SF picking on pro-life centers

San Francisco's new ordinance leveled at pro-life pregnancy centers will face federal court scrutiny. The core of the lawsuit is First Amendment viewpoint discrimination.

First Resort is a chain of pro-life centers filing the case. The group's CEO Shari Plunkett claims the Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordination was "crafted to target one or two specific organizations and carefully shelter from its scope all groups whose viewpoints the city agrees with."

Paul Suis, a longtime board member for First Resort, explains to OneNewsNow that two layers of the ordinance ensure it could only be applied to pro-life pregnancy centers and not to abortion facilities.

"There's a 14th Amendment violation of equal protection because it singles out one group and favors it over another," he adds. "Again, that's related to the viewpoint discrimination theme."

In addition, the lawsuit contends regulation of pro-life pregnancy centers is not something a city should get involved in. The City by the Bay, says the pro-life spokesman, should be familiar with that aspect.

"San Francisco recently got burned on that subject when a group tried to put on the ballot an initiative forbidding circumcision," he notes, "and that was ruled to be pre-empted by California law and not a proper subject for a municipal initiative."

Similar ordinances against pro-life centers in Baltimore were ruled unconstitutional. Suis says there are differences in the San Francisco ordinance. "However, it's still blatant and explicit viewpoint discrimination," he argues. "It's still a requirement imposed only on one side of the debate."

If San Francisco tries to enforce the ordinance before the court decides the case, attorneys will seek an injunction to halt enforcement.

In a press release, First Resort identifies Alpha Pregnancy Center as the only other organization affected by the new ordinance.

What abortionists want

By all accounts, several hundred thousand pro-abortion demonstrators rallied in the capital yesterday.
I don't know about you, but I can't figure out what it is they're protesting.
For most of the last 31 years, they have gotten their way.
Unrestricted abortion on demand has been treated by the political establishment as the law of the land.
It has been accepted by politicians and the court jesters as the law of the land since 1973.
The people, working through institutions of representative government and elections, have effectively been denied any say in the matter of abortion ever since.
Nevertheless, these malcontents still act threatened. These abortion fanatics still act as if they won't be happy until the state requires a license to birth a child in this country. These bleeding-hands liberals continue to act like an oppressed majority.
That's what I witnessed yesterday when these 250,000 baby-bashers met in Washington.
What exactly were they protesting? They got what they wanted.
It's worth noting that they didn't get their way because they showed their strength at the ballot box. It's worth noting that they didn't get their way because of superior organization in pushing legislation at the state or national levels. It's worth nothing that despite misusing the government schools to promote their propaganda, getting aid and comfort from the establishment media for their cause and having judicial tyrants ram their agenda down the throats of an unwilling public, they still haven't persuaded a significant majority of the righteousness of their cause.
They got what they wanted through intimidation, through authoritarianism, through top-down state control and by denying the people any say in the issue.
That's why I thought what the aging diva of the bleeding-hands liberals, Gloria Steinem, had to say was nearly comical.
"The desire to control reproduction is the mark of authoritarian governments around the world and, unfortunately, it's ours, as well," she said on CNN.
She's right that the desire to control reproduction is one of the marks of an authoritarian government. We can see that in China, where the central government limits parents to one child in most cases. This is a policy that has been applauded by many of Steinem's National Organization for Women colleagues for years.
For instance, former NOW President Molly Yard said, in 1989 on the Oprah Winfrey show: "We are going to have to face as China has faced the policy of controlling the size of families, and to assume that we can go on without facing the responsibility is totally irresponsible ... I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world ... It is a policy limited to the heavily overpopulated areas and it is an attempt to feed the people of China. I find it very intelligent."
She was hardly the first or last NOW leader to extol or, at least, excuse the most authoritarian reproduction policies in the world.
Steinem is also right when she calls U.S. national policy authoritarian. It is so because judicial tyrants have taken the matter of abortion out of the hands of the people – or at least the people have been bullied into believing they have.
So, I'm still puzzled. After listening to all the speeches, reading all the banners and listening to all the chanting at yesterday's rally in the capital. Just what is it these malcontent feminazis want now? Will they not be satisfied until all the unborn babies are torn apart?
Can someone help me out here?
What is it these abortion fanatics want now?


By Joseph Farah

PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT HAS TAKEN THE MARK OF THE BEAST

The Bible speaks of a government in the last days that “makes war with the Lamb” (Rev. 13). This totalitarian state demands worship of its image – “the beast.” This government mandates a “mark” on the forehead or back of the hand in order to buy or sell. This government slays many martyrs. “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man…” The mark represents the worship of man.
Throughout the book of Revelation, there is a distinction between those who “worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark” and those who “had gotten victory over the beast and his image, and his mark.” The former are judged and condemned to the lake of fire; the latter are received into heaven’s glory to rule and to reign with Christ forever.
What’s so evil about receiving a government-mandated mark in order to buy or sell? One must take care of his family, right? One must obey the “higher powers”, right? (Romans 13:1-4) “Obey those that have rule over you,” right? Receiving the “mark” is evil because one must violate God’s law and worship the image of the state in order to receive it. To worship the state is to commit idolatry, to rebel against God Almighty. God is the “highest power”, and disobeying God’s law to submit to man’s evil mandates is to receive a “mark” that brings condemnation.
The State Demands, “Render Unto Caesar That Which Is God’s”
The Roman pagans asked the church patriarch Polycarp, “What harm is it to say ‘Lord Caesar’ and sacrifice, and save yourself?”
As documented in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Polycarp responded, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never once wronged me. How then shall I blaspheme my king, who hath saved me?”
They would have let Polycarp continue to worship Jesus Christ, as long as He paid homage to Caesar. But God did not give Polycarp the option of serving two masters (Matt. 6:24). God did not give Polycarp the option of being a friend of the world and a friend of God (James 4:4). God did not give Polycarp the option of worshiping the state and the Creator, of yielding to sin and to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” Polycarp refused to render unto Caesar that which belonged only to God and was burnt at the stake for it.
Comparatively, what little cost there appears to be today to sacrifice to the state, to spurn God’s Word and will for the word and will of government. The greatest cost, however, is losing the blessing of God.
The Pro-Life Movement Prefers Man’s Word and Will to God’s
How does the pro-life movement worship the state over God?
Let’s contrast God’s word and will with the government’s word and will. God’s Word says, “Do no murder” (Sixth Commandment, Exod. 20). God’s Word further mandates the state to protect the innocent through enforcing a penalty sufficient to discourage the crime (Exod. 21, Rom. 13:3-4). God’s Word says that justice is a local matter (Deut. 21). God’s Word says that life begins in the womb. With regard to the killing of innocent children: “It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14). Not one.
In permitting innocent children of God to be slaughtered unjustly, our government is “at war with the Lamb” and in defiance of Almighty God. Our government is also at war with our U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court declares that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit abortion, including the abortion of healthy babies mature enough to survive outside the womb. Don’t they know that the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”? Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, in 1803, said, “A law repugnant [or repulsive] to the Constitution is void.” Would you cash a check with words “VOID” across the front of it? Well, then why do you respect Supreme Court decisions that are by their very nature just as null and void?
When the federal government rules contrary to the law of God and the U.S. Constitution, states should not obey them. Those who disobey God to submit to the evil commands of evil government, those who “sacrifice to Caesar” to protect and preserve their lives and positions are condemned by God. It is those who disobey the evil commands of evil government - even unto death - that are received into heaven to rule and reign with Christ. This was the understanding of both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin when they both said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” This was the Apostle Peter’s understanding when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
As the federal judiciary consistently rules contrary to the U.S. Constitution and contrary to the law of God, much of the pro-life movement can be relied upon to tread the word of God and the U.S. Constitution underfoot in their submission to the High Court’s lawless rule.
Striking evidence can be seen in how several large pro-life groups responded to the Mississippi Personhood Amendment (which would have ended abortion in Mississippi, and yet failed to pass on November 8). Shirley Henderson, the director of communications for the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, said this in early November:
“The stance of the Diocese of Biloxi is that the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
The Catholic Diocese of Jackson, which presides over Catholic churches in the upper half of Mississippi, said this in October,
“While we sincerely respect the goal to amend the Mississippi Constitution so as to acknowledge full human rights for every human being, after careful consideration, it is our opinion and that of the legal experts with whom we have consulted that passage of this amendment would not achieve the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. If such an amendment were to pass, we are convinced that a federal district court would strike it down based on Roe. This decision would undoubtedly be affirmed by an appellate court, and the case would either not be granted further review by today’s U.S. Supreme Court, or worse, would lead to a reaffirmation of Roe. The unintended effect would very likely jeopardize current protections in state law and cause a loss of momentum in the ultimate goal of establishing full legal protection of the unborn from the moment of conception.”
Both Catholic Dioceses in Mississippi opposed or would not support the Mississippi Personhood Amendment because they feared the Supreme Court would strike it down. National Right to Life opposes statewide abortion bans and personhood amendments in state after state for the same reason. In 2006, Denise Mackura, the president of Ohio Right to Life bashed House Bill 228 - the Ohio Abortion Ban – as she testified before the Health Committee of the Ohio state legislature on the same grounds: it wouldn’t survive the judiciary. Americans United for Life, who did not support the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, said that it “would not have led to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.”

We see a pattern. Some of the largest and well-funded pro-life groups in America would not support a simple amendment that declares life begins at fertilization – a fact with which they all agree – because of their respect for the lawless decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s word trumped God’s Word and the U.S. Constitution in their mind, and they bowed to the Supreme Court’s word and will in defiance of God Almighty’s word and will. They’ve taken “the mark.”
The Supreme Court’s rule is not supreme: God and the U.S. Constitution are both supreme over the Supreme Court. The High Court’s jurisdiction is limited. Ohio shouldn’t respect the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion any more than we should respect the Supreme Court’s decision to worship a man and take a literal “mark.” Ohio is obligated by God to protect the innocent within our jurisdiction through law and penalty, even if we must defy the Supreme Court in doing so.
A good example of a state’s right to defy the Supreme Court when they usurp the Constitution and rule unlawfully is medical marijuana. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not allow medical marijuana. Presently, 16 states and the District of Columbia have all enacted laws to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. The states’ decision is based upon bad medicine, but I appreciate the states flexing their sovereign rights over their own constitutional jurisdiction (Article IX and X, Bill of Rights). If states have the courage to resist the Supreme Court for medical marijuana, why won’t states have the courage to resist the Supreme Court when tens of thousands of children are slaughtered under our noses every year? Why does the pro-life movement throw up the white flag of surrender so readily when the Supreme Court orders states to let innocent children be dismembered and disemboweled without access to justice? Because the pro-life movement has taken the “mark.”

5 myths about pro-lifers, and how to refute them

December 13, 2011 (LiveAction.org) - There are a lot of negative stereotypes about the pro-life movement. I could easily write a list of 20 or more. These five, though, are the ones I personally encounter most often, and in the most capital letters. You’ll probably find them familiar. If you don’t know how to argue against these, you should.

5. We’re all brainwashed.

Okay, I admit it, the devil made me do it.

Since they can’t seem to wrap their brains around how a person might make an intelligent, informed decision to oppose abortion, anti-lifers sometimes like to assume we have all been duped. I have been accused, via Facebook, Twitter, email, and comment, of having been brainwashed by the following people or organizations: the Republican Party, Christians, the Vatican, white men, television, the conservative media, Sarah Palin, and the devil. I am not making any of those up.

While I suppose there are those who were raised inside Vatican walls and never heard a dissenting opinion, the truth is that even kids brought up in homes with pro-life parents were probably exposed to pro-abortion ideology somewhere along the way. It may have even happened without their knowledge.

Let me give you an example: I loved the movie Dirty Dancing as a kid. I wasn’t allowed to watch it, but I managed to watch it almost constantly, starting at around age ten. A major plot line in that movie is a main character having an abortion. Everyone is super casual about it, although they never use the word “abortion.” The girl ends up getting hurt by the procedure, but the impression is that this is because the woman had to go to an unsafe doctor with “a dirty knife and a folding table.” Then a real doctor is called and the girl is okay and everyone dances some more. The impression I got as a kid was that abortion was a tragic and sexy thing that pretty girls sometimes had to get because they were so desirable and awesome.

Sorry, Patrick.

I don’t remember hearing anything about abortion from my church or my mom or my friends. I only heard about it from TV and movies, and it was always portrayed in the same light: a sad but necessary thing that boyfriends should pay for while wearing sheepish expressions. I ended up pro-choice until age 27, when I made a decision, based on little or no Chinese water torture by any Popes or Palins, that abortion was wrong and must be ended.

The best way to combat this stereotype is to share your own story. Let anti-lifers know the sound, rational, scientific and ethical reasons on which you base your pro-life activism. And don’t let your kids watch Dirty Dancing.

4. We’re violent.

This is my least favorite myth because it’s the least true. The pro-life movement is by definition an outcry against a violent act.

Eight people have been killed in the United States by anti-abortion protesters. Last I heard, they had all been caught and punished. Fifty million babies have been killed — legally — by abortionists since 1973. Yet we’re the side that gets called violent. Fifty million to eight… Those are pretty dramatic numbers. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s safer to be an abortionist than an unborn baby. Somebody somewhere is probably going to quote that in outrage, never mind the fact that is statistically 100% true.

The pro-life movement as a whole continuously and widely condemns acts of violence, yet anyone who professes a pro-life viewpoint is subject to being called a “clinic bomber.” Eight people — out of hundreds of millions — do not represent the movement, especially when their actions have been decried countless times.

If someone accuses you of belonging to a violent movement, remind them that since Roe v. Wade, every year an average of 1.2 million unborn children have been killed in the U.S., versus an average of two-tenths of an abortionist. The numbers don’t lie.

3. We’re all religious, conservative, and old.

There’s nothing wrong with being religious, conservative, or old, but it’s a mischaracterization. I am a conservative Catholic in my early 30s now, but when I became pro-life, I was a liberal agnostic in my 20s. While many — probably most — pro-lifers believe in some sort of deity, or at least in the human soul, not all of them do. The arguments that made me pro-life were grounded in science, ethics, and human rights. They had nothing to do with religion.

The friend who changed my mind knew better than to use a religious argument with me; I would have stopped listening. I was already wary because she was Catholic. I guess I thought she would sprinkle holy water on me while I wasn’t looking. But she didn’t. She just answered my questions — I had a lot of them — and by the end of the conversation I was, quite against my will, pro-life. I have remained so ever since.

I was also not a conservative, and many — including the friend I mentioned — remain pro-life and liberal or Democrat. The atheist, liberal New Yorker writer Nat Hentoff, after “coming out” as pro-life, experienced a backlash of negativity from fellow writers, intellectuals, atheists, Jews, and Democrats, but he stayed pro-life and a “civil libertarian” for the rest of his career.

A lot of people, when they think of pro-life activists, think of little old ladies saying the rosary outside a clinic. God bless those little old ladies and the work they do, but the truth is the pro-life movement is becoming a youth movement. Despite the fact that society in general seems to get more secular and less conservative, more and more young people oppose abortion. There is no consensus as to why, but it may have something to do with advancing science and technology. We know far more about the unborn human today than we did when Roe v. Wade was decided.

If someone tells you all pro-lifers are middle-aged white Christian Republicans, tell them they’re wrong — even if you are a middle-aged white Christian Republican. I have known pro-lifers of every age, color, religion, and political persuasion. If you don’t, try to get to know some. They’re everywhere! Check out Secular Pro-Life, Pagans for Life, or Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League. They may have a perspective you haven’t considered, which will help build your arsenal of pro-life knowledge and arguments, and make your parties more interesting.

2. We’re hypocrites if we oppose abortion but don’t oppose (fill in the blank).

Can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? Yes. Can you be pro-life and support the war in Iraq? Yes. Can you be pro-life and eat meat? Yes.

You can’t compare these things to abortion. You can’t compare anything to abortion, except certain instances of euthanasia, which by the way are also covered under the pro-life umbrella.

Abortion is child murder. It’s the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And when I say “innocent,” I mean it in the most literal sense. I don’t mean “innocent” of murder, shoplifting, or appearing on “Jersey Shore,” though all of these are undeniably bad things. I mean completely innocent. The unborn child has never harmed a living soul. He did not cause his own existence. He did not ask to be conceived. He is brought to life and, in an abortion, he is killed, most often for the same reason he was conceived: because his mother made a choice.

No act compares to abortion in its heinousness. So don’t let anyone tell you that you must oppose the death penalty, or war, or meat if you are pro-life. Explain the difference between incidental death and intentional. Explain to them the difference between a cow and a human. Explain to them the difference between a convicted criminal and an unborn baby.

1. We have an ulterior motive.

This is the most common argument you will hear, and it honestly doesn’t even deserve the term “argument.” It is a non-argument. An argument would be, “Abortion is okay because the fetus isn’t human,” or “Abortion is okay because the unborn deserve no rights.” Those are arguments. They’re wrong, but they’re arguments. Instead, I am often accused of pretending to be against abortion when what I really want to do is one of the following:

Take all human rights away from women.

Stop everyone from having sex.

Encourage child abuse.

Make promiscuous girls feel bad about themselves.

And so on. So instead of saying, “Abortion should be legal because….,” the presenter of this “argument” says, “Well, you just want to enforce your Puritanical sexual values.” Or, “You just want people to have babies they can’t afford.” And so on.

Look. I’m gonna take this opportunity to come out with it: I am secretly okay with abortion. I honestly don’t mind if women go into clinics and pay doctors to suck their children out of them. What I’m really after, what I’ve really wanted all along, is to engage in “slut-shaming.”

Apparently "slut-shaming" is a real thing that people are against. This was taken at the SlutWalk Toronto.... Yeeeeah.

This is my favorite non-argument ever. Written by “freelance journalist and stand-up comic” Amanda Grimes (whose graduate thesis was on “gender and stand-up comedy”), this blog made me literally wipe tears of laughter from my eyes. So she’s got the comedy part down! According to Grimes, pro-lifers aren’t really interested in saving lives. What they secretly want to do — wait for it — is make slutty girls feel bad about themselves. You heard me. The ulterior motive behind the pro-life movement, according to Andrea Grimes, is “slut-shaming.”

Ms. Grimes, if by “slut-shaming” you mean encouraging young women to behave in ways that will result in less pain for themselves, their children, and society, it is certainly on my list of reasons for opposing abortion. However, I hate to break it to you, reason number one is that I am actually nutso enough to believe in the sanctity of every human life. Sorry to disappoint. Now get back to that groundbreaking, totally relevant thesis!

By the way, for the record, you know what changed Grimes’s mind about abortion? I’ll let her say it in her own words:

Well, I got off my religious high horse and on to a sex life I enjoyed and found fulfilling.

That is… profound, isn’t it? She went to college, lost her virginity, and found out sex was fun! So then she discarded all the morals her parents went to the trouble to teach her, and ”went right the f*** out” and got on birth control, which, as it often does, led her to going right the eff out and feeling okay about abortion. “I believe wanting to take that choice away from others is deeply about shame and punishment and judgment, and not about righteousness and love.”

Guess what, Grimes? Just because you believe something about us doesn’t make it true.

So apparently, Ms. Grimes did not believe in the sanctity of life. She was merely having fun “slut-shaming.” But just because she didn’t have strong, factual, righteous, loving reasons for opposing abortion doesn’t mean that’s the case for you, or me, or any other pro-lifer.

Don’t let anyone assign you intentions that aren’t yours. We are pro-life because we care for women and their children. We are pro-life because we believe in human rights. Don’t give an inch when it comes to your reasons for opposing abortion.

If you engage in any kind of pro-life activism you are going to encounter resistance. Not all of it will be honest, pleasant, or fair. If they haven’t yet, people are going to assume things about you and assign you traits and beliefs that don’t belong to you. (We’ll get to the name calling in another article.)

Learn to politely, rationally, tell them why they’re wrong, and bring the issue back to what it’s really about: the reprehensible act of abortion, what it truly is, and why we have to stop it.

Pro-Life Voters More Energized to Defeat Obama in 2012

Pro-life voters looking for some good news heading into 2012 and the battle to defeat pro-abortion President Barack Obama got some good news today as new numbers from USA Today polls showed a shift in the right direction.

The new USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll finds the number of voters who identify themselves as Democratic or Democratic-leaning in a dozen of the top battle ground states are getting out of Obama’s party. They percentage dropped 4 percent while the number of Republican voters in those states, who are looking for an Obama replacement, is up 5 percent.

The poll also shows Republican voters are more enthusiastic about voting in the 2012 presidential election than their Democratic counterparts. Some 61 percent of Republicans are enthusiastic compared with 47 percent of Democrats.

Key groups of Republicans — conservatives, middle-aged men and those 50 to 64 years old — are most enthusiastic while core Democratic groups that were critical to Obama’s election in 2008, including minorities and younger voters are least enthusiastic.

“The contrasting conditions of the nation’s two major political parties — discouraged Democrats and resurgent Republicans — underscore how different Obama’s re-election campaign is from the contest four years ago,” USA Today said. “Consider the math: In 2008, when Obama carried the swing states by 8 percentage points, Democrats there swamped Republicans in party identification by 11 points. Now, that partisan edge has tightened to a statistically insignificant 2 points.”

“Republicans are more likely to be paying a lot of attention than Democrats — 69% to 48% — and they are more likely to say the election’s outcome will make a major difference to the course of the economy,” the newspaper reported.

Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus told the newspaper, “Enthusiasm is a tremendous benefit. We’re going to be able to mobilize a grass-roots army. It helps us recruit volunteers and run absentee-ballot programs. We can fill rooms with people making phone calls and going door-to-door.”

The 12 swing states in the poll included: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In those 12 states, Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by a 48-43 percentage point margin. And he trails former Speaker Newt Gingrich by a 48-45 percentage point margin.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, says pro-life people need to get engaged now to replace the abortion advocate with someone who can give the pro-life movement a chance to roll back the pro-abortion policies Obama put in place and change the makeup of the Supreme Court to allow for legal protection for unborn children.

“If we’re going to defeat Barack Obama, the Abortion President, and replace him with an authentic leader for Life in 2012, we must start laying the groundwork now by building our war chest,” she said.

“Nothing could be more important than electing a pro-life president in 2012. We must reverse the onslaught of anti-Life policies and go on the offensive for unborn children,” she added.

Dannenfelser said she is pleased some of the Republican presidential candidates have signed the group’s pledge — calling for de-funding abortion and Planned Parenthood, legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the scientific evidence showing fetal pain, and a commitment to appointing the kinds of judges who will not uphold the invention of a fictitious right to abortion. She also said pro-life issues have to be “core” issues in the 2012 election campaign and make it to “the forefront of the presidential race.”

“We’ll ensure that our voice for the unborn is louder and stronger than those who call for truces, or those who think social issues don’t matter,” she said of what SBA would do between now and the November 2012 elections.

Dannenfelser also encouraged pro-life advocates to expose the lengthy pro-abortion record Obama has compiled.

“Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president our nation has ever seen. The SBA List will educate key swing voters in battleground states on President Obama’s record. We’ll expose his unwavering support for pro-abortion judges and taxpayer funding of abortion. Polls show that when pro-life voters are educated and mobilized, they can provide the margin of victory in close races,” she said.

“The stakes are high. Every day in our nation, four thousand children die from abortion while that many women are left hurt and scarred,” Dannenfelser continued. “Not only are we going up against President Obama’s re-election campaign team and the Democratic National Committee, but you can bet that the pro-abortion lobby is raising funds right now to ensure Barack Obama is re-elected. Unborn children cannot take another four years of Barack Obama sitting in the White House and Kathleen Sebelius directing Health and Human Services.”

Dannenfelser worries the fate of abortion could be sealed for some time if Obama gets another four years to advance abortion, saying, “I strongly believe that if Barack Obama is elected to another term, he will only ramp up his anti-Life agenda.”

She encouraged pro-life people to begin to “aggressively lay the groundwork to defeat Barack Obama and elect a true pro-life President in 2012. With a pro-life leader in the White House, we can reverse the damage done by the Obama administration and quickly go on the offensive to pass laws that will save the lives of unborn babies and their mothers.”