Archive | Abortion RSS feed for this section

Mark Caserta: Abortion atrocities must be stopped

4 Sep

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

9.4.15

=================================

In light of the recent exposure of even more horrific business practices committed by our nation’s largest abortion provider, I would be hard pressed to name an organization any more insidious than Planned Parenthood.

Following a Los Angeles judge dissolving a temporary restraining order on the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), the group recently released its eighth investigative video exposing the reprehensible tactics employed by Planned Parenthood to “profit” from its abortion services.

pp

In the video, StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admitted that her company received “intact” aborted baby bodies from the abortion clinics with whom they work. In the dialogue with CMP investigative reporters, Dyer coldly shares the fiscal “advantages” and watch-outs of shipping intact baby parts.

“Oh, yeah, I mean if you have intact cases – which we’ve done a lot – so we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” Dyer said while dining and sipping wine. “Tell the lab it’s coming,” she giggled about shipping the baby’s heads. “They don’t want to open the box, go, ‘Oh God!'”

Until earlier this month, StemExpress, a biotech company in northern California, partnered with Planned Parenthood to obtain aborted baby parts for medical research. In the secretly recorded video, Dyer’s callous disregard for the murdered children was ghastly. Such heartless demeanor makes one wonder just how far Planned Parenthood has gone during an abortion procedure to preserve the baby’s parts for profit.

In a press release accompanying the video, CMP suggests the practice might include the ruthless, illegal procedure known as “live birth abortion.” The release read: “Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.”

The video also shows Dyer acknowledging that not only do abortion clinics prove fatal for babies, but they also may endanger women. Dyer admitted “rampant, rampant problems with bacteria” in certain clinics where Planned Parenthood is involved.

Planned Parenthood received more than $528 million in taxpayer funding during fiscal year 2013-2014, according to it and news media sources. This amounted to more than $1.4 million per day, in government grants, contracts and Medicaid reimbursements. And while liberals boast that only a small portion of these funds are used for abortions, understand that when a business receives money, regardless of the department, it relieves financial pressure on the entire organization. So in fact, this federal funding is integral to Planned Parenthood’s infanticide.

What sort of society would continue to condone such abhorrent behavior? Have we become so desensitized to death that destroying the lives of the unborn and shipping boxes of baby’s heads for sale doesn’t shock us anymore? Have we become so complacent with our liberal, dysfunctional society that we’ll commute such wretched behaviors in the name of “progressivism”?

A society which tolerates these atrocities is doomed for ensuing wickedness far beyond imagination – wickedness which our children will face because of our apathy.

It’s expedient that Americans willing to stand up against this abominable behavior, propagated by progressives, rise to be heard.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Mark Caserta: Abortion has become big business in the US

30 Jul

Frankenstein ethics?

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jul. 30, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

In 2011, more than 730,000 legal induced abortions were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 49 reporting areas. The actual number is probably more since states aren’t required by law to report these murders as part of the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance Report.

However, using the CDC’s statistics, the ratio of abortions to live births is around 219 per 1,000 births.

Planned Parenthood, an organization partially funded by your tax dollars, is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions in the United States. And it is indeed, fulfilling the vision of its founder, Margaret Sanger. Sanger, while lauded by some as a woman of “valor” (including Hillary Clinton) had some very unsavory opinions about race, birth control and abortion.

As a eugenicist, Sanger encouraged the sterilization of individuals whom she felt had “less desirable qualities.” Her disdain for blacks, minorities, the diseased and the disabled birthed an abortion business that’s afforded our nation a convenient way to “eliminate” an unwanted child.

One of Sanger’s infamous quotes epitomizes her racist’s convictions.

“[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

In a column written by Susan A. Cohen for the Guttmacher Institute, the former pro-abortion research division of Planned Parenthood, she shares a disturbing statistic involving the impact of abortion in our inner cities and how it is indeed fulfilling Sanger’s aberrant vision.

In the piece, Cohen reports the abortion rate for black women in the United States is nearly five times that for white women. And despite anti-abortion efforts to wage a campaign against abortion around this fact, aggressive marketing by abortion providers continues in minority communities.

Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically planted in minority communities targeting blacks and impoverished minority groups, and reportedly, is the leading cause of death for the black community.

But it even gets more despicable.

In two recently released stunning undercover videos, a national leader of Planned Parenthood is filmed admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to protect and sell “intact” fetal body parts.

In the videos, produced by the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, admits that in order to ensure the baby’s body parts are in “good condition” and not damaged during the gruesome abortion procedure, some of the abortionists will deliver the baby “breech” or feet first, and then suck out the brains, killing the child.

Planned Parenthood Vice President of Communications Eric Ferrero released a response to the videos calling them “heavily edited” and released by “activists who have been widely discredited.”

If there is anything more reprehensible than profiting from the death of an unborn child, I’m not sure what it is.

Under the guise of civil liberty, liberals have succeeded in desensitizing many Americans to abortion. But Planned Parenthood is helping make it big business.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Mark Caserta: Abortion is the Holy Grail of liberalism

24 Apr

Progressives support no limitations

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Apr. 23, 2015 @ 12:01 AM
stop abortion
 Want to get involved?
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

Do liberals support any limits on taking the life of an unborn baby?

A recent attempt by an Associated Press reporter to corner Rand Paul on his stance on abortion triggered a much-needed firestorm around the issue.

While giving a press conference in New Hampshire last week, Senator Paul was asked to state definitively which exceptions to a ban on abortion he would support. Paul was quick to turn the table on the reporter.

“You go back and you ask (U.S. Rep.) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not yet born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life,” he said. “When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.”

Little Debbie, D-Fla., didn’t like being called out, so the congresswoman was quick to respond.

“Here’s an answer,” she said in an emailed statement. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul.”

So, let me see if I understand the progressive position on the question of abortion.

So in the third trimester, when a baby could be around 6 or 7 pounds and viably be birthed, is it permissible to inject a lethal dose of Digoxin into the heart to give the baby a fatal heart attack? Is that the accepted position of liberal Democrats?

What about a partial birth abortion, where the baby is birthed feet first, but just before the head emerges from the cervix, the abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a pair of surgical scissors and suctions the baby’s brain with a powerful suction machine?

What about live birth abortion, where a baby is “accidentally” born due to a botched abortion and refused medical attention so it will die as planned? Is that type of murder acceptable to liberals?

Which one of you would be first to insert the needle into the baby’s heart, taking its life? Which one of you would be first to puncture the base of the skull? Which one of you would stand idly by as a baby lay crying for attention and allow it to die a slow and agonizing death?

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and all of uncleanness,” Matthew 23:27.

I submit there is no greater sin against humanity than to take the life of the most frail and innocent among us.

Every mother has felt the movement of the baby while in her womb. Modern technology now enables the child to be seen in 4D, just as they would appear lying in their crib, cooing and babbling with life.

Yet, murdering the unborn continues to be the “Holy Grail” of liberalism.

It’s time to end this modern day holocaust. It’s time for progressives to stop lobbying for lawful infanticide.

It’s time to return to Godly, conservative values.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Justices: Can’t make employers cover contraception

30 Jun

OBAMACARE

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama’s campaign for re-election. On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners, like the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores that challenged the provision.

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to emphasize that the administration can solve its problem easily. “The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it,” Kennedy said. He said that arrangement “does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requirement to offer birth control.

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision “potentially sweeping” because it minimizes the government’s interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. “And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer’s religious beliefs,” Ginsburg said.

The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what’s best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government’s supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

Nearly 50 businesses have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like those involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. Other companies object to paying for any form of birth control.

There are separate lawsuits challenging the contraception provision from religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges and charities.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

Most working women will probably see no impact from the ruling, corporate health benefits consultants expect. Publicly traded companies are unlikely to drag religion into their employee benefit plans, said Mark Holloway, director of compliance services at the Lockton Companies, an insurance broker that serves medium-sized and growing employers.

“Most employers view health insurance as a tool to attract and retain employees,” said Holloway. “Women employees want access to contraceptive coverage and most employers don’t have a problem providing that coverage. It is typically not a high-cost item.”

It is unclear how many women potentially are affected by the high court ruling. Hobby Lobby is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets.

Mark Caserta: Have Republicans again abandoned abortion message?

24 Apr

abortionApr. 24, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

It appears that once again, abortion may be missing from the national debate in an election year. And Christian conservatives have a legitimate question for GOP candidates:

Will you continue to refuse to make the issue of life or death for the most vulnerable among us table stakes for your candidacy simply for fear of alienating voters?

Please understand that while Article VI of the Constitution clearly states there shall be “no religious test” qualifying a Congressional candidate for office, this does not exempt you from certain “qualifications in principle” that Christian conservatives will refuse to compromise in November — and abortion is one of them.

And burying your pro-life position deep in your on-line profile isn’t bringing the topic to the table for discussion. It’s unacceptable that progressives have been allowed to move the standard far beyond the provisions of Roe v. Wade.

In a 7-2 opinion, the court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion. The due process clause protects a broad right to privacy that is also found in the Ninth Amendment and the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. This “substantive due process” right to privacy permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason during the first trimester. However, subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester (about 3 months) the state may reasonably regulate abortions in ways related to maternal health.

Our nation has dreadfully exceeded the parameters set by the Supreme Court of the United States. In fact, according to a recent report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the United States has one of the most permissive abortion policies in the world (7 out of 198 countries) and is one of seven countries in which late-term abortions after 20 weeks (about 5 months) are allowed.

Sadly, many studies have shown that by this stage of development, a child is capable of feeling pain and women are at a greater health risk.

Often we hear pro-choice activists espouse rape, incest, genetic disability or health of the mother as primary consideration for supporting abortion on demand. But of 1,260 women surveyed in a 2004 study by The Guttmacher Institute, only 7 percent cited health concerns as their most important reason for choosing to abort their child. The majority of women actually stated a financial or lifestyle challenge as a top reason for their choice.

Each year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requests voluntary abortion data from across the country. While 756,651 abortions were reported in 2010, many suspect the number to be closer to 1 million babies aborted every year in the United States.

How many of God’s children who were destined to become world changers were never given the chance? How many brilliant scientists, skilled physicians or prominent leaders never escaped the womb?

Human life is a frail and precious gift of God. If GOP candidates refuse to re-introduce abortion into the discussion, then who will?

It’s time to stand up for life.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

TOMBLIN CHOOSES A VOTE OVER THE LIFE OF A CHILD

30 Mar

Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed a bill that would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks.
Tomblin said, in a statement released by his office on March 28, his reason for vetoing the bill was because it was unconstitutional.
“I have vetoed HB 4588 because I am advised, by not only attorneys from the legislature, but through my own legal team that this bill is unconstitutional.”
Tomblin said while he believes there is no greater gift of love than the gift of life, he had to veto the bill.
During the regular session, Sen. Erik Wells asked for the bill to be read in it’s entirety, explaining it was unconstitutional and he was prepared to bring that to the attention of the Legislature.
Wells said it was amazing to him the Legislature would be so quick to protect West Virginians rights when it came to Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, but legislators were quick to “trample the rights of women in West Virginia.”
Tomblin said his legal team were not the only ones advising him the bill would do more harm than good.
“The bill is also problematic because it unduly restricts the physician-patient relationship,” Tomblin said. “All patients, particularly expectant mothers, require the best, most unfettered medical judgment and advice from their physicians regarding treatment options.”
Tomblin said the medical community had also advised him the bill would have jeopardized the health of pregnant women.
“The medical community has made it clear to me that the criminal penalties this bill imposes will impede that advice, and those options, to the detriment of the health and safety of expectant mothers,” he added.
Known as the abortion bill, House Bill 4588, is the second one Tomblin has vetoed since the legislative session ended on March 8.
Tomblin also took issue with the budget bill, vetoing several aspects of it on March 19.
tomblin

Mark Caserta: We must choose the right path for our future

25 Mar

progressive v liberaMar. 20, 2014 @ 08:55 AM

The Herald-Dispatch / 2014

Our nation is at a crossroads where the choices for our future could not be more distinctly different in nature.

One path, conservatism, represents traditional, time-honored values with God’s Word and our nation’s founding documents serving as the principle, unshakable foundation on which our lifestyle and our ideology must align. Conservatives believe God is in control.

The path of progressivism represents an “innovational” system of values for “thinkers” who leverage the Constitution or the Bible only when convenient. Morality rests on a sliding scale and shifts with time in order to better align with an individual’s ideology. Progressives believe man is in control.

At this point in history, progressives are emboldened by their success and indeed flourishing in their movement. Unfortunately, while liberals have been tenacious in their attack on America, too many conservatives and Christians have watched from the sidelines.

After all, Jesus is coming soon, so why bother?

But what if our Lord doesn’t come for another generation? Considering the liberal resolve to fundamentally change America, what could our nation look like in 25 years if progressives continue to be successful?

Abortion might have no limitation in our society. Getting rid of an unwanted child could be as simple as getting rid of a headache. Despite the fact the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade gave some consideration to the viability of the baby, progressives have gradually “shifted” the mindset removing that consideration in many instances.

Our nation could see legislation re-introduced allowing partial birth abortion (PBA) and live birth abortion (LBA).

In a PBA, the doctor delivers a substantial portion of the living child outside the mother’s body while leaving the head just inside the womb. The baby is then killed by removing the brain by suction. The LBA is not really an abortion at all, but intentionally denying the baby care after a “botched” abortion.

The family unit may not look anything like it looks today. Progressives incessantly pursue universal same-sex marriage recognition for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender partners.

But understand liberal ideology demands removing all limitations, so where will it end?

Liberal “theologians” suggest amending the Bible to accommodate what it clearly calls “sexual immorality” and “unnatural desires.” But once God’s Word is negated as the benchmark, what will be acceptable? The available data on the unlikely marital “unions” already taking place is mind-numbing!

Organizations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) will begin to flourish in the wake of liberal advancements. NAMBLA, according to its website is, “the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man.” Is this acceptable to liberals? What networking of immorality will follow?

Understand, we not only choose our own paths, but we help to keep them open or closed for future generations. Today, both paths remain open. But what choices will our children have?

Liberalism exists to “open” a wide, inclusive path to destruction and to “close” the path paved with God’s Word and our Constitution.

Choose the right path now while we still can.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

%d bloggers like this: