Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not about Abortion | Stand to …

Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, figured prominently in the recent debate over partial-birth abortions. Like other prochoice spokesmen, Fitzsimmons insisted that such abortions take place only a few hundred times a year, and only when the mother is gravely ill or the unborn baby terribly deformed. President Clinton echoed those claims when he vetoed the congressional ban on partial-birth abortions last spring. These abortions, the president said, are "potentially lifesaving, certainly health-saving" measures, restricted to "a small but extremely vulnerable group of women and families in this country, just a few hundred a year."

Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not about Abortion ..

What about the issue of late-term, partial-birth abortions
Photo provided by

David Brownlow -- The Partial Birth Abortion Hoax

Brenda Shafer also testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) March 21, 1996. This was her testimony and its on political and historical record:


But in the nation's newsrooms, the facts were ignored. With rare exceptions, the prestige media recycled the abortion lobby's whoppers unchallenged. Because most mainstream journalists are unshakably prochoice, most of them never thought to question the prochoice line on partial-birth abortions.

True and faithful Bible teaching on the end-time involves the proper spiritual preparation of the saints.
Photo provided by

The Partial Birth Abortion Scam

"That really goes back to the triumph, not of Copernicus, but really the triumph of Kepler. That's because, after all, the notion of epicycles and so forth goes back to days when scientists were swapping opinions. All this went along until we had a true believer and this was Kepler. Kepler, after all, was the Old Testament Christian. Right? He really believed in God the Lawgiver. And so he demanded that the same God who spoke in single words and created the universe is not going to have a universe with 35 epicycles in it. And he said there's got to be something simpler and more powerful. Now he was lucky or maybe there was something deeper, but Kepler's faith was rewarded with his laws of nature. And so from that day on, it's been an awful struggle, but over long centuries, we find that very simple laws of nature actually do apply. And so that expectation is still with scientists. And it comes essentially from Kepler, and Kepler got it out of his belief in the Bible, as far as I can tell. This passionate belief turned out to be right. And he gave us his laws of motion, the first real laws of nature we ever had. And so nature turned out to redeem the expectations he had based on his faith. And scientists have adopted Kepler's faith, without the cause."

Video: Planned Parenthood's partial-birth abortion ..

No wonder the prochoice camp swore up and down that partial-birth abortion is exceedingly rare, resorted to only when a pregnancy has gone heartbreakingly wrong. Had the truth gotten out, Clinton would never have vetoed the ban.

Do Fetuses Feel Pain During An Abortion?

First, let's note that Christianity is a "religion of the book."This is significant. A religion that places special authority on the writtenword necessarily diminishes the authority of the priesthood. The CatholicChurch got around this problem early on by claiming, "Hey, we wrotethat book, thus we're the primary authorities." That's why the Churchpersecuted other Christians who later dared to get the Good Book in thehands of the common man. For the Good Book couldn't be properly interpretedin the hands of those who were not the primary authority. But, of course,Luther came along and said, "You guys have it upside down, the bookis the real authority and any authority you think you have can only be impartedfrom it." What this meant is that the authority of the Bible itselfimparted a certain freedom and a courage to dissent . And some of theseearly scientists (like Galileo) relied on this. If their scientific viewswere questioned on religious grounds, they could simply consult the Bibleand question the *interpretations* of the religious authorities. Of course,they knew they were treading on someone else's turf, so that had to be carefulabout it all. But what it meant was that although a priest might condemnor ridicule a scientist's beliefs, in his own mind and heart, that scientistcould consult the Bible and other works of theology and blunt the criticismof the priest TO HIS OWN SATISFACTION. It might not have been "freedomto inquire" in the modern sense of the term, as the Church remainedvery powerful, but there was enough freedom to at least personally questionwithout having to resort to simple dismissal (and *this* is what is important).This also meant that early Christian scientists didn't have to throw thebaby out with the bath water. They didn't have to reject Christianity toreject a priest's views. Instead, they could merge their religious beliefswith the scientific pursuits.