NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment. NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows’ message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances).
Serge contrasts how our society treats thalidomide and RU-486.
Thalidomide accidentally caused harm to 10,000 unborn children. However, the UK as well as the US presently approves a medication that intentionally kills millions of unborn children. That medication is mifiprex or RU-486. Unlike thalidomide, the only reason that mifiprex is given is to intentionally kill an unborn child. If the unborn child survives after a woman takes mifiprex, it is considered a failure of the medication.
What does it say about our culture that we issue apologies for harming children in the past at the same time we market a medication that intentionally kills children? Instead of harming children, what if thalidomide was more effective in killing them? Would we still apologize?
Senator Ben Nelson is now claiming in an interview with LifeSite News that he planned on putting the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment (which mirrors the Stupak amendment) into health care reform once the bill got to conference committee where he thinks he would have had more leverage. I don't know who's going to buy that story.