Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Thursday, May 11, 2023

Abortion: An industry dependent on lies

No industry is more dependent on lies than abortion. What other industry today could even compete? Car sales? Politics? Illegal drug cartels or trafficking? Whichever it is, abortion is in that conversation.

Following is a multitude of lies advanced by the abortion industry. And the list isn't exhaustive. These are not obscure lies told by individuals with a negligible audience. These are lies pertaining to the fundamental premises of abortion. They are foundational. They are lies told by the abortion industry. They are lies told by politicians funded by the abortion industry. The are lies told by abortion influencers or media.

Lie #1: “My body, my choice”

The phrase “my body, my choice” is a common one among abortion proponents. The implication is that an abortion is merely a decision the woman makes about “her body.” But this is a lie. The baby’s body is not only philosophically but genetically distinct from the mother’s. A multitude of scientific papers acknowledge the individuality of new life at fertilization. For example: “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” (Signorelli J, Diaz ES, Morales P)

Lie #2: Fake embryo pictures

In October 2022, The Guardian posted outright fake pictures of a human embryo. It described the pictures as “tissue” or what a “pregnancy” looks like at various early weeks of pregnancy. However, the images only showed bits of gestational sac. The embryo was missing from the photos. The article quotes Dr. Joan Fleischman with MYA Network, the abortion business credited with the photos. Fleischman specifically said the internet and placards show human embryos with “human-like qualities.” However, she asserted, the fake pictures in the Guardian article—which showed only gestational sac bits—are “what it actually looks like.” A stir on social media followed, both from medical professionals, and from women who have experienced miscarriages and know first-hand that the images from The Guardian and MYA Network were fake.

The Guardian later attempted to explain the absence of the embryo with another false statement which was added to the article as a disclaimer: “This article was amended on 19 October 2022 to include the detail that at nine weeks the nascent embryo is not easily discernible to the naked eye.” However, The Guardian only added another false statement to their false article. At 9 weeks, the human embryo not only has human features, but is close to ¾ of an inch in size, or larger than many adult fingernails.

Rather than vanishing in shame, this lie is perpetuated, as recently as April 2023. Ted Lieu, congressman from California, was angered by the recent judicial decision that ruled the abortion drug mifepristone had not undergone proper FDA protocols when it was approved in 2000. Lieu tweeted one of the fake MYA Network pictures and included the claim: “Mifepristone is for abortions of less than 10 weeks. Below are pictures of pregnancies at 6, 7, 8, and 9 weeks.” When called out for sharing fake images, Lieu later doubled down by sharing another fake article from Insider, which claimed, among other lies, “There is no ‘heart’ at six weeks of pregnancy.” But the heart is known to develop as early as 3 weeks and can be observed beating by week 6. (See more on the heartbeat lie at Lie #8 below.)

Embryo at 7-8 weeks
(Credit: lunar caustic at Flickr)

The above photo is of an actual human embryo (7-8 weeks). The gestational sac, which can be observed surrounding the embryo, is only what The Guardian article showed.

Lie #3: "Abortion Saves Lives"
This phrase is commonly seen at protests, asserted by pro-abortion organizations, or even stated by abortion "doctors." This lie is obvious. Abortion ends a human life. "Abortion Causes Death" would be an accurate sign. Some claimants confuse treatment of ectopic pregnancy or other life-threatening diagnoses with abortion. See Lie #13. Others use incomplete data.

Illinois’ anti-pregnancy help Senate Bill 1909 (SB 1909) claims the “risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk of death associated with an abortion.” Again, the assertion dishonestly does not account for the baby variable, which results in 100% death for every completed abortion. 

The statistic is still specious even if only the life of the mother is considered. For example, a subsequent study Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy outcome looked at 463,473 women. The study states:

Previous population studies, however, have failed to control for complete reproductive histories. In this study we seek to eliminate the potential confounding effect of unknown prior pregnancy history by examining mortality rates associated specifically with first pregnancy outcome alone. We also examine differences in mortality rates associated with early abortion and late abortions (after 12 weeks).

They concluded: “Compared to women who delivered, women who had an early or late abortion had significantly higher mortality rates within 1 through 10 years.”

A 2020 study, Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality, found similar results when more health information about the patients was factored. They summarize:

In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth.

Lie #4: Late-term abortions aren’t real

Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy for the American College of Gynecologists (ACOG), stated:

The phrase “late-term abortion” is medically inaccurate and has no clinical meaning. In science and medicine, it’s essential to use language precisely. In pregnancy, to be “late term” means to be past 41 weeks gestation, or past a patient’s due date. Abortions do not occur in this time period, so the phrase is contradictory.

ACOG’s website also claims “late-term abortion” is “a biased, nonmedical phrase intended to appropriate clinical language in order to misconstrue the reality of patient care.”

First, ACOG is attempting to restrict a scientific use onto a term that is also native to legal language. This is a form of the fallacy of equivocation and is a basic error in contextual interpretation. It is disingenuous for ACOG to suggest there is legislation against a non-existent abortion type. When the term “late-term abortion” is used in legal documents, a gestational age typically accompanies it. For instance:

Second, Levy’s definition does not stand on universally held medical ground. For example, the McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine defines “late-term abortion” as “Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable…” (With current medicine, babies have survived at about 21 weeks.)

A cursory search of medical and scientific studies reveal that use of "late-term" abortions is not restricted to ACOG's 41-week definition. For example:

Lie #5: Pregnancy Resource Centers are not "medical"
In 2022, Elizabeth Warren and several other senators sent a specious letter (PDF) to pregnancy help network Heartbeat International, Inc., and included the claim: "your organization and its affiliate CPCs are not legitimate medical providers." However, the facts refute this lie. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates reports 1,400 out of their 1,600 affiliates are licensed medical centers. The Charlotte Lozier Institute report on pregnancy center statistics reveals 79% of pregnancy centers nationwide are "medical." Pregnancy Centers employ or have volunteers who are licensed medical staff, including nurses and sonographers. The report also states:

Medical pregnancy centers or clinics perform limited ultrasounds in accordance with specific standards and guidelines set forth by medical professional bodies, including the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM); Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN); the American College of Radiology (ACR); and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). `Under these guidelines a limited ultrasound may be performed to “confirm the presence of an intrauterine pregnancy,” which addresses the primary reason a woman visits a pregnancy center. 

Lie #6: Only 3-4% of Planned Parenthood's “medical services” are abortions

Abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood's annual reports regularly claim 3 or 4% of total "medical services" their affiliates provide are abortion. As we've established, abortion is not medicine. So that's a lie. And the 3-4% figure is also dishonest. This false statistic has been debunked since at least as early as 2012, yet they continued to mislead year after year in annual reports. The number is fudged by counting peripheral services received in each visit as equal to abortion, when abortion was the entire intent of the client's visit. So if a woman gets a pregnancy test before the abortion, they will count them each as 50% of the client's services received, even though the former may cost $10 and take a moment and the abortion—which is why she’s there—will take upwards of hours including recovery and could cost over $1,000. As a perspective to how deceptive this is, journalist Nick Lowry wrote, "Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do."

Lie #7: Pregnancy is an illness

The abortion pill mifepristone was fast-tracked by the FDA in the year 2000. The Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 only permits “accelerated approval” of a drug if it is for “treating serious or life-threatening illnesses…” The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine pointed this lie out. In their November 2022 case filing against the FDA, they stated, “But chemical abortion drugs do not treat serious or life-threatening illnesses. Indeed, pregnancy is a normal physiological state that many females experience one or more times during their childbearing years.”

Lie #8: No heartbeat at 6 weeks

In October 2022, South Carolina Chief Justice Donald W. Beatty incorrectly asserted that a 6-week embryo’s heartbeat is “really not a heartbeat. It’s an electrical signal.” Associate Justice Kaye G. Hearn incorrectly described the heartbeat as “actually embryonic cardiac activity…a true heartbeat does not occur until all four chambers in the heart have developed.” The judges’ assertions amount to word games, a mere avoidance of using the term “heart.” Furthermore, scientific literature points to the onset of the heartbeat at the early end of the 4th week of pregnancy, or around day 22.

Jörg Männer’s 2022 paper in the Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease states: “the human embryonic heart starts beating at 21 to 23 days after fertilization.” And Männer specifically accounts for electric activity preceding the heartbeat:

The term “heartbeat” is used to describe “the regular movement that the heart makes as it sends blood around your body”. The above-mentioned observations suggest that, with regard to the embryonic heart, we should not speak of a beating heart before coordinated regular movements of its walls generate a unidirectional fluid flow within the vascular network of the embryonic cardiovascular system. In human embryos this functional state seems to be reached during CS-10. Based on data from macaque embryos, the post-fertilization age of human CS-10 embryos was estimated as 21 to 23 days…

Some challenges to this figure only add 4-5 days, which means even conservative estimates acknowledge a heartbeat in the 4th week.

Other studies affirm this. Tan and Lewandowski’s paper published in Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy states: “The initiation of the first heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22, followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4.” Oregon State University Anatomy & Physiology curriculum teaches the same: “The human heart is the first functional organ to develop. It begins beating and pumping blood around day 21 or 22…”

Directly addressing the misinformation put out by the South Carolina judges, Dr. Tara Sander Lee, PhD, director of Life Sciences for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said, “A heartbeat at six weeks is scientific consensus based on published validated, objective, biological investigation, not a public relations campaign.”

Lie #9: Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) isn’t real

Abortion proponents have deceived the public about the possibility of abortion pill reversal. For example, a 2022 anti-pregnancy center article published in a science journal contains multiple inaccuracies, including the following: “Research has established that CPCs engage in abortion misinformation, including leading people to believe that medication abortions are reversible…” The American College of Gynecologists claims abortion pill reversal is “not supported by science.” Appealing to these kinds of lies, the state of Colorado is currently seeking to ban abortion pill reversal.

The fact is, so-called “medication abortions” are indeed reversible. This is indisputable. Over 4,500 lives have been saved for mothers who changed their minds after taking the first abortion pill by following the abortion pill reversal protocol. Abortion pill reversal replenishes the progesterone that the abortion pill depleted, thus giving the pregnancy a chance to continue. Dr. George Delgado, pioneer of the abortion pill reversal protocol, explains the process in a recent Edify video. Testimonials and photos of actual babies born after successful abortion pill reversals can be seen at Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Rescue Network.

Lie #10: The abortion pill is safe/“safer than Tylenol”

Dr. Serina Floyd, vice president of medical affairs and medical director of Planned Parenthood, claimed in a February 23, 2023 television interview that the abortion pill “is not dangerous at all.”

A Bloomberg “healthcare” journalist made popular the bad faith argument that the abortion pill mifepristone is safer than Tylenol because it “sends fewer people to the ER.” The most obvious problem with these claims is that they ignore the 230,000+ innocent lives ended by the abortion pill annually. Read here for a thoroughly sourced refutation of the Tylenol claim at LiveAction.

Additionally, the Bloomberg article must nonsensically lump ER visits from Tylenol due to overdose with mifepristone ER visits due to use as indicated.

In 2016, the abortion industry convinced the FDA to help keep mifepristone’s adverse effects secret by

changing the requirement for prescribers to agree to report to Mifeprex’s sponsor any serious adverse event associated with Mifeprex, including hospitalizations and blood transfusions…

Adverse effects have not been required reporting for some seven years. Doctors at the Charlotte Lozier Institute conducted a thoroughly sourced review of mifepristone’s dangers and adverse effects reporting.

The Bloomberg article also fails to account for how the abortion pill enables sex trafficking or relationship abuse. Students for Life has organized dozens of stories of the abortion pill drug slipped into women's drinks or other devious tricks. Tylenol does not have this unsafe problem. Unfettered distribution of the drug will only exacerbate this problem.

Finally, data often cited by abortion proponents on the safety of mifepristone is founded on circular illogic. Since reporting of adverse events from the drug are no longer required, abortion proponents cite data that does not account for the very adverse events they lobbied to have unreported. In a recent judicial case in Texas, the judge pointed this out:

Defendants maintain that “Plaintiffs offer no explanation for why it was impermissible to rely on the reported data.” ECF No. 28 at 33. The explanation should be obvious — it is circular and self-serving to practically eliminate an “adverse event” reporting requirement and then point to a low number of “adverse events” as a justification for removing even more restrictions than were already omitted in 2000 and 2016. In other words, it is a predetermined conclusion in search of non-data — a database designed to produce a null set.

Lie #11: Abortion is “healthcare/medical”

Politicians and abortion proponents loyally use euphemisms like “abortion care” and refer to the abortion pill as “medical abortion.” “Abortion is healthcare…A medical decision…” declared JB Pritzker, governor of Illinois in a January press release. Of course, this language is dishonest. Abortion is the opposite of medicine.

Currently, Google flags videos on abortion with the following false “Context” statement:

An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed healthcare professional.

First, that the topic of abortion gets this special treatment by Google’s staff only adds to suspicion that corporations are compromised by the abortion industry. Secondly, Google’s statement is false because abortion never uses “medicine.” As we established, by definition, it’s false to call something medicine unless it’s end goal is to help correct something wrong with the body and pregnancy is not a disorder nor disease. Additionally, Google’s statement is false to claim abortion is done by a licensed healthcare professional, because abortion-backed politicians have changed laws in several states so a woman can obtain the abortion pill without ever seeing a doctor, leaving the woman to self-administer the abortion and deal with the aftermath at home.


Abortion is more akin to poison, which is medically defined as causing “structural or functional disturbance.” (See related article Birth Control is not medicine). In an abortion, the baby is terminated and the typical mother’s body, which was functioning correctly to sustain pregnancy, is artificially obstructed from that correct function.

Lie #12: Plan B is only contraceptive, not abortifacient

In December of 2022, the makers of Plan B One-Step lobbied the FDA to change its product label. The drug is colloquially known as the “morning after pill,” often taken by women seeking to prevent pregnancy after they have had intercourse.

Prior labeling admitted the pill could possibly work by preventing implantation after conception. This of course amounts to an abortion. The manufacturer lobbied the FDA in part because the change would make the drug easier to market:

[T]he applicant states… some consumers are hesitant to use a product that might affect postovulatory events, in particular implantation of the blastocyst. … The applicant asserts that updates to the labeling are needed to make the labeling more accurate, to reduce consumer confusion, and potentially to reduce barriers to use of the legally marketed approved product.

As you can see, the impetus for the label change was in part based on marketability. ABC News helped market that motive in a headline: “Plan B gets new label by FDA to clarify it doesn't cause abortion.”

The FDA ultimately made the following label edit (underline was added and strikethrough was removed):

Plan B One-Step® works before release of an egg from the ovary. As a result, Plan B One-Step® usually stops or delays release of the egg from the ovary. Plan B One-Step® is one tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B One Step® that contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills but and works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One Step may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb).

Notice, however, the added text says the drug “usually” or “mainly” stops egg release. If that’s the case, the labeling still accounts for prevented implantation without explicitly saying so, and abortion proponents in the media are deceiving the public.

Regarding levonorgestrel’s effect on the uterine lining, the FDA’s memorandum says a “totality of the evidence” suggests there is no affect on the uterine lining.

However, a 2016 study by Peck, et al, specifically reviewed the mechanism of action for levonorgestrel’s post-fertilization effect. It reviewed at least five other studies that claim levonorgestrel has no effect on the uterine lining. Essentially, these studies were not conclusive because they did not account for the entire range of time the drug was typically taken. Peck concluded:

What these studies can say is that LNG, when taken 5–6 days following fertilization at the moment of implantation, does not affect its evolution. But this is not the typical time when EC is usually administered.

Furthermore, a group in one study did show uterine alteration.

[T]he “histologically normal” endometria from Durand's 2001 Group D in fact showed decreased glycodelin-A, a necessary endometrial implantation molecule.

Additionally, whether the lining of the uterine wall is affected by levonorgestrel may be irrelevant. The Peck study describes another mechanism the drug may cause to prevent implantation after conception. It states:

The tubal transport mechanism is essential for carrying the embryo to the uterus, so that arrival occurs within the narrow implantation window (days 20 to 24).”

In other words, altering the uterine lining isn’t the only way to prevent implantation. If the embryo doesn’t get there in time, it won’t matter how compatible the uterine lining is during the implantation window. The study cites two other studies that suggest levonorgestrel slows the speed at which the embryo moves through the fallopian tube:

The tubal transport of embryos is slowed down by either mechanism, and this would have critical consequences on their nesting, as the narrow window might have been passed. This effect, coupled with the shortened luteal phase, as discussed in the next section, could preclude successful implantation.

In reviewing the data, Anthony Campagna, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist stated:

The takeaway is that LNG-EC can, despite what the updated labeling claims, impair the implantation of a human embryo in a number of ways.

Thus, although the FDA and manufacturer of Plan B One Step ignore data, the drug does have the potential to act as an abortifacient just as the original labelling specified.

Lie #13: Treatment for ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as an abortion

A corporate media columnist wrote of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision:

“Do I abort this ectopic pregnancy to literally save my life or do I go to jail?” Question women in America now have to ask.

There are a couple lies packed in this histrionic statement. The first lie is the insinuation that Dobbs banned abortion and will send a woman to jail for procuring one. Dobbs did no such thing, but rather referred the matter back to the states.

The second lie in the statement is suggesting treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is the same thing as an abortion. Dr. Christina Francis offered the following clarification:

The treatments for ectopic pregnancy are not the same procedures used by induced abortions, which even Planned Parenthood admits. As a pro-life OB/GYN who’s practiced my entire career in hospitals that do not allow abortions, I have never been prevented from safely treating an ectopic pregnancy. In the rare but tragic situations where a pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, there are medical procedures for compassionately separating the mother and her baby and working to save both lives.  The only intent of an abortion is to produce a dead baby.  Women deserve to be empowered by medically-accurate information.

Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, an OB/GYN, confirmed the nature of a life-saving procedure like ectopic pregnancy:

A procedure to save the life of the mother is not an abortion. Even though sometimes the child dies as a result of that procedure, the death of the child was not the intent.

A month after Dobbs, Planned Parenthood fostered the misinformation by removing the following sentence from it’s website: “Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion.”

Lie# 14: Abortion doesn’t cause depression/mental health problems

“It’s important for folks to know that abortion does not cause mental health problems,” said Debra Mollen, PhD, a professor of counseling psychology at Texas Woman’s University.

This assertion is false. A 2010 study, Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, states:

In fact 12–20% of women with an abortion history meet the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD with considerably higher percentages of women experiencing some trauma symptoms, while not meeting the full criteria. Even when the full criteria are not met, the more PTSD symptoms present, the greater the risk of psychological impairment and suicidal ideation.

A 2018 study, The abortion and mental health controversy, accounts for abortion proponents who wish to dismiss mental health issues associated with abortion as pre-existing conditions:

When interpreting the data, abortion and mental health proponents are inclined to emphasize risks associated with abortion, whereas abortion and mental health minimalists emphasize pre-existing risk factors as the primary explanation for the correlations with more negative outcomes. Still, both sides agree that (a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women…

Lie# 15: Abortion doesn’t increase risk of breast cancer

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) claim: “studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.”

However, their assertion does not account for dozens of studies that say otherwise. An amicus brief was submitted for Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). They note: 

Since 1957, at least 41 studies have shown a positive, statistically significant association between induced abortion and breast cancer. The reason for the association is straightforward given how the physiology of the breast changes during pregnancy.  Breast tissue mature enough to produce milk permanently resists cancer.  Abortion arrests growing breast tissue before it matures, trapping it in a cancer vulnerable state. 

The American College of Pediatricians, among other sources, describe the biology of why this happens. Essentially, lobules in the breast mature from type 1 and 2—which have more receptors that make them more prone to cancer, to type 3 and 4 after prolonged pregnancy—which have less receptors and are more immune to cancer:

The more receptors a cell has, the more responsive it will be to hormonal levels – and the more affected it is by carcinogens. …

After a full term pregnancy, Type 4 lobules predominate, with more fully differentiated (mature) cells and less stem cells, a decreased number of hormonal receptors, a slower DNA copying time, and a longer resting phase – all of which decrease the likelihood that breast cancer will develop in these lobules.

It is known that after a woman gives birth, with or without lactation (including when the baby is given up for adoption), the Type 4 lobules regress to Type 3, but importantly, via epigenetics, these cells maintain the genetic changes that protect them from susceptibility to cancer.

Lie #16: Partial birth abortions “don’t exist”

In January, the state of Minnesota, by a vote of 69-65, passed an unbridled abortion bill. Among amendments to the bill that were rejected was a ban on partial-birth abortions. Yet, Senator Alice Mann, who supported the abortion bill, claimed the idea of partial birth abortion was “literally making stuff up.” She continued: “A child doesn’t come out partway alive and doctors kill it. It’s not a thing. It’s not a thing today. It’s not a thing tomorrow. It’s not a thing ten years ago.” She added that politicians should not “legislate things that don't exist in real life.”

You might ask yourself why she would be so adamantly opposed to inclusion of an amendment that she claimed would have no effect on the bill. 

But, of course, her false claim is exposed by the existence of survivors of abortion. In the early 1980s, the CDC estimated up to 500 failed abortions per year resulted in live births. Cases have persisted into recent years. The “DC Five” babies discovered in 2022 are suspected of surviving botched abortions because of their late gestational size and autopsy roadblocks (see pictures and story at LiveAction). Abortionist Kermit Gosnell was found guilty to have murdered babies born alive, “breathing and moving” “by severing their spinal cords with scissors.” Abortionists admit how they kill a baby if born alive.

The Abortion Survivor Network estimates over 80,000 persons to have survived failed abortions since Roe vs. Wade. The network’s founder and director Melissa Ohden explained how most survived abortions occur:

[T]hey survive chemical abortions in the first trimester. They survive surgical abortions in the second trimester that may leave them with significant wounds found upon delivery, as was the case for survivor Hope Hoffman. They survive induction of labor in the third trimester with the intent that they won’t survive the preterm induction, or with the plan to leave the child to die if they do survive the delivery, as was the case with Sarah Zagorski and, sadly, as happened in the practice of the imprisoned Dr. Kermit Gosnell, where some babies were brutally killed by having their spinal cord “snipped.”


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 9, 2023

Think twice before saying "Those lies don't affect me"

Lack of critical thinking has led 21st century Westernism into one of history’s most barbaric and irrational societies.  How, one wonders, did a sizeable percent of the population come to lose the ability to distinguish something so basic as identifying a boy versus a girl? So far gone are some as to celebrate—much less turn a blind eye to—the mutilation of children, in and out of the womb, against every semblance of reason, science, or mite of common sense. And those in a position to stop it do not.

Revisit 1973. The legally and morally bankrupt Roe v. Wade decision asserted that a “person…does not include the unborn.” This was despite reason, the science of fetal development presented at that time, as well as the lack of legal grounds for Roe. Its reckless force was subsequently negated a half-century later at Dobbs. In mis-defining a person, Roe failed to account for the evidence, appealing instead to the behavior of more ancient generations when natal science was more obscure. Today, the science is even clearer as to the uniqueness and living quality of an individual person from the moment of conception. 

No industry is more dependent on lies than abortion. It is infected by a legion of dishonest euphemisms. Some acquiesced to its central lie that the unborn is not a life. Some did so under the pretense of it “not affecting” them. Many accepted the specious lie that abortion is “between a woman and her doctor” making a “medical” decision only about her. These lies before and since Roe have led to the bloody sacrifice of over 63 million innocent children and counting.

More recently, we saw the 2015 Obergefell decision, which redefined—without cause—marriage itself. The court incorrectly claimed that a “marriage” not only could occur between two people of the same sex but was “equal” to and the “same” as the marriage that occurs between a man and woman. The public was bullied or fooled into accepting the lie that a man could be swapped out for a woman and still have the “same” categorical arrangement. And, as with abortion, how many times did we hear someone justify their desire to go along with such an irrational idea by claiming the matter “did not affect them”? What two other people do is “their own business,” the masses said, oblivious to the Trojan Horse of malleable meaning they let through the door. 

The procession of the Trojan horse by Tieppolo
Detail from The Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, ca 1760 (Wikimedia Commons)
 

The devil’s table was set. The truth was up for grabs, insofar as the masses understood it. If the meaning of a person was changeable on a whim, or if the uniqueness of a man and woman was changeable on a whim, what other things could the world’s overlords “change” without cause? The public was already brainwashed into staying out of any such debate unless they perceived an immediate personal impact. They were brainwashed, not only to ignore any immediate immoral harm occurring among others, but to avoid thinking of any other variables or trajectories that changing unchangeable definitions would beget.

And here we are. 

  • Many today don’t know what a boy or girl is. A supreme court justice famously played along by pleading ignorance as to what is a woman during her confirmation hearings. To foster this confusion, the American Psychological Association redefined “Gender identity disorder” to “Gender dysphoria.” The redefinition “shifted the emphasis in treatment from fixing a disorder to resolving distress over a mismatch.” Victims of this often-learned confusion include small children who haven’t the intellectual nor biological foundation to know otherwise. And it is no secret how many children have been coerced with lies to mutilate themselves in the name of denying the reality before them. A landmark lawsuit is currently ongoing in Cole vs. Kaiser Permanente on the damages caused after doctors are said to have denied her parents the option to treat her condition as a mental disorder. Many who now regret “gender transitioning” surgeries have expressed lack of care by the medical industry. Calling a boy a girl, or vice versa, is not only wrong, it is 180 degrees wrong. It is maximum wrongness.  It is a fruit of dishonest redefinitioning.
  • On a related note, the American Psychological Association also recently published a “guideline” that redefined masculinity. Their statement declared that boys raised by fathers to be traditionally masculine were a threat to society. It referenced the disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by males in the context of “socialization practices that teach boys from an early age to be self-reliant, strong, and to minimize and manage their problems on their own.” However, as clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson observed:

“[I]t’s...a lie, scientifically... To indicate, as the writers have, that it is the socialization of boys and men by men that is producing both a decrement in the personal mental health of males and females and a threat to the social fabric is not only to get the facts wrong, but to get them wrong in a manner that is directly antithetical to the truth. ... [I]t is this simple fact that is absolutely damning to the claims in the APA document. What kind of families produce violent young men? Fatherless families. The pernicious effect of fatherlessness is exceptionally well-documented. … If it is fatherless boys who are violent, how can it be that masculine socialization produces harm both to mental health and society?”

  • In a more strictly political example, the current U.S. Administration declared redefined the criteria of a “recession.” A recession was previously known as two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product. Despite this having occurred after the second quarter of 2022, an Administration official denied that a recession had begun, manipulating voters into believing their finances were in better shape than they were.
  • In 2022, two South Carolina judges attempted to redefine terms for the medical industry by denying the existence of a “heartbeat” in the unborn at six weeks gestation. They are obviously wrong, as multiple peer-reviewed studies reveal a baby’s heartbeat scientifically observable at an average of 110 beats per minute at six weeks. The judges attempted to redefine this observable pulsating phenomenon as something different than a heartbeat. The goal was to sanitize the idea of an abortion. 
  • In December, a Virginia restaurant attempted to redefine, among other things, the concept of “safety.” The Family Foundation had booked a private room at the restaurant. Less than two hours before their reservation, the restaurant called to say the Family Foundation was not welcome to dine there. The restaurant apparently had discovered that the Foundation was pro-life and pro-marriage. In a statement to the media, the restaurant said they refused service to the Foundation because allowing them to eat there would make the restaurant workers “unsafe.” Of course, this assertion may be best described as a hallucination. Whatever imaginary threat the restaurant owners perceived did not actually exist. The bigotry in their reaction was amplified when they stated they prided themselves “on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in” while simultaneously refusing to serve food to pro-life, pro-marriage patrons. Injustice against pro-life, pro-marriage individuals was justified by “redefining” danger. Indifference to these sorts of lies places innocent persons at greater risk in society.

These are but a miniscule sample of the redefinitions inverting reality, imposed on the masses daily. 

In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nyssa pondered whether to remain silent in the face of lies. At first, he thought silence best. But, after discussion, he understood the injury that “succeeding” lies would cause:

I thought it right, indeed, in view of the continuous and varied effort of our enemies against us, to keep silence, and to receive their attack quietly, rather than to speak against men armed with falsehood, that most mischievous weapon, which sometimes drives its point even through truth. But you did well in urging me not to betray the truth, but to refute the slanderers, lest, by a success of falsehood against truth, many might be injured. (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity, ca 375 A.D.)

There is a devilish pressure to ignore societal lies on the grounds that they are someone else’s business. Yet lies unchecked are a virus. Lies beget lies. St. Paul warned about persistence in sin and how it leads to “greater and greater iniquity.” (Rom. 6:19) Endorsing lies is primarily an immorality and damages our very souls. For this reason alone, we should not accept them for ourselves nor others. As well, endorsing lies is also a blueprint for spreading more and more social sickness to every corner of the culture, from the elderly to the young to the unborn. We should not pretend lies as these are someone else’s business and do not affect us. Investment in lies as these have already produced untold poisonous returns to the masses.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

How does Pope Francis reconcile calling gay "marriage" as of the devil yet support civil unions?

Much ado is in the news again about Pope Francis and homosexuality. This time, the headlines from today read such as: Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance. 

THE BACKDROP
This story is at least 7 years old, however. It is apparently back in the news because a new documentary quotes him, apparently more recently, supporting civil unions. But, let's look at the backdrop. 

In March 2013, then-Cardinal Bergoglio was in the news because there was a push for gay "marriage" in Argentina. According to the New York Times, Bergoglio saw civil unions as some sort of concession to be supported to prevent the passage of a gay "marriage" bill:
Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.” 
–Cardinal Bergoglio, quoted in New York Times, March 13, 2013.
If this actually was and is Pope Francis's opinion, he reportedly thinks civil unions are "evil," but not as bad as gay "marriage." It is difficult to ascertain his opinion, however, because quotes from him are sparse, he is not known to issue clarifications, and the media doesn't push for clarification anyway. The Catholic News Agency reported in 2013 that the Pope supporting civil unions was false. 


2019 detail of photo of Pope Francis. Photo by В. Николов. Acquired from Wikimedia Commons.


Writing in 2010, Cardinal Bergoglio stated:
The Argentine people will face, in the coming weeks, a situation whose outcome may gravely injure the family. This refers to the project of the law regarding marriage of persons of the same sex. What is at stake here is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of so many children who will be discriminated against in advance, depriving them of the human maturation that God wanted to be given with a father and a mother. At stake is the outright rejection of the law of God, engraved also in our hearts. ... It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ''movement'' of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth. (Letter (PDF) from Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. to the Carmelite Nuns
of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, June 22, 2010)
In the context of that same chapter in Argentina, we have Bergoglio saying the movement for gay "marriage" is from the devil himself. That being the case, it's hard to reconcile why he would believe conceding to "civil unions" would be a better alternative than standing firm in the truth. The recklessness of that opinion would explain why he was overrulled by his fellow bishops at the time—the only time he was overruled as head of the Argentinian Bishops Conference, according to the NYT article.

THE NEW DOCUMENTARY
All that being said, the quote from the documentary does not appear to offer any mention of civil unions as a necessary "evil." Pope Francis is quoted to now say:
Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,. ... What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered ... I stood up for that.
If the Pope currently believes confirming people in a sinful arrangement is a virtuous solution, then he is obviously mistaken. That's like conceding to give porn to an addict so he still feels "part of the family" and isn't "miserable." There is a perverted notion about placing "welcomingness" or "accompaniment" above truth among some clergy in the Church today. This brand of welcoming is like the spider saying "Come into my parlor!" to the fly.

If, when the Pope refers to when he "stood up for that" is in context of the Argentinian gay "marriage" movement of the early 10s, he either forgot that he said civil unions were a "necessary evil," or the "necessary evil" quote was misrepresented by his biographer Rubin. Otherwise, the Pope recently saying "I stood up for that" could be referring to the early 10s incident. It is unclear. There is also no mention I've seen in today's stories that the Pope reiterated that gay "marriage" was a lie of the devil.

MAGISTERIUM
Supporting civil unions puts Pope Francis in opposition to magisterial texts on the matter. For example, speaking doctrinally and formally on this matter, the Church has stated:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. ... [It is] necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions..." 
(Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2003)
The document includes a variety of reasons why homosexual unions are to be opposed, including the natural law on which all morals are founded, and arguments addressing rational thought, the biological order, social order, and legal order.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Another matter comes from secularists as well as Pope Francis' more recent quote, such as "homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family...they're children of God..." etc. None of these assertions are disputed by supporters of marriage as between a man and woman. Supporters of true marriage actually agree with the notion that persons of homosexual disposition are children of God and belong in their families. But, to acknowledge that is a very different matter than whether same sex persons can "marry" or whether it's prudent to endorse some secular imitation of marriage in a "civil union." 

It's quite devious to imply that to love a person of homosexual disposition, one must confirm them in sin. But, to confirm someone in sin and lies is the exact opposite of love. Today's report on the Pope's words have resulted, again, in terrible scandal for the faithful. 

Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin summarized this sentiment today as well:
The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and must have their personal human rights and civil rights recognized and protected by law. However, the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible. (Bishop Thomas Tobin, statement on Pope Francis's recent comment on civil unions, Oct. 21, 2020)
Finally, the matter of papal infallibility inevitably comes up in these contexts. Secularists and heterodox Catholics grow zealous at the thought that Catholic dogma on homosexuality has "changed" because of the Pope's comments when it has not. Confusion has resulted from a Pope Francis story again. I received email notice of a statement from the Diocese of Rockford today, reading in part: 
The comments being reported by Pope Francis have not changed the teaching of the church in regard to the Sacrament of Marriage or the complementarity of men and women.
This matter does not remotely come close to being a statement under the charism of infallibility native to Pope Francis's office. The criteria for infallibility to occur (Vatican I, 4.4.9) includes that it is a matter of faith and morals, is stated as from the function of the chair of Peter, is for all of the faithful to hold as dogmatically true, and is defined.

The latest Pope quote from the documentary meets zero of those qualifications. Pope Francis's thoughts on this matter are his personal opinion.

EDIT 10/22/2020 to add: Additional clarification and thoughts have been provided in detail on this issue by Cardinal Raymond Burke.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Obergefell and legacies of lies

One of the big lies issued by the 2015 Supreme Court recognition of same-sex "marriage" is the following statement from the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. (Obergefell v. Hodges, IV)

Since the court's 5-4 ruling, we have seen multiple cases violating Justice Kennedy's "assurance." We have seen a county clerk imprisoned for refusing to issue gay "marriage" licenses despite conscious laws and the wide availability of licenses all over the state. A multitude of other cases include numerous lawsuits against bakers, photographers, caterers and more to compel them into labor for specific gay "marriage" ceremonies. Even a Catholic cemetery has faced legal issues for not submitting to the Obergefell plaintiffs' demands. 

Recently, another devious maneuver occurred during the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearings. 

Barrett's public history should be noted. Big media and leftist politicians have made much of Barrett's Catholicism—specifically, the Catholicism of one who is not known to trample Catholic teaching as many "Catholic" politicians or even clergy have. Thus, when convenient, the narrative attempts to convey that being truly Catholic somehow disqualifies one of judicial competence whereas someone irreligious is supposedly immune to biases. Now, I am not familiar enough with Barrett to know how much she adheres to Catholic teaching, but, for the purposes of this article, it is enough that her opponents perceive her as a traditional Catholic.

When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein famously opined:

"Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country."

This attitude is consistent in the trajectory of anti-Catholic and anti-traditional discrimination from before Obergefell to the current acceleration.

Yesterday, activists of gay "marriage" ideology took another dishonest step. During Barrett's confirmation hearing, she used the phrase "sexual preference" to refer to persons of homosexual attraction. Known for other anti-Catholic opinions, Senator Mazie Hirono scolded the nominee, claiming the term was "offensive and outdated"—an attitude, incidentally, true to the 21st century's toddler-esque immaturity and obsession with what is "offensive."

So, how "outdated" is the term "preference" when referring to homosexual attraction? When did the term fall out of form?

Yesterday.

That's right. One day ago. Observant Twitter users noticed that Webster's dictionary altered the definition of the word "preference" as "offensive" when Amy Coney Barrett used the term in the context of sexual attraction. The English language was retconned to accommodate a leftist accusation, to ex post facto paint Barrett as some sort of bigot.

Other Twitter users noted how homosexuality-focused publications such as The Advocate and Pink News used the phrase "sexual preference" in the same sense in their publications as recently as three weeks ago.

Webster's live manipulation of language is Orwellian, devious, and dishonest. And, so is the fake outrage of Senators such as Hirono who suddenly claim offense at this term once used by a Catholic primed to be in a position of judicial authority. The language manipulation is simply a lie. Such lies are the devil's offspring. And this has been the hallmark of Justice Kennedy's promise of "proper protection" to those who recognize male-female marriage. Even the Barrett "preference" incident came up in the context of a question about Obergefell. This all fit the same pattern: No one is to question homosexual activism's narrative.

And now, those who seek to persecute Catholics and traditionalists have announced that they are not beyond changing the definition of a word in the dictionary to persecute you. This is dystopian, something you would expect of a one-dimensional movie villain. This is a perverse version of the Emperor Has No Clothes and no one is supposed to notice the lie in front of them. 

The trajectory of villainy against Catholics and traditionalists will only get worst unless there is something to alter the current course.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Takeaways from Unplanned movie

One of the first sentiments I had after viewing the film Unplanned was the same as my opening remarks last October about the film Gosnell: the scariest moment perhaps "is when one realizes how protected the abortion industry is."

Let's review that and several other takeaways from the film. I will keep spoilers at a minimum.

Still from the movie Unplanned (2019). Obtained from unplannedfilm.com.

AN IMPORTANT FILM
Unplanned is an important insider look at the machinations of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry on which it thrives. The film is based on the actual life of Abby Johnson, whose name is very familiar to Catholics and the pro-life industry. Her perspective as an acclaimed and former director of Planned Parenthood has inspired many. The film's epilogue notes how Johnson's organization And Then There Were None has provided resources for and helped lead over 500 workers to discover the truth about Planned Parenthood and subsequently abandon it.

Planned Parenthood's business model is evident in the film. Abortions collect the largest margin of any product or "service" they offer. That means the difference in the amount an abortion costs them versus what they charge typically vulnerable women and girls is a larger dollar amount than anything else they offer. The description of this business model in the film is evidenced by the facts.

The film draws attention to Planned Parenthood publicly claiming they desire abortion to be "rare." Yet, as Abby Johnson and others have revealed, Planned Parenthood issues awards for increasing abortion productivity. This is hardly the organization's only lie.

Although the film does not delve into it, Planned Parenthood's long list of lies includes denial that they cover up child sex abuse, and denial that they sell baby body parts and have altered abortion procedures in order to procure specific parts.

The film does involve more than one bloody scene, including a dramatic abortion. The film received an R rating, which seems excessive, considering bloodier films without pro-life messages are given lesser ratings. However, the film's co-director Chuck Konzelman pointed out the irony of this rating, because "abortion is an act of extreme violence."

THE SEDUCTION OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S EUPHEMISMS
Another feature in the film worth mentioning are the several euphemisms and terms of snakery Planned Parenthood uses to disguise the truth.
  • "Planned Parenthood" - The very name of the organization itself belies the fact that abortion clients are already mothers. Its main product, abortion, and its other products like contraception, are designed to eliminate parenting. As some have noted, "unparenthood" more accurately describes their intentions.
  • "Anti-Choice" - As is often the case, including with a complicit media, the term "anti-choice" is used to describe pro-lifers who recognize the enwombed as a life. As Father Corapi often used to ask of the abortion industry's use of the word "choice": "Choose what?"
  • "Tissue" - The baby is referenced only as "tissue" that is not a baby "yet." In the film, we hear this used to convince a teen about the acceptability of having an abortion.
  • "Products of Conception" - A lesser known euphemism is the official term used by Planned Parenthood to refer to the remains of the aborted baby: "Products of Conception." In the P.O.C. room, pieces of the baby are "reassembled" and accounted for, so they can determine that they got the entire baby. As I said, the film is disturbing, but the information it reveals in this mass media format is important in combating the lies about the enwombed. Ancient Egypt wasn't the only sinful nation plagued with rivers of blood. 
  • "Reproductive Health" - Another phrase heard in the film and with frequency in media and from politicians is the term "reproductive health" to refer to the dismemberment or pulverizing of an enwombed baby. The reality is, a baby that would otherwise continue to live and grow, is terminated—the very antithesis of "health" and a diabolical lie.
  • "Her body" - Although the abortion industry has tried to sell the idea that abortion is ultimately about "her body," the nascent baby in the womb—left out of the abortion propagandist's equation—has his/her own unique DNA, distinct from the mother. Empirically and factually, the baby is not the mother's "body."
SIN IS BLINDING
For eight years Abby Johnson worked up close and personal with the abortion of some 22,000 babies.  She was also not stuck at Planned Parenthood against her will and had family that consistently encouraged her to leave. But all those euphemisms and all Planned Parenthood's talk about health for vulnerable women serves as a veil, a means by which to deflect the public's attention, to avoid asking the actual question—is the enwombed a life?

Still, we have seen in modern days those who admit that from the moment of conception, the enwombed is by all reasonable measure a human life. Their justification for abortion comes in the the illogical idea that the baby's value is dependent on the mother's desire. If a mother considers herself "not ready" to raise a child or doesn't want to be connected to the father anymore (as was described in the movie about Johnson), the baby's very life loses value. This is to treat a baby the same as any other commodity, where market demand determines value. In this case, the mother is the market. This relativistic and perverse mentality deprives human life of objective worth.

Johnson has spoken at length about the blindness of sin she incurred. One takeaway for our own lives is to be on guard for what ways we might be deluding ourselves, falling for some seductive sales pitch on a particular sin.

One of the sins to which Johnson was blinded in her youth was her having obtained two abortions herself. She suffered terribly from the second, yet still pursued a career fostering abortions. The film especially brings to light the lie especially underlying her second abortion. She had filed for divorce and discovered she was pregnant. She didn't want to be "connected" to that man anymore and the termination of the baby was a "fix" for that problem. Of course, she merely sacrificed her baby for that separation and took on a different cross, knowing she offered no fight for her own child's life and paid someone to end it. This is not an uncommon story. It underscores the importance of treating the conjugal act with the utmost sacredness, and should discourage anyone from engaging in casual sex, and certainly not commit to someone of questionable character which is more difficult to avoid when engaging in sex with that person. But modern phenomena like abortion and contraception imply that one needn't be as careful or choosy with a partner. It's another dimension of abortion's lies.

SOROS, GATES, AND BUFFET
The film mentions the type of powers that fund Planned Parenthood, explicitly naming George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. The support from these multi-billionaires for an organization consistently caught lying and disguising its depraved work goes a long way in explaining its continued existence.

Soros and Gates have given over a combined $32 million to Planned Parenthood in recent years, dwarfed only by Buffet, who issued the abortion provider a deluge of over $230 million. (see LifeSiteNews.) Incoming donations such as these as well as Planned Parenthood's outbound political donations are reasons why many have questioned their reception of taxpayer funds and non-profit status. Their legal intimidation, also shown in the film, are important facts to know when understanding the entity that is Planned Parenthood. With such a concentration of influence from just a few donors, one rightfully must question how much of the organization's survival is due to ideology and paid propaganda. This is especially a fair question when one considers the euphemisms, that Planned Parenthood uses language to describe what they do other than language that actually describes what they do.

Despite such colossal funding, Planned Parenthood still vies for public funds. Politicians who support them are not apt to reveal the flow of income they already enjoy from other sources. They typically hide behind miswordings like "health" to market things like abortion and contraception that are properly defined as non-medicine or poisons.

Such political and corporate funding could also explain why Planned Parenthood has been caught multiple times in outright lies yet fail to incur any consequence of significance. We are witnessing the undeniably naked emperor and are told to look the other way and deny it.

CATHOLIC ANGLE
The film seems to avoid Johnson's eventual conversion to Catholicism. It only mentions an earlier stage of her spiritual development when she attended a generally Christian service. There are shots of pro-lifers praying the rosary at times, but nothing overtly Catholic, even though that appears to be central in where Johnson is today. This might make the film more widely appealing to non-Catholics to support the pro-life movement, but it's worth noting that the whole story has a definite Catholic component.

Part of what I remember hearing about Johnson's exodus from Planned Parenthood was that one of the items she took with her when she left was a bowl full of Miraculous Medals left by pro-lifers. She had collected them over time. I think I might have seen a bowl on her desk late in the film that contained them, but it was hard to tell if that was an "Easter Egg" or just another prop. Perhaps a commenter can shed light. But, undoubtedly, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal lent her immaculate gaze to that day when Abby Johnson finally stood for innocent life in the womb.

TAKEAWAYS FROM UNPLANNED: BEHIND THE SCENES (added 3/29/2019)
Unplanned: Behind the Scenes is viewable over at Formed.org. There are a number of fascinating tidbits from this video and the phenomena behind the movie. But I'd like to focus on these three additional takeaways from this mini-film.

  • Providence. Lead actress Ashley Bratcher (whom was warned not to take the role because she would never find work again) discovered that her mother had almost aborted her after already having been post-abortive. Not only was abortion considered, but her mother was literally seconds away from permitting the deed against Ashley, having gone all the way to a "clinic," and was in the room for an abortion before she walked out. This story adds a providential mystique to the film and what it represents.
  • Opposition. Shawn Carney of 40 Days for Life made a prophetic statement which will undoubtedly come true. There will be critics of the film who will avoid confronting the truth it exposes by seeking refuge in more euphemisms, claiming the film is the "anti-Planned Parenthood movie, the anti-abortion movie, the anti-woman movie, the anti-fill-in-the-blank..."
  • Revelation. Writer/Director Cary Solomon told an interesting story about how his father had seen the movie and experienced a conversion on the matter of abortion. He quoted his father as saying, "You've shown us what we didn't want to see." The statement superbly summates the theme of the film, from the power Planned Parenthood wields, to the truth about abortion itself.



Further resources:

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)