Stand with Truth

Help Phill Kline in his legal battles and his efforts to restore the rule of law and reveal the truth about the abortion industry and the culture of death.  Provide your tax-deductible donation.  For your convenience, please click the “Donate” button below and join us in standing with truth.

To outrage in some quarters and applause in others, the Untied States Supreme Court has recognized what it calls the “coercive” environment caused by non-sectarian student voluntary prayer at high school football games and stuck down such prayers as unconstitutional. (See Santa Fe Texas School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). In the Santa Fe case the Court ruled the following voluntary prayer by a student unconstitutional:

“Lord, we ask for Your protection as we depart to our next destination and watch over us as we go our separate ways. Grant each of us a safe trip and keep us secure throughout the night. In Your name we pray. Amen.”

What remains to be seen is whether the American public, and specifically the Cumberland County (Fayetteville) North Carolina School District, recognizes the coercive environment created when a teacher bullies and frightens an elementary school student in front of her classmates due to that student’s support for Sen. McCain for President.*

A Finnish film crew produced a documentary regarding American education and the 2008 Presidential elections. Along the way they interviewed and filmed the Asheville, North Carolina elementary class of teacher Diatha* Harris. Ms. Harris provides an interview to the crew and proudly proclaims that her group of impressionable youngsters voted for Obama in the school’s student election. The problem, however, is how “teacher” Harris persuaded the students to cast that vote.

At one point in the film, during her class, the proud teacher turns to a young girl whose father serves in the military and who expressed her support for Mr. McCain. The student states she supports Mr. McCain because her mother and father support Mr. McCain.

Ms. Harris then asks the girl if she knows what the war with Iraq, which Obama is going to end, is really about. When the girls hesitates under the onslaught, Ms. Harris states it is a “senseless war.” But she is not through with her persuasion. Ms. Harris then proclaims that “that man” who you support for President has stated we would keep the troops in Iraq “for one hundred years if thats what it takes.” She then adds her own coup de grace: “that means your father will stay in the military for one hundred years.” (view the film here or watch it below)

With the exception of religion American’s have now long suffered a coercive educational environment. Such is evidenced in the lack of intellectual diversity on college campuses, policies and expenditures of teacher’s unions and shallow and deceptive curriculum.

The Supreme Court does not have, nor should it have, any role in the latest example of coercion in the educational environment, but certainly the parents, administrators and school board of Cumberland County, N.C. do.

It will be interesting to see how they fill that role and whether, if they chose to ban such coercion by firing Ms. Harris - the teacher’s union and others who cheer the Supreme Court’s vigilant eye for coercive environments regarding religion - will also cheer the school board’s action.

* It has been widely reported that Ms. Harris teaches in Asheville, however, she left the Asheville school district a few years back. She now teaches in Cumberland County. Her school board website is: http://www.communications.ccs.k12.nc.us/Board/BOE.htm

Ms. Harris’ school website is:

http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us/faculty_and_staff.htm

** Ms. Harris’ first name is actually Diatha. Her name was misspelled in the Swedish documentary as Diantha. Diantha is simply an alteration to the name Diana which means heavenly divine or it is derived from the “dianthus” flower which is Greek, meaning “heavenly flower.” The origin and meaning of Diatha is unknown, thus likely causing the misspelling in the Finnish film.

Debate has raged for decades on whether Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was racially motivated. News stories that broke onto the national scene this summer about the modern version of Planned Parenthood have given fodder to those who claim that abortion has a racist impact which Planned Parenthood refuses to reject and may even embrace.

In secretly recorded conversations with Planned Parenthood fundraisers, callers posed as potential contributors who wanted to contribute money to the nation’s largest abortion provider for one reason - to exterminate black unborn children. The callers played up the racist motivation making such observations as: “I don’t want my child competing with black children for jobs” and “there are just too many of them as it stands now.”

In each instance, Planned Parenthood gratefully accepted the donation. In one particularly telling moment, one Planned Parenthood fundraiser asks the caller for forgiveness explaining that she is somewhat breathless because “she is so excited” and “wants to make sure she handles the call correctly.”

The release of these tapes caused somewhat a national sensation with protests in various parts of the nation. A group of black pastors marched in Washington demanding the end of federal funding for Planned Parenthood. News conferences were held, petitions signed, media stories printed and aired - except in one state - Kansas.

No coverage by the Kansas City Star or Wichita Eagle. The controversy did not happen. In the jurisdiction of the only criminal case ever filed against Planned Parenthood: the controversy did not exist because the paper did not report on it.

The following is just some of the coverage and a few of the recorded conversations that you missed hearing about in Kansas.

It is increasingly likely that the American public will vote in this year’s Presidential election with a willing ignorance of the darkness that resides in America’s abortion facilities. Recently, the truth about Mr. Barak Obama’s opposition to protecting born alive infants was revealed. (read more here). And now, the truth that such infants need legal protection has also been revealed.

Students for Life has placed on youtube a recorded conversation with a Planned Parenthood worker in Freehold, New Jersey. During the conversation the worker admits that infants that survive the abortion attempt at the facility are left to die after they are born.

This truth has long been known in the pro-life community and other statements by abortion providers have confirmed such actions. One must understand the “logic” of abortion supporters: “an unwanted child is not a human being.” Accordingly, the birth of the child is not the defining point of the beginning of human life, but rather humanity is defined by whether the birth of the child is desired.

In their eyes, it is, therefore, the intent to abort the child that defines that child as inhuman, regardless of whether it is born.  The fact that the child is born alive is simply being an unfortunate mistake by the abortionist. Accordingly, allowing the child to die is not inhuman in the eyes of the abortionist nor those who support abortion on demand.

You will not see those who support abortion debate these issues in these terms as they believe that such logic is not politically palpable. And so we are forced to listen to the rationalizations that an unwanted child will live a miserable, impoverished life and that it is truly better to allow it to die. We will also hear the constant false claims that every aborted child suffers a severe deformity and that every instance of abortion is necessary to preserve the mother’s “health.”

Yet, unfortunately, we wonder whether such mental gymnastics by the abortion industry are necessary in today’s political and cultural climate. In many ways America has accepted their argument. This acceptance, and a benign neglect of our own humanity, allows us to publicly celebrate the miracles of science and technology in preserving the lives of prematurely born wanted children; while failing to notice the trash-bags full of the bodies of the prematurely killed unwanted children.

The electorate seems more focused on Wall Street and reflecting on its uncertain personal financial future rather than the suffering of the voiceless and voteless.

It appears that in America today, few elections are won due to voters expressing concerns for others as they case their ballot.

I doubt the recent news that abortion clinics actually do what we all know they are designed to - kill babies - will have much of an impact until those who claim the mantle of leadership teach America why it matters. Such is sad commentary on our nation.

The last Presidential debate Senator McCain challenged Senator Obama’s opposition to the Illinois born alive act. As a State Senator, Mr. Obama worked to defeat the bill on four separate occasions.

The born alive act is simple: any child that survives an abortion attempt and is born alive must be protected. Similar bills have been introduced around the nation as evidence has come forth that abortion clinics allow these infants that survive abortion, to die of neglect.

In the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama voted against the bill in committee, in on instance as Committee Chairman used his powers to prevent the bill from being heard, and worked hard to defeat the bill in a manner in which his opposition would not be widely known. In one instance, when the bill survived Mr. Obama’s procedural attempts to kill it, and the bill was finally voted on in a public vote, Mr. Obama voted present. Mr. Obama did not want to register his opposition to the act publicly on the Illinois Senate floor because he rightly reasoned his opposition would be viewed by the American public as extreme.

What Mr. Obama failed to recognize, however, is that the dominant mainstream media would gladly guard Mr. Obama’s extremism and that when such came to light, explain away his actions as either insignificant or justified. This media effort occurs because in most network and major newspaper newsrooms, allowing a born infant that survives abortion to die is not extreme as all is justified to protect the most cherished right of an abortion. And so, Mr. Obama’s pro-abortion extremism has not played.

But thanks to the power of the Internet and the willingness of some to come forward - the full scale of Mr. Obama’s efforts to sacrifice born alive children on the altar of political expediency is being revealed.

Ms. Jill Stanek is a nurse by profession and now a pro-life activist blogger by passion. Such was not always the case. Ms. Stanek was on duty in a Chicago hospital as a delivery nurse when she was forced to witness the death of an infant who survived an abortion. The infant, though a survivor of the abortion, was simply abandoned to die so that the intent of the abortion could be fulfilled. You do not have to take the hippocratic oath to understand the horrible tragedy in a child being allowed to die at a facility that claims to dedicate itself to healing and life. Ms. Stanek had seen enough and dedicated herself to passing legislation to protect children who are born alive.

Ms. Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate in support of protection for such infants but, according to Stanek, here testimony “did not faze” Mr. Obama.

Stanek appeared before Mr. Obama’s committee on a second occasion bringing pictures of infants who would be protected by the legislation “trying to show them unwanted babies were being case aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted.”

When the hearing concluded, Mr. Obama, according to official committee records, thanked Ms. Stanek for being forthright and then stated his opposition to the legislation stating “what we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As Mr. Obama’s Presidential campaign ramped up the issue hung in the background until earlier this month an independent organization began running ads in New Mexico and Ohio. The television ads featured an abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen, challenging Mr. Obama on why he did not want to protect people such as herself. (You can view the ad here).

Mr. Obama with his own ads, accusing the McCain campaign of falsehoods (Mr. McCain’s campaign is not responsible for the ads) and simply stating the ad was a lie.

With the ad wars in full swing, Fox News did initiate some stories on the issue. (You can view Jill Stanek on Hannity here and view Gianna Jessen on Fox here).

In the recent Presidential debate, Mr. Obama modified his statements. Mr. Obama first said Mr. McCain’s statements about his opposition to the born alive act were false, but then stated his opposition was because the act would endanger Roe. Protecting live children who are born in no fashion endangers Roe and in fact even Planned Parenthood did not oppose the federal born alive act - an act, which despite Mr. Obama’s claims otherwise, is identical to the version he opposed as an Illinois Senator.

(You can hear audio of Mr. Obama’s opposition here and you can read the text of the legislation here).

Unfortunately, in the current media and cultural environment, it is not viewed as important to explore the attitudes and legislative positions of a Presidential candidate relevant to whether children, who are alive and born, are deserving of protection.

It is a sad commentary on America that we are willing to ignore the substance of such an important issue.

We appear to be about to elect a President who, in order to deliver to his political base, refuses to see any justification for laws to prevent born children from being left to die of neglect in a house of healing - and you expect him to stand up for you?