The Alabama Senate Race is a Matter of Life and Death
Judge Roy Moore is Unabashedly Pro-Life; Doug Jones Starkly Pro-Abortion.
PRI president Steven W. Mosher reports.
On December 12th, the voters of Alabama will have a clear choice between a Senate candidate who believes that life begins at conception and one who believes that a baby can be killed up to the moment of birth.
Judge Moore has been an unabashed champion for Life for decades, while Democrat Doug Jones has been an equally ardent backer of …. Abortion and Planned Parenthood.
You may be forgiven for not knowing this, since the mainstream media, led by the Washington Post and the New York Times, has been doing its best to distract us from the real issues in the Alabama Senate race.
Moore’s campaign website clears away the chaff. The Judge clearly and forcefully states his pro-life position and specifically calls for Planned Parenthood to be defunded:
I oppose abortion.
Federal funding for Planned Parenthood or any form of abortion should be stopped.
Jones, on the other hand, hides his radical pro-abortion sentiments behind pro-choice rhetoric:
I will defend a woman’s right to choose and stand with Planned Parenthood.
When MSNBC’s Chuck Todd asked Jones if he would support legislation that banned late-term abortions, the Democrat candidate doubled down:
I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose. That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years. It’s a position I continue to have.
But when those people — I want to make sure that people understand that once a baby is born, I’m going to be there for that child. That’s where I become a right to lifer.
Jones’ radical position was immediately condemned by many, including Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser:
Doug Jones clearly has no problem with the fact that the U.S. is only one of seven nations – alongside North Korea and China – to allow elective abortion on-demand after five months. His extremism puts him dramatically out of step with Alabama voters.
Alabama is one of twenty states to take a stand against the brutality of late term abortions having approved a state limit in 2011. Polls consistently show that a large majority of Americans – women in higher numbers than men – support bringing our national laws into line with basic human decency … Jones is out to impress the big abortion lobby but this does nothing for his chances against Judge Moore.
Democrat Jones has not shied away from embracing Big Abortion, either, publishing pictures of himself at Planned Parenthood functions. He is even on record as supporting a repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of taxpayer money to pay for abortions. Needless to say, the repeal of this amendment, which originally passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, would be another windfall for abortionists.
Jones’s position on abortion is identical to that of failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Both believe that unborn babies have no constitutional rights.
Joe Godfrey, Executive Director of Alabama Citizens Action Program (ALCAP), reflects the concerns of many Alabamans about Jones embrace of abortion when he says: “Conservatives need to understand that, while we are unsure about Roy Moore’s past, we are very sure that Doug Jones does not share our Alabama values.”
I, for one, am not interested in hearing about 40-year-old allegations aired by pro-abortion media outlets.
I am only interested in protecting the right to life of any unborn children conceived in these United States in years to come.
Doug Jones would use my tax dollars to fuel Planned Parenthood’s industrial-sized killing machine. Roy Moore would do everything in his power to not only end the funding, but to end abortion itself.
My friend Dr. Alveda King, who happens to be the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., puts the matter this way:
Every election counts in the race for life. Judge Roy Moore stands for the sanctity of human life from the womb to the tomb. Doug Jones does not. We must always vote our values. Life is a civil right.
Segment two
No Stephen Hawking, Population Growth Is Not Going to Turn Earth into a “Ball of Fire”
It’s a curious thing. At times, the most brilliant scientists and mathematicians throughout history have held some of the most preposterous beliefs.
For instance, Rene Descartes, inventor of modern analytic geometry and the Cartesian plane, believed the pineal gland was the seat of the human soul. Sir Isaac Newton, the father of classical mechanics, the laws of motion, and co-discoverer of calculus, believed that one could predict the future through hidden secrets written into the Bible. And William Herschel, who discovered the planet Uranus, believed that, based on “astronomical principles” [italics in the original text], the Sun had a solid surface with “mountains and vallies [sic]” and was “most probably also inhabited” by alien life.
Even Albert Einstein for years refused to believe—contrary to all observational evidence—in an expanding universe. Einstein initially rejected the theory of an expanding universe proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, former President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a Jesuit priest, and one of the leading astrophysicists of the mid-20th Century. Lemaître’s theory became what is now known as the Big Bang Theory.
Now world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has claimed that overpopulation and an excessive consumption of energy will turn Earth into a “ball of fire” by 2600, according to Metro.
Hawking made the eyebrow raising claim in a video address delivered at the Tencent WE Summit in Beijing recently.
Hawking’s “ball of fire” statement prefaced an appeal to the scientific community to support ‘Breakthrough Starshot,’ a venture to launch a nano-spacecraft capable to reaching Alpha Centauri, our nearest neighboring star system, in about 20 years.
Hawking hopes that such a mission could reveal potentially habitable planets for future generations. Hawking made the case that humanity must “boldly go where no one has gone before” in order for humanity to continue for another million years.
While it may be important for humanity to find other nearby habitable planets as possible ‘plan Bs’ in the event of a worldwide catastrophe, population growth and energy consumption are certainly not projected to turn Earth into a “ball of fire.”
In fact, world population is projected to slow over the course of the remainder of this century. The annual population growth rate has plummeted since the 1960’s with no signs of reversing any time soon.
The United Nations Population Division projects that world population will approach leveling off by 2100. The total population in high-income countries is projected to contract by 2065 and by 2085 in middle-income countries.
As the 20th and early 21st centuries have shown, couples have revised downward their desired fertility as child mortality decreases and health care improves. Couples are now having fewer children as the likelihood that their children will survive to adulthood increases.
Other factors such as increasing urbanization, greater participation in the workforce and higher educational attainment among women, and the rising standard of living worldwide appear poised to slow population growth further for the foreseeable future.
Moderate population growth is a crucial factor for healthy economic growth and for population replacement.
More people does not just mean ‘more mouths to feed’ or ‘more carbon emitters.’ More people means more laborers and more innovative minds to find creative solutions to problems like world hunger and to make ventures like ‘Breakthrough Starshot’ a reality.
In fact, while 2 billion persons have been added to the world population since 1990,[1] the percentage of undernourished persons in developing countries has fallen from 23% down to 13%.[2] And in 2014 we produced food on less land than the amount of land under agricultural use in 1994.[3]
It is uncertain how population growth over the coming centuries will in and of itself cause the Earth to combust. To be charitable, perhaps Hawking’s “ball of fire” statement was merely metaphorical hyperbole. Even so, it was probably not the best choice of words.
Let’s stick to the facts. World population is slowing, not exploding. But in any event, there is no evidence to support the claim that population growth per se will cause the Earth to become a flaming inferno.
Segment three
This year, PRI will celebrate the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae.
This memorable event will be both heartwarming and challenging. All of us are called on to be prepared to celebrate and to defend the truths that Blessed Pope Paul fearlessly promulgated on July 25, 1968.
The occasion calls for prayerful reflection and study. As St. Paul tells us in Ephesians, we must “put on the full armor of God and stand firm with the belt of truth buckled around our waste, with the breastplate of righteousness in place.”
The population research Institute is responding to this challenge by giving its supporters worldwide an invaluable resource for the defense of Humanae Vitae. In
Dr. Gonzalo Herranz, a revered senior professor at the University of Navarre in Pamplona Spain, has just finished one of the most important studies of the history of the pro-contraception movement since its earliest origins. Dr. Herranz painstakingly documents both the history of contraception in theory and in practice, carefully analyzing the arguments conjured up its advocates in the early days of the 20th century and following their development as contraception was practiced more widely and as new techniques became available.
To make these findings available to the general public, PRI has created a website that will feature invaluable summaries of each chapter of this magisterial work, providing translations in Italian, Portuguese, French, and English, as well as the original Spanish. That means that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world will have access to the most accurate, thorough, and faithful study of the subject available in any language today.
This magisterial work arose out of Dr. Herranz’s realization that there are critical elements in the history of contraception that are little-known because they have been either ignored or concealed. The work concentrates on developments in the United States because it was here, Dr. Herranz tells PRI Review, that the language developed to advocate contraception as well as the major campaigns to legitimize it were founded.
Dr. Herranz and his team of professional colleagues in medicine, theology, and history have made sure that this study would provide an unassailable and rigorous foundation for those desiring to deepen their understanding and work more effectively to defend and to advocate Humanae Vitae throughout the world.
Herranz’s work begins with a discussion of the origin of the terms “contraception” and “birth control,” reminding us that the latter term was actually created by Margaret Sanger, the notorious founder of Planned Parenthood and the advocate of eugenics and the elimination of the “unfit.” Her murderous campaign resonated Adolf Hitler’s elimination of the mentally and physically handicapped, as well as the extermination of “undesirable” races.
We should remember Sanger’s hatred of life – and she often bragged about it.
I believe that there should be no more babies,”
She told interviewer John Parsons in 1947. “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” she wrote in 1920.
“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said in 1939.
Inspired by the spirit of Sanger, advocates strived to hide their true goals. They tried to distinguish between abortion and “birth control,” a devious enterprise, since many methods were already known to destroy the unborn child. This deception did not escape the attention of the medical profession, and Herranz carefully recounts the history of the discussion carried on in professional circles through the years, as they first rejected, and then accepted contraception as an ethical medical practice.
Through the years, Catholic doctors persisted in their criticism of and opposition to contraception, on both medical and moral grounds. Hence, Margaret Sanger was relived when she welcomed the 1937 decision of the American Medical Association to approve “birth control” as an integral part of medical practice and education.
Thereafter, the doctors who cared for women in the United States during and after World War II, and up to the present day, have been taught that contraception is part of the package of services they should professionally offer their patients.
Of course, the Episcopalian church in the United States had already declared the morality of birth control at the Lambeth conference in 1930, but there was still widespread opposition to the practice, to which advocates responded by changing the language. Dr. Herranz traces this ideological tactic understood so well understood by Confucius, George Orwell, and even Alice in Wonderland’s Humpty Dumpty. Suddenly, “control of fertility” was introduced to soften the impact and blur the daunting image of stopping a baby from being born.
Dr. Herranz’s treatment of the Papal Commission For The Study Of The Problems Of The Family, Population, and Birth Rate includes a thorough study of all the documentation leading to Blessed Paul VI’s promulgation of Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968. His study ends with a consideration of several “protagonists in the shadows,” a group of “experts” who quietly approved of contraceptives and abortifacients by introducing a constantly changing vocabulary and “scientific” approaches.
PRI wants to reach tens of millions worldwide with this valuable pro-life Please spread the word and help us energize and educate pro-lifers throughout the world in their efforts to save the unborn.
This has been the PRI Review from www.pop.org. Thanks for listening.
