Abortion Advocates No Longer 'Pro-choice'

In the 1970s, those advocating legalization of abortion freely used the word "abortion," but once Americans began to fully understand "pregnancy termination," the label "pro-choice" was invented, and then "reproductive rights" -- all to avoid being labeled "pro-abortion." Now, Planned Parenthood says that they're dropping their self-anointed label "pro-choice" in favor of the label "advocates for women's health."

“. . . the ‘pro-choice’ language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women voters.”
-- Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

These students of the radical 1960s liberal icon Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals,” have learned well that communication/language is the most important tool in manipulating people, changing the culture, and controlling a nation.

For background, read Planned Parenthood Kills a Baby Every 94 Seconds and also read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

In addition, read Taxpayers Provide 46% of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$

-- From "Political speak: Planned Parenthood dumps ‘pro-choice’ for ‘women’s health’" by Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times 7/31/14

Pro-choice become popular in the wake of the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling, because it succinctly countered the pro-life tag used by those who opposed the procedure. But around 2010, Planned Parenthood said the label started falling on deaf ears of younger women.

It’s still not clear what phrase could comfortably substitute for the pithy “pro-choice.” But some activists have been slinging about “women’s health” and “economic security” while talking about Planned Parenthood policy.

Meanwhile, those opposed to abortion — the “pro-life” crowd — have picked up on Planned Parenthood’s attempt to change the message. And they’re seeing that switch as something to cheer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Advocates Shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to Expand Message" by Jackie Calmes, New York Times 7/28/14

Pro-choice became commonplace after the 1973 Roe ruling, to counter the pro-life label of the anti-abortion movement. The description was seen as having broader appeal than “pro-abortion,” since it fit those who were personally against abortion but opposed any government control over women’s health decisions.

But by 2010 some abortion-rights activists began to sense in their outreach to young women, whose support was needed not only for the midterm elections but for the movement’s future as well, that the term pro-choice was virtually meaningless. That was confirmed by postelection polls and focus groups that women’s organizations and Democrats commissioned to understand what went wrong.

. . . such results also showed the weakness of the pro-choice label, advocates and pollsters said. Planned Parenthood took the lead, conducting research on public attitudes throughout 2011 and then presenting the findings to allies in various meetings.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 2011 Poll: Pro-choice Americans Disagree with Abortionists and read 2012 Poll: Most Americans Pro-life and read Liberals' Own 2013 Poll: Most Americans Oppose Abortion

From "We're Fighting for Access, Not Choice" by Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Federation of America 7/30/14

. . . The issue isn't that "pro-choice" is no longer sufficient. It's that "pro-choice" was never sufficient for many . . . women of color fighting not just for "choice," but for full reproductive justice.

And there's good reason for that fight. The concept of "choice" speaks only to those who had (and have) the ability to make and exercise choices in the first place.

We at Planned Parenthood recognize that organizations and leaders of color made this shift decades before we began to doubt the capacity of the "pro-choice" label to fully represent the dreams of our movement.

Pregnancy and childbearing have been experienced quite differently by women of various races and economic classes. White married women with economic privilege, who have been able to prevent or terminate unintended pregnancies, indeed have been able to "choose" abortion since it became legal in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. However, historically women of color have not had choices because the ability to control their bodies and reproduction was stolen from them. Racist policies and attitudes have obstructed the ability of women of color to choose whether and when to bear children.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read of the genocide in New York City where about two-thirds of all black babies are killed in the womb

From "Losing the Abortion Debate, Planned Parenthood is Abandoning the Term 'Pro-Choice'" by Kristan Hawkins, LifeNews.com 7/29/14

. . . an actual pro-choice person would want women to see ultrasounds before they decide to have an abortion or to have access to all the information they could on what abortion is, how it affects the women on a physical, mental and spiritual level. Logically, the term pro-choice just doesn’t make sense.

The abortion lobby wants to use terms like “women’s health” instead to promote abortion. But women’s health isn’t about abortion. Please. Any woman is going to see through that façade.

Women’s health isn’t about abortion – it’s about mammograms (which Planned Parenthood doesn’t do), well visits, making sure women are eating healthy and taking care of themselves so they can take care of their families, mental well-being, work-life balance, and other things that yes, deal with reproduction, but also deal with the impressive body and inner workings of being a woman. The “right” to end the life of her child doesn’t encompass “women’s health.”

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion’s Grim Reality May Explain ‘Pro-Choice’ Label Drop" by Maggie Lawson, CNA/EWTN News 7/31/14

“Health is a popular buzz word for abortionists, but is much weakened as medical science shows women’s health is harmed by abortion,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life.

“The abortion industry is moving from 'choice' to coercion, changing its strategy from mainstream abortion in culture to integrating it into health care,” she said.

“Thanks to the miracle of the ultrasound, generations are able to see what the abortionist’s ‘choice’ is: the death of an unborn child. And thanks to a growing body of medical research, we know that ‘choice’ hurts women as well,” Yoest said.

“Today, the abortion industry has moved from ‘choice’ to coercion, attempting to use the force of government to force compliance with an abortion agenda, or face dire consequences.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Planned Parenthood's Sexual Assault on Kids: Business Model is Hooking them on Sex

Kinky Planned Parenthood Sex Training Advisors Investigated, Caught and Fired

Planned Parenthood Sued -- Coverups of Rape Caught on Video

ABC-TV: 'Good Christian Bitches'

As usual, American television will feature a series (by the producer of “Sex and the City”) intended to mock Christians and paint the womenfolk as back-biting hypocrites. Think Desperate Housewives conducting Bible study.

UPDATE 2/24/12: ABC debuts "Good Christian Belles" March 4th (video):

-- From "ABC Lands Good Christian Bitches" posted at SpoilerTV.com 9/17/10

After a bidding war, ABC has nabbed the Darren Star-produced dramedy based on Kim Gatlin's book Good Christian Bitches. . . . [It] will be written by Steel Magnolias and The First Wives Club scribe Robert Harling . . . ABC, home to light female-centered fare like Desperate Housewives, was the obvious destination for the project, often described as "Desperate Housewives in Dallas."

It centers on Amanda Vaughn, a recently divorced mother of two who, to get a fresh start, moves back to the affluent Dallas neighborhood where she grew to find herself in the whirling midst of salacious gossip, Botox, and fraud.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Critics Slam ABC Pilot 'Good Christian Bitches' for 'Inappropriate,' 'Damaging' Title" by Hollie McKay, FoxNews.com 3/4/11

An ABC pilot called “Good Christian Bitches” has religious and women’s groups up in arms over what they describe as an extremely offensive and distasteful show title.

Still in the early stages, the pilot has not been guaranteed a spot on ABC’s lineup. And though the show’s title may change before it goes to broadcast, “Good Christian Bitches” is already causing uproar.

Christian publisher Tessie DeVore told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column that the show, which features the tagline “For Heaven’s sake, don’t let God get in the way of a good story!” could put Christians in an unfairly bad light.

“I find the title offensive. I don’t think those two words should be combined,” she said. “A show like this can damage perceptions [of Christians in this country].”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Good Christian Bitches' Chronicles Back-Biting Christian Women" posted at NBC DFW 10/29/08

[Kim] Gatlin said it's not a tell-all [book], "My purpose here isn't to hand someone their head," she said. "If I do something like that, I'm not any better than the people I'm writing about."

Gatlin, who lives in Highland Park, set the book in Hillside Park, an upscale Dallas suburb. The characters are back-stabbing, church-going women who use Bible study as a forum for gossip.

"I've had people call me and ask me to pray for somebody and all they were trying to, or praying about, something for them," she said of drawing on her own experiences for the book. "I knew they were just trying to get their side of the story in front of me."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Do Christians, as a Whole Focus Too Much on the Homosexual Issue Alone?

Matt Barber, CWA's policy director for cultural issues has posted an insightful essay, at Worldnetdaily.com, written by his brother Jared Barber regarding the homosexual issue and the Christian response. In it, Jared asserts:

"... Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone. They attack it solely, denounce it and live whichever way they please. Adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition, drunkenness – all of these immoral acts take to the background in view of homosexuality, and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality. We need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us, I as much as any, so that we can more blamelessly broach this subject and others."

To which Matt has written a profound response:

Incisive analysis, Jared. Nicely done. I think C.S. Lewis himself might have said so. The only sentiment with which I take issue is this: "Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone."

Here's why I disagree.

You're spot on when you say that we need to confront all forms of sin, call sin sin and repent of that sin. God hates hypocrisy, no doubt, and as you rightly observe, "We need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us. …" Furthermore, you're absolutely right when you say, "above all else, we must love." But as you essentially point out, this does not mean that we indulge sinful behavior and call it good. True love does not facilitate immorality, it takes it to task.

However, consider this: A particularly heavy focus on the sin of homosexuality by "Christians as a whole" is not at all gratuitous. There is such emphasis, not because we intentionally and specifically chose to target this particular sin, but rather, because strident moral relativists demand that, in contrast to the other sins you address, the sin of homosexuality not only be "tolerated," but celebrated. That's what the euphemistic slogan "celebrate diversity" supposes.

Sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual behaviors – by force of law – through federal edicts such as "hate crimes" legislation and the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Unlike the sin of homosexuality, the other sins you cite – the sins of adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition and drunkenness – do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby that is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity."

Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous – as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation."

...And so, fervent and relentless homosexual propaganda goose-steps along, trampling upon those who observe traditional notions of sexual morality. This sets homosexual sin worlds apart from the other sins you reference. Therefore, we Christians are left no choice but to assign homosexual sin significance commensurate with that which it demands.

Thus we find ourselves – back against the ropes – in a fight we did not pick, struggling in a culture war we did not ask for. It's a clash of worldviews in a zero-sum-game. Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality.

AMEN.

Please read the entire commentary.

I'd also like to make an observation:

MOST Christians are NOT focusing on the homosexual issue. (at least publicly)
MOST pulpits are virtually silent on this issue, neither equipped nor equipping believers to stand.

Therefore:

MOST believers are silent in their public schools, work places or government, declining to either defend or even articulate the truth about this sin.

We must love and God and our fellow man enough to overcome our fear...I John 4:18

Hypocrisy of Hating Homosexuality, While Ignoring Cohabitation and Adultery

From "Hypocrisy of Hating Homosexuality, While Ignoring Cohabitation and Adultery" by Phil Magnan, posted 5/2/07 at christiannewswire.com

BUDAPEST, Hungary, May 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- Statistics show that 25% of unmarried "born again" Christians are living together. This reveals an apparent hypocrisy in condemning homosexuality, while not condemning heterosexual immorality. Sad to say, co-habitation is on the increase and its participants also include the Catholic and Christian community.

BFA believes there is also a need to condemn not only adultery in its blatant form of cheating on a spouse, but its camouflaged form by easy divorce to pursue second and third marriages. This has been done by those who describe themselves either as Catholic, Evangelical and even more startling the born again Christian.

"How can we as Christians have any moral credibility before God and man when we are practicing the very thing we condemn in the form of immoral marital practices? Until we show as much hatred for our own sin in our churches and demand repentance we will continue to destroy the sanctity of marriage, even more than same sex marriage proponents. We have not been a very good example of morality or godliness before God and man."

AMEN.
Read the whole article.