Entries by Category:
Entries by Date:
Last month, the Heritage Foundation’s digital news platform—The Daily Signal—published a list of companies that donate to Planned Parenthood. There are some big names on the list including AT&T (my phone carrier), Bank of America (my bank), and Adobe (the software company that’s behind everything I’ve ever coded or designed for Abort73). Number 32 on the list is Starbucks—and for some reason, they seem to be absorbing most of the pro-life vitriol on the subject. Shortly after the list was published, LifeNews posted the editorial, “Why I Will Never Drink Another Starbucks Coffee Again,” and lots of pro-lifers are following suit. When I posted a picture on Saturday of a couple wearing our #ChooseWisely shirts—and sipping Starbucks—these were some of the comments that followed:
They’re drinking Starbucks who is a huge supporter of planned parenthood. This is not choosing wisely.
Well, your [sic] sucking on Starbucks in the photo one of the biggest #PlannedParenthood #abortion supporters. Why?
That’s like going to a save endangered animals rally wearing a fur coat.
Reading those responses, I knew I’d have to do some digging. Is going to Starbucks really the moral
The reason we put our child to death is because his father and I were not in love. Sounds barbaric, right? And yet that’s the rationale provided us by a woman living in Rome—minus any reference to the terms “child” and “put to death.” Here’s how the 35-year-old explains her thought process in an April 11 submission:
Just this past month I found out I was pregnant. I am never late, and I knew that my partner and I may have had sex in the middle of my cycle—so I was a bit anxious. My partner is a friend and colleague. We were not a couple. When I told him we were pregnant, we both knew abortion was the only option as we were not in love and both just quit our jobs and took new jobs in different countries. Logistically and financially, it didn’t make sense for us.
Did you catch that? We both knew abortion was the only option as we were not in love. How many mothers, I wonder, are not “in love” with the father(s) of their children? Would any suggest that their lack of affection gives them license to terminate the children born of such union? If not, what makes this argument any more reasonable for the mere fact that the child has yet to be born? To borrow a phrase, what’s
How do you argue against blind faith? That’s one of the questions I’m up against as I continue addressing the pro-abortion testimonies we’ve received this year from post-abortive women. The following comment, from an 18-year-old woman in Texas, encapsulates a common theme:
I was six weeks exactly at my first appointment. I decided to look at the ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat. It was mildly uncomfortable, but I felt it was necessary. I knew nothing would change my mind. I was not ready for a child at all.
Notice her argument: I was not ready for a child; therefore, nothing could persuade me from abortion. By her own admission, no amount of evidence could have swayed her course. I call that living by faith in abortion. She concludes her remarks by asserting:
It has been less than 24 hours (since the abortion) and honestly, I feel great… No pain, no discomfort, just very out of it from all the medication. After I was awake enough, I went to Subway (lol)… I am still ditzy from the meds but comfortably cuddled on the couch watching Netflix. I feel nothing but relief knowing that I will not have to raise a child I don’t think I could properly care for. I was
The time has again come to address the abortion stories we receive that are not filled with regret. So far this year, we’ve received eight of them. Some of them contain traces of pain and sorrow. Others simply sing the praises of abortion. Each time such a story comes in, I face a dilemma of sorts. Do I add it to the hundreds of abortion testimonies already housed on the Abort73 website or simply file it away? On the one hand, I like the authentic, unscripted voice our abortion stories provide. On the other hand, Abort73 has never been a neutral arbiter. From the very beginning, we have advocated a specific position—abortion is an act of violence that kills an innocent human being—and pursued a specific agenda—the protection of abortion-vulnerable children (and their moms!).
As an alternative to posting the stories outright or shelving them altogether, I generally post them in part—with commentary—on the Abort73 blog. This gives our dissenters a voice while allowing me to challenge the integrity of their assertions. By way of comparison, in the time it took us to receive eight stories of abortion celebration, we received 64 stories of abortion lament. I don’t claim that
Yesterday, another undercover video put Planned Parenthood in the proverbial crosshairs—this time in regard to the trafficking of human body parts obtained through abortion. In the video, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services casually discusses her ability to leave key body parts intact while performing late-term, ultrasound-guided abortions. To date, undercover videos such as these have exposed Planned Parenthood’s willingness to:
- accept donations for the express purpose of terminating black children
- perform sex-selection abortions when parents don’t get the boy or girl they wanted
- ignore or cover up sexual abuse
- instruct minors on how to circumvent parental consent laws
On the one hand, it boggles the mind that a billion-dollar organization is able to be repeatedly duped and exposed by a handful of courageous activists. On the other hand—with the President of the United States so firmly in their corner—Planned Parenthood is almost untouchable, no matter how often they thumb their noses at both law and convention.
Just as the nation is split down the middle in regard to abortion, that same polarization exists over Planned Parenthood—a fact that