My Experience at Eagle Forum

As I wrap up my final days here at Eagle Forum, I reflect on the wonderful experiences I had the opportunity to take part in, the valuable insights I gained, and the political ideology I solidified.

When I first started this internship, I was unsure of the type of work I would be doing.  I was not exactly certain what Eagle Forum did, for whom they worked, and the types of issues they defended.  Now, after a beneficial and inspiring ten weeks, I know the answers to those questions.

To put it simply, Eagle Forum works for the people.  They work to preserve ideals of liberty, constitutionalism, and American sovereignty by providing education to grassroots supporters in order to mobilize the people to a cause.  Eagle Forum advocates for certain policies and works to ensure their voice and the voice of the people they represent is heard when a member of Congress casts their vote on important issues.  Eagle Forum believes in a distinct American identity and helps enable conservative men and women to participate in the process of public policy making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty and private enterprise.

As a political science student who has a passion for politics and an understanding of issues, I thought that most of my political views were already formed.  However, I am now more confident than ever to articulate and debate my views after first hand exposure to the issues.  My views have been fine-tuned and molded and I depart this internship with a better understanding of the complexities that surround public disputes.

For example, I always understood the importance of education and the need for strong school systems.  However, after in depth analysis of the Common Core education proposals, I can now speak confidently on the importance of the parent’s rights to guide the education of their own children and the negatives of a federal standardized, outcome-based education system.

Additionally, I always knew I did not agree with the goals of radical feminism, but as a woman, I felt hesitant to disagree in fear of being labeled anti-woman like many women politicians today (which is absurd, considering they are women).  However, after reading two of Phyllis Schlafly’s books, A Choice Not An Echo and The Feminist Fantasies, I feel confident in how to debate and debunk liberal feminist arguments such as taxpayer money for abortions and federally funded daycare.  I am aware now that the radical feminist agenda often seeks preferential treatment, not just equality for women, and serves to undermine the role of women in society by stereotyping men as a constant danger to women and taking away the rights of fulltime homemakers.  Instead, I understand that Eagle Forum believes in the distinct and equally important role of both men and women and believes that all women should have the liberty to do what they want and make their own choices.

Finally, my political philosophy has been more solidified when it comes to the right to life and the supposed “war on women”.  To be honest, before my internship at Eagle Forum, I personally believed that abortions were wrong, but politically believed that the government should not be able to dictate what women can and cannot do with their bodies.  Now, after I have become more educated on the process of abortion and the life cycle in utero, for example: how the baby’s heart begins to beat on Day 22, I am 100% pro-life and anti-abortion and feel more confident on how to relay this to others.   As a woman, I understand that this is an important battle that women need to be the frontrunners of.  At our annual collegians summit, words of a wise member of Congress stuck with me.  He made the observation that when liberals make the “war on women” solely on the issue of abortion, they are characterizing themselves as being just a reproductive system.  Yet, women also have hearts, have minds, are important in the growth of the economy, and have a distinct and important role in society.  Instead, the real “war on women” surrounds issues like how women in the Obama economy have reached an 18-year high poverty rate, or how the current administration is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other countries where women do not even have the right to an education or much less recognition in society.  That is the real “war on women,” and women should not believe their rights end with their reproductive systems.

In addition to these main philosophies, I learned so much more in my experience at Eagle Forum.  After these ten weeks, I leave Eagle Forum and DC as a more educated, more principled, and more confident 21 year old woman ready to help lead the fight for conservative principles and ideals.

When Is It Legal To Kill A Baby?

Men are prosecuted for killing unborn children. Women are not. The irony of this is evident in a recent, highly publicized criminal trial. Ariel Castro, the Cleveland man recently convicted of kidnapping three women and raping them for 10 years, was also convicted of the murder of two unborn babies (He beat and starved one of his victims so that she miscarried five times). He was convicted of these murders under the Ohio Fetal Homicide Law which reads, “No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.” Though this is a step in the right direction toward protecting unborn children, it is still a double standard because women may “cause the death” of their own babies up until viability (20 weeks) in Ohio. Where is objective right and wrong? Is it, or is it not, lawful to kill a baby? Apparently, it is legal for the woman to do it, but not a man. A woman can decide the worth of her child, but a man (who should have as much say in the baby’s fate as the other half of its parentage) has no rights.

Liberals recognize the danger of the Castro conviction and the can of worms that it opens. Michelle Goldberg of The Daily Beast said, “Laws that allow for murder prosecutions in instances of fetal death often result from horrific crimes against women. Once they’re on the books, though, they can be used to prosecute women for ending or endangering their own pregnancies…[I]t’s only a short step to treat women who cause their own miscarriages as murderers.” In their mind, it is better to call what Ariel Castro and men like him have done to women a misdemeanor or some lesser crime than to risk confusing the public with a baby on one hand, but a blob of tissue on the other. Furthermore, it is important to note when speaking with pro-aborts that pro-lifers have never wanted to treat women as murderers. (One can argue that we are more pro-women than they are because we allow every woman to be born.) We know that every single life has a value and we need to call out the hypocrisy of treating one baby’s death as aggravated murder, and one baby’s death as a “woman’s right to choose”

~Emily

Talking With a Pro-Abort While Retaining Your Sanity, Part 2

So if you followed the rules in Part 1, you’ve already pulled out all the unconnected threads and are left with the hard heart of the knot: is the fetus human? You will be offered some sort of dividing factor that separates the fetus from the baby. Here’s a handy acronym to remember the basic categories: SLED.
Size: “It’s tiny. How can a human being be that small?”
Level of Development: “It doesn’t even have a heartbeat yet,” or “It can’t feel pain,” or “It can’t think,” or pretty much anything.
Environment: “It’s inside another human being; how can it be human itself? That’s just weird.”
Dependency: “It couldn’t survive without the mother. It’s not its own being.”
First of all: know your facts. The guy who said the thing about heartbeats probably doesn’t know that the heart starts to beat at 3 weeks, or he wouldn’t cite it as the deciding factor. The truth is in your favor. Feel free to clobber him with it; just do it with a gentle smile.
The best tactic you can use is to find parallels between their arguments and situations affecting born humans. Like so:
Size: “I know, right? It’s mind-blowing to think that the tiny thing there is as much of a human being as I am. But actually, you’re taller than I am. Does that mean you’re a little bit more human than I am?”
Level of Development: “That’s very true. The fetus isn’t as developed as a baby. But aren’t toddlers less developed than me? Their reproductive systems and their brains are really quite rudimentary compared to yours and mine. Does that mean they’re less human than we are? And about the sensitivity: There’s a girl in Minnesota named Gabby Gingras who can’t feel pain. Is she not human?”
Environment: “You’re right, that’s wicked weird. But does where we are really determine who we are? To put it less abstractly, say you shove a newborn baby back in there. According to your reasoning, you could play jump rope with that humanity line all day long.”
Dependency: “Yeah, fetuses are completely dependent on the mother. In fact, when they’re born prematurely, they require intensive care in the hospital to survive. Does that mean they’re still not human? Heck, even newborns are helpless. Are they not human?”
As you might notice, these conversations get pretty silly pretty fast. But that’s the point. This is a process called reductio ad absurdum: you accept the premises offered to you, and you follow them through to the incredibly stupid but logical conclusion. You need to show that none of these points affect the fetus’ humanity, especially when they’re offered as a combination. You need to show that 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.
And just like that, you’ve got the ability to handle most cases. That, of course, is if they’re willing to talk. Sometimes you’ve got about five seconds to speak your piece before they change the subject. So you can leave them, as I’ll leave you, with something to chew on.

The Glorious 5-Second Argument: If it’s not human, what is it? If it’s not alive, why is it growing? And if it’s not a living human being, when does it become one?

The Compromise of 2013 and the Ghost of Samuel J. Tilden

The GOP’s long streak of mistakes dates to the 19th century, it’s most notable early failure being the Compromise of 1877.  In the hotly-contested and unresolved 1876 general election, a senatorial committee gave Republican Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden after months of uncertainty.  The deal?  Withdrawing Federal troops from all Southern states and relinquishing governorships to Democrats.  This ended post-Civil War Reconstruction, effectively allowing racist Democrats such as the Ku Klux Klan to implement oppressive, discriminatory policies for nearly a century.

tinyurl.com/p4pbskv

tinyurl.com/p4pbskv

Republicans now stand to commit a similar error in another deal.  They seek to compromise principle in exchange for Hispanic voters’ favor, apparently oblivious to 1877 and Ronald Reagan’s 1986 immigration deal that granted 3,000,000-plus illegal aliens “one-time amnesty.”  Reagan fell for Democrats’ deceptive compromise:  securing the border.  Were Republicans rewarded for amnesty?  Nay.  George H.W. Bush won but 30% of Hispanic votes in 1988, and the party has mostly floundered since, faring best with George W. Bush in 2004 with 39%.  Yet all these decades hence, the border remains unsecure, with the ranks of illegal aliens swollen to 11,000,000 (revised down to suit the national dialogue from a far more-likely 12-20,000,000), the vast majority of whom are not “hiding in shadows” but who are instead heavily burdening our schools, health, and housing systems with increasingly-paid tax dollars and competing fiercely with unemployed Americans, particularly minority teenagers for jobs.  

Spearheaded by the Gang of Eight’s allegedly-conservative Marco Rubio, the possible
“Compromise of 2013” emits the same stench as past unfulfilled promises.  The Senate passed a woefully inadequate abomination.  Although Paul Ryan indicated that the House of Representatives won’t take up the Senate bill, instead advancing its own, the impending hazard remains wherein current illegal aliens and chain-migrating relatives will become citizens and thus voters beholden to Democrats, potentially keeping the anti-American party in power for the century, its most notable early failure

Like Rubio and Ted Cruz, I am the son of an immigrant who escaped a Soviet-backed
communist regime.  My father did not escape across the Austrian frontier only to have his
descendants grow up in the all-consuming shadow of socialism. Reagan foretold this very time when he cautioned that “[f]reedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.”  He quickly added that one brooding warning: “It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Now is that time to fight in the House.  While in summer recess, representatives must
clearly hear our discontent, just as they did prior to the defeat of post-Sandy Hook anti-Second Amendment legislation.  If GOP leadership is duped again, the country’s demographics will shift to the point that the Democrats could almost certainly again influence both politics and race relations for another 100 years.  Should that come to fruition, the nation will continue on its recent downward spiral and Americans can abandon all hope of recovery.  Meanwhile, Tilden’s specter and his Confederate uniform-clad contemporaries look on, smiling in hope that Republicans will once again play the fools.

-Jason Csehi

Jason holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in History, and is a second-year law student and secretary of his law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society.  He has taught American history in college, and enjoys muscle cars, music, studying politics and Protestant apologetics as well as travelling, having recently returned from Taiwan.

The Rule of Law

“Rule of Law.” It’s a peculiar term that has acquired an almost anachronistic connotation. Yet, it is the very principle on which America’s political system is based. Our Founding Fathers crafted the concept to preserve a limited republican government responsive to the people. The Supremacy Clause explicitly states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” And John Adams reiterated that we must have a “government of laws, not of men.”

But its absence from our education system and the mainstream media have rendered it a phrase of antiquity—so much so that the federal government has, in effect, become the rule of men. And we the people have sat back as if nothing is wrong.

Last year, President Obama refused to enforce immigration deportation laws, and essentially created his own Dream Act—which Congress had previously refused to pass. That same year, he replaced federal requirements on states under the No Child Left Behind Law with his own Administration’s arbitrary guidelines. He also ignored the Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act, despite its being passed by majorities in the House and the Senate.

Recent events confirm the government has no intention of releasing its monarchical grip. Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 licensed state officials to nullify ballot initiatives they disagree with by refusing to enforce them or defend them in court. Just this week, the Justice Department began an investigation into the Zimmerman-Martin affair, simply because it was dissatisfied with the results of the local, democratic trial. Two days ago an Obamaappointed judge halted a democratically passed Wisconsin law requiring abortion clinics to meet certain health and safety standards because the legislation opposed their abortion agenda.

These few instances of government abuses do not even begin to brush the surface of the everexpanding list of “rule by man” rather than “by law.” America is indeed an exceptional nation because it derives it legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This consent is embodied in a comprehensive, timeless treasure: the Constitution. The structure the Constitution lays out an intricate structure to prevent the tyranny that selfish men will be tempted to impose. When we deviate from this structure—from the democratic process that ensures a system of checks and balances—we no longer remain a country ruled by the people, for the people. It is absolutely imperative that we hold our leaders to strict Constitutional guidelines, and restore the rule of law in the United States of America before it becomes nothing but a mere figment of our imaginations.

~Christina

DSC07958.jpg

Christina Hadford is a junior at the University of Virginia, and will graduate with a double major in Religious Studies and the Distinguished Major’s Program in Politics. Christina is co-President of Hoos for Life, the pro-life club, as well as Off the Hook, a club promoting traditional marriage, family life, and sexual integrity. This coming year she will serve as Vice Chair of UVA’s newest conservative CIO, Young Americans for Freedom. In her free time Christina enjoys playing soccer, participating in pretty much any outdoors activity, and spending time with friends and family.

Scalia Says

Last week, I had the opportunity to meet Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and listen to his opinions on the wisdom of the founding fathers and the federal balance of power system created over 200 years ago.

Justice Scalia is currently the longest serving Justice on the court.  Appointed by Ronald Reagan, Justice Scalia is described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing.  He has a strong conservative ideology, evident in his opinions, and he advocates originalism in constitutional interpretation. This means that he tries to interpret the original intent of the constitution and vociferously opposes the idea of a living constitution where the judiciary can modify its laws to fit modern times.  As a strong cornerstone and advocate of conservative philosophy, Justice Scalia is pivotal in helping to maintain conservative principles in an ever-increasing powerful judiciary.

Here are five main lessons from his presentation:

  1. Gridlock is our system.  The founding fathers were most wary of a tyrannical legislative branch.  To avoid this abuse of power, the founding fathers built a system of checks and balances into our government to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful.  Scalia notes the immensely difficult task of producing a common version of a bill that has been passed through two separate chambers of the legislature and signed by the Executive.  He advises that the founding fathers made it this way to protect the liberties of the people from abuses of the government.  He declares that instead of complaining about stalemates in the government, we should instead commend them, as this is how our system was envisioned to work.
  2. The Federal Supreme Court is NOT the most important.   Justice Scalia advises that while his court, the highest court in all the land, does make important decisions that effect policy, state supreme courts are much more pertinent to the average American’s daily life.  Murder, robbery, arson, etc. are not illegal under federal law. The majority of people will never deal with the federal Supreme Court in their lifetime; instead the states should be tasked with making the decisions that have the largest impact on its citizens. Scalia believes that oftentimes, the powers of the Supreme Court get augmented in the media.
  3. The most difficult decisions are not always the most important.  Which decisions did Scalia say were his most difficult? A case dealing with abortion or the definition of marriage?  No – Justice Scalia says his hardest cases deal with patent law.  He notes that the most complex cases often are not the ones on which the media and policymakers most closely focus.  For those, he knows his ideology and belief system, but for issues dealing with technical cases of science, genetics, etc., he is no expert and this makes decisions much more difficult.
  4. Legislating should not be a career.  Scalia believes the founding fathers would be alarmed to know that legislating is now a commonplace career in American society.  The days where legislating for a few months and then returning to family farms and businesses have now been replaced with 24/7 careers in public policy.  Scalia warns that this is when tyranny and despotism ensue and believes this should be limited.  He mentioned that imposing term limits could be a viable way to fix this problem.
  5. State power should be restored.  Justice Scalia lectured that state power is decreasing at a disturbing rate starting with the adoption of the 17th amendment—a constitutional amendment approving the direct election of U.S. Senators.  Scalia believes this amendment thwarted the delicate balance of power created between the federal and state governments. He believes that the federal government is becoming too powerful and declares that it is vital for state power to be restored to its original position in the constitution.

There you have it—words of wisdom from Justice Scalia to me, and from me to you.

Who Gets to Tell the Story?

People assume that public schools are neutral places of learning that simply give children facts and figures. They seem to believe that everything taught is amoral but this is not the case.

Teaching is by nature the act of transmitting ideas, and ideas when fully embraced will change the course of one’s life. The opportunity to affect a person’s life by helping him develop new ideas is truly powerful. Teachers and textbooks are in places of power. This is why we desperately want to think that eduction is totally unbiased, but if we are honest we have to admit that this is an impossible wish. Why so?

As people we are continually projecting our beliefs on those around us whether we like it or not. A Christian will act as his faith dictates while a postmodernist will project his view by trying to get everyone in the world to stop projecting their views on him. In a like manner, the presentation of any set of facts will reflect the opinion of the presenter—whether he’s trying to or not. Even if a textbook author or teacher is working to avoid expressing their own opinions their very sentence structure will betray them.

A textbook, no matter how many authors have worked on it, will tell the story from a certain point of view. The story of history, the story of science, the story of literature, the story of grammar, the story of biology, all these and more will be told to students during their years in school. These precious ideas will be imparted from the perspective of the text and teachers.

A K-12 public education is not just the presentation of blind facts over many years, it is a slow process of discipleship in which teachers and their textbooks train the student in every area of knowledge.

So, who is telling us the story—because it’s their worldview we are learning.

Talking With a Pro-Abort While Retaining Your Sanity

If you’re a retiring, diffident sort of pro-lifer, the very word “debate” will give you a headache. You know the facts and you know you’re right, but arguing with these people is just so very unpleasant. Most of the time, you never even get around to asking whether the fetus is human; instead, you’re slogging through environmental issues and accusations of sexism.
I present to you a foolproof guide to clearing the table for a healthy, helpful conversation with a pro-abortion advocate.
Ground Rules:
Never, ever lose your temper. Remember that these are people and that very few of them are actually Lord Voldemort. The woman you’re about to start screaming at feeds her cat in the morning and plays Tetris at work and calls her mom when she’s had a bad day. She has no idea that she is on the wrong side. Treat her, not as an opponent, but as a colleague, a companion on your trip to the truth.
Also: relax. You’re not in the trenches, you’re talking to a human being (see above).
Listen, and find common ground.
The best way to have a conversation is… well, to actually have a conversation. No matter what we’re arguing about, we all know the feeling of biding our time until the other guy stops talking so we can say our thing. So the first lesson is to stop that junk. The person you’re talking to is giving you information on how to change his mind; don’t let it go to waste.
The first argument you’re going to hear – I guarantee you – is, “What about rape?” You probably have a bunch of preprogrammed logical arguments that spring to your mind. They will be useless, because you didn’t understand the question. Here is what he’s really asking: “Why do you care more about the fetus than the woman?” He is not asking whether the fetus is human, but rather whether you are. You need to address this. Agree, and be glad that this person is compassionate enough to care about someone. It will work in your favor later. Try this:
“I agree, rape is horrible, and pregnancy adds so much stress to an already terrible situation.”
There. You’re done. Was that so hard? And you believe it, you really do. It would be horrible to be raped, and even more to conceive out of rape.
See, behind every talking point they throw at you, there is a valid concern. Back alley abortions? “I agree, those are brutal and dangerous conditions. No woman should have to do that.” Poverty? “It’s true, raising a child is often the last thing a destitute mother needs.” Population control? “You’re right, we’re stewards of the earth, and we should be sure we use our resources wisely.” You consent that these are all problems, but not that abortion is the solution.
Do not tolerate irrelevance.
You could talk about those issues all day. Don’t. I have seen grown men cry from sheer frustration. See them for what they are: distractions.
There is a very effective technique I like to use to cut through the mayhem. It is called Trot Out the Toddler. Say to your interlocutor, let’s call her Sandy, “Okay, Sandy. Can we just forget about abortion for a minute? I just want you to complete this sentence for me: It’s okay to kill a child if…” Make it clear that you’re talking about a born child, like a two-year-old.
If Sandy is anything short of a psychopath, she won’t be able to fill in the blank. Agree with her (you thought we were done with step one, didn’t you? We’re never done with step one) and maybe say, “You’re absolutely right. I mean, that’s messed up, right?” Then ask, “So what would you say the difference is between that and abortion?” Keep in mind that that is not a rhetorical question. She obviously thinks there is a difference.
To which she will respond, “A fetus isn’t a baby!” Ask her, “Is that the only difference?” She’ll say yes, because that really is the only possible answer. Cement this by summing it up. “Tell me whether you think this is fair, and correct me if I’m wrong: if the fetus is a child, then abortion kills children, which we just said is unacceptable under any circumstances. If the fetus is not a child, then abortion is just a harmless operation which is fine under any circumstances. So really, the only thing we disagree on is whether the fetus is a child.”
See what we did? Sandy can no longer bring up population control or rape or feminism, because we just agreed that the circumstances don’t matter. Congratulations, you’ve cleared the extraneous themes away and boiled the debate down to the only important issue: is the fetus a human being?
If you know your stuff, you won’t have much of a problem with the rest of this. If not, watch for my blog next Monday, when I’ll tell you how to tackle the real conversation.

Population Poverty

Impoverished. Destitute. Poverty. These words paint images of children living in third world countries, tiny protruding bones testifying to a malnutrition which is all they have ever known. The thought of these children forges deep within us a sense of compassion, and rightly so. A lack of food, water, and the essentials for life is a tragic reality for far too many. Yet while men, women, and children suffer from a want of nutrition, a hidden poverty lurks unnoticed, threatening to starve the entire world. Current trends point to an insufficient resource even more essential than food: people themselves. Below-replacement birth rates are creating a demographic poverty.

Our culture’s view of life drives down the world-wide birth rate. In practice, our generation views children largely as a burden; kids create extra expense, are emotionally exhausting, and clutter an already-full planet. This anti-child paradigm has fueled various means of discouraging children: rampant abortion, strict one-child policies, and excessive birth control. Thomas Malthus’ theory greatly contributed to the prejudice against children. Practically, this mindset has lowered the birth rate detrimentally. Due to a negative perspective of children, birth rates around the world have been steadily falling.

Dropping birth rates negatively affects the prosperity and growth of a nation. Intuitively, a lowered birth rate must lead to a steady population, which would be helpful for conservation of resources. However, the number of children being born is lowering to a damaging level. The world is resting precariously on the edge of a demographic implosion. In order to maintain a constant population, each woman must bear 2.1 children.  A statistic lower than this will eventually shrink the population. When birth rates dwindle to below-replacement level, the population downsizes. The United States delicately hovers at a 1.9 birth rate, not quite adequate to keep the population count unchanged.  One impact of this decline is economic in nature. When the number of producers does not have a sufficient consumer base, the economy suffers. As fewer babies are born, the population ages.

Birth rates must rise in order to restore economic prosperity. The population is the pulse of a thriving national and world economy, providing producers, consumers, and the necessary workforce. Just one new business requires an entrepreneur with an idea, persons with finances to support the initiative, employees to make the project happen, and consumers willing and able to purchase the product or service. In the same way, the economic well-being of a nation depends upon the presence of people. To solve the demographic poverty and replenish a dry population, we must first match our priorities with the Bible’s and see children as a blessing. This generation is, in effect, committing suicide. As more and more countries join the slumping birth rate, mankind takes one step closer to extinction. To quench the famished demographic of our world and secure for our culture the potential for prosperity and growth, we need a thriving birth rate.

A Pregnant Pause

I recently read an article by Jennifer Felwiler called “Why I Lost Faith in the Pro-Choice Movement” (see here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-choice-movement). The article was outstanding and I highly recommend it, but one thing stood out in particular to me. Jennifer mentions that she was an avid pro-choicer, but that she had never actually been exposed to any of the facts or details of pregnancy or abortion. She claims that the pro-choice movement has a fear of information. I decided to look into it further and found that the pro-choice movement has not only a fear or information, but a fear of personhood.

ALL     VS.   pp

I examined two websites: The American Life League (ALL), which is one of the biggest pro-life organizations in America (ALL.org), and Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in America (PlannedParenthood.org). What I found shocked me.

First I looked at the information these websites offer on the methods of abortion available. The Planned Parenthood website mentioned two kinds of abortion –In Clinic, and the Abortion Pill. The ALL website stated the three classifications of abortion –Surgical, Medical, and Chemical and then all of the many methods under each classification -13 in total. The Planned Parenthood website used vague terms in describing their methods of abortion –all of them avoiding ANY sign that the fetus was anything more than tissue attached to the woman’s body.

In describing aspiration abortion (the most popular option) ALL tells the truth in detail: “an abortionist inserts a suction tube (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into the mother’s womb. The suction and cutting edge dismember the baby while the hose sucks the body parts into a collection bottle.” The Planned Parenthood website describes aspiration abortion as: “a tube is inserted through the cervix into the uterus. Either a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus. Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check that the uterus is empty.”

Planned Parenthood obviously fails to mention that the remaining tissue being removed from the unsuspecting woman is the remains of her child. They fail to mention that when they are checking to make sure that the uterus is empty, they are checking to make sure they didn’t leave an arm or a leg behind. They do not mention what they are sucking out of the patient –a child.

Perhaps the vilest of Planned Parenthood’s vague euphemisms is that they say one of the possible complications of abortion is an incomplete abortion – “part of the pregnancy is left inside the uterus”. This is so vague it should be illegal. Pregnancy is an event not a thing. Pregnancy is a word used to describe a span of time. You cannot take a span of time out of a uterus. The abortionist isn’t taking the pregnancy out of the woman in an abortion –they are taking out a human life.

Not only is this vagueness odd and offensive, it is very uncommon in the surgical world. If you look up the information for a cataract surgery, a very common surgery, you will find extensive details about every step of the surgery, but not so with abortion. What are they trying so hard to hide?

Though I direly wanted to close out of the Planned Parenthood website and never look at it again, I was too driven by anger to give up. I next went and checked out Planned Parenthood’s section on fetal development. I was surprised to find that Planned Parenthood did have a page on fetal development, however it was clearly aimed at making the baby seem as inhuman as possible. Here are some comparisons taken directly from the websites:

ALL (day 20): “His heart, brain, spinal column, and nervous system are almost complete and his eyes begin to form.”

Planned Parenthood (not until weeks 5-6): “The neural tube begins forming. The neural tube will later form the brain, spinal cord, and major nerves.”

ALL (day 22): “His heart begins to beat”

Planned Parenthood (not until weeks 5-6): “A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop.”

Week 8:

ALL: “His fingers and toes are fairly well defined, and fingerprints, a unique and defining feature of every human being, are permanently engraved on his skin.”

Planned Parenthood: “Webbed fingers and toes develop.”

Weeks 9-10:

ALL: “All areas of his body are sensitive to touch. He sucks his thumbs, swallows, squints, frowns and puckers his brow. If his palm is stroked, he will make a tight fist.”

Planned Parenthood: “The embryo develops into a fetus after 10 weeks. The tail disappears. Fingers and toes are longer.”

Weeks 11-12

ALL: “He can also make all facial expressions, including a smile.”

Planned Parenthood: “The fetus begins making spontaneous movements.”

While ALL offers a free DVD with pictures of 4D ultrasounds, Planned Parenthood’s informative pictures are as simple as you can get. For example:

With today’s technology and all their money I’m sure Planned Parenthood can do a lot better than that.

With today’s technology and all their money I’m sure Planned Parenthood can do a lot better than this.

While both websites have fairly accurate information on fetal development, the greatest difference is found in the wording. Planned Parenthood’s terminology makes the baby sound foreign and inhuman.

Planned Parenthood also goes to great extents to make pregnancy sound like the worst thing in the world for women. After every section on the stages of fetal development they have a section about the related symptoms of that point in pregnancy. Symptoms listed include, but are not limited to: fatigue, vomiting, nausea, constipation, nasal stuffiness, nosebleeds, trouble sleeping, stretch marks, varicose veins, gum bleeding, difficulty breathing, hemorrhoids, itchiness, acne outbreaks, weight gain, shortness of breath, dizziness, fainting, frequent urination… the list goes on and on and on. The Planned Parenthood website does not say that you may get these symptoms, it makes it sound as if they go along with pregnancy like two peas in a pod. The one and only positive pregnancy symptom that I found on their website was that the woman’s hair may appear fuller and healthier.

Pregnancy is difficult and painful, no doubt, but it is also an absolutely beautiful and incredible experience –it is allowing a new life to come into this world. It is the creation of a being that only one man and one woman, with God’s help, can make. Did you know that when a woman gets pregnant her body actually becomes like a protective cocoon surrounding the baby? That is why her hair becomes healthier and fuller. During pregnancy the woman’s heart actually gets stronger and her blood clots faster to protect her from losing too much and hurting her or the baby. The woman’s sense of smell gets stronger and she begins to breathe deeper, getting more oxygen to her whole body. Nowhere does Planned Parenthood mention these amazing pregnancy facts. Nowhere does this advocate of women’s rights mention the joys of pregnancy and motherhood.

This great divide in information must be put to an end. Women deserve to know the facts about the “choice” they are making.