Closing the Curtain on Abortion Reality

Closing the Curtain on Abortion Reality


The media want to pretend the atrocities of Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic are uncommon—or ignore them altogether.

Have you heard of Kermit Gosnell? If you only watch the nightly news on the networks, or even on cable, probably not. Gosnell is a physician who was arrested in January 2011 for murder, illegal abortions and more medical malpractice performed in his blood-smeared clinic of horrors in Philadelphia. His trial, which started last month, is gruesome, timely, relevant news.

But in the mainstream media, the amount of coverage his trial receives each night is measured in seconds—if any. cbs, abc, nbc, msnbc, cnn—they are all smothering this story. The ghastly details of his barbaric practice are now a matter of court record. But the press is trying to abort the story.

They won’t publish stories about unwanted babies whose mothers went to Gosnell so he could kill them before they were born. Stories about tiny babies who survived abortion procedures: one moved his arms and legs, one responded when a clinic employee lifted its arm, one was trying to swim when it was born in a toilet, one let out a soft whine, many were breathing. They don’t want stories about clinic workers taking these minutes-old children and plunging scissors into their necks and snipping their spinal cords. But this is what happened.

It’s stomach-turning to learn that plastic bags filled with aborted tiny corpses lined Kermit Gosnell’s clinic: its cupboards, its hallways, its overflowing dumpster. It’s heartbreaking to think of these women—so desperate to abort their babies that they didn’t flee at the horrifying sight of this clinic. It’s sickening to consider the woman killed by Gosnell’s unsafe practices, and the probable hundreds of babies murdered after failed abortions—not to mention the thousands of babies Gosnell successfully killed before they were born. He did it for 20 years. And the sign out front says “Family Planning” and “Family Practice.”

But this isn’t news. Why not? The media gives wall-to-wall coverage of mass murder (which, by one definition, is just four within a short period of time) and other grisly atrocities. In this case, though, as Melinda Henneberger wrote in the Washington Post, “I say we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights.”

“What the Gosnell trial is proving is abortion advocates and their equally ardent media friends know the damage this story does,” wrote media watchdog Brent Bozell. “The more people understand what is being done, the more this country is revolted. So they censor the news from the masses ….”

The mainstream media is calculatedly trying to kill and dispose of this story. Some, realizing that their cover-up is being exposed, are actually arguing that Gosnell’s clinic is proof that there should be fewer restrictions on abortions. Kate Michelman, for instance, insists in the Huffington Post that America’s anti-abortion policies and culture brought women to Gosnell.

That is the exact opposite of the obvious truth.

Only a pro-abortion culture could produce a physician so unimaginably callous to human life. A doctor who didn’t view babies in the womb—or even newborns—as human. A man who beheaded babies and yet appears confused by the notion that he is a murderer.

Only in a pro-abortion culture could so many officials entrusted with the public trust look the other way over the two decades that Gosnell was in business. Only a jaded, hardened pro-abortion culture could produce National Abortion Federation investigators who came and witnessed Gosnell’s horror show firsthand, even rejected his application for membership—then failed to report him to police.

Only in a pro-abortion culture would the media collectively, strategically turn its back because exposing the mass murder of infants is less important than jeopardizing women’s rights to receiving abortions at will. Only in a pro-abortion culture could the federal government actually pass laws insisting that these procedures actually be paid for by taxpayers.

If you think that Gosnell is an anomaly, and that fewer abortion restrictions would mean more humane abortion practices, think again.

Consider three videos recently released by pro-life advocacy group Live Action. In the videos, women who are about six months pregnant visit abortion clinics claiming to seek to terminate the lives inside them. They go with hidden cameras and ask the doctors how the abortion is performed, what the abortion procedure does to the baby, and so on.

One particularly enlightening video was recorded at an upscale clinic in Washington, d.c. When the woman asked the abortionist what would happen if the baby somehow survived the abortion (which involved cutting the umbilical cord while it was in the womb and waiting for the baby to “expire” before they removed it), he explained that typically the baby would not survive such a procedure. Any child born at only 24 weeks, he explained, would require “vigorous” care to keep it alive. Its chances of surviving would be maybe 20 to 30 percent.

But if it did survive, she persisted, would I have to take it home and be responsible for it? What would you do? “Legally, we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive,” he began. After more explanation, he finally answered her question: “We would not help it.” He then pressured the woman to act immediately to terminate her pregnancy before it was “too late.”

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 states that any baby born with a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles—even after an abortion procedure—should be treated as a patient and is entitled to life-saving medical care. This legal abortion clinic in d.c., with its clean hallways and nice office, may not be as macabre as Gosnell’s killing chambers, but the results are the same: killing babies in the womb and, if need be, newborns.

Only in a pro-abortion culture.

Another Live Action video shows a pregnant woman getting advice from an abortionist in the Bronx, N.Y.—where half of all babies are aborted. She asked how the clinic would do the abortion, and the doctor explained that it was by suction. The woman questioned further, and the doctor said the baby would come out in pieces. Finally the doctor laughed, “I don’t know why you want to know all this! Just do it!”

Later the woman wondered what would happen if the baby comes out at home. The doctor’s response: “Flush it!”

Only in a pro-abortion culture. Only in a culture deadened to death, a culture that has devalued and destroyed the lives of our most innocent, most helpless.

The organization that calls itself “Planned Parenthood” is America’s most active provider of abortions (in 2010, it performed 333,964 of them). It receives nearly $350 million in government funding per year. The group prides itself on providing high-quality, affordable care, services and sex education. It is exactly the kind of legitimate, reputable abortion provider that “pro-choice” advocates promote as the humane, squeaky-clean alternative to “outlaws” like Gosnell.

Last year, a Live Action sting revealed a Planned Parenthood clinic encouraging a woman to abort her child if it was a girl when she wanted a boy—despite sex-selective abortions being illegal.

A few weeks ago, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow testified in favor of post-birth abortions. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” she was asked by Florida legislators, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

Her answer: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”

This child is born. She’s alive. She’s lying there. What do you do? Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnell say, If you don’t want it, kill it.

Such is life in our pro-abortion culture.

In 2010, Americans aborted an estimated 1.2 million babies. The exact death toll is hard to pin down, because abortionists are not required to report how many they perform, and some states refuse to submit the information.

From the time Row v. Wade passed in 1973 up until 2011, abortionists have taken some 54.5 million lives before they were born. And—it is now obvious—many of them after they were born.

But in our culture, whose collective conscience died off with each life that has been snuffed out and thrown onto the shelf in a plastic shoe box, we glimpse the real face of this holocaust, and we shrug.

When it’s just a number, it’s easy to ignore. Then the gory details inevitably rise up, brusquely and inconveniently imposing themselves into our consciousness. But we—along with our activist media—quickly close the curtain, shut the door, and go about our lives.

God’s prophecy of our day condemns what we really are, a culture so selfish it will murder its own newborns. “[I]n the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection …” (2 Timothy 3:1-3).

There could be no truer description of our calloused, pro-abortion culture.

Is Berlin Ready to Rearm?

Is Berlin Ready to Rearm?

Getty Images

Langley Intelligence Group says yes, and Bible prophecy agrees.

Berlin is working to create an anti-Iran alliance, and its boost in arms sales to Persian Gulf nations portends a shifting military culture, which could soon push Germany itself to rearm, Langley Intelligence Group Network said on April 24.

The report focuses on the “Merkel Doctrine,” as the German media terms it, which refers primarily to Berlin’s efforts to form a balance of power against Iran by arming Sunni Arab nations and Israel. The term is also taking on a secondary meaning about the increasing impetus for Berlin to move toward a more robust use of the German military.

Arming Iran’s Enemies

Germany is already feeling early manifestations of a push against it by radical Islam. As the Trumpet has often pointed out, the biblical Prophet Daniel said this would happen in this modern era (Daniel 11:40). In response to this push—generated largely by Iran’s growing influence—Berlin is selling more and more weapons to Tehran’s enemies. In 2012, Germany sold almost $2 billion worth of arms to the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, an increase of more than 100 percent from the previous year. That same year, Saudi Arabia spent nine times what it had spent the year before on German arms.

Among Germany’s other Middle Eastern weapons customers are Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

Germany does not choose its customer nations arbitrarily. These are all Sunni-majority states that are concerned about Shia Iran’s rise, staunchly opposed to its development of nuclear weapons and ready to band together in an attempt to prevent it.

This trend is significant because it is working toward the fulfillment of a stunningly specific prophecy foretold in the 83rd Psalm. This passage is about modern-day Europe—led by Germany—allying with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and other “moderate” Arab nations. You can learn the riveting details of this alliance here.

Ready to Rearm Germany?

The Langley report said that a rising percentage of Germans may be ready for Berlin to go beyond just arming Iran’s Middle Eastern opponents, and for Germany itself to prepare for military intervention. Here is an excerpt:

Merkel may be sensing a change in the mood of the electorate and adopting a new German national security strategy in an effort to be seen as a modern Bismarck. The idealistic “peace at all costs” orthodoxy in German politics is slowly giving way to something more pragmatic. Germans are generally beginning to accept that their government needs to take a more muscular role in foreign policy. … German views on war and peace are slowly evolving and the higher rate of arms sales to the Middle East is pushing a reluctant public to confront its fears of militarism. Some voters are embracing the notion of Germany as a stronger world power and leader. … Angela Merkel … senses that public opinion on the use of the military may be pivoting ….

Germany’s return to militarism, too, was foretold long ago. Bible prophecy makes plain that this trend will culminate in a German-led European military force destroying many nations with stunning Blitzkrieg power. For a study of the prophecies that illuminate this rapidly approaching reality, read Germany and the Holy Roman Empire.

Abandoning Afghanistan

Abandoning Afghanistan

Getty Images

What will happen to Afghanistan when the U.S. is gone?

It’s becoming clear that 2013 is set to be a bloody year for local security forces in Afghanistan. While nato troops are experiencing less frequent attacks than in previous years, local government forces are taking a beating from terrorists that nato has been trying to stamp out for over 11 years. The increasing Taliban attacks come as nato troops are working to shed their responsibilities in the nation.

The main supplier of troops to Afghanistan is the United States. With 2014 set as a tentative date for the majority of U.S. troops to leave, speculation over the number of troops that will remain continues. According to Douglas Lute, an assistant to the U.S. president on Pakistan and Afghanistan, there will be fewer than 10,000 U.S. troops stationed in the country.

The comments, made in February at nato headquarters in Brussels, were the first official confirmation that the U.S. has planned for a drastically limited presence in Afghanistan in the future and will place more responsibility on other forces in the region. The new foreign policy is a game changer, not only for the 60,000 U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, but also for the government forces and the other nato members remaining after 2014.

The chief concern for America’s allies is that when the U.S. leaves, the Taliban will overrun those who remain behind. Senior nato officials have acknowledged the possibility of the Afghans collapsing under the weight of more Taliban attacks. Lt. Gen. Nick Carter, deputy chief of nato’s International Security Assistance Force, said, “It would be unforgivable if we allowed the gains of the last three years to be lost because we are not able to provide the Afghans with the support to take this through into 2014.” But it is more than the last three years at risk of being wasted—it is the collective effort of thousands of servicemen and women over the past 11 years.

A rigorous training program has been under way to help the Afghan security forces shoulder the burden of dealing with the Taliban attacks. In the north, Germany trains troops and heads up the Regional Command Center. Italy is training troops in the west. In the south and east, the U.S. is training and assisting government forces. Post 2014, only 5,000 U.S. troops will be dedicated to training missions. The others will be divided between eliminating terrorist camps and cells, and protecting U.S. facilities such as the embassy.

With most U.S. troops gone, the Afghan forces will be without the support they need to combat terrorists in mountainous areas. Without air support for example, troop movement slows, strategic positions can no longer be backed up in the event of an attack, and medical evacuations must be by ground. This will affect all troops in the nation. Even other coalition forces rely on the U.S. to supply helicopters for medical extractions. The non-U.S. forces will be forced to increase their own presence or risk higher fatalities themselves. The U.S. is gambling that they won’t buckle.

There are already signs that a post-2014 Afghan force will be overwhelmed by terrorists. The first quarter of this year has seen a 47 percent increase in Taliban attacks over the same period last year. The number of attacks against Afghans has skyrocketed—and bear in mind that there is still a considerable security force in Afghanistan at the moment. As the U.S. withdraws, it will continue to close down its bases or give them to Afghan forces. Attacks that were once launched against U.S. bases will then be carried out on lesser-equipped, poorer-trained Afghans.

With over 80 percent of U.S. bases already handed over or closed, the Afghan forces are left exposed, out on the front lines. It is easier for Taliban and al Qaeda forces to move around undetected because the U.S. is no longer watching. It is little wonder that the quality of attacks the Taliban has carried out this year is higher. With each attack, there is a consistently high body count. U.S. forces are doing well this year because they are consolidating their forces, making themselves a smaller target to hit. Meanwhile, the Afghans are spread thin across the country and told not only to hold their positions, but also to actively remove Taliban forces. Much of the fighting has moved into the mountains that run along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Pakistan acts as an excellent refuge for the Taliban. The insecure border has led to easy transportation of supplies. Pakistani towns have become command centers for Taliban forces. Pakistan doesn’t have the strength to deal with the Taliban inhabiting its western provinces. So the terrorist groups will continue their cross-border interactions unimpeded. Even if Afghan forces could drive the Taliban to the border, what then? The terrorists retreat to Pakistan, rearm and come back. Pakistan is seen as a key player in ending the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, relations between the neighboring countries are far from civil.

Pakistan blames Afghanistan for failing to curb the violence, and continues to express support for the Taliban having an official role in the government of Afghanistan. Recently it has supported a project intended to establish a Taliban office in Doha, Qatar. The office was to be the staging ground for a political arm of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, knows that his own power is threatened. He is open to deals with the Taliban, although the Taliban refuses to speak directly with him. When the U.S. is gone, and the Taliban are back in full force, Mr. Karzai may wish they were on better terms.

While Pakistan is offering the Taliban refuge in the east, Iran continues to meddle from the west.

Before the U.S. occupation, relations between Iran and Afghanistan were strained. While the Taliban was in charge, Shiite Muslims were treated harshly, and some Iranian diplomats were even executed. Now that the Taliban is out of power, Iran has had the chance to strengthen ties with the Afghans. Iran has made sure its support for the Afghan people is well known. It has played an active role building infrastructure, energy, economic, medical and cultural aspects of life in Afghanistan.

Initially, Iran supported the U.S. in the overthrow of the Sunni Taliban. Since then, its tune has changed, and Iran has been playing both sides. Since 2001, Iran has come under increasing pressure from the international community to halt its nuclear program. It also became wedged in between two American conflicts, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Iran now has a vested interest in undermining the U.S. in the region and is doing so by destabilizing the nations where the U.S. is working.

Iran is now weighing the options of whether it is better to have a U.S.-influenced ally on its border or to return to the old days of Taliban rule. There have been reports of Iran training Taliban forces in Iran.

The Trumpet has warned what will happen to Afghanistan if the U.S. withdraws. The risk is that Afghanistan will ally with Iran. Read our article “Iran Woos America’s Allies as U.S. Troops Exit Region” to understand the danger. Then read “Why Germany Is Staying in Afghanistan” to see how Europe is determined to prevent such an outcome.

What Is Okay and Not Okay to Say in Public in America

What Is Okay and Not Okay to Say in Public in America


Jason Collins is America’s new hero. This week the 7-foot nba center announced that he is homosexual, becoming the first athlete in a major American sport to do so.

Collins is being broadly praised for his courage. The press hailed his declaration as groundbreaking, epic, a historic milestone. The day the news broke, with the cover story of the newest Sports Illustrated issue, he received messages of encouragement from former coaches and nba players around the league, as well as the nba commissioner. He got phone calls from Oprah and President Obama. Public personalities were practically tripping over each other in expressing their enthusiasm. It seems America couldn’t be more excited.

If courage is the word for his stepping up to receive this virtually unanimous public ovation, what word can we use to describe espn’s Chris Broussard’s response? This was in the middle of a special one-hour program celebrating Collins’s announcement:

I’d call that courage.

Openly professing homosexuality makes someone a hero in America today. But openly professing belief in the Bible—even its labeling of homosexuality as sin? This is the real minority position.

Predictably, Broussard took flack for the comment. espn issued an apology and emphasized that the network “is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

So espn is now officially, publicly pro-homosexual. So is the nba. Not to mention the federal government. If you believe the Bible, you are to keep your mouth shut. Your opinion is not welcome in public discussion. If you express it, this is going to require an apology.

The mass pressure to embrace homosexuality has never been so fierce. As I wrote last month, this is “the new mainstream.” If you don’t agree, you’d better have some courage.

Vatican Influences Italy’s New Government

Vatican Influences Italy’s New Government


The Catholic Church’s influence runs deep in Italian politics, and the new government headed by the center-left Enrico Letta is no exception. As Letta formed a new coalition government on April 27, the Associated Press wrote this: “Letta comes from a moderate wing of the left-rooted Democratic Party that is close to the Vatican. Since Parliament always includes an array of lawmakers enjoying good ties to the politically influential Catholic Church in Italy, this was one more qualification on Letta’s bridge-building résumé.”

The Global Post refers to Letta as “a moderate with strong ties to the Catholic Church.”

Enrico Letta is the nephew of Gianni Letta, whom the Telegraph refers to as “Silvio Berlusconi’s right-hand man.” Gianni Letta, it writes, “is known for his keen political cunning and has worked as a behind-the-scenes negotiator for the former prime minister, keeping back channels open with the Vatican when Berlusconi was under fire from the church for his Bunga Bunga parties.”

The Vatican also has a strong influence in Letta’s cabinet. Prof. James Walston, head of International Relations and Global Politics at the American University of Rome, notes on his blog that the cabinet “is one way or another Catholic and so a throwback to the Christian Democrats.”

“Two (Maurizio Lupi—Infrastructure and Mario Mauro—Defense),” he continues, “are members of the powerful Catholic pressure group, Communione e Liberazione.”

The Catholic Church, then, will retain some influence on the new government. Yet at the same time it is moving onto the turf of former comedian Beppe Grillo and his revolt against Italy’s political elite. “Meanwhile, rallying to the side of citizens feeling neglected by their political class were leaders of Italy’s politically influential Catholic Church,” wrote AP, as Giorgio Napolitano was given an unprecedented second seven-year term as Italy’s president.

The pope even spoke up for the unemployed masses during his weekly audience on May 1: “I call on politicians to make every effort to relaunch the labor market. … Work is fundamental for dignity.”

The Vatican has long had deep political roots in Italy. Watch for it to use this influence to play a leading role in Europe as unemployment becomes the most pressing issue of the day. For more, read Trumpet columnist Ron Fraser’s recent article “A Job for Europe’s Youth.”

Women Suffer From the Retreat of Men

Women Suffer From the Retreat of Men


Britain’s education system is failing both men and women when it says there is no difference between the genders.

It is the best of times and the worst of times for women going through Britain’s education system. On the one hand, they’ve never had it so good. One third more women than men go to university, for example.

Yet, women are also suffering in many ways because of the decline of men. Perhaps none is so disturbing as the rise in sexual violence.

The issue has recently hit the headlines with several cases of sexual bullying being reported in British universities. But statistics from 2010 paint a terrible picture of an endemic problem. A study by the National Union of Students found that one in four female university students had been subject to sexual assault. One in three said they had experienced physical harassment.

These statistics aren’t referring to feminists upset that a man had held the door open for them. They show a serious problem. Sexual assault means rape, attempted rape and other forms of forced “sexual contact.” Physical harassment refers to women being grabbed, their skirts being lifted up and similar lewd behavior. Even these descriptions have been toned down to suit the Trumpet’s family audience. And this doesn’t include the countless women subject to taunts that no one would want their wives, sisters or daughters to hear.

After the recent headlines, the Times’ Catherine Nixey investigated the problem. “‘Laddism’—if you want to give this jolly term to what is sexual harassment—towards female students seems to have got even worse in the decade since I left,” she concluded.

“Ten years ago, no female students posed for ‘Page 3’ pictures,” she wrote, referring to the pictures of topless girls shown on page 3 of The Sun newspaper. “None felt the need to jelly-wrestle in their bikinis,” she continued. “And the sharking [trying to find the good-looking girls before they arrive at university] of my day seems positively homely and amateur compared with how it is done today.”

There were no halcyon days where every male behaved like a perfect gentleman, and Nixey makes this clear in her article. But today the problem is the worst it’s been.

In fact, the problem is so bad that the National Union of Teachers (nut) has gotten involved. As the largest teachers organization in Europe, its views carry some weight and it could make a real difference. So what’s its solution? Teach boys to stand up for and protect women? Restore a sense of chivalry in the younger generation?

No. Instead, it’s going in the opposite direction. Last month, at its annual conference, the nut put forward its big idea: feminizing boys. At the conference, speakers encouraged teachers to teach students that there are no differences between boys and girls, in an effort to combat “raunch culture.”

The union is running a project called “Breaking the Mold,” where it encourages teachers to promote books like William’s Doll, The Sissy Duckling, Bill’s New Frock and The Different Dragon. The conference encouraged teachers to use books that reversed the traditional roles of boys and girls.

It also encouraged teachers to find ways to teach children that “we can all do anything and that we need never feel constrained by our gender.” And it promotes a checklist that asks, “Is there anything about your classroom organization that might reinforce gender stereotypes—e.g. are there ‘boys’ toys’ or ‘girls’ books’?”

One of the teachers told the conference that this program would be “of huge benefit to both boys and girls.”

The crazy thing is, this is exactly the agenda that has caused the explosion of “raunch culture” in the first place. Schools have been trying to feminize boys for years, and today’s university students are the result.

The truth is that women are more vulnerable than men. Instead of denying this, schools should teach boys that their role is to protect women. Really, parents, not schools, should be teaching this, but too many parents have also signed up to this “gender neutral” agenda.

“Insanity,” as the proverb goes, “is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” The fruits of gender-neutral schooling are not good, yet the nut wants to push on with more of the same thing that caused the problem.

In one of the recent incidents to hit the press, women were subject to horrible sexual comments at a debating society tournament. The only ones who stood up for them were other women. Not a single man intervened to say this behavior was unacceptable.

If Britain’s educational establishment really wants to solve the “raunch culture,” it needs to make some big changes. It’s right to complain about the objectification of women and to try to fight it in schools. But it also needs to focus on raising boys’ self-discipline and giving them the courage to stand up for their more vulnerable classmates. If every man saw himself as the protector of women, how many assaults would there be? Anyone that chose to attack a woman, physically or verbally, would quickly be stopped.

The solution to Britain’s “raunch culture” is in fact the exact opposite of what the nut proposes. It is to teach boys and girls their proper roles as men and women. That will give women the self-respect to not engage in bikini-jelly wrestling, and will stop men from coercing them into giving it a try.

This is just one example of how women suffer from the West’s assault on masculinity. For more on this trend, see our resent special feature “The Incredible Shrinking Man.”