Pro-Life Founder Backs Romney

Yet another of social conservativism's leaders has thrown his support Mitt Romney's way. Dr. John Willke, known as the founder of the pro-life movement, was a former supporter of Sam Brownback before the Senator dropped out of the race.

Says Willke,

"Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life. Every decision he made as governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House, Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008."

Increasingly it seems that Mitt's conversion on social issues is being viewed as genuine, and we can only hope that even more conservative leaders will lean his way.

Is Socialized Medicine Without Morals?

The economic and political pitfalls of socialized medicine have been examined at great length for decades. But what about the moral implications? In an increasingly secular country, will government-run healthcare erode accepted moral standards in the medical community? That appears to be the case.

In Great Britain, for instance, the General Medical Council has adopted new guidelines that forbid doctors from telling the parents of minors as young as 13 about their sexual activity, birth control and even impending abortions.

This goes far beyond the issue of children's rights to make their own decisions. It amounts to state-sponsored dispatching of families' right to adopt moral and ethical standards according to their own beliefs.

Conclusion: Socialized medicine is another contributor to the disintegration of the nuclear family--the building block of civilization.

Roe v. Wade - Interesting Facts

Logically, the amount of experiences and data supporting the overturn of Roe v. Wade is so overwhelming that it defies logic that anyone can support that monumental act of judicial abuse. This article just adds yet more weight to the side of procreative restraint.

...Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time:

• A sharp increase in premarital sex.
• A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
• A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

The basic assertion here is that Roe v. Wade helped eliminate responsibility and inhibitions toward premarital sex. This led to folks producing a LOT more illegitimate babies--even taking into account those who chose to have their children aborted. And we know that single-parent homes, in aggregate, lead to such a host of social woes that it's safe to assume that Roe v. Wade can be blamed for much of what is wrong today--crime, poverty, illiteracy and worse.

This goes way beyond life versus choice. The evidence is clear that society is harmed by the liberalization of abortion.

"My Mommy Couldn't Get Rid Of Me, So She's Suing"

Here's a story that just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. According to the Boston Globe, one Jennifer Raper went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion. The abortion didn't stick. Now she's suing the doctors involved to recoup the expenses of reaching her child, who is now two years old.

Can you think of anything more damaging to a child's self esteem? Not only did your mother want to get rid of you, but when she couldn't she seeks the next best thing: money. Yeah, this kid is gonna have a great life.

And on top of that, will her last name be Raper? Poor kid.