot wait either.

Stay tuned, there is more to come.

A Comment

I wrote too much to post this as a comment. Figures! So I am posting it here. MBS said:

"really trying to figure out how you reconcile a feminist pov while trashing on a 'culture of contraception' and abortion rights. feminists got us where we are now with those things! that stuff is all about women taking control of their bodies and their futures..."

I replied:

Thanks for commenting, MBS. You bring up some interesting points.

First of all, I claim a New Feminism. I do not share the classic feminist view of "reproductive rights."

Secondly, yes, our feminist sisters got us the right to vote and the right to enter the workplace as equals, and we thank them for that, but they also got us to deny the differentness that makes us unique and special, and in so doing opened up a Pandora's box that us Catholics call the Culture of Death.

Before I step up on my soapbox, please understand: you don't have to be a Catholic, a Christian, or anything at all to understand what I'm about to say. I was pro-life before I was Catholic, Christian, or anything at all. I would probably have described myself as an Agnostic Pagan, and had been for years, on the night when I had The Conversation. (Yes, I was stubbornly pro-choice for as long as I could remember, but it only took one Conversation to change my mind. Such is the power of Truth.)

You've given a great example of the standard party line of feminism when you say "that stuff is all about women taking control of their bodies and their futures."

I agree, first of all, that women should take control of their bodies and their futures. I absolutely agree with those things! Wholeheartedly!

What I do not agree with is what feminists consider "taking control of their bodies and their futures." It is a lie.

First, when it comes to abortion, it is quite simply not "their bodies" we are talking about. It is someone else's body. Now, back in the 70s, during and just after Roe v. Wade, there was still some more or less intelligent argument about when life began. That argument is over, thanks to advancing science. Open any obstetrics textbook, ask any biologist, and they will tell you that human life begins at conception. Period. Only people trying really hard to defend abortion will argue that point, such as a Planned Parenthood abortionist who recently claimed that in "his opinion" life began when "the child was viable," as in, able to live outside the womb. Of course that has nothing to do with a definition of life; he's just trying to justify what he does for a living. We know that children are alive long before they're viable. Things that aren't alive do not yawn and suck their thumbs.

So, life begins at conception. That point is no longer even questioned in intelligent debate about the subject. So what you're doing when you abort a child is, you're killing a human being. Period. Any honest abortionist will admit that to you. The abortionist at Southwestern, right here in Dallas, has admitted in writing, "I know that what I'm doing is killing."

From there, pro-choicers like to get into semantics and toss around words like "personhood" and "viability" and then start screaming about "women's bodies." But what they are really doing is trying to justify murder in one of two ways: either by claiming that, despite the fact that it most definitely is a life, it isn't really and TRULY a life because we can't see it walking around and going to Starbuck's and stuff. They'll say it's a human life but not a PERSON, forgetting that it most definitely would end up a PERSON (in their definition) if they didn't KILL it.

The other argument they like to make is that, yeah, it may be a human being, but it is inside another human being. In other words, it's okay to kill it because of where it's LOCATED. So, killing a baby in a bassinet by the hospital bed is murder, but killing a baby three feet to the left in its mother's womb, that's okay. Never mind the fact that in more than 99% of cases, the woman voluntarily let it in to her womb by having concensual sex. (If you want to debate cases of rape and incest, let's do that later 'cause this is getting long; and they also count for less than half of one percent of abortions.)

Oh, I forgot about another argument, which is surprisingly prevalent and incredibly disgusting: the argument that all those murdered babies, if they had been born, would have been a drain on society, and grown up to have more unwanted babies and so on and so forth. This makes a lot of sense if you hold a utilitarian view of human life, the kind of view that the Nazis held and that told them it was a really good idea to gas prisoners who couldn't work and to use natural selection to create a super race. At some point they forgot that society exists for people, not the other way around. If your pants are too short, you don't cut your feet off, you buy longer pants. Darwinist natural selection leads to eugenics leads to murder. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an American pioneer of eugenics. (Don't take my word for it; look it up.) Her platform was that it was a terrible idea to let poor brown people breed. That's why to this day most Planned Parenthood offices are in poor brown neighborhoods.

That's not helping women take control of their bodies and their futures. That's genocide. If we cared about those women, we would help them value themselves and their bodies so they become pregnant in loving, committed relationships, and promote a culture that takes care of women and children so women are able to afford health and child care. THAT is helping women.

You know who gives a shitload of money to Planned Parenthood? Playboy Magazine. That's right. Hugh Hefner. Know why? Because birth control and abortion are not about empowering women. They're about making it easier to view women as objects, something to use for pleasure and throw away. Do you think Playboy cares about women's liberation? Think again. Let's train that gal to take her little pink pill every day like a good girl, never mind what it does to her hormones and her body, and if she does get knocked up, give her a few hundred bucks to get the little bugger sucked out of her. It's cheaper than child support! Then, we'll convince her that all of this an EMPOWERING EXPERIENCE!!!

My advice to you is, don't be like I was. I embraced the tenets of feminism because I thought it was part and parcel of being a strong, independent, intelligent person. It came with the "liberal starter pack," so I accepted it without really questioning it. Before November of 2006, I would have called you a lot of nasty names if you had tried to sell me your pro-life rhetoric. Then someone cared enough about me to show me pictures of aborted children, and I became aware, while having a visceral, soul-shaking experience, that what I was looking at was not okay, could never be justified as okay. It was the broken, shredded, discarded body of an innocent human child.

A culture that does that to its most innocent, helpless members is doomed. It's sick to its very soul.

That's why to me abortion is the most important issue there is. It is the ultimate human rights issue because abortion "rights" are the ultimate in "might makes right" thinking. It's the most important issue because while this is going wrong, even if everything else goes right, it's still a sign of a deep sickness in our culture.

I implore to you to find out exactly -- EXACTLY -- what it is that you're defending. I never did until I had the Conversation. Most people don't. They consider it "distasteful" to look at pictures of aborted fetuses. (It kills me when pro-choicers say this "disrespects the dead." They don't mind the actual killing, but they mind photographs of it. Unreal.) Viewing these images is a horrible experience. But you owe it to them and to yourself. Know what you're defending. If you're gonna say it's okay, go look at it. Look at the pictures, and while you're looking, see if you can say to yourself, honestly, "This is okay." Never mind "good" or "righteous." Try to say, "This is okay."

If you have a heart, or a conscience, you won't be able to do it.