Christian ethicists ‘bless’ two leading COVID vaccines (but not the third)

 After eight months of pandemic, it now seems that not one, but three, vaccines are nearing approval. The question is how many Americans will be willing to take the vaccines. There seems to be a growing anti-vaccination movement, but even people who don’t oppose vaccines in general might be skeptical about the COVID vaccines for political reasons. At least one objection, the question of whether the vaccines used stem cells from aborted babies, is now being addressed by Christian ethicists.

Anti-vaccination activists have a variety of rationales for their position, but one that I have heard frequently from Christians is that some vaccines were made using fetal tissue from surgically aborted babies. This presents an ethical dilemma for those of us who oppose abortion on moral grounds.

The good news is that this objection does not apply to all vaccines. Further good news is that two of the three leading vaccines are ethically sourced and do not use fetal tissue from elective abortions.

Doctors at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute have investigated the most advanced vaccine research efforts and categorized them as ethical or unethical.

“While some may see no ethical problem, for many a straight line can be drawn from the ending of a human life in an abortion to a vaccine or drug created using cells derived from the harvesting of the fetal tissue,” the author’s of the institute’s assessment state. “Even if the cells have been propagated for years in the laboratory far removed from the abortion, that connection line remains.  Thus, use of such cells for vaccine production raises problems of conscience for anyone who might be offered that vaccine and is aware of its lineage.  Moreover, the possibility of conscientious objection by those to whom a vaccine is offered creates ethical demands on the policymakers, healthcare officials, scientists, vaccine creators and funders, whether or not they themselves have an ethical concern, because of the question of access to the vaccine by the entire citizenry in good conscience.”

Of the three most promising vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, two are rated by the institute as “ethically uncontroversial.” These are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, both of which are more than 90 percent effective. However, the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is being developed in partnership with the University of Oxford, is considered unethical because it uses the HEK293 line of embryonic kidney cells, which may have come from an elective abortion in the 1960s. The identity of the unborn baby and the circumstances of its abortion are not publicly known.

While some other vaccines may also use fetal stem cells, points out that not all use of fetal tissue is ethically questionable. The Bioethics Observatory points out that fetal tissue that was obtained from spontaneous miscarriages or medically necessary abortions can be ethically used provided there is “consent from the parents and the fetus should be treated with the utmost respect.”

In a recent memo reported in America Magazine, Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann the US Council of Catholic Bishops point out, “Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in fetal tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development, or production.”

The memo explains that the Catholic Church’s view is that Christians should not use stem cells obtained from aborted babies, but the Church understands that there are different levels of responsibility at different points in the chain that brings vaccines to market. Vaccine creators have different culpability from patients who will receive the vaccine.

The bishops take the practical view that “it is morally permissible to accept vaccination when there are no alternatives and there is a serious risk to health.”

In other words, unethically-produced medicines can still be used to save lives in emergencies. This loophole is not needed for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, however.

“In terms of the moral principles of being concerned about the use of any pharmaceuticals that were developed from aborted fetuses, that is certainly an issue that we all want to be cognizant of and try to avoid their use,” said Brian Kane, the senior director of ethics for the Catholic Health Association of the United States. “With that in mind, the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines that are coming out are not even tainted with that moral problem.”

Others, such as Megan Best of the Gospel Coalition, argue that even using fetal tissue from elective abortions is not unethical provided that the abortion was not carried out for the specific purpose of harvesting the cells.

If “the abortion was carried out for other reasons, and the tissue was acquired after the child’s death for the purpose medical research,” she writes, “The use of the vaccine now will not promote further abortions for this particular purpose. It can therefore be argued that we are not morally complicit with the original abortion.”

“While never condoning evil acts so that good may result, the Bible teaches of a loving God who seeks to make good out of evil,” Best continues. “Though linked, participation in the good does not endorse the evil.”

Regardless of which view you take on fetal tissue research, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines present no ethical problems. However, even knowing that Coronavirus vaccines were not based on aborted fetal tissue, many people still will not want to take one. That brings up another ethical quandary, the question of whether refusing to take a vaccine that will enable us to end a pandemic that has already resulted in more than a million deaths around the world reflects the love that God wants us to show for our fellow man.

Originally published on The First TV

To Fix The Economy We Must Beat The Virus

In the past few days, a movement has emerged to end the shutdown and get America back to work. These people argue that the lockdown was a mistake and that, as the president has said, “We can’t have the cure be worse than the problem.”

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) became the face of the movement when he told Tucker Carlson, “My message is that let’s get back to work. Let’s get back to living. Let’s be smart about it. And those of us who are 70 plus, we’ll take care of ourselves, but don’t sacrifice the country.”

From Trump and Patrick, others took up the message. Conservative radio talk show host Jesse Kelly tweeted that he would “happily die” if he had a “choice between dying and plunging the country I love into a Great Depression.” Another Trump supporter told me on social media, “Shutting down an entire economy costs trillions of dollars per quarter. That exceeds the statistical value of life from those who will die from the virus.”

Jesse Kelly

✔@JesseKellyDC

If given the choice between dying and plunging the country I love into a Great Depression, I’d happily die. https://twitter.com/tropopause/status/1242440169757835264 …

Trop@Tropopause

Okay @BuckSexton @JesseKellyDC @MattWalshBlog @lloydblankfein @LtGovTX, if you believe high COVID-19 mortality is an acceptable trade-off, then you must be ready to die rather than add to the surge of COVID-19 patients stressing our nation's hospitals beyond capacity. Are you?

6,248

9:19 AM - Mar 24, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

19.1K people are talking about this

I can think of many words to describe the prospect of disregarding the advice of medical experts and leaving hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans to die. Neither of those words is “pro-life” or “conservative.”

The whole movement is reminiscent of the scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail in which a Medieval peasant tries to bring out a corpse for pickup and disposal. “I’m not dead yet,” the old man exclaims.

The hundreds of thousands of Americans that some are willing to write off aren’t dead yet either.

Erick Erickson calculated that a conservative estimate of the death toll would be about 900,000 people. To put that into perspective, that low-end estimate is slightly more than the annual number of abortions in the US.

But wait, there’s more. The Coronavirus doesn’t just kill. Anywhere from about 20 to 30 percent of cases are severe enough to require hospitalization. While the disease mostly kills senior citizens like Dan Patrick, a large share of cases serious enough to require treatment are middle-aged or younger. In one CDC study reported by Fox News, about 20 percent of patients, including in the ICU, were between 20 and 44 years-old.

Diedre Wilkes, a 42-year-old mammogram technician from Coweta County, Georgia, was one of the younger victims of Coronavirus. Wilkes, who had no known underlying health conditions, was found dead in her home last week. NBC News reported that Wilkes posthumously tested positive for COVID-19.

Statistically, the workforce is primarily composed of people who, like Diedre Wilkes, are vulnerable to the virus. While the 20-60 age group is not the most at-risk group for death from COVID-19, these people are at risk for serious complications that may require hospitalization.

The increased need for hospitalization is a major problem of the pandemic. Hospitals in New York City, which has been especially hard hit, are reaching maximum capacity. ICUs and morgues are full, reported the New York Times, and shortages of protective gear are hampering treatment and causing increased risks to health workers. When hospitals become overwhelmed, the death rate will go up not only for Coronavirus patients but for other health conditions as well.

Thinking logically, even if President Trump, backed by his medical advisors, reopened the economy and rescinded the stay-at-home advisories, the economy would not rebound. With the virus still spreading unchecked, many state and local governments would keep their own advisories and orders in place. Businesses might choose not to reopen or return to normal because they could see the threat to their employees and customers. Businesses that did return to normal might find that that employee sick calls increase sharply within the next few weeks.

Consumers may not be ready to return to normal either. A large share of the population would not immediately return to local restaurants and bars knowing that infected people could be sitting next to them. Few would choose to take an airline trip or a cruise and be in close proximity to a large number of strangers. No one is going to want to take a summer vacation to Disney or Las Vegas or New York as things currently stand.

The reason is that Americans aren’t stupid and most of us have pretty decent BS detectors. In a media-driven society where we are bombarded with crises du jour from both sides, we have to. If we don’t panic over alarmism about non-crises such as climate change or illegal immigrant crime waves then most of us probably have the wherewithal to determine that we should at least be cautious about a deadly infectious disease with no vaccine or treatment despite what the government says.

This will be doubly true as more Americans see people that they know falling ill to COVID-19. As the old saying goes, who should we believe, the government or our lying eyes?

About a week ago, a friend from a previous move was asking on Facebook if anyone knew anybody who had Coronavirus. Since then that rural county has reported two confirmed cases. The friend hasn’t posted much lately.

The bottom line is that the economy is not going to return to normal until the pandemic is stopped. After a few weeks, almost certainly not an entire quarter, things will start to get back to normal. Businesses and schools will start to reopen when the number of cases recedes, but there will be local outbreaks and quarantines until we develop a proven treatment and a vaccine. That could be more than a year away. Until then, we are likely to see a slower economy and higher unemployment.

Even if the economy could be restarted at the president’s whim, the country is more than the economy alone. The idea that Americans could or should write off what might be as much as one percent of our total population is reprehensible. It is no more moral for Jerry Falwell, Jr., who refused to close Liberty University, and others to advocate sacrificing legions of their countrymen for the economy than it is for Millennials to refer to the virus as a “Boomer Remover” and party as normal on Spring Break before returning to infect their parents and grandparents. “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”

Sacrificing your fellow Americans for the economy is morally on the same level as abortion for convenience. It is little different from euthanasia or assisted suicide except for the fact that the people who will die have no say in the matter.

Being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion. Life does not end at conception. It does not end when you leave the workforce or when you enter a nursing home or are put on a ventilator.

People who are truly pro-life will be reaching out to help their neighbors during this crisis. They will accept some discomfort and inconvenience as they practice social-distancing and near-compulsive handwashing. They will even accept some financial hardships to help save lives.

What they won’t do is prematurely return to business as usual and endanger millions of their friends and neighbors.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Joe Biden Flops Back On Abortion

Yesterday, I wrote about how Joe Biden was bucking the Democratic abortion extremists and doubling down on his longtime support for the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits federal funds from being spent on abortion. As I almost wrote yesterday, it was too good to last. It should have been apparent that the twin priorities of legal abortion and spending federal money are too significant to be resisted by national Democratic candidates.

Thursday afternoon at a fundraiser in Atlanta, Biden flipped back. The candidate told supporters, “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment.”

In the Associated Press account of the speech, Biden’s speech was primarily focused on voting rights and issues that were important to the black community, but he opened with a reference to this week’s controversy over stance on federal funding for abortion, saying, “I’ve been struggling with the problems that Hyde now presents.”

“I want to be clear: I make no apologies for my last position. I make no apologies for what I’m about to say,” Biden said, arguing that “circumstances have changed” after a number of states recently passed laws that heavily restrict the practice of abortion.

In the speech, Biden said that he believed that there were now too many restrictions on abortion and that many women were left without the option. He said that his flipflop on the issue was the result of his development of a detailed healthcare proposal, which he described as a Medicare-type public option that would encourage universal coverage. Biden said that universal care means that women should have access to abortion.

While the radical abortion-rights crowd will celebrate the newfound lack of diversity on the issue among their presidential candidates, not all Democratic voters will be happy with the change. As I pointed yesterday, a poll from earlier this year showed that a third of Democrats consider themselves to be pro-life. The intolerance of pro-life positions could especially hurt the party in the Bible Belt where pro-life Democrats such as Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards have shown the ability to win statewide races but pro-abortion candidates such as Stacey Abrams of Georgia always seem to come up just short.

“Sure, most of the hardcore left don't want any restrictions, but the majority of Americans do,” said a commenter on yesterday’s story about Biden. “I am a Democrat, yet I approve and support the Hyde Amendment. Biden is looking more and more like my likely choice.”

There is no word from this commenter yet on whether he will still support Biden after his flipflop on the Hyde Amendment, but it is likely that he will. There simply aren’t any better pro-life options among the Democratic candidates.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Can Be Pro-Life In Louisiana

Can Democrats be pro-life? It turns out that they can be in Louisiana. When Pelican State legislators voted this week to pass a fetal heartbeat bill, it was the result of a bipartisan effort between Democrats and Republicans.

The Louisiana law, which bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected and contains no exception for rape or incest, was sponsored by a Democrat. Senator John Milkovich, who represents Shreveport, introduced the bill in the Senate while Rep. Valarie Hodges of Livingston Parish, a Republican, shepherded the bill through the House.

In the initial Senate vote, there was no Republican opposition and only Democrats voted, one for and one against the bill. Ten Senate Republicans and 13 Democrats did not vote. The final bill passed the House with overwhelming support. Republicans voted in a bloc for passage while Democrats were split almost equally.

After passage, the bill went to the governor, also a Democrat, to be signed into law. Gov. John Bel Edwards, who is the South’s only Democratic governor, signed the bill on Thursday afternoon.

In a statement, the governor said, “As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”

NOLA.com notes that Edwards, who is rated at 100 percent by Louisiana Right to Life, is a Catholic who views anti-abortion policy and the Medicaid expansion as both pro-life policies. The paper points out that other prominent Louisiana Democrats are also staunchly pro-life.

Nevertheless, Bart Stupak, a former Wisconsin congressman who is currently on the board for Democrats for Life says that Edwards’ pro-life stance will make fundraising from the big Democrat donors difficult. “If you’re trying to raise money on the national level, it gets very, very difficult,” he said. “There will be no money. There will be no help.”

Abortion has become a litmus test for many in the party, but Louisiana Democrats have shown that they are not afraid to stand up for life. National Democrats should learn from their example and allow Democratic candidates and officials to follow their conscience on the issue.

Opinions on the abortion issue vary across the country and locking their candidates into a one-size-fits-all pro-choice position often hurts Democratic candidates who run in conservative states. Many people who would support Democrats on other issues cannot bring themselves to vote for pro-abortion candidates. If Democrats can learn to tolerate pro-lifers in their midst, the party would be stronger for its ideological diversity.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Abortion Clinics To Alabama: Drop Dead

Alabama had three abortion clinics prior to this week’s passage of a new law that essentially banned the practice. Now the state has… three abortion clinics. The law doesn’t go into effect for six months, but the Alabama abortionists say that even then they have no plans to close their doors.

“We've been through this fight over and over again,” Dalton Johnson, owner of Alabama's Women's Center in Huntsville told AL.com. “Our main goal is to keep the women apprised that we will be challenging it in court.”

At Johnson’s abortion clinic, two doctors perform about 2,000 abortions annually. Alabama’s Women’s Center is the only abortion clinic in the state that performs abortions up to the state’s previous limit of 20 weeks. As a result, the center sees women from across Alabama as well as surrounding states. After the law takes effect, performing abortions illegally will be a Class A felony punishable by between 10 and 99 years in prison.

“We don't see any interruption in any kind of service whatsoever,” agreed an employee of Reproductive Health Services in Montgomery.

The abortion providers are gambling that the courts will issue an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on schedule. An employee at the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa said, “If the law goes into effect . . . we're not criminals; we would not be able to stay open, but until it's all resolved, we will be here.”

The ACLU has already announced plans to file a lawsuit to prevent the law from going into force. Rebecca Seung-Bickley told AL.com, “This will never go into effect, as long as ACLU is in litigation.”

Indeed, the purpose of the Alabama law seems to be to troll for legal challenges in order to send a test case to the Supreme Court. After the appointment of two new justices by President Trump, pro-life legislators believe that the time may be right to launch a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Rep. Terri Collins, the Republican member of Alabama’s House of Representatives who sponsored the bill, told the Washington Post, “This bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection. I have prayed my way through this bill. This is the way we get where we want to get eventually.”

Incidentally, Collins, the author of the bill, is a woman.

Whether the Court reviews the Alabama abortion ban or not, it is likely that an abortion case will be reviewed over the next few years. Several states have recently enacted heartbeat bills that prohibit abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. Other states are considering similar legislation. All are likely to be challenged by pro-abortion activist groups.

The best-case scenario for the pro-life movement would be for the Court to take at least one of the pending abortion cases and strike down Roe in its entirety. This would send the abortion battle back to the states. Some states, such as New York, would enact very liberal abortion policies while others, such as Alabama, would ban the practice.

A more likely outcome is that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh take a more incremental approach. The narrow constitutionalist majority will likely agree that Roe was a bad decision but will be reluctant to toss it out abruptly after almost 50 years. We can expect the Court to allow states more latitude in restricting and regulating abortion but still stop short of allowing a full ban.

In either case, the abortion battle is far from over. In one case, statehouses will become the new battlefield while, in the other, the focus will continue to be on the Supreme Court. The new abortion laws are merely one more skirmish in a long war.

Originally published on The Resurgent

No Abortion Restriction Is Reasonable Enough For Pro-Choicers

Much of the debate on the new anti-abortion laws in Georgia and Alabama has centered on Alabama’s lack of an exception for rape and incest victims. While the Georgia law does contain such an exception, some pro-abortion advocates argue that it is not broad enough. After watching the abortion debate over the past 30 years or so, I can say without reservation that no matter what exceptions the authors of the bill had carved out, it would not be enough for the pro-abortion lobby.

Since I first became aware that abortion was legal, a mind-blowing revelation to an elementary school student, I’ve followed the debate and legal wrangling that has been involved with probing the limits of Roe v. Wade. In that time, I cannot recall a single example of any restriction on abortion, no matter how trivial or rational, that has not been opposed by the abortion special interest groups.

Among the first challenges to Roe were attempts to require that minors get the permission of their parents before having an abortion. Pro-choice groups, often led by Planned Parenthood, fought these common sense restrictions, but, beginning in 1979 with Bellotti v. Baird, the Supreme Court began to allow these laws that protected parental rights if they included an exception that allowed pregnant minors to get approval from a judge instead of their parents. This was affirmed in Planned Parenthood of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

The original Roe v. Wade ruling essentially prohibited restrictions on abortion in the first trimester and required that laws covering the second trimester be focused on the health of the mother, per Pew Research. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the decision that the state has an interest in protecting “potential life” in the third trimester and could ban abortions at that point as long as exceptions were made for the life and health of the mother. These guidelines were later overhauled by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

Despite the original decision that allowed some regulation of abortion, decades later pro-abortion activists were fighting restrictions on partial-birth abortion, a barbaric procedure in which the abortionist dilated “the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.” The abortion community fought attempts to ban partial birth abortion, technically called a “D&X,” dilation and extraction, despite the fact that there seems to be no medical necessity for the procedure, which NPR notes, was developed “to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.”

As technology has improved, the pro-abortion community has resisted attempts to require that abortion clinics inform women about the choice for abortion. Several states require that mothers be presented with an ultrasound image of their baby before the make the choice for an abortion. Again, the advocates for women’s rights fought to keep women from seeing the scientific evidence that the child within them is a living human being.

The pro-choice community also fought to prevent health and sanitary standards for outpatient surgery centers from being applied to abortion clinics. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that required that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital and that abortion clinics meet the same health and sanitary standards as an outpatient surgical center.

The Texas law was passed after a woman died in Kermit Gosnell’s Philadephia abortion clinic. Philadelphia’s NBC-10 reported that Karnamaya Mongar, 41, died after experiencing severe pain at the clinic. It took an hour for an ambulance to arrive to take Mongar to the hospital and firefighters had to cut bolts off the clinic’s emergency door to extricate her. Gosnell was convicted of manslaughter in the case in addition to three counts of murdering infants that were born alive. He was also accused of allowing extremely unsanitary conditions in the clinic and hiring unqualified workers who he then allowed to perform abortions unsupervised.

In about 30 years, I can’t recall a single instance where pro-abortion groups voluntarily submitted to even the most reasonable of abortion restrictions. Even the NRA has occasionally bowed to pressure for more gun controls as it did earlier this year when President Trump ordered bump stocks to be banned, but the abortion advocates seem to have never given an inch. We can reasonably conclude that if the new laws allowed unrestricted abortion access to victims of rape and incest that the pro-abortion crowd would find something else to complain about.

The truth is that the debate about rape and incest exceptions is a red herring. The Guttmacher Institute found that only one percent of abortions were due to rape and less than half a percent were due to incest. The vast majority of abortions are elective procedures that are performed as a method of birth control. It is these hundreds of thousands of abortions annually that the pro-abortion acitvists are fighting to protect.

Rape and incest victims will not be without options under the new laws. Heartbeat bills and even the Alabama law do not outlaw morning-after pills. There are also charities that provide transportation for mothers to areas where abortion is legal and clinics still operate. In Georgia, the law specifically provides an exception up to 20 weeks for women are willing to file a police report alleging rape or incest.

The fight over abortion and protecting the lives of pre-born humans is not over and won’t be for a long time, regardless of what courts decide about the current crop of laws. There is little doubt, however, that whatever laws are passed to limit the killing of babies, the pro-abortion groups will be there to oppose them, whatever they are. For pro-choice groups, it’s all about unrestricted access.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Brace Yourself: More Abortion Laws Are Coming

It has been a bad week for abortion proponents and it just keeps getting worse. After Georgia passed its heartbeat bill last week, Alabama followed with an even more restrictive bill that was signed into law on Wednesday. Now it seems that more states are poised to follow in passing bills that severely limit abortions within their borders.

The Associated Press reports that the Missouri Senate approved a bill by a 24-10 vote that would ban abortions after eight weeks. The bill contains exceptions for medical emergencies but not for cases of rape or incest. The bill must now be approved by the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, before it can be signed into law by Gov. Mike Parson, also a Republican.

Another state, Louisiana, is also considering a heartbeat bill that would ban abortions on unborn babies old enough to have a detectable heartbeat. The Louisiana bill contains exceptions to prevent the mother’s death, if there is “a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” or if the pregnancy is deemed “medically futile,” but also omits exceptions for rape and incest per the AP. The bill has been approved by House and Senate committees but has not yet been voted on by either chamber.

While much of the recent abortion debate is centered on the lack of exceptions for rape and incest, the Guttmacher Institute found that abortions are rarely performed for those reasons. In a large study that ranged from 1987 through 2004, only one percent of abortions were due to rape and less than half a percent were due to incest.

In addition to Georgia and Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio have also passed new laws aimed at reducing the number of abortions. The laws are designed to test the Supreme Court’s adherence to the Roe v. Wade precedent in the wake of the addition of two new Trump-appointed justices, Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It is likely that the Court will strike down portions of the laws, if not rule them entirely unconstitutional, but a ruling would let legislators know how far they can go in regulating abortion in their states.

Regardless of the uproar, the laws have strong support among Republicans who control the state legislatures in these states. With the failure of the national GOP to defund Planned Parenthood and two new friendly justices on the Supreme Court, pro-life advocates hope that the tide may finally be about to turn.

Originally published on The Resurgent

You Can See “Unplanned” In Theaters, But You Won’t See Its Ads On Most TV Channels

The new pro-life movie, “Unplanned,” scored big points at the box office on its opening weekend. The story of Planned Parenthood executive-turned-pro-life activist, Abby Johnson, earned more than $6.1 million on its opening weekend, enough to rank fourth in gross revenues. The strong performance was despite many networks refusing to run ads for the socially conservative film.

The creators of “Unplanned” told The Hollywood Reporter that they tried to buy advertising from a number of cable networks, but few channels other than Fox News and the Christian Broadcast Network would accept the ads. Among the networks that refused to air commercials for the move were Lifetime, the Travel Channel, Cooking Channel, HGTV, Food Network, the Hallmark Channel and USA Network.

“We were looking to spend money, but they didn't want to get involved,” John Sullivan, one of the film’s producers, said.

“Most of the networks didn't go into detail beyond citing the subject matter of the film and that they didn't want to get into politics. But we don't believe we're in the political category,” Joe Knopp, another producer added, despite the fact that the film was screened at CPAC.

Several networks, including Lifetime, cited the “sensitive nature of the film” in refusing the ads. Up TV, a family-friendly network, and some Christian radio stations cited the film’s R-rating in denying the ads. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) gave the film an R-rating in February due to “some disturbing/bloody images” in a scene that uses a computer-generated image of a sonogram to simulate an abortion, noted CNS News. The film’s marketers pointed out that Lifetime, which is owned by A&E, a joint venture of Hearst Communications and Disney, previously promoted an interview with Scarlet Johansson in which the actress promoted Planned Parenthood.

Despite being handicapped by the lack of television advertising, “Unplanned” did extremely well in its opening weekend. The movie finished the weekend in fourth place after “Dumbo,” “Us,” and “Captain Marvel,” per Box Office Mojo. When the fact that “Unplanned” was shown on only 1,059 screens is taken into account, its revenue per screen outperformed “Captain Marvel,” which was released on March 8.

“We are thrilled, gratified and humbled,” co-directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelma said in a statement. “We are so pleased that the American people have responded with such an enormous outpouring of support at the box office. It humbles us and we look forward to seeing what happens in the weeks ahead.”

The financial success of “Unplanned” is largely due to Glenn Beck, who actively promoted the movie, and MyPillow founder, Mike Lindell, who was both an investor and promoter. The CPAC screening sparked word-of-mouth and social media recommendations by conservative activists.

The movie also may have benefitted from a controversy over the weekend in which Twitter suspended the account for “Unplanned.” Twitter told the Daily Caller that the account was “mistakenly caught in our automated systems for ban evasion.” The account was ultimately reinstated, but the spat may have inspired some conservatives to get out and go see the movie.

Pure Flix, the production company for “Unplanned,” has also produced such films as “God’s Not Dead,” “Mom’s Night Out,” and “The Case For Christ” as well as a number of movies about Biblical characters. The company also operates an on-demand video streaming service and offers a free home school curriculum.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Poll: More Democrats Are Pro-Life

One of the few cultural battles on which conservatives have steadily gained ground is abortion. Even though the Supreme Court has yet to overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-life conservatives have been winning the battle of ideas as more Americans favor restrictions on abortion and identify with the pro-life viewpoint. Now a shocking poll shows that pro-lifers have even made significant inroads into the Democratic Party.

The Marist poll conducted in February 2019 shows that respondents are split evenly on the question of whether abortion should be legal, but the most surprising part of the poll is that a third of Democrats, 34 percent, identify as pro-life. Further, 15 percent of Democrats said that abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances and a total of 35 percent said that it should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

Sixty-one percent of Democrats identified as pro-choice, but a majority favored restrictions on abortion. Only 22 percent said that abortion should be available at any time while 13 percent said it should be legal within the first six months of the pregnancy.

On the Republican side, the numbers were almost exactly reversed. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans identified as pro-life while 29 percent said that they were pro-choice.

There are some cautions about the poll, however. First, the poll showed a 14-point jump in the share of pro-life Democrats in a one-month span. Any sudden large shift in poll numbers should be regarded with skepticism. Additionally, the poll’s sample size of 1,008 adults is too small to make its findings conclusive. Subsequent polling will need to verify the shift in Democratic attitudes before I am convinced.

Nevertheless, the poll’s findings do offer hope that the pro-life segment of the Democratic Party is growing. While the poll doesn’t offer explanations for the sharp increase in Democratic pro-lifers, there are a couple of interesting possibilities.

First, the poll was conducted between Feb. 12 and 17. This was in the middle of the controversy over New York’s law allowing full-term abortion and the debate over a similar law proposed by Democrats in Virginia. It may be that the publicity generated by the lax New York law has persuaded some Democrats that more restrictions on abortion are needed.

Another possibility is that some pro-life voters may be leaving the Republican Party and identifying as Democrats. In particular, younger voters tend to be more pro-life, but the young are also deserting the GOP in droves. In 2018, young voters went Democrat by a 35-point margin compared to about 20 points for the previous two elections.

A shift in moderate voters toward the Democrats would also have implications for the presidential race. If more moderate voters take part in Democratic primaries next year, it will likely temper the chances of radical leftist candidates.

Whatever the reason, if Democrats are becoming more pro-life, it is a good thing. However, since there is still a litmus test on abortion for Democratic officeholders, any shift in views on abortion by the party’s base is unlikely to be felt in policy changes anytime soon. As President Trump alienates more moderate and independent voters, Democrats would be wise to soften their stance on abortion to make it easier for the millions of pro-life voters who are disenchanted with Trump Republicans to cross over.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Planned Parenthood President’s Shocking Reason For Aborting Her Baby

I remember the days when Bill Clinton talked about abortion. President Clinton’s mantra was nobody wanted to get an abortion. He said that it should be “safe, legal and rare.” Likewise, when the pro-choice crowd challenges legal restrictions on abortion, much of the time it is because the laws allegedly don’t contain strong enough provisions for hardship cases such pregnancies that result from rape, incest or that threaten the life of the mother.

There is some logic to these arguments. Americans can argue in good faith about if it is ever moral to kill an unborn baby. While I believe that abortion is murder and morally repugnant, I can concede that there are gray areas where there are no good choices. With deep moral and logical arguments to be made on both sides, it is all the more shocking to hear Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards justify her own abortion.

In an interview with Katie Couric in 2015, Richards described her decision to take the life of an unborn baby. “It was a decision my husband and I made. It was a personal decision. And we have three children that we adore and that are the center of my life. And we decided that was as big as our family needed to be,” said Richards. “It wasn’t anything more dramatic than that. But I can’t imagine a woman being in that circumstance — with an unintended pregnancy and not being able to make her own decision about that pregnancy.”

“It wasn’t anything more dramatic than that.”

Cecile Richards is the daughter of former Texas governor, Anne Richards (who notably coined the nickname “Shrub” for George W. Bush). She comes from an affluent family. Lifenews estimates the salary of the younger Ms. Richards at “around $600,000.” She is a one-percenter in her own right. Yet she chose to end the life of her baby, the sibling of her other three children, because “we decided that was as big as our family needed to be.”

This is no hardship case. This is not a gray area. This is a case of a wealthy woman who apparently was not on birth control or using contraceptives deciding that she didn’t want another child.

The Cecile Richards abortion is an example of the dishonesty of the abortion movement. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience or quality of life reasons, not for medical emergencies or due to sexual assaults. According to the Guttmacher Institute, rape and incest cases make up less than one percent of abortions. Abortions due to the health of the mother account for only 12 percent of abortions. Concerns about the health of the baby lead to 13 percent.

The most common reason cited for having an abortion? “Having a baby would dramatically change my life.” Cecile Richards’ excuse, “have completed my childbearing,” was given by 38 percent of women who had abortions.

The pro-choice movement is fundamentally a selfish one. At its core, it is all about “me.” The slogan “my body, my choice” puts all other considerations below the mother’s preference. The fact that a human being is killed, the desires of the father, even the possibility of problems with the mental and physical health of the mother are pushed aside.  

Abortion is not a necessary medical procedure to protect the life of the mother in most cases. Abortion is a tool with which people can escape the consequences of their actions.

Ironically, the extremist position of abortion for any reason may be hurting the pro-choice cause. Since the 1990s, the percentage of pro-choice Americans has plummeted while the pro-life position has increased. The country is equally split between the two viewpoints according to Gallup. On closer examination, the majority is neither pro- nor anti-abortion. A majority, 50 percent, of Americans believes in the middle ground that there should be legal abortion with restrictions. Most of these (37 percent) believe that abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances, presumably the traditional exceptions of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger.

The change in attitudes about abortion helps to explain another shocking statistic. American abortions are their lowest level since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. The pro-life viewpoint is winning. Perhaps this is why abortion activists are sounding increasingly shrill and extreme.

(Hat tip to at Amanda Prestigiacomo at the Daily Wire for finding the 2015 interview.)

Originally published on The Resurgent

Evan McMullin unveils 'Principles for New American Leadership'

Yesterday independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin unveiled his list of conservative principles to a cheering crowd in Provo, Utah. McMullin, who only announced his candidacy in early August, is positioning himself as the conservative alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. His statement of principles, the “Principles for New American Leadership,” put forth core values for the relatively unknown candidate.

In a video accompanying the unveiling of the document, McMullin describes his beliefs. “Our great nation requires a new generation of leadership and civic engagement…. Washington has become distant and disconnected from our needs, and unable to meet the challenges ahead. The two parties have given us gridlock and division, and candidates who care more about themselves than us. That’s why I want to share my vision of new American leadership.”

McMullin’s principles appeal to the core values of the conservative movement, but also reach out to people who are not traditional conservatives. His first principle, that “our basic rights are God-given” is a direct reference to the Declaration of Independence. He also states that “we must honor the Constitution” and “any changes to the Constitution must be made through the amendment process, not by judicial or executive action.”

With respect to elected officials, McMullin’s principles state that “leaders must be honest and wise” and “put the public interest ahead of their own, acting with integrity, transparency and good judgment.” Leaders should also be “fiscally responsible,” McMullin says. “Our country cannot be secure and prosperous with uncontrolled debt and deficits.”

McMullin affirms traditional conservative issues with his declaration of principle. “We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which the government must ensure,” he states. He also strikes a strong pro-life stance, declaring “We must protect the lives of the most vulnerable from the unborn to the elderly.”

McMullin goes beyond traditional conservative issues, however.  His principles call for a “safety net for Americans unable to support themselves,” but government programs “should help people to overcome poverty, rather than simply survive it.” Beyond calling for the repeal of Obamacare, McMullin advocates for a healthcare system that will “encourage competition and innovation” to provide “access to affordable, quality health care.” McMullin’s principle of free markets applies to healthcare and other industries as well.

On immigration, McMullin finds a middle ground between the extremes offered by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. “We must secure our borders, enforce our laws and facilitate the legal immigration of those who will contribute to American prosperity, security and culture,” he says.

As an independent, Evan McMullin is an outsider candidate. After graduating from Brigham Young University and earning a Master’s of Business Administration from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He fought radical jihadists as a CIA officer in the Middle East after September 11. He worked for two years as an investment banker after completing his CIA service and then became a senior advisor to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and chief policy director of the House Republican Conference.

After only two months on the campaign trail, there are reports that McMullin is surging. Because he doesn’t appear in most polls, it is hard to gauge the depth of his support, but he has already passed Jill Stein in one recent national poll. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Evan McMullin on the issues

EvanMcMullin.com

This is the second of a two-part series in which we present Evan McMullin's platform in his own words, drawn from a series of interviews. The interview sources are linked in part one, which we published yesterday. Today we present Evan McMullin on the issues and focus on domestic policy.

On the Second Amendment: On Now This, McMullin said, “I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. I think it is important to our freedoms and liberties here in the United States. I am a gun owner. I believe in responsible gun ownership. I think to own a weapon is to assume some very serious responsibilities I believe that we have to have a better, more constructive dialogue on this issue. I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment. I would like to decrease gun violence. I think there are many ways to do that while we still protect our rights.”

On judicial appointments: Louise Mensch of Heat Street asked whether McMullin would appoint Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court. “I’m not making any commitments about who I would or would not appoint,” McMullin replied, “but I will tell you that I will appoint originalists. In the question that involves what I think about Roe v. Wade, I will appoint pro-life justices.

On entitlements: “Entitlements are pushing us further and further into debt,” he said on Bloomberg. “Our debts are larger and larger. Our deficits are larger and larger. We have to do something to get them on a sustainable path. We have to keep our commitments to our elderly, our seniors today, but we have to phase in some reforms for future retirees.”

On religious freedom: “I believe in libertarian ideas in a sense that individuals need to be more empowered in our country. The power needs to be shifted back closer to the people. Those are consistent with libertarian ideas, but part of that is religious liberty. Our country was founded in part on that and we can’t have a president who doesn’t understand that, especially in this time when we really need to, I think, ensure that religious liberties are protected.”

When asked about his stance against religious persecution, McMullin said, “This is a driving principle for me. We’re a nation of 330 million people and geographically we are also very large. A lot of people have different ideas, they come from different countries, themselves or past generations. We are a diverse, pluralistic country and you must have tolerance as a result of that. E pluribus Unum. This was our original, unofficial motto until, I think, the ‘50s, that conveyed the idea that there are many of us with many differences among us, [but] that we are together still as one country. We need to go back to that and realize that we are not going to agree on everything, all of us on the right and left and center, but we need to respect everybody’s ability to live the way they want to live and to be one, united, in defense of those freedoms.”

On why people should vote for him: “I’ve spent my life avoiding the limelight and seeking opportunities to serve. Donald Trump has spent his life avoiding opportunities to serve and seeking the limelight.”