Category Archives: Abortion

Sincere Pro-Lifer to Sincere Abortion Supporter

A couple of years ago, a pro-life organization in which I serve as a volunteer, West Virginians For Life (the statewide affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee) distributed a mailer regarding a then-upcoming election. A seemingly sincere pro-abortion woman, Amanda, sent her response (regarding the mailer) by way of publicly commenting at one of our pro-life websites.

Here is her brief comment and my open reply follows it:

Dear Pro lifers of West Virginia,

I just got your advertisement in the mail today telling me not to vote for Natalie Tennat [sic]. Not only am I voting for Natalie for Senate, but she is the only reason I am going to vote. Your philosophies seem to govern much around religion and your love for the Constitution, but only in so far that they pertain to you. You do not care about the rights of others. The right to an abortion, freedom of and from religion. You do not care about women and how the right to abortion, sex education and birth control is a matter of Public Health.

I believe in your freedom of speech as much as believe in my own. I do not wish anything less, or any ill will. All I ask is you refrain from making laws that do not pertain to yourself. If you don’t want an abortion than [sic] don’t have one, but when you take the access away from women you are causing harm onto them. Also, please refrain from using laws from the Old Testament to define your purpose when you yourself do not follow all the laws. Thank you.

Note: for several points in my reply (below) scholarly support is available in the “40 Years of Roe” symposium video available here.

Dear Amanda

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to the mailer.
Did you know that every time a woman has an abortion, she significantly increases her risk of breast cancer, and significantly increases her risk of future preterm delivery, and significantly increases her chance of a future baby being afflicted with cerebral palsy? Not only does a baby whose heartbeat and brainwaves are detectable lose its life in every abortion (practically all abortions happen after the baby has already reached such a stage of development), but the mother is a victim as well.

Many studies have demonstrated links to not only breast cancer, preterm births, and cerebral palsy, but also depression, suicide, and divorce, just to list a few. In almost all cases, the abortion is done merely for the sake of convenience. Quite often it is done because the mother or father don’t like the gender of the baby, or because they don’t want to raise a child that might have an imperfection or disability (and often the doctors are wrong in forecasting such things). Furthermore, not only do the aforementioned detriments occur, but there is a “dose effect” in that with each repeated abortion, her odds get exponentially worse for having these issues. To watch a free online, scholarly presentation of these issues, click here: http://harrison.wvforlife.com/2013/04/28/40-years-of-roe-recap/

Also, did you know that America’s infatuation with abortion is a result of the racism of the people who conjured this movement? Do you know the real history behind it? Did you know the abortion industry’s biggest player, Planned Parenthood, was once openly known by its earlier name as an American Eugenics organization? Do you know the history and motives of Eugenics? Check out maafa21.com – you can watch a startling documentary for free on youtube.com here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqLyyIsKyCU (or via the maafa21.com site, to watch there, via a free code).

Are you aware that the abortionists use (and have used) targeting of their placement of clinics, and targeting of ads, etc, to increase the abortion rate among ethnic minorities? Did you know that before they got American women to “want” to kill their own children, they took in hand to get policies in place to sterilize American women, and did so, by the many thousands, at times without the women’s consent and sometimes even without their knowledge? And that it was especially targeted against Blacks and native American Indians?

Did you know that abortions also have noted detrimental effects on the fathers of the aborted babies as well?

You seem VERY sincere. Please consider that your accusation that we (as pro-life people) don’t care about the rights of others is simply a mistaken mindset. We care about the right to life, and right to good health, of both the women, the men, and the babies affected by the terrible blight of abortion.

I hope you will take some time to learn more about this crucial topic.

Sincerely,
Pastor Doug Joseph
Christian Apostolic Church (UPCI)
Clarksburg, WV

Is regulation of abortion “evil,” as some pro-life people claim?

Let’s start with a fair portrayal of an alluring, albeit radical, position taken by some within the pro-life movement. The following real conversation actually happened recently on social media:

A friend posted a reasonable comment about the fact that the US Supreme Court panel in 1973, which handed down the Roe v. Wade opinion (in a 7-2 decision) had several justices who had been appointed by Republican presidents. Underneath his post, came this:

Now, a quick word about why I’m continuing my response here, instead of there, and who I’m trying to convince with this post (hint: it’s not the radical guy arguing with me on my friend’s wall).

First, any comment you make (on social media or anywhere else) that someone else has the power to delete, is one you may well see disappear, because it means you’re playing on someone else’s turf, not your own. The above conversation was under my friend’s SCOTUS post (which means he could delete my replies, though I doubt he would), and it was also under the radical person’s comment, and he’s more likely to delete my comments if either he thinks I’ve trounced his argument or he gets tired of me replying (i.e. continual one-ups in a battle over who has the last word).

Second, in any controversial issue, there will be a bell curve, in which one extreme consists of the few on the right side that agree with you and could never be convinced otherwise, and the other extreme consists of the few on the wrong side that disagree with you and could never be convinced otherwise, and the cherry, so to speak, is the huge group in the middle of the bell curve, who are open to reason/persuasion, and could potentially be convinced either way. The radical guy (arguing in the screenshot above) is clearly beyond the reach of my reasoning. Why do I say this? He’s already found what he thinks is a solid argument, and long before he ever encountered me, he had already made his argument so often that he’s what we might call “doubled down” on it, such that he’s personally vested in its validity. For him to ever hear reason and turn back now, would be, according to his words (not mine), “silly,” and committing a “sin” of adopting a position with those who “do not care” about aborted babies. His mind is already made up, don’t bother him with facts. Can someone turn back? Yes, but it’s rare. A Saul who becomes a Paul is powerful, but very scarce.

Why the radicals are wrong

If you were able to read all the way through his replies, you saw the comparison to the Holocaust against the Jews, and you hopefully felt the weight of the radical argument. You sense the allure of it, yet something does not quite sit right. I hope to help you put your finger on exactly why the argument does not sit right.

Since he already pointed to the Holocaust against the Jews in a comparison to the Abortion Holocaust of pre-born humans, please allow me to argue from that comparison, despite both Holocausts being a nightmare of grim historical reality.

The radical approach above is a straw-man argument because it presupposes that the Allies’ war against the Axis powers—the fight from without, if you will—was the only kind of war that could be waged, and furthermore, in his argument, the radical guy actually claims that was the only kind of fight that was waged! When I read the lunacy of statements such as “Abortion is legal because we do not care, just like the Germans did not care if the Jews were being murdered,” it makes me want to say, “Did you never hear of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Have you never read of the heroes, some Christian, some Islamic, some German, who risked their lives trying to save what few Jewish lives they could, from within the Nazi system?” It would do the radical guy some good to read/watch Schindler’s List, about Oskar Schindler, an ethnic German businessman, who saved the lives of more than a thousand mostly Polish-Jewish refugees from the Holocaust by employing them in his factories. Far be it from me to point out the history, since it’s only a click away from anyone on social media.

So, imagine with me, if you will, that war can be waged on two fronts simultaneously, one working under the best strategy possible for how to abolish abortion (in WW2 parlance, defeat the Axis powers), i.e. a full frontal assault, but not one devoid of strategy, and another to undermine from within the reality of the existing system, using whatever means, regulation laws, acts to defund, prayer walks, sidewalk vigils, life chains, counseling centers, ad campaigns and social media memes, etc. (in WW2 parlance, subvert and resist the Axis powers). The radical approach claims the latter of those two is evil, because it somehow legitimizes the system, since it’s not the full frontal assault happening from without and because a lot of people are still dying. That’s just wrongheaded.

Just as the radical guy was wrong to pretend that no one in Germany cared, that none under the boot of the Nazis was working to subvert the forces of evil, and wrong to ignore the precious lives their work saved, by focusing his argument solely on the ongoing death around them as proof of their failure, so also the radical argument is simply fallacious to claim that no lives have been saved during the past 43 years of the pro-life movement fighting against the scourge of abortion. How can he ignore the evidence of some 11,000 lives saved because of the ban on partial birth abortions? Who is he getting his information from, the pro-aborts?

There is an old saying that “you only have one chance to make a good first impression.” Well, all those on the pro-life side in the current culture war should be aware that any given legal argument only has one chance for the Supreme Court’s “first glimpse” at the argument. That first glimpse, if the case gets taken up by the court and an opinion handed down, will result in a precedent being set. Contrary to what some people think, the worldview of a Supreme Court justice matters! Put simply, we need to have a pro-life Supreme Court empaneled before we have a case to abolish abortion come before them, or the case will just see the effort overturned.

Contrary to the radical’s argument, we are winning.

When I told the radical we are winning the culture war, that we’re succeeding in changing the hearts and minds of society, he expressed a state of denial and responded saying that is “so so not true.” Again, the facts contradict his argument. Just Google “millennials are more likely to be prolife” and you will get this:

Millennials increasingly oppose abortion, even if they don’t identify as …

www.washingtontimes.com/news/…/millennials-increasingly-oppose-abortion-even-if-…
Jun 30, 2016 – The survey found 53 percent of millennials believe abortion should be … to 48 percent who said they were more likely to identify as “prochoice.

Millennials’ abortion views trend pro-life despite self-identity, research …

www.washingtontimes.com/news/…/millennialsabortion-views-trend-prolife-despite-…
Jun 30, 2016 – Majority of millennials support tougher abortion restrictions, but … with 48 percent who said they were more likely to identify as prochoice.

Why Are Millennials More Pro-Life Than Parents? – The Daily Signal

dailysignal.com/2016/03/04/why-millennials-lean-prolife/
Mar 4, 2016 – Millennials lean more prolife than the generation preceding them because of advances in medical technology and science, leaders in …

Surveys Show Young People More Pro-Life Than Ever Before as …

www.lifenews.com/…/surveys-show-young-people-moreprolife-than-ever-before-as…
Jul 11, 2016 – … People More ProLife Than Ever Before as Millennials Oppose Abortion. … are less likely than their older counterparts to identify as “prolife.

Millennials Across the United States are More Likely to Identify as Pro …

www.frcblog.com/…/millennials-across-united-states-are-morelikely-identify-prolife
Feb 8, 2016 – The study shows the decline is nearly equal in both the most prolife and prochoice states. The decline in the least prolife states: Vermont …

Millennials across the United States are more likely to identify as pro …

standamerica.us/millennials-across-the-united-states-are-morelikely-to-identify-as-pro
Jan 12, 2016 – Millennials across the United States are more likely to identify as … The only most prolife state on the list to see a rise in abortions is Louisiana.

Millennials: The generation most likely to oppose abortion – Red Alert …

redalertpolitics.com/2016/01/14/millennials-generation-likely-oppose-abortion/
Jan 14, 2016 – Although Americans are split down the middle on whether they identify as prolife or prochoice, abortion is viewed as less acceptable than it …

Survey: Millennials oppose abortion, yet reject pro-life title – Red Alert …

redalertpolitics.com/2016/…/survey-millennials-oppose-abortion-yet-reject-prolife-tit…

Jul 1, 2016 – Survey: Millennials oppose abortion, yet reject prolife title … 48 percent of millennials said they were more likely to identify as “prochoice.”

So, while I declined to try to battle for the last word in a futile argument with a radical, let me conclude with the last comment I made before breaking off with him:

It will take a lot of time and hard work to win over the culture by changing hearts and minds. We have the truth and all the science on our side. We’re winning. We’re on the same side. If we can avoid maligning each other, we will see victory.

Join me as part of the Pro-Life Generation that will see abortion ended within our lifetime. We’re in this for the long haul. We’re in this to save as many lives as we can along the way. If regulation spares even one life, it will have been wise and right. It has spared many lives. The thousands of babies who have been spared from death, even during the sad reign of “Planned Parenthood” funding and “Roe v Wade” opinions, declare that we are on the side of righteousness.

Election message from Pastor Doug Joseph

Please LIKE and SHARE. Take just 2 minutes for this helpful info.

Speaking as a private citizen, I’m here to bring Christian believers (especially those residing in West Virginia) an important message regarding our ongoing election. We normally would say “upcoming election,” but due to early voting, it’s actually ongoing. Americans, including West Virginians, are voting early in record numbers. One estimate is that 40% of all ballots may be cast early. Whether you vote early or on November 8, be sure to personally verify that your vote choices match the tally shown on your ballot. As a Christian American, I encourage you to vote biblical values. I’m voting Pro-Life, Pro-Israel, Pro-Constitution, including Pro-2nd Amendment, etc. The next president will likely get to appoint multiple Supreme Court justices and scores of federal judges. The worldview of those appointees will determine America’s judicial climate for a generation. Whatever you do, fellow believer, don’t stay home this election. Click here for a voter guide from West Virginians For Life, to know which candidates are Pro-Life. Here are some endorsements from that list:

  • For President: Donald Trump
  • For US Congress, districts 1, 2, and 3: David McKinley, Alex Mooney, Evan Jenkins
  • For WV Governor: Bill Cole
  • For WV Attorney General: Patrick Morrisey
  • For WV Secretary of State: Mac Warner
  • For WV Auditor: John McCuskey
  • For WV State Treasurer: either Ann Urling, or John Perdue
  • For WV Commissioner of Agriculture: either Kent Leonhardt, or Walt Helmick

For WV State Senate and WV House of Delegates, simply find your senate district and house district on the list, to see the endorsed candidate.

Lately, rather than pray “God bless America,” I pray “God save America.” Do your duty, and vote!

Freedom of choice, but not without restrictions

Freedom-to-Choose-Pastor-Doug-Joseph

Biased and/or Poor Reporting

This WCHS channel 8 report is either biased or hugely ignorant: it paints the Democrats’ recently defeated bill as being about “free contraception,” when it was actually about overturning the Hobby Lobby ruling, which was about (and specifically limited to) abortifacients as pertaining to an unlawful effort by HHS to force persons to pay for the abortifacients, even if against their religious convictions.

Furthermore, the report inaccurately implies that the bill was about “restoring” something that American women supposedly lost due to the Hobby Lobby ruling. That is either deliberately misleading or ignorantly misguided, as the whole point of the Hobby Lobby case was that the unlawful HHS mandate tried to impose a brand new burden on religious persons (that of paying for abortifacient coverage for employees) which was not something that American women ever “had” previously.

Since there never was such a mandate lawfully implemented against religious persons, there is nothing to be “restored.” The HHS mandate itself was not implemented by Congress. It was conjured out of thin air by HHS, and insomuch as it sought to overpower religious persons (via coercing closely-held corporations), it was against the law from the start. In other words, it was always illegal from the start. It never legally existed as far as closely-held, religious, for-profit corporations are concerned. Not only was the mandate itself unlawful from the start, but it never actually took hold—an injunction was granted. Then it was invalidated by the US Supreme Court before ever being enforced for even a single day against Hobby Lobby.

Both before and after the ruling, any American woman employed by a religious person/corporation had and still has the legal occasion to buy and pay for certain abortifacients, on her own. To reiterate, those women still have that option now. There was only an unlawful, failed attempt by HHS to create a government mandate that all corporations, even closely-held religious ones (both for-profits and non-profits), be compelled (by penalty of crippling fines) to pay for abortifacient coverage in violation of religious conviction. It was struck down, as pertaining to closely-held, religious, for-profit corporations. American women lost nothing by that ruling. There was never anything to be restored. How can the reporter be so mistaken on this?

Furthermore, it is both alarming and sad that Senator Manchin is so easily confused and so utterly mistaken on the true issues at stake here. According to the report, Senator Manchin holds that if one is a religious person then he or she is not permitted to make a profit as a corporation and still have his or her religious freedom protected. The senator is simply, sadly, horrendously wrong. Religious persons are indeed free to make a profit, even as corporations, and not check their religion at the door. So says the law, in clear language, and thus it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Mad Libs: Dems Search for Words to Describe Outrage

If you wanted to see fireworks in D.C., you didn’t have to wait for July 4th. Yesterday’s decision on the HHS mandate exploded on the media scene, lighting a fuse under the radicals of the Left. While most Americans watched with pleasure as a pillar of ObamaCare fell, liberals sulked at another loss for lawlessness. Democrats couldn’t fire off their press releases fast enough as they vowed to push their assault on faith in the marketplace by ending justices’ opt-out. Promising a legislative fix, Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insisted that Americans’ “right” to sex-on-demand trumps a company’s deeply held beliefs on contraception and abortifacients.

As out of touch as liberals are with the law, it turns out that they’re even more out of touch with voters. While the Left trotted out its tired “war on women” line, FRC’s Cathy Ruse pointed out that the majority of women opposed the mandate — including 60% of the lower court female judges who voted to stop it!

Read more at Family Research Council.

Why I’m Oddly Glad the Obama Admin Overreached with HHS Mandate

There is some odd confusion regarding what’s at the heart of the Hobby Lobby case—resulting in part from [willful?] misleads by the liberal media (notice Bill calling out CBS Radio regarding blatant false reporting) and liberal politicians (for example, Hillary Clinton, the clear early frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race, proves in her response to the Supreme Court’s decision protecting Hobby Lobby from the Obama HHS mandate that she really has no fundamental understanding of what the case was about). It seems many on the left incorrectly think the case was in regard to “all” contraceptives (i.e. Hobby Lobby supposedly being exempted from paying for any contraception). Yet the Christian-owned company already pays for 16 of 20 contraceptives that the HHS mandate insists upon. Only the four that could cause the abortion of a fertilized embryo were contested. Even then, the case was not about blocking anyone’s “access” to those four abortifacients, but rather about preventing Obama’s HHS from compelling business owners to pay for the abortifacients in violation of the owners’ religious beliefs.

However, there is an underlying issue at stake, just as important as the obvious one.

Ever since America fell so far as to have many of its citizens think that only non-profit persons/entities can be permitted to hold religious convictions, this is the first time that such a bogus and dangerous notion has been tested and decided upon at the highest level. You only get one chance to have a legal “first impression” in the highest court of the land.

Punishing owners of for-profit businesses simply because they are unwilling to check their religious beliefs at the door is the edge of a legal razor blade that was bound to eventually strike at the judicial heart of our society. The precedent set here will have ramifications so far reaching that it’s practically beyond the description of words—and the timing is crucial, because the worldview of the SCOTUS justices serving at the given moment will determine where they come down on this, and likely will dictate pretty much forever afterward how related issues will be decided.

It is disturbing that four of the nine justices dissented in this case, discounting the hallowed American tradition of protecting our right to free exercise of religion. This judgment almost went the wrong way. By a margin of only one vote, freedom of religion was upheld. It is alarming that the decision was even close.

Had Kathleen Sabellius and her HHS minions not overreached at this point in history—if their challenge were to have occurred later, after additional moral decline and perhaps even the replacement of conservative justices with liberal justices, or perhaps just after gradual changing of the minds of some justices—the decision could have gone the other way. Thankfully, America got a 5-4 decision in favor of religious freedom.

The Obama Administration’s HHS department overreached so far that their unlawful demands resulted in threatening all closely-held corporations (e.g. family-owned, for-profit businesses) with massive punitive fines so steep it would bankrupt the businesses unless they comply and pay for abortifacient drugs. That forced the matter to be dealt with.  Before the judgment was announced, I was quite concerned. In the end, I’m relieved that it was now and not at some later time. The forces of the left jumped the gun. At a later time the same overreach might have resulted in a bad decision instead. As it was, we got a good decision from the court.

The struggle for right is far from over, though. My friend and fellow author, John F. Harrison, summed things up powerfully when he said to me recently, “It irks me that people are so unclear on the issues, and the mainstream media is deliberately making them unclear. This was never about ‘access’ to contraceptives or anything else. Or have we become so infantalized by the nanny state that we believe we only have ‘access’ to something if it is provided free by the government or paid for by a third party?”

Exactly, my friend.

1 Easy Step to Help the Cause of Life

D.Joseph-response-to-SOTU-2014-01-28-at-10

Our president just finished his State of the Union address. I watched it live on YouTube. (The live link is gone, but archive links abound.)  Many statements were laudable. Some represented some degree of obfuscation and thus were irritating. Sometimes I agreed, while at other times I disagreed strongly. However, one phrase in particular both “stuck out” and especially irritated me. There was nothing terribly wrong with the statement itself. What was wrong was the conflict between the statement and the extreme pro-abortion attitude of the man who issued the statement. He indicated that the best thing we can do for our children is to invest in early education (referring to pre-K schooling).

Mr. Barrack Obama is the most extremely pro-abortion president in history. (Some time ago he actually attended the annual “Planned Parenthood” conference, officially addressed them, and concluded by telling this tax-supported, baby-murdering organization, “God bless you.” Thus, it galled me to hear him say that what was most beneficial for our children was to invest in early education.

After his speech, his supporters (who organized the follow-through) invited online viewers to go to a White House-operated website and watch while questions from Twitter and the blogosphere were answered by a panel appointed by the administration. The hashtag (to post a question or participate in the conversation) is: #SOTUchat

So, I fired up my Twitter account, put in the hashtag, and tweeted this:


Feel free to copy and paste. If you have a Twitter account, retweet it. If you have a Facebook, a blog, or whatever, use your platform say something for the cause of Life. Regardless, do something, even if it’s just teaching your family in devotions or discussing it with a neighbor or coworker. Do something to participate. Be part of the Pro-Life Generation that will see Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton overturned in our lifetime.

Note: If you are looking for solid stats and amazing information to bolster your argument in favor of life—great information that is usable in everything from family devotions to debates with liberals—click to watch the awesome video below.

During quite a few of these frozen days of being snowed in, I spent many, many hours editing the video of a major Pro-Life event, at the request of Dr. Wanda Franz, Ph.D., who is the former head of the National Right To Life Committee, and current President of West Virginians For Life, and Mary Anne Buchanan, who is the Program Director for West Virginians For Life. Recently I finished the DVD production phase, and this past Monday I mailed out the DVDs to the WV For Life office. The next phase was to distill the video stream for YouTube. Last night I finished that aspect of this project, and started the upload to YouTube. Early this morning (in the wee hours) the upload to YouTube was finally completed. Behold:

Share this link to an awesome Pro-Life video: http://youtu.be/Im5pFzDfpWA