The Pro-Life Legacy of Norma McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

Jane Roe did not live out her life by the script.

As the “Roe” of the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, she would have been expected to be a staunch pro-choice advocate for the rest of her life.

She wasn’t.

Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, died Saturday in Texas of a heart ailment. She was 69.

In an ad from 2008, as the Catholic News Agency noted, McCorvey detailed her change of views on abortion after she became a Christian in the mid-1990s.

“Upon knowing God, I realized that my case, which legalized abortion on demand, was the biggest mistake of my life,” she said.

“You see, abortion has eliminated 50 million innocent babies in the U.S. alone since 1973. Abortion scars an untold number of post-abortive mothers and fathers and families, too.”

It wasn’t the first time she’d spoken about her pro-life perspective.

“I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America,” McCorvey said in testimony in 2005 before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation.”

She detailed her journey over the years from abortion advocate to pro-life activist in that testimony, in which she mentioned the baby she ultimately chose not to abort:

I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort. I was actually silent about my role in abortion for many years and did not speak out at all. Then, in the 1980s, in order to justify my own conduct, with many conflicting emotions, I did come forward publicly to support Roe v. Wade. …

Then around 1992, I began to work in abortion clinics. Like most Americans, including many of you senators, I had no actual experience with abortion until that point. When I began to work in the abortion clinics, I became even more emotionally confused and conflicted between what my conscience knew to be evil, and what the judges, my mind and my need for money were telling me was OK. I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying?

Even Sen. Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by The New York Times to finally admit ‘that abortion is a sad, even tragic choice for many, many women.’ Actually it is a tragic choice for every child that is killed and every woman and man who participates in killing their own child, whether they know it at the time or not. Many women will be in denial and even pro-choice for years like I was.

But participating in the murder of your own child will eat away at your conscience forever if you do not take steps to cleanse your conscience, which I will discuss later.

I saw the baby parts, which are a horrible sight to see, but I urge everyone who supports abortion to look at the bodies to face the truth of what they support. I saw filthy conditions in abortion clinics even when ‘Roe’ was supposed to clean up ‘back alley’ abortions. I saw the low regard for women from abortion doctors.

My conscience was bothering me more and more, causing me to drink more and more and more. If you are trapped in wrongdoing then all you can do is justify and defend your actions, but the pain gets worse and worse, so I drank a lot to kill the pain.

Finally, in 1995, a pro-life organization moved its offices right next door to the abortion clinic where I was working. I acted hatefully towards those people. But those people acted lovingly to me most of the time. One man did angrily accuse me at one point of being responsible for killing 40 million babies, but he later came to me and apologized for his words and said they were not motivated by love. The answer to the abortion problem is forgiveness, repentance, and love.

McCorvey was, to understate it, an unlikely pro-life activist.

But her own conversion on abortion gives hope that other Americans will follow in her footsteps. (For more from the author of “The Pro-Life Legacy of Norma McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Obama’s Last-Minute Abortion Extortion Is on the Congressional Chopping Block

The U.S. House of Representatives sent a loud and resounding rebuke this week to a last-minute Obama abortion rule that forced states to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

H.J. Res. 43, a congressional resolution “[p]roviding for congressional disapproval” of a rule dealing with funding of abortion providers under Title X passed in the lower chamber by a vote of 229-188. It would overturn an 11th-hour Obama rule that created a major roadblock for GOP promises to strip Planned Parenthood of taxpayer dollars.

The lame-duck policy issued in mid-December equated to a “parting gift” to the abortion industry and “was in keeping with his Administration’s actions over the last eight years,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

“Planned Parenthood which, according to their latest annual report, performed 323,999 abortions in a single year, does not need or deserve taxpayer dollars,” Dannenfelser added. “Obama’s legacy of forcing Americans to finance the abortion industry is being steadily dismantled by our new pro-life President and the pro-life Congress.”

Under the pro-abortion extortion policy, every state receiving Title X funding is subject to losing those monies if their legislatures dared redirect public funds away from abortion clinics in any form or fashion.

“It’s scandalous for taxpayers to fund a private organization that performs a procedure regarded as murder by half the country.” wrote Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz of the rule in December.

“Even those who call themselves ‘pro-choice’ should at least respect the moral issues involved to the point that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund it … To now take this immorality a step further and block individual states from cutting off state funding is beneath contempt.”

According to recent statistics, Planned Parenthood shows that it and its affiliates receive over half a billion taxpayer dollars annually, while providing over 300,000 abortions and spending tens of millions on pro-abortion political causes.

Meanwhile, public funding of abortion at the federal level remains up in the air, as the Republican Congress — elected on an extremely pro-life platform — gears up for a budget fight. Despite the promises, congressional conservatives are concerned that it might not happen anytime soon.

“We’re also hearing that the defund Planned Parenthood language may not stay in” the upcoming budget bill, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio (A, 96%) recently told CNN. A congressional aide also told the outlet that, as legislators work out the details of the spending package, such language “would be one of the first things to go.” (For more from the author of “Obama’s Last-Minute Abortion Extortion Is on the Congressional Chopping Block” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Book Detailing the Story of Infamous Abortionist Left off New York Times Best-Seller List

A popular book chronicling the story of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted for murdering several infants, was left off of The New York Times best-seller list.

Since its release on Jan. 24, “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer” quickly reached Amazon’s best-seller list, but was left off The New York Times’ hardcover nonfiction best-seller list.

It should have been the “fourth best-selling nonfiction title,” according to a press release by Regnery Publishing, the book’s publisher.


“Gosnell” authors Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer covered the detailed story of the prolific abortion doctor and convicted murderer. The book includes an exposé of Gosnell’s practices, including a description of “his collection of severed baby feet and heads in his basement,” according to the Conservative Book Club.

According to Publishers Weekly, McElhinney and McAleer’s book was the ninth best-selling on the hardcover nonfiction best-seller list last week, and currently sits at No. 22 on the list.

When released, the book quickly sold out at both Amazon and Barnes & Noble and reached the top spot on Amazon’s “Hot New Release” list on the first day of its release.

“This book rose to No. 4 on Amazon without any coverage from the mainstream media,” McAleer told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “The irony is that the book is about how the mainstream media refused to cover Gosnell’s murder trial. And even today, they’re still being shamefully dishonest.”

McElhinney and McAleer recently spoke at a Heritage Foundation event about their decision to write the book and produce a movie about Gosnell.

McAleer said that if the book had been published on the best-seller list, it would have been the first time the book was even mentioned by The New York Times.

“New York Times readers would’ve said, ‘What’s this book I’ve never heard of?’” McAleer said.

The book, however, is listed at No. 13 on the Feb. 12 edition of The New York Times’ combined print and e-book nonfiction list, Danielle Rhoades Ha, New York Times vice president of communications, told The Daily Signal in an email last week.

According to Rhoades Ha, the list was manufactured based on “confidential” sales records provided by retailers.

“The Times’s best-seller lists are based on a detailed analysis of book sales from a wide range of retailers who provide us with specific and confidential context of their sales each week,” she said. “These standards are applied consistently, across the board in order to provide Times readers our best assessment of what books are the most broadly popular at that time.”

This is not the first time The New York Times has snubbed a conservative author, according to NewsBusters.

“The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech,” written by a Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kimberley Strassel was left off of the top 20 hardcover best-seller list when it was released in June 2016, despite selling more copies than some of the books on the list.

Similar instances have occurred to other conservative authors, including Dinesh D’Souza, Ted Cruz, and David Limbaugh, according to NewsBusters. (For more from the author of “Book Detailing the Story of Infamous Abortionist Left off New York Times Best-Seller List” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

8567828196_810cd563d5_b (2)

Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump and Abortion

Wine, as it ages, becomes sweeter and more flavorful, as we all know. In our own memories, the past also has that ability. It appears to be hard-wired into human nature. Think about your own childhood. The events that most of us choose to remember, especially involving other people, are usually good. I see this at reunions. I look at a person that I did not necessarily like, but give them a hug and recall only the good things about them. It’s sincere, a sort of “forgive-and-forget”. If this is part of our human nature, we can thank God.

But “We learn from History that Man does not learn from History.” Maybe that is the bad side to this. So, let us make an honest assessment of that supposedly prolife icon, Ronald Reagan, regarding the abortion issue.

That Reagan’s rhetoric uplifted and gave legitimacy to the prolife movement is perhaps his greatest legacy. He is the only sitting president, to my knowledge, who wrote a book, entitled Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. He took advice in writing it, but Pat Buchanan says it is entirely Reagan’s work, and came from the heart.

His record as governor of California was not good, signing liberal abortion statutes into law in the 60s. He disowned those actions forthrightly as he campaigned in 1980, and prolifers flocked to him — naively expecting that Roe v. Wade might be overturned under a Reagan presidency.

Then came Reagan’s chance to demonstrate his commitment with a supreme court vacancy. He made history by nominating … Sandra Day O’Connor, whose record on the issue was terrible, a sort of Arizona Goldwater conservative, who detested socialism but thought abortion on demand all nine months of pregnancy was just fine. At the time, there was a breathless shock throughout the prolife movement, and conservative columnists called the O’Connor appointment a betrayal. Why pander to your political enemies, who will not support you, anyway?

O’Connor won the appointment, then shocked everyone in the first abortion-related decision she had the chance to rule upon, by stating “Roe v. Wade is … unworkable…” and “… is on a collision course with itself.” Reagan was suddenly redeemed, and the thought was, at the time, that he had pulled a brilliant fast one on the abortion promotion crowd.

But O’Connor proved to be malleable, and her legacy will live on as a justice who held the line on Roe, especially with the absurd Casey decision of 1992, when the supreme court declared itself to be an interested party in maintaining Roe, so that, basically, it would not lose face as an institution!

It is true, Reagan nominated Scalia and Bork, but also gave us Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote that kept Roe intact. Bork was defeated without a strong Reagan defense and Scalia’s brilliance never changed the balance of the court. While the Roe majority was whittled away, it was never killed. The prolife chant, “7-2, 6-3, 5-4!” has been frozen now for decades.

Donald Trump, whose prolife bona fides are recent and questionable, appears to be a better instrument in this kulturkampf over western civilization’s future. He has come to power by defying and ignoring the zeitgeist of socialism, liberalism and feminism, is far from a perfect role model, yet appears to understand which side his bread is buttered.

But, constitutional ignorance still reigns supreme. The courts are not the only way to intercept Roe. Yet, I recall with searing accuracy Reagan’s press conference reply: “Well, my oath of office requires that I enforce all supreme court decisions. Even those I disagree with.”

It must be proclaimed that this is utter nonsense. A quick reading of the Federalist Papers shows the promise that the courts provided merely opinions, while the executive has the power of enforcement, was lost on the Reagan White House.

Or, maybe they wanted it kept on the QT.

And, then there is Congressional authority over the court, with Article III, Section 2: a prolife Congressional majority could, immediately, remove the courts from abortion and all other troublesome social issues, and return them where they belong: a matter of states’ rights.

Nullification is being used, right now, over federal marijuana laws. Prolifers need to put pressure on not only their local legislators, but also Congressional representatives to remind them of all this.

And it is my guess that Donald Trump, who is obviously no constitutional scholar, would actually do it if it was explained to him. Like St. George, he is not going to tip-toe about in the dark like a frightened child, afraid of the Dragon, but may instead find the courage to slay it.

Let us pray!

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Videos Reveal That Often, Ultrasounds at Planned Parenthood Are Only for Abortions

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards likes to claim that the major abortion provider is also a leader in women’s health and prenatal care services. New videos released by Live Action News tell a different story, The Federalist reported Tuesday.

The videos are a part of an investigation by Live Action News called Planned Parenthood: The Abortion Corporation, and specifically focus on the use of ultrasound machines in Planned Parenthood facilities.

Not for Prenatal Care

One video shows women calling or visiting 68 (out of approximately 650) Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide to ask about ultrasound services. In all but three instances, the Planned Parenthood representatives said they only use ultrasound machines for abortions.

“We don’t do any ultrasounds for prenatal — for prenatal care,” a representative from the Planned Parenthood facility in Council Bluffs, Iowa, said. “We do them when we’re doing abortions but not for any other reason.”

“That’s [abortion] the only service that we do,” a representative in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said. “We don’t do any prenatal care or adoption here.”

Two former Planned Parenthood managers confirmed what the undercover recordings exposed.

One, Sue Thayer, told Live Action News President and pro-life activist Lila Rose that ultrasound machines were originally brought into the facility where she worked for the purpose of performing “webcam abortions.”

“If Planned Parenthood is really about choice, they would show women the ultrasound,” Thayer said. “And they don’t.” Monitors on the ultrasound machines are turned away from the mothers, and pictures of the unborn babies are never printed, she said.

Planned Parenthood is currently fighting GOP lawmakers to continue receiving taxpayer funding. As part of the effort to defund the abortion giant, protests and rallies will take place Saturday, February 11 at Planned Parenthood locations nationwide. (For more from the author of “Videos Reveal That Often, Ultrasounds at Planned Parenthood Are Only for Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Question the Left Won’t Answer on Abortion

If there weren’t, well, lives at stake, Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell’s dodging of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson’s questions about whether abortion was the taking of a human life would be comical.

Just check out how often Swalwell (who is, of course, from California) dodged it in an appearance Tuesday night (transcript omits some cross chatter):

Carlson: Do you think it is the taking of a human life, abortion?

Swalwell: I think that, right now … before viability, a woman should be able to make her own decision. After viability, in the case of her own psychological health, in the case of rape or incest, she should also be able to make that decision.

Carlson: OK, but is it the taking of a human life?

Swalwell: That is a woman’s personal decision.

Carlson: OK, but what do you think? I’m not asking about the decision, I mean is it human life or not?

Swalwell: She’s terminating something that she does not want, and that’s her own choice.

Carlson: OK, but do you think it’s human life?

Swalwell: Do I think—I think, at viability, a baby … should be decided by the woman. She’s the one who has to have it.

Carlson: You brought it up, that’s why I’m pressing you, but do you think, before viability, it’s a human life or something else?

Swalwell: I think it’s not viable yet, Tucker, and courts have decided this and it’s a woman’s decision.

Carlson: You’re not going to answer my question, now or ever I suspect, but you should because it’s a basic question I think.

This is … a muddled mess of illogical thinking.

And it really gets to the gist of the abortion debate, which is this: Is the unborn baby human or not, and if not human, at what point does she become human?

Because after all, if the baby isn’t human, it’s irrelevant if women want to have abortions, just as it’s irrelevant if they want to remove tumors or a few cells or have any other number of medical procedures.

But if the baby is human … it’s horrifying that our society wouldn’t protect her life, just because she’s in a vulnerable, dependent position.

Yet this is the question over and over again that the left won’t deal with.

Maybe they won’t deal with it because it threatens their current abortion policies. After all, it’s risible to argue that a full-term baby isn’t human in the womb, and yet acquires humanity passing through the birth canal.

Yet our current laws act like that is the case. Right now, the United States is one of only seven countries in the entire world that allows abortion on demand after 20 weeks.

As President Donald Trump— who pledged during his campaign to make the late-term abortion ban the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act law—bluntly put it in one of his debates with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.”

Incidentally, that’s not a position that aligns with most Americans’ viewpoints: A mere 27 percent of Americans think that abortion should be allowed beyond the first three months, outside of rape/incest/life-of-the-mother situations, according to a January Marist poll sponsored by the Catholic organization Knights of Columbus.

It’s not surprising that Americans aren’t comfortable with abortion during all nine months. The increasingly prevalence of ultrasounds has made seeing unborn babies much more vivid than it was in decades past.

And the age at which unborn babies are viable is steadily lowering: In 2011, a baby born at 21 weeks survived in Germany, according to Time.

There’s no doubt that women who face unexpected pregnancies, particularly women in difficult circumstances, have a tough situation. There’s much as a culture that we can—and should—do to help support these women, whether it’s helping them financially or emotionally or in other ways. Thankfully, there are private organizations across the country that do just that—and deserve our support.

It’s irrelevant what the courts think about when life becomes human. It’s irrelevant what abortion activists think about when life becomes human.

What is relevant is science—which tells us that an unborn child has her own unique DNA at the moment of conception.

If Swalwell doesn’t think unborn babies are human, he should say that (and be ready to explain why having your own unique DNA and being able to grow into an adult human aren’t signs of being human).

But if he does think that unborn babies are human or are human at the time they are viable, he should realize it’s time to demand justice for those babies and their right to life, no matter how tragic the circumstances in which their lives began.

Nor is it just Swalwell who refuses to take this question seriously. When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked a similar line of questions in 2015, she refused to answer:

CNS News: In reference to funding for Planned Parenthood: Is an unborn baby with a human heart and a human liver a human being?

Pelosi: Why don’t you take your ideological questions—I don’t, I don’t have—

CNS News: If it’s not a human being, what species is it?

Pelosi: No, listen, I want to say something to you. I don’t know who you are and you’re welcome to be here, freedom of this press. I am a devout practicing Catholic, a mother of five children. When my baby was born, my fifth child, my oldest child was six years old. I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect.

CNS News: So it’s not a human being, then?

Pelosi: And I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is that we do here.

If you’re going to make public policy about who lives and dies, it’s relevant who is human and who’s not. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be something many on the left agree with. (For more from the author of “The Question the Left Won’t Answer on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

90382198_e68854aff2_b (1)

Yes, America, the March for Life Is Still Relevant 44 Years After Roe v. Wade

Of the hundreds of babies callously murdered over the course of years in a flea-bitten torture chamber in west Philadelphia, only seven – identified only by letters of the alphabet – made it to the courtroom.

Alongside their evidence was that of slain Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan, who had died in the same filthy “health clinic” run by mass-murderer and late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

While Washington, D.C., just hosted its 44th March for Life on Friday, those still confused or on the fence about the cause for which so many turn up in the annual pilgrimage might want to turn their attention to “Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer” from Regnery Publishing, a new book by documentarians Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney about these atrocities and Gosnell’s criminal trial that followed.

This the latest product of an investigative project that began with a 2014 crowdfunding campaign to raise money for a movie about Gosnell. The film, which will feature Dean Cain as Detective James Woods, is currently seeking a distributor.

The filmmakers recently told The Christian Post that the reason they opted for both a book and film was that some of the material was far too gruesome for the screen.

“After we decided to make the movie we went to Philadelphia and started interviewing people, and we bought the trial transcripts and started going through them,” McElhinney told CP’s Brandon Showalter. “But we thought, people didn’t know them. And the stories should still be told.”

And the stories are brutal.

Page after page, the story delves into excruciating and heart-rending detail about the horrors woman and child alike endured at Gosnell’s macabre hellhole.

One section of the book outlines in a painful, rhythmic list what befell each of the seven babies for whose murders Gosnell was charged. Per The Daily Signal:

Baby boy A was born and murdered on the same day – July 12, 2008. He was so large, even in a clinic where late abortions were not unusual, that two clinic employees snapped pictures of him on their cell phones …

Baby E was the baby that cried – the one that [one employee] said “sounded like a little alien …”

After baby F jerked its leg to its chest, Gosnell cut its neck with scissors.

Baby G breathed. Gosnell snipped its neck.

The stories go on, each more devastating and horrific than the last, outlining decades of ghoulish gore on unsuspecting women and their helpless, innocent children.

But yet, all of this, all of it … ALL OF IT … went ignored by government authorities for years thanks in large part to the pro-abortion politics of officials like former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge and others.

In the process of writing the book, the atrocities McAleer and McElhinney uncovered actually converted the latter to the pro-life cause, she explains at The Daily Signal.

“I never trusted or liked pro-life activists,” McElhinney writes. “Even at college I thought them too earnest and too religious. I thought the shocking images they showed were manipulative.”

“Reading the testimony and sifting through the evidence in the case in the research for this book and for writing the script of the movie has been brutal. I have wept at my computer. I have said the Our Father sitting at my desk,” she adds. “I am no holy roller—I hadn’t prayed in years—but at times when I was confronted with the worst of this story I didn’t know what else to do.”

For those still confused about why so many people would drive or fly across the country to walk in the cold, rain, and/or snow year after year, this is why. You can attribute malice and misogyny; you can rail against some Marxist concept of a “patriarchy” or old-world theocracy. But none of this is correct.

The people who marched Friday, who come to the National Mall every January are out there for babies A through G — for the women harmed and scarred by the yet uncovered Kermit Gosnells out there. And yes, they’re out there for the children who may had their lives snuffed out more sterile environments, but had them snuffed out nonetheless.

They are why we march. (For more from the author of “Yes, America, the March for Life Is Still Relevant 44 Years After Roe v. Wade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Abortion Survivor Tells Her Story in New Book

You Carried Me: A Daughter’s Memoir is an extraordinary tale of survival and transformation. At 14, Melissa (Cross) Ohden discovered that when she first left the womb people were disappointed to see her alive. Her cries were evidence that the late term saline abortion — where a doctor poisons the amniotic fluid in order to chemically burn the child inside and out — had failed.

Melissa first dealt with this shocking past by turning to “the unholy trinity” of bulimia, alcohol and sex. Today, though, her strength comes from faith in the true Trinity and she is a wife and mother who has made hers a public face for the preborn.

In the book, Ohden chronicles the search for her roots, a journey which brought her eye to eye with the people of her past, people who like her were wounded by the reality of abortion.

Search and Discovery

What her adoptive parents had long kept hidden came to light when Melissa’s older sister faced a crisis pregnancy of her own. In an effort to save their grandchild, they told their troubled daughter about her sister’s circumstances. That decision to embrace the truth helped to save the life of Ohden’s preborn nephew and set Ohden on a path that would help to save many more.

Nevertheless, it first prompted a deep struggle as the teen went from believing that her biological family had made a loving decision to realizing, instead, that she carried the genes of those who wished her dead. Yet, when Ohden found her birthmother years later, she found another victim — a teenager pressed into an abortion that she never wanted and long unaware that her baby had survived.

This almost unbelievable drama is told with raw honesty and detailed documentation. The story twists but ultimately turns in the direction of grace and reconciliation. Now, Ohden heads up the Abortion Survivors Network through which she has connected with over 200 people who can tell a similar tale. These survivors stand as signposts to the always present humanity of the preborn.

Going Public

The decision to go public with her story was not an easy one, though. Surprisingly, the catalyst was a trip to an abortion clinic — as a customer.

“You should be here, not there.” Melissa Ohden heard those words from a pro-life sidewalk counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Ignorant of the other services provided at this heavily fortified compound, she had come as a married woman to refill her birth control prescription, not to get an abortion. But she had just surprised even herself by telling the man with the rosary in his hand that she was an abortion survivor, and then Ohden’s heart told her that, yes, she should be with them.

That was her last visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic. Since then, she has shared her story with thousands and on January 27th, she will appear before tens of thousands more on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. at the March for Life.

Ohden’s is a song that should be heard by more than just the pro-life choir. Indeed, in many ways, she could have blended easily into the crowd at the recent Women’s March on Washington. Ohden put a Masters in Social Work into practice at a state agency assisting victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence and knew the struggles of a working mom. In the pages of her book, Ohden also notes her early admiration for Hillary Clinton and quotes approvingly from the likes of liberal favorites Joseph Campbell, Alice Walker and Arianna Huffington. The first time she shared her story publicly it was under the auspices of Feminists for Life.

Today, however, the left increasingly defends the boundaries of feminism with the litmus test of abortion rights. Ohden may not get past those gatekeepers. (Her Capitol Hill testimony against Planned Parenthood probably guarantees it.) She recently lamented that the media regularly “silences stories like mine.”

The NPR interviews may never come, but her story is a powerful one, powerfully told. It reads like a detective novel but its truth will elicit tears of sadness and joy. You Carried Me deserves to be carried wide and far. (For more from the author of “Abortion Survivor Tells Her Story in New Book” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


When Pro-Abortion Sentiments Trump Science and Common Sense

There is a reason why many women contemplating abortion decide not to abort when they see an ultrasound of their baby. There is no denying the humanity of this tiny creature, which is anything but a clump of cells.

As the baby grows in the womb and is seen by ultrasound imaging, it’s common to hear parents exclaim, “Look at those little hands! Look at that adorable nose (it looks like Grandpa’s nose, doesn’t it?)! And look — it’s a girl! (Or, It’s a boy!)”

How amazing it is to see the ultrasound of your baby, especially when it’s your first child. Not surprisingly, both of our daughters, now in their late 30s, had the identical reaction when they saw the ultrasounds of their first babies: How could anyone abort their child?

It is for good reason that pro-abortion legislators fight against laws that would require abortion clinics to show an ultrasound of the baby prior to the decision to abort. They know it would be bad for business (plus, they argue, it adds to the inconvenience of the mother wanting to dispose of the contents of her womb).

It is hard to deny the personhood of the fetus when you see an ultrasound, which is why, during last year’s Super Bowl, Dorito’s incurred the wrath of NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) when it aired an innocent, light-hearted, commercial featuring a very pregnant woman, her husband, and an ultrasound of their baby. According to NARAL, Dorito’s had committed the cardinal sin of “humanizing fetuses.” Oh, the very thought of it!

But there is something even worse than that Dorito’s ad. According to a bizarre article in The Atlantic, pro-life groups are being devious and deceptive when they use ultrasounds to convince women that their babies are human. How low will these pro-lifers go?

The Atlantic’s Ultrasound Deniers

The article, written by Moira Weigel and posted on Tuesday, was originally titled “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus Is a Person” with the subtitle, “The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.” (Its current title is, “How Ultrasound Became Political.” The subtitle remains the same.)

Weigel’s article, which was marred by embarrassing errors (as pointed out by Alexandra DeSanctis on the National Review), not to mention being marred by bizarre claims, denied the reality (and significance) of fetal heartbeats as early as five or six weeks old, downplayed the evidence of ultrasounds and claimed that — gasp! — the pro-life movement was yet another example of patriarchal overreach. Yes, the science of “ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” Those dastardly, duplicitous males! They are at it once again.

For good reason Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote that, “Moira Weigel took a sledgehammer to basic science and then did her best to vacuum its brains out before anyone could figure out what just happened.” The title of his article was as accurate as it was snarky: “Abortion Science: Heartbeats Are Imaginary, Unborn Babies Aren’t Alive, And Ultrasounds Are Just Tools Of The Patriarchy.”

Further underscoring the absurdity of Weigel’s article was this tweet from Denise Russell, which Davis reproduced: “Before ultrasounds, a woman had to wait until delivery to find out if she was getting a puppy, a goat, or a human.” How did we forget that?

Responding to the Republican-led effort to pass the “Heartbeat Bill,” which would prohibit doctors from aborting a baby if a heartbeat was detected (in the words of its sponsor, Congressman Steve King, “If a heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected”), Weigel asks, “What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?”

Her answer to these questions can be summed up, respectively, in three words, “Nothing” and “It doesn’t.”

The Heartbeat of a Child

Forget the fact that doctors check the baby’s heartbeat during each pre-natal visit, since this is an indicator of health, or the fact that they carefully monitor the baby’s heartbeat during delivery to be sure the child is OK. And forget the fact that doctors look for a pulse to see if someone is still living or the fact that a person is declared dead when their heart stops beating for good.

No. When it comes to abortion, all those facts conveniently disappear, and the heartbeat of that tiny pre-born child is of no significance at all. Indeed, Weigel opines, “Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a ‘fetus’ until nine weeks into pregnancy.” (I must be getting old, but somehow, I don’t recall my wife, Nancy, saying to me decades ago, “Honey, I just got the test results back and I have a rapidly dividing cell mass inside of me!”)

But it is not just fetal heartbeats which have no meaning for Weigel. Ultrasounds also have no meaning for her since … well, since she’s doesn’t believe they should. (If you think I’m exaggerating, read her article.) She notes that posting pictures of ultrasounds on social media has “heightened the social reality of the unborn,” as if this was somehow a bad, misleading thing.

And she points to an American couple who “posted a video of their sonogram fast-forwarded so that their fetus appeared to be clapping in time as they sang, ‘When You’re Happy and You Know It Clap Your Hands.’” The implication is that because the video was sped up, giving the false impression that the baby was clapping to the beat, that the more basic impression was also false, namely that there was a little human being in that mother’s womb who was putting its two little hands together. Pretty good for a clump of cells and a mass of tissue!

Although Weigel cites those who claim that pregnant women who see their ultrasounds are less likely to abort, she disputes these claims, pointing to a “2014 study published by the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which drew on the medical records of nearly 16,000 women seeking abortions” and “found that viewing an ultrasound had a negligible impact on whether they decided to proceed.”

Other studies I have read have come to very different conclusions (see here, for examples), and a pro-life ministry that offers ultrasounds to women considering abortion has also seen tremendous results. But I doubt that all the studies in the world would convince Weigel right now, since her objections seem to be based on ideology more than science. As observed by Alexandra DeSanctis, “The reason that progressives such as Weigel denounce ultrasound technology is … because they want to continue denying the humanity of the unborn child, a humanity that is undeniable whether or not the mother wants the child.”

Yes, “Pro-life activists and parents who want to keep their unborn children will acknowledge this humanity. We all know it. Abortionists know it. Mothers aborting their babies know it. Planned Parenthood executives know it. Perhaps many are able to dull their consciences and convince themselves that it’s “just a clump of cells.” But deep down, they must know. We all do. And that’s why the Left has to work so hard to deny it.”

And the harder the Left works to deny the humanity of the unborn child, the more it exposes its moral and scientific bankruptcy. In that regard, Weigel’s article does a great service to the pro-life cause, and for that, we should be glad. Truth is sweeping away the lies. (For more from the author of “When Pro-Abortion Sentiments Trump Science and Common Sense” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Portraits of children from africa

‘America First’ Donald Trump Acts to Save Nonwhite, Foreign Babies

It might seem counterintuitive: One of President Donald Trump’s first actions in office, on the Monday morning after he was inaugurated, was to act in defense of foreigners — most of them yellow, black, or brown. As LifeSiteNews reports, President Trump

signed an executive order today reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” banning government funding of foreign pro-abortion groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

A cultural political football, the policy was first enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and was maintained by President George H.W. Bush until it was rescinded first by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993. Eight years later, President George W. Bush reinstated Mexico City and it was in effect until Barack Obama reversed it upon entering office in 2009.

The Mexico City Policy bans funding to organizations that perform abortions overseas or lobby for legalizing them in foreign nations.

“But wait,” some liberal might say, as he peels off his vaginal protest hat. “I thought that Trump was for America First. If he thinks that fetuses are human, wouldn’t he first act to protect some American ones?”

The Civil Rights Movement for Unborn Americans

The obvious answer is that Trump doesn’t have the executive power to protect unborn children in the United States. That will take a complex series of courageous political actions, from choosing the right judges to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court to doing whatever it takes — including trashing the Senate filibuster — to get each of them confirmed. We will need to throw all our political support behind each of those necessary actions.

After that, we will have to battle in each of the 50 states to pass the most protective laws that we can. A federal law protecting unborn children seems unlikely to pass, and would be difficult to enforce in places where the Culture of Death is deeply embedded. (Just check the map of counties that voted for Hillary Clinton.)

As the Civil Rights movement worked incrementally, pro-lifers want to pass the most protective enforceable laws that are politically possible at any given moment, while constantly pushing the envelope to protect even more Americans. The example of Prohibition reminds us of the drawbacks of imposing on a large and diverse country the norms of a narrow majority. It doesn’t last.

First, Kill No Foreigners

But there’s something deeper going on here. Yes, it’s true that this America-First president who has been smeared as a white racialist wants to protect non-white foreign children from U.S.-taxpayer subsidized violence. If that’s really surprising to anyone, it’s because that person has guzzled fake news and hysterical slander for so long that he thinks it’s a pumpkin latte.

A proper nationalism — for which the best word is patriotism — begins by accepting limits.

There are limits to U.S. borders: We don’t want to conquer the world.

There are limits to the vigor of Anglo-American culture: We cannot assimilate limitless numbers of immigrants all at once.

There are limits to our influence: We can’t remake the political cultures and defang the hostile religions of every nation across the earth.

The foreign policy that comes with healthy patriotism is traditionally called “Realism.” It accepts the fact that in a fallen world with tragic limits, we Americans are also fallen and limited. We must tend the flame of Liberty here at home, and cheer on others who wish to light it on their shores. But we won’t descend with fire and sword to set the world ablaze, as a past Republican president once recklessly promised the planet. As surviving Iraqi Christians would tell us, we might well do more harm than good.

Realism starts with the Hippocratic principle: First, do no harm. So it is only right and just that a Trump administration begin by cutting off U.S.-funded aggression against unborn children around the world.

Who Wants to Abort More Africans and Bolivians?

There are a few groups that are deeply unhappy with Trump’s decision:

White racists (like those at Radix magazine) who want to see non-white kids aborted, both here and in America.

Population cranks (like Paul Ehrlich) who want to see as many kids of any color aborted everywhere as soon as possible.

Radical feminists who believe that unborn children are the moral equivalent of fibroid tumors, who want the U.S. government to impose that superstition on foreign countries (from Ireland to the Philippines) where the majority disagrees.

Leftists at the Sierra Club, who are worried about population growth in the U.S. They think it’s immoral to stop foreigners from crossing U.S. borders, but moral to stop them from having children back at home.

Elitists in every country who crave control over the child-rearing choices of the poor, who for decades have threatened the weakest people on earth with cutting off food and medical aid, if they didn’t stop having children. From forced sterilization in India to forced abortion in China, the track record of global “population” activists makes the worst of European colonialism seem positively benevolent.

Dark warnings from elitists at the Rockefeller Foundation and similar groups that population growth (here and abroad) threatened America largely lay behind Roe v. Wade, as Justice Blackmun’s citations in that decision freely admitted. As current abortion enthusiast Justice Ginsburg told the New York Times: “[A]t the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Are We Images of God or Pets at a Kill Shelter?

And there’s the rub. Supporters of national sovereignty and a market economy see poor people (both here and abroad) as our equals under God, who stand in need of enforceable property rights, economic freedom, and sane political order. Given those crucial but fragile human goods, they can equal us or outpace us, as many recently destitute Asian nations are doing.

Scornful leftists like Hillary Clinton who find millions of Americans “irredeemable” and “deplorable” see poor people differently. The Clintons, Blackmuns, and Ginsburgs of this world look at less fortunate countries like vast shelters full of adorable, starving pets. We’ll adopt as many as we can (via immigration), then neuter or euthanize the rest.

And that’s the bottomless chasm of world view that now divides America. (For more from the author of “‘America First’ Donald Trump Acts to Save Nonwhite, Foreign Babies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.