John H Armstrong

The Case Against Planned Parenthood

I am radically, or so I believe, pro-life. I oppose the use of the death penalty (at least in our present unjust context) and I oppose our consistent unethical waging of warfare internationally. I also oppose the pro-death stance of the controversial organization Planned Parenthood. No matter how you frame it Planned Parenthood can no longer deny its massive involvement in abortion. Nor can it continue to deny, I believe, its financial irregularities and violations of both state and federal law.

Americans United for Life (AUL), a national pro-life organization, released a July 7 statement that opened up the strongest case against Planned Parenthood I’ve seen to this point in time. The statement is called: “The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood.” I encourage you to read this report whether you are pro-life or not. And even if Planned Parenthood does help many poor and needy people, which I think it clearly does do well in many instances, this case must not be swept under the proverbial rug of politics.

Planned Parenthood is a rabidly pro-abortion organization that uses $363 million in taxpayer money to operate. In 2009 alone Planned Parenthood reported performing 322,278 abortions! What is shocking is that in this same report, and this is their report, they gave prenatal care to 7,021 clients. They made 977 adoption referrals to outside agencies. That number is staggering if you are fair minded at all. Planned Parenthood is primarily about providing abortions with taxpayer money. AUL reports that at a minimum $114.9 million of Planned Parenthood’s reported income during 2009 came from abortion clinics.

A number of states have stripped funding from Planned Parenthood, including New Hampshire, South Dakota, North Carolina, Montana, Texas, Wisconsin, Kansas and New Jersey. These are not all red or blue states, which particularly interests me. The Obama administration is presently opposing the state of Indiana over what it believes to be a violation of Medicare’s provision that allows people to choose any qualified care provider.

What is interesting to me is the growing number of young people who see this for what it really is – a violation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and with public money! An increasing number of young people, most of whom are not Christians it would seem, say “Enough is enough.” I happen to be a boomer who agrees. And I am not a Right Wing nut case in saying so. This is a matter of public practice and public theology. As a follower of Jesus I care about human life, all of it. A society that cheapens life in a myriad of ways is one that will continue to move away from respect for people and freedom.

Why Are More and More People Pro-Life?

According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute 576 measures related to abortion have been introduced (in 2011) in 48 states. Most of these will never pass committee. Yet by early April, 142 abortion-related provisions had passed at least one chamber of a state legislature, compared with only 67 in 2009. More than half of these 142 bills introduced this year seek to restrict abortion access, compared with only 38 percent in 2010.

About 40 new anti-abortion laws were passed into law by mid-April. These include:

• expanding the waiting period requirement in South Dakota from 24 hours to 72 hours, and requiring women to visit a crisis pregnancy center in the interim.
• requiring a physician who performs an abortion in South Dakota to provide counseling on all risk factors related to abortion.
• allowing any hospital employee in Utah to refuse to "participate in any way" in an abortion.
• making it a felony in Arizona to perform or provide money for abortions sought because of a baby's race or sex.
• prohibiting insurance plans that participate in the state insurance exchange from including abortion coverage in Virginia, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
• prohibiting the abortion of a fetus capable of feeling pain in Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, and Oklahoma. The organization National Right to Life has even drafted a model bill for pro-life lawmakers to use.

Republican victories in the 2010 mid-term elections have led to much of this legislative success at the state level. The GOP took 29 governorships and 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This is one of the largest turnarounds in political history.

When the Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion in 2007 the effect was to say to states that they have the right to limit abortion. Pro-life advocates began to realize they had a new opportunity to introduce change and they acted quickly.

The Gallup polling on abortion didn’t begin until 1995. In 2010, 47 percent of Americans called themselves pro-life, while 45 percent identified themselves as pro-choice. This is the first majority for the pro-life movement since he polling began.

This pro-life advantage held through three different surveys, prompting Gallup to label it a "real change in public opinion," one that's showing itself at the polls as well.

Abortion rates peaked in 1990, with 1.4 million abortions performed that year, according to the CDC. Public support of abortion was also high in 1990, with 56 percent of Americans labeling themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup. Just 33 percent self-identified as pro-life 21 years ago.

When I read the evidence of this significant change in public opinion I had to ask why. I have yet to read a compelling answer, or answers, to my why question. While the pro-life movement is gaining in support over the last two decades the pro gay marriage agenda is increasingly gaining strength each year. This suggests, at least to my mind, that this pro-life change is more than a conservative political change that holds across the board. But why?

As much as I believe that same-sex marriage will be broadly harmful to families in general I am much more convinced that protecting human life is a deeper and more obvious culture-shaping moral issue. I know this opinion is controversial. But remember, in the case of abortion a human life is taken, even if it is an unborn human life. In the case of legalizing homosexual partnerships/marriage a moral sin is committed by consenting adults but this choice does not rise to the level of taking a human life who is defenseless and has no choice. Our government was established to provide for life, liberty and the freedom to pursue one’s dreams (i.e., the pursuit of happiness). Taking an innocent human life seems to violate the very founding principles of our government. Thus the moral distinction I make seems warranted by both our Constitution and Christian public theology. 

Coming Out, Coming Home

I wrote a blog on January 16 titled: “A Conference on Faith and Sexuality.” It was about a local Saturday seminar on same-sex relationships and the church. The host church, Gary Memorial Methodist Church in Wheaton, invited four speakers to give biblical and theological presentations. The speakers clearly held different perspectives. The last of the four speakers was Christopher Yuan. I was moved to my depths by the story Chris told of a life of homosexual practice and drug dealing. After three years in prison, an HIV-positive blood test result, and an obvious conversion to Christ, Chris entered into a new Christian lifestyle.

Now you can read Chris’ moving account of this conversion in his new book, Out of a Far Country (Waterbrook Press, 2011), which comes out May 3. The story is told by both Chris and his mother Angela. The foreword to their new book is written by Kay Warren.

Chris is one of two sons of Chinese immigrants. His father, as my father was in his professional career, is a dentist. Angela assisted Dr. Yuan in his practice. Chris’ dad had a nominal Catholic background but Angela was an atheist. Chris was raised in a context without the church or any real expressions of faith. At an early age Chris discovered that he had an attraction to other boys. He tried dating girls but still felt strongly attracted to guys. His mother was, in her own testimony, what we rightly call a “controlling mom.” The more she tried to control her own life, and that of her son Chris, the worse things got. Then Chris came home from dental school in Louisville, Kentucky, and “came out of the closet” about his sexuality. Prepared by his homosexual friends for total rejection this is what he got so he stormed away from his family looking for love, acceptance and a new family identity in the gay community. Angela’s life then spiraled out of control even more then ever once she began to deal with her feelings about her husband and her son. She determined to take her own life in her despair. In his mercy God intervened and Angela became a devout follower of Jesus as Lord. She had a lot of things that needed changing. She began to absorb the Scriptures and grow in God’s grace. Her marriage was turned around, hope became her spiritual strength and Chris became the focus of her regular prayer and fasting times alone.

Hearing this story from the perspective of a heart-broken mother, and a rebellious son who finally came home to Christ, makes this one of the most unique accounts of a prodigal’s conversion that I’ve read in a modern account. I would not hesitate to give this book to parents or even to older (young adolescent) children. Some may question the wisdom of older children, say 12 or 13, reading a book like this but this is a book that explains how sexuality identity can destroy lives. And it explains how God’s grace puts them back together again. It is not so much a book about homosexuality, as such, but a testimony that homosexual advocates should be encouraged to read since the story truly rises above the various debates and takes the reader into two human hearts longing for God and his glory above the clamor of modern disagreement.

Does Chris have a view about homosexual identity? Yes, and it seems that he accepts the fact that he has homosexual desires regardless of how this happened. (He doesn’t address the debates about how a person becomes homosexual, simply saying he was drawn to boys and men.)

Does Chris have a view about homosexual practice? Yes, he does. He shares it in only a few pages without the typical polemical rhetoric. He tells of searching the Bible soon after his conversion asking “How should I now live?” He began with the feeling that it would be pleasing to God for him to remain a practicing homosexual and a follower of Christ. He ends, without telling you all the turns in the road, saying he came to believe that he was called to a higher standard of sexual purity thus he should stop practicing same-sex intercourse. This has led him to become a celibate in the years that followed his conversion. He says nothing about desiring marriage, about changing his sexual identity per se, etc. What makes his story so compelling to me is that he never engages in attacks on other views and people but very simply allows his story to stand for what it is, the story of a remarkably changed man. The reader can judge what they will about Chris and his life but you can be sure of this – he is a man who knows who he is in Christ and is clearly following holiness as he understands it in Scripture. Honestly, this makes the book unique since it is a story, not a biblical defense or apologetic in the normal sense of these terms.

Chris and Angela cast an extremely compelling vision of God’s love, God’s grace and God’s holiness. Their book really speaks to prodigals of all kinds and to the parents of prodigals. And yes, it speaks to those who want to minister to the gay community in a way that is not based on rancorous polemical stereotypes and arguments.

After attending Moody Bible Institute Chris did an M.A. in biblical exegesis at Wheaton College Graduate School, as a Charles Colson Scholar. (This is a program designed for ex-convicts). He is currently pursuing a doctor of ministry at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul (MN) and is teaching at Moody Bible Institute. He also travels with his mom speaking to churches, conferences and youth groups about God’s desire for all prodigals to come home to him.

I recently had lunch with Chris and can tell you he is the real person this story presents him to be I love him as a brother and friend and hope you will read his story and pray for both Chris and Angela. You can follow Chris on his blog. If you need a powerful speaker on the themes addressed in this book he is a great choice. You can see his amazing story, from Saddleback Church, on YouTube.

Abortion, Social Justice and Young Christians

I applaud the rise of social justice Christianity, at least up to a certain point. Some of this movement is a politically left response to the political right. This always causes me to pause and look for the holes in the argument, of which I see a number. When the point becomes the politics of left or right then I have my serious doubts about its value or real effectiveness. We are charged, very clearly, to love justice and mercy. We are also called to live out the faith in the public square. This means we cannot be silent about concerns that are on God’s mind. I believe these include life and freedom at the top of the list.

In my recent work in the Read the Bible in 90 Days program I have been in the prophets of the Old Testament the last week or more. Their message is strong and deeply convicting. My friend Anthony Bradley raises some really good questions about the pro-life issue and the role younger “missional” Christians have taken in remaining outside the political part of this struggle to save lives, especially in urban New York City where Dr. Bradley lives.

I am not sure that Anthony has written the definitive response to this point but he should be heard and his views discussed and debated. I wonder what you think about his reasoning. A good number of comments can be found on the World Magazine page where his article appears. There you can see how some have already responded to this article. Insightful agreement and disagreement is welcome here too.

50 Millions Lives Wasted

The National Right to Life calculates that 50 million abortions have been performed in America since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. 38 years and 50 millions deaths. That is staggering to me. 50 millions human fetuses have been denied their most basic right, “the right to life.”

For those who do not know the history of this decision the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that something like the “right to privacy” meant the right of a mother to choose to kill her unborn child. But what is even more striking is that this right still allows unborn children to be killed who are viable outside the womb. How anyone with a moral conscience can support that kind of reasoning is still beyond me. I realize the debate comes down to the issue of when human life begins. At the same time how can anyone with a conscience not protest that a life that could survive outside the womb is being taken in the late second trimester (and all the third trimester) thus clearly a viable human person is being killed?

Congressman Paul Broun, a medical doctor from Georgia’s 10th District, reintroduced the Sanctity of Human Life Act, HR 212, on January 7th this year. This bill says, “human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.” I agree with this definition based on my reading of the Holy Scriptures and my understanding of ancient Christian faith.

Congressman Broun, in a statement issued, said: “I am committed to ensuring that not one tax dollar is used to fund abortion, but that is not enough. God cannot continue to bless America while we are killing 4,000 babies every day. This atrocity must end . . .”

I have friends on both sides of this debate. I hate the debate itself but I refuse to run away from it given the consequences of our moral actions. In fact, I feel much more strongly about the government’s role in protecting life than in keeping marriage between one man and one woman. (Read that again and read it very carefully, please!) When we destroy human life as an everyday practice we cheapen every life in the process. When we become apathetic to life we grow weary of all that really matters in human flourishing.

Can we count on members of Congress to protect human life in other forms, elderly or infirm, if they will not protect the innocent and unborn? If there is no standard for human life what standard really matters?

I am personally grateful that pro-life people have shifted the nature of their protest over recent years. I think the confrontations in front of abortion clinics are extremely unhelpful on the whole. But praying and quietly asking God for mercy is appropriate and measured. This struggle is political but it is much more about moral issues that transcend politics. If enough people believed that human life was sacred, and should be legally protected, then the law would change. The numbers say the majority of Americans are, by an ever so slight majority, pro-life. But the majority is doing very little to translate this into action. I fear for us as a people if we continue to cheapen life in general and take human life in such a wide scale manner.

Pam Chose Life: The Tim Tebow Pro-Life Story

The following letter appeared in my box this week. I think it implores those who value unborn life to respond. I did. I hope you will too.

Dear Friends,

Once again our values are under intense attack from radical liberal feminists. Only this time they are venturing where they never should have gone.

Football. And not just any football game. The Super Bowl.

This week, the liberal feminist organization, National Organization for Women (NOW), launched an all-out effort attacking a pro-life ad that will be in the Super Bowl commercial line-up. The ad, produced by our good friends at Focus on the Family, tells the story of Pam Tebow's decision to continue with her pregnancy against her doctor's advice and give birth to the Heisman trophy winning Florida Gator Quarterback, Tim Tebow.

NOW's call to take this advertisement off the air is their attempt at shutting down the Christian witness of Tim Tebow and his mother. Standing by their convictions, the Tebows made this ad to share their experience of accepting God's plan for their lives and experiencing the ultimate gift of Life.

Shouldn't the "pro-choice" position respect Pam Tebow's decision to choose Life and then tell others about that choice? What is the worst case scenario in allowing this ad to air? Women are exposed to an example of sacrifice for the sake of an unborn child.

The fact of the matter here is that they are attacking more than just Tim Tebow and his mother for having the courage of their convictions to share the positive message of Life—they are attacking you and me, and the values we stand for.

We can't allow this to go unanswered. When someone this prominent is willing to put himself out there with a positive message about Life, we need to support him.

Click here and go to our page, where you can send your name and a message of encouragement to Tim Tebow and his family.

Let's show Tim Tebow that the pro-life movement is standing behind him and thank him for sharing his mom's beautiful testimony on choosing Life.

God bless,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

Secularization and the Role of Religion in Public Life

The controversy rages throughout the West. Does religion have a role to play in secular culture? Or should it be marginalized to a place safely outside the public square? So far as I can tell this controversy began in the 1960s but it is rooted in debates that are centuries old now. Europe and America are not the same in this regard but both face the same essential challenges. America still has a far more vibrant Christian presence than Europe so the issue here is still more openly addressed. This debate can be seen on a routine basis in American culture. Consider the recent flap about Brit Hume suggesting that Tiger Woods could find real peace and help if he turned to Jesus Christ in faith. If Hume had suggested that Tiger try some form of therapy or humanistic self-help the flap would never have taken on wings. But he specifically suggested Tiger could find real help in Jesus. The pundits went crazy. It would be hilarious if it didn't underscore once again the deep rift that has formed over the past fifty years.

The almost complete dismissal of religious faith, particularly the Christian faith, from public life has strongly characterized our time in history. This leaves people feeling disconsolate. The market, and consumption, have filled the role religion once held. While the market is not itself a bad thing, actually it is quite the opposite in principle, it can only meet superficial needs. The needs the market can meet are important. This is why the rise of economic earning power in China and India excites me profoundly. Having seen that these two countries first-hand I can now easily see the rising opportunities they are given by these economic gains. The free market still beats the alternatives hands down.

I am reminded of a conversation with a leading emergent writer several years ago. He had spoken about the need to address poverty and human misery in Africa. I asked him what system of economic and business thought could best lift Africa? He said, "Some form of the free market." Only a dyed-in-the-wool socialist would disagree. But I reminded him that what we needed was a free market with morality, a free market in a context where religion played an important role in forming the soul of those who prospered. We need markets but we also need morality. Part of what broke down in the last twenty years was the presence of morality in the marketplace. This opened the door to a host of major problems that now require new regulations. We have regulations because we lack morality. But we also have them because we still have a basic morality that promotes the need for them. 

The consumer market can only meet certain needs. As important as these needs are they remain superficial in a real sense. The market, without faith, leaves a giant hole in the soul. The more we are able to have the more we come to realize that we lack the things that money cannot buy. For this reason a deep longing for faith has not died out in the West.

But should we keep religion completely out of politics? The answer depends to some extent on how we define religion. True religion cannot be excluded from everyday life thus it will always engage public life in some way. And public life will always involve religious faith in addressing things like diplomacy, economics and military decision making. Now religious faith is a primary factor in almost every part of the world scene. Some Americans might find this "unenlightened" approach too much to handle but I suggest it will not go away so easily.

Cardinal Schornborn, whom I quoted yesterday, suggests that we can only approach this issue from the perspective of the two-thousand year history of Christianity's actual experience with politics. We have seen more than a few failures thus we need to humbly learn from these. He suggests that we ought to be cautious about judgments regarding other religions. The Cardinal references the biblical incident where the Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus with a question about paying taxes to Caesar to make his point. Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and said, in effect, you do your own business with this money and stop putting your trick questions to me. In effect, and this is really good, he said to them, "You agree to the compromises that are necessary in life" (p. 68).

But beyond the "compromises" that are normal and sometimes necessary in everyday life there are profound influences that shape life in society and these will always involve religious faith. Cardinal Schonbron rightly concludes: "There is the clear distinction between the profane and the spiritual, between religion and politics." Yes, there really is a "clear distinction." The problem I see right now is that so few, either left or right politically, see this distinction or talk about it nearly enough. The real answers will not be found in the writings and speeches of the secular, anti-religious left. But neither will they be found in those who want to promote an intolerant form of religious faith, a kind of religious fundamentalism. This includes the fundamentalism of the media-driven secular faith. We need to be far more humble about our own history while at the same time we recognize that our public life is inherently religious in ways that require us to speak up and to influence community practice in healthy ways. One obvious example is the pro-life movement, which some people support on totally non-religious grounds. People of faith have a moral duty to defend life and the helpless and weakest among us should get the first priority by any reasonable ethical standard. Pro-life means more than saving unborn children but it always starts here. When people talk about this issue and do not faithfully pursue the politics of their talk I am unimpressed and unmoved by their talk. Talk is cheap and in this case very cheap if not pure manipulation.

Will the Health-Care Bill Include the Pro-Abortion Provisions Advocated by the President?

It seems that many younger Christians who supported the election of Barack Obama do not really believe that President Obama is radically pro-choice. I hear various Christians say they are pro-life but I hear none defend the president on this critical point. I have said this several times, and demonstrated it time after time after time on this blog, but this president is doing more to promote abortion than any previous president in U. S. history. While the view of the president on this issue will not ultimately alter legal abortion (only a deep change in the view of the people will finally do this and there is growing evidence that this is slowly happening) the president's view will, and does, impact lives each day. His view on this issue already has impacted lives and has plainly allowed for more abortions. He has promoted federal support for abortion and new ways of funding abortion. Upon entering office he undid a number of hard-fought restrictions on abortion and now he is slowly chipping away at the federal guidelines that have limited abortion. I think it is clear that the president, and most of the members of his party, want to do away with the Hyde Amendment and want to make sure abortion can be accessible at every stage of human development in the womb right up to birth. The version of health care legislation that he will likely sign is just one more step in his relentless effort to make abortion as easy and as fully government-funded as possible. (The content of the article I have linked here is taken from the comments of Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), a pro-life Democrat!) Again, the silence of Christians on this issue, at least among those who supported Obama, is not surprising to me personally. His view cannot be morally defended on any reasonable grounds so silence is all that is left to thoughtful pro-life people who did vote for him. He says that he wants to see fewer abortions but no one should believe that he is politically serious about this claim when his actions prove the exact opposite.

Why Did Senator Ben Nelson Cave In to the Pro-Choice Pressure?

I originally wrote this blog on December 19. At the time I first wrote Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was refusing to support the senate version of health-care reform because of its openly pro-choice stance. I wrote, on December 19, that there are "very few politicians that I actually admire." Like many Americans I see so few of them who have genuine "integrity." Most are overly and overtly "ambitious." (See blogs from the past two days, December 21-22) Further, I think that very little is actually changed by politicians in the end. Both culture and community are changed much more by good and godly people, than by governments. If we lose our way as a nation it will not be because of what happens in Congress. We can survive some bad decisions by Congress, we cannot survive becoming a coarse and bad people.

I was reminded of this issue of integrity during the ongoing health care debate over the past few weeks. Most everyone knows by now that the lone hold-out among Democrats in the Senate was Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The party leaders tried everything they knew to get his vote. Senator Lieberman (elected as an Independent) and Senator Nelson stood their ground against immense pressure for many weeks. But the pressure seems to have finally worked and a so-called compromise was reached on Saturday. The problem is that Senator Nelson now tells us that this compromise is acceptable and that his pro-life stance is resolute. The facts are clearly otherwise. He has to know this so I had to change my mind about Senator Nelson. Now I see him as lacking in courage and willing to sell his vote. (If you read what he got for his state in the "deal" it is downright disgusting!)

Why did Nelson stand so strongly against this bill in the first place? He said, before he changed his stance on Saturday: "Without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient." The second-term Nebraskan has opposed abortion and will consistently refused to surrender his integrity to any pressure regarding this moral issue. He wanted tighter restrictions written into any health care reform. The fierce attacks on Nelson began immediately. He stood strong for a long time. But when it was announced he was OK with the revisions I grew suspicious and began to dig into the story.

Make no mistake about this. The number one social priority of the Obama administration, and the leading Democrats in the Congress, is to pass health care during this term. Even though a new poll says 34% of Americans want the bill that is before the Senate we are now likely to get it anyway. There is much to like in all this reform effort and there is, as always, much to question, especially in terms of where the money would come from to pay for it and how the government would actually administer it. I have tried to follow this debate with an open mind. Health care is a mess and it really does need serious change. Almost everyone agrees. The nature of getting a bill passed is always one that involves compromise. But to compromise on a moral issue was supposed to not be an option for Ben Nelson. Think of this for a moment. His whole party opposed him, or at least all of it in the Senate. The party itself sold out to the pro-choice lobbies and abortion forces in the 1970s and will not change until courageous leaders, one of which I hoped would be Nelson, stand firm and seek to bring about change through educated opposition. We needed Democrats like Nelson. Sadly, I praised Nelson on December 19 but now I stand in utter and complete disappointment in the shameless way that he was pressured and then changed his mind.

When it comes to legally protecting unborn life there is no room for compromise if you believe the weakest among us are routinely killed. I will say it and realize in saying it that some will take offense: Any new legislation that makes it more likely, and thus more easy, to slaughter unborn children should be opposed by all who call Christ Lord. We should thank God for every legislator who stands for unborn life and let them know that we are praying for them to maintain integrity to the end. Some things are more important than health-care reform. This is one of them. I had hoped that Senator Nelson would have stood his ground. I do now know what pressure he actually faced but it had to be intense. Sadly, he gave in and the lives of many more of the unborn will now be lost because he did. I am not his judge but his compromise is all too obvious to those who are deeply pro-life.

Let me explain. I received an M. A. in 1973. The commencement address was given by Dr. C. Everett Koop. He told the graduates that they now became the first class to enter the "brave new world." He challenged us to stand out and stand up for life. I took the challenge and began to educate myself on this issue. I have not stopped and will not stop for the rest of my life. I am politically interested in a wide array of issues but no issue motivates me like this one. Why you may ask? Because no issue more underscores the basic moral direction of a people than life itself. If we refuse to stand for human life (in the womb and out) then we have taken a step toward the darkness. I know this offends some but it is simply the way I see it. I am called to be "light" in a dark world and this is the light God has given to me to carry. This is non-negotiable for me personally and I am amazed at how many Christians think otherwise. I do not condemn those who disagree with me but I oppose them on this point and will continue to do so. I do not think this is bigotry but faithfulness to truth and life in my time on the stage of human history.

If you question my general interpretation about Nelson or President Obama's actions then you should visit the very reliable pro-life news source on the Web: LifeNews.com. Life News will keep you informed. Sign up for their emails too.

Life News recently gave a summary of the Obama administration's track record on abortion. It is grim and it is very consistent. I do not judge his heart, no one can or should. I can judge his actions on life and I must. Here is the bleak record. He is plainly the most active pro-choice president we have ever elected regardless of what he says in his eloquently written comments about this issue in his books and sundry writings.

President Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The following is a compilation of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions.

During the Election Season

Obama selected pro-abortion Sen. Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate.

Post-Election / Pre-Inauguration

November 5, 2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 19, 2008 - Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 20, 2008 - Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnsen to serve as a member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.

November 24, 2008 - Obama appoints Ellen Moran, the former director of the pro-abortion group Emily's List as his White House communications director. Emily's List only supported candidates who favored taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.

November 24, 2008 - Obama puts former Emily's List board member Melody Barnes in place as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.

November 30, 2008 - Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.

December 10, 2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne Lambrew to become the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood is "excited" about the selection.

December 10, 2008 - Obama transition team publishes memo from dozens of pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they want him to take.

Pro-Abortion Presidential Record - 2009

January 5, 2009 - Obama picks pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as the chairman of the Democratic Party.

January 6, 2009 - Obama chooses Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.

January 22, 2009 - Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.

January 23, 2009 - Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decision to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.

January 26, 2009 - Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James B. Steinberg, tells members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions. Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.

January 29, 2009 - President Obama nominates pro-abortion David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General.

February 12, 2009 - Obama nominates pro-abortion Elena Kagan to serve as Solicitor General.

February 27, 2009 - Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.

February 28, 2009 - Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.

March 5, 2009 - The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.

March 9, 2009 - President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

March 10, 2009 - Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women's issues. He names Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate, to occupy the post.

March 10, 2009 - Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.

March 11, 2009 - Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama's director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.

March 11, 2009 - Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.

March 11, 2009 - Obama administration officials deny negative effects of abortion at United Nation's meeting.

March 17, 2009 - President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

March 26 - President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

April 7 - The Vatican has rejected three Obama ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortions.

April 7 - Obama has named pro-abortion law professor Harold Hongju Koh as the top lawyer for the State Department.

April 7 - Put more abortion advocates on his White House advisory council for faith-based issues.

April 8 - Obama nominee for assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, Ron Weich, is pro-abortion.

April 14 - Obama administration releases document that claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism.

April 17 - Obama administration releases the proposed guidelines that implement his decision to allow taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life.

April 23 - Refused to appeal a ruling requiring the FDA to allow 17-year-old girls to purchase the morning after pill without either a doctor visit or parental involvement beforehand.

April 27 - Obama's women's ambassador Melanne Verveer touted Obama's decision to send $50 million to the United Nation's Population Fund.

May 5 - Details emerge about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack Obama put together in March. The Domestic Extremism Lexicon calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions.

May 8 - President Obama releases a new budget that allows the Legal Services Corporation to use tax dollars to pay for pro-abortion litigation.

May 8 - President Obama's new budget calls for taxpayer funded abortions in the nation's capital.

May 8 - President Obama's budget eliminates all federal funding for abstinence-only education.

May 15 - Appointed pro-abortion New York City health commissioner Thomas Frieden as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

May 17 - During his commencement speech at Notre Dame, Obama deceived listeners into thinking he wants a conscience clause, promoted embryonic stem cell research and misstated his pro-abortion record.

May 26 - Appoints appeals court judge Sonia Sonotmayor as a Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor agrees that the courts should make policy, such as the Roe v. Wade case. Sotomayor is later opposed by pro-life groups and supported by pro-abortion groups and those who know her say she will support abortion on the high court.

July 2- Calls for an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nation's meeting.

July 7- The Obama administration admits it ignored the majority of Americans who opposed the proposed guidelines that would implement Obama's decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research.

July 14 - Obama science czar nominee John Holdren is revealed to have written before that he favors forced abortions.

July 30 - Awards several pro-abortion activists with the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

July 31 - Tells the National Institutes of Health to adopt rules that allow embryonic stem cell research.

August 4 - Information becomes public that Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, supports rationing health care for disabled Americans that could lead to euthanasia.

August 6 - Obama criticized for asking for people to "snitch" on groups and people who oppose the pro-abortion health care bills in Congress.

August 13 - Obama wrongly said a senator backed the pro-euthanasia components of the health care bill.

August 23 - Said pro-life advocates were making "phony claims" about the health care bills. Also said the claims were false.

August 24 - Releases veterans guide promoting euthanasia.

September 13 - Misleads on the federal conscience clause in a health care speech and misleads on abortion funding.

September 13 - Obama waits two days to comment on shooting of pro-life advocate whereas he commented immediately on shooting of abortion practitioner.

September 15 - Senate confirms Obama's new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, who is pro-abortion.

October 5 - Selected pro-abortion lawyer and Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum for the EEOC.

October 5 - Announces he will give the keynote speech for pro-abortion group Human Rights Campaign.

October 19 - Obama's serve.gov web site promotes the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

October 21 - Obama administration web site promotes pro-abortion health care bills.

November 6 - Endorsed the House version of the health care bill that, at the time, contained massive abortion funding, rationing and assisted suicide promotion.

November 26 - Copies Thanksgiving proclamation of President Bush but leaves out pro-life message.

December 2 - Authorized taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research that kills days-old unborn children.

December 3 - A pro-abortion Obama judicial pick, Louis Butler, is approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

December 7 - Announces his endorsement of the pro-abortion Senate health care bill.

December 16 - Obama administration forces Americans a second time to spend millions more on embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.

December 17 - Signed a bill that overturned the 13-year-long ban on funding abortions with tax dollars in the nation's capital.

What Happens When an Abortion Provider Has a Change of Heart?

The story of Abby Johnson (photo at left) moves me very profoundly. Abby, the director of Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas, for the last two years, resigned on October 6.  Abby realized that she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure. She said: "I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it.”

Abby Johnson reveals that under difficult economic pressures, brought on by the recent recession, the business model of Planned Parenthood has changed from promoting prevention to encouraging abortion. Johnson says she was being encouraged to bring in more women for abortions because that is where the money is.

Does anyone really want to argue that money doesn't drives the abortion industry as much as any single issue? Sure there are people who really believe in abortion as “choice” but the industry itself is money-based and money-driven. Abby Johnson is now an embarrassment to the pro-choice movement and their response to her has been very swift.

But why did Abby walk away? An Episcopalian, she says her decision was based upon her change of mind about the abortion procedure itself: "I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt. I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."

Johnson now supports the Coalition for Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood in Bryan. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition's executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood. Last Friday, October 30, both Johnson and the Coalition for Life were issued temporary restraining orders filed by Planned Parenthood. Rochelle Tafolla, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson issued the following statement: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary." The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information. The local television news report about Abby Johnson and Planned Parenthood is available here.

I read this story with profound gratitude for the courage and witness of Abby Johnson. I also prayed for her as my sister in Christ. I then wondered, “What would happen if there were a thousand Abby Johnson's who came to the same conclusion and their stories were to hit the media over the next three months?” Don’t tell me it can not happen. With God all things are possible. I believe that we should pray that Abby’s witness remains strong and that a host of similar people take the same stand under the mighty power of the Holy Spirit. I think there are enough Christians inside the abortion industry that if they were to go down the same road as Abby changes would be immediate and amazing. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?"