Pro-slavery Democrats reduced slavery. By demanding the dehumanization of black people like me, selling them like property, or killing them because they had no Constitutional rights they actually did more to rescue slaves than abolitionists.
Sounds preposterous, right? Well, not if you're buying what pro-Hillary evangelicals are selling. Somehow, the most radically pro-abortion candidate in history is the solution to reducing the shocking number of abortions in our country, according to Eric Sapp's latest article: "A Democrat's Plea for Reason on Abortion After Hillary Wins."
I'm a factivist. I refuse to be swayed by mere emotion. As a Christian, I am driven by a faith inextricably tied to reason. Facts matter. Context matters.
You can't call for a more "honest conversation about abortion" by delivering more denial and deception. And it's fascinating to me that these "honest conversations" never once mention the violence of abortion, the reality that there are 1.1 million deaths of innocent human beings, or the physical, spiritual and emotional damage that mothers and fathers suffer from ending the life of their child.
Guttmacher Institute (funded millions by Planned Parenthood up until a few years ago) claims that 49% of abortion "patients" are poor (below the federal poverty line), and another 26% are "low-income" (100%-199% above the poverty line). Guttmacher is known, by the way, for fudging numbers. This would mean 75% are "low-income". Not sure how that translates to this demographic lacking "access" to abortion when they allegedly comprise the majority. But there's no way to know who (socio-economically) is really having abortions since there is no federal or state mandate to report income levels (see example of Abortion Reporting Form). Even Guttmacher admits this data is not collected. Planned Parenthood spokespeople have reiterated this fact numerous times in various news articles, boasting that they don't collect vital demographic characteristics of those having abortions: "We are also strongly opposed to attempts to turn doctors into investigators and women into suspects by forcing physicians to interrogate women about their motives for obtaining an abortion."
And we know abortionists aren't the most ethical in the field of medicine. So, how exactly does this pro-abortion activist group conclude such numbers? The age demographic that seeks the most abortions, according to the CDC, are 20-24 year olds (32.8% of all U.S. abortions). There aren't a whole lot of college students whose earnings are above the federal poverty line, but you can't exactly categorize them as poor. So, there's that.
That same report also claimed only 44% of the facilities they contacted responded to the survey. Oh, and they eliminated any hospitals that commit abortion. They only make up a measly 4% of nationwide abortions, according to Guttmacher. What's a little statistical manipulation for an organization rife with contradictions?
Eric Sapp suggests that abortion is a "tragic symptom of a much bigger problem". It's like saying slavery was a symptom of the larger problem of a tough job market. The industry of abortion, like that of slavery, is not a symptom to be diagnosed but a cancer to be removed.
One can demand to defund a corrupt, dehumanizing, Medicaid and taxpayer program defrauding ($130 million and counting) business that profits from killing those made in the image of God while simultaneously addressing the reasons women choose abortion or are forced by family, husbands or boyfriends to have them. Since less than 0.8% of the U.S. population is actually served by Planned Parenthood's 650 abortion or abortion referral centers, it wouldn't be a monumental task to defund and replace them.
Politics loves to exploit the impoverished. Poor women (and men) can access contraception at over 13,000 taxpayer-funded, federally qualified health centers and community health centers across the country (see GetYourCare.org). These real medical facilities offer far more healthcare than Planned Parenthood and deliver comprehensive care on a sliding scale basis (which means no cost for those who qualify).
Why don't articles proposing the fantasy that Hillary Clinton or pro-abortion Democrats will reduce abortions ever mention the 2,500 pregnancy care centers that Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby try so desperately to shut down?
These centers care for mothers and their children, free of charge, throughout the pregnancy and for years after the child is born. They offer parenting classes, maternity and baby supplies, connections to local resources, help with applying for State assistance, and (increasingly) provide mentoring programs for fathers. Sapp and other liberal evangelicals never address the 407 faith-based maternity homes across the nation that provide rescue, shelter, and care to mothers and their children. My organization, The Radiance Foundation, has had the incredible privilege of working with many of these life-affirming resources over the years and have witnessed the transformation of lives made possible by God-centered redemption, not contraception.
I was once considered an "unwanted" or "unintended" pregnancy. My biological mother experienced the horror of rape, yet courageously chose Life.
Sapp says "rhetoric and labels will at best accomplish only minimal movement around the margins" yet readily and falsely labels poor women as being "10 times more likely to have an abortion if they experience an unwanted pregnancy" without any substantiation.
The Brookings Institution published a 2015 report that reveals a completely different narrative: "higher-income single women are much more likely to have an abortion than low-income women." Their report, unlike Guttmacher's, shows actual data, charts and tables which reveal that 32% of women whose income was 400% above the poverty line had an abortion the previous year while only 9% of women who were below the poverty line chose abortion.
Can we just stop exploiting the poor, already?