Hillary Clinton pushes abortion to become legal

[True-believer]

Hillary Clinton Promises the US will spread abortion around the world�

�.help C-FAM and the Friday Fax stop her�

April 28, 2009

Dear Friday Fax Reader,

Only a few days ago Hillary Clinton appeared before the US House of Representatives and in sworn testimony said the following. Keep in mind, she promised all these things in her official capacity of US Secretary of State!

Clinton praised Margaret Sanger, the racist and eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood Federation. She compared Sanger to Thomas Jefferson!

Clinton praised the UN Population Fund, the UN agency that helped set up and run the Chinese one child policy which is responsible for millions of forced abortions.

Clinton said the US would ratify the pro-abortion CEDAW treaty, meaning the last meaningful CEDAW holdout will now fall.

These things are awful and dangerous enough but she also said this:

The full force of the US government will be used to get governments to change their laws on abortion all over the world.

You likely know that the US has the most radical abortion laws in the world: abortion for any reason and no reason through all nine months of pregnancy. Hillary Clinton wants this for the entire world.

You likely know that most of the world has abortion either against the law or heavily regulated. Radical pro-abortion feminists like Hillary Clinton cannot stand this. They hold abortion to be a kind of secular sacrament, a sacrament that everyone must worship!

I know Hillary Clinton. My staff and I did battle with her throughout the 1990�s when her husband occupied the Oval Office. I watched her work at Cairo+5, Beijing+5 and I can tell you first hand that Hillary Clinton is among the most radical pro-abortion advocates in the whole world.

I truly fear that with Hillary Clinton as US Secretary of State and with Barack Obama as President of the United States, and with their allies at the UN, we are in for the most wicked four years in our global battle to protect the unborn child from abortion.

C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax, is the only pro-life group working exclusively on UN social policy issues. The Friday Fax is the ONLY WEEKLY SOURCE OF PRO-LIFE AND PRO-FAMILY NEWS coming out of UN headquarters in New York.

Over the next four years, likely the only source news about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their attempts to spread abortion through the UN will come from the Friday Fax!

Friday Fax reporters, writers and analysts spend their days pouring over UN documents and sitting through interminably boring UN meetings just to bring you the news that you cannot get from any other source. Often we are the only pro-lifers in the room!

Over the years, we have built a subscriber base of 200,000 and a weekly readership of half a million. Policy makers, scholars, government officials, activists, good guys and bad guys all over the world read the Friday Fax.

The Friday Fax is free to you but it is not cheap to produce and we are writing today alert to this impending threat from Hillary Clinton and to ask for your financial assistance.

The Friday Fax costs roughly $177,000 per year to produce.

This includes office rental space, small salaries for our reporters, printing and postage for our mail edition, and significant monthly costs to mail 1 million Friday Fax messages a month!

Can you help us with this huge and growing expense?

Click HERE to contribute to the Friday Fax. This link will take you to a page where you can give online using our totally secure server. You can also give by electronic check, bank transfer, and by mail.

If you want to mail a check to us, use this address:

C-FAM/Friday Fax

1100 G Street NW

Suite 450

Washington, DC 20005

My Friday Fax staff is primed and ready to report on every nefarious pro-abortion plot that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cook up. We will be there. We will report. We will tell the whole world.

Can you help us with this important task? In these difficult times, perhaps you have been financial blessed and can contribute as much as $500? Can you help us with $100? How about $50?

Click HERE to help C-FAM and the Friday Fax do battle against Hillary Clinton and her plans to spread abortion all over the world. Remember, she pledged to use U.S. government power to do this. Is this not frightening?

Click HERE. Please do not wait. Go HERE right now and give as much as you are able. I promise your contribution will be spent wisely and well in exposing the international abortion plans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse

President

P.S. This is week 3 in our six-week fundraising campaign. Next week I will tell you about how Catholic beliefs are under fire at the UN.

P.P.S. Hillary�s chief negotiator at the UN is a radical feminist named Margaret Pollack. I know her. She knows me. Likely she is reading this. Margaret, we will be watching�.

�

� Copyright 2009 Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 495, New York, NY 10017

www.c-fam.org

Subscribe Click here to unsubscribe.

[SouthAfrican]

Trampling on God's Law.

[olger]

The girl ain't right.

og

[Dr. Shane]

So glad that Townhall is free from politics.

[Woody]

Oh brother.

A friendly PM is always a good idea.

[Jeannieb43]

True Believer, you may feel you speak for the SDA denomination, but you truly do not. Our church has taken no official stand on the issue of when life begins. And I hope they never decide to do so.

I feel just as strongly as you do, but I feel that pro-choice must be the answer. The woman's life is more valuable than that of an embryo which could never live independently outside the womb. You may disagree with me, but we can each be members of the Adventist church in good and regular standing while disagreeing on when life begins. After all, God did create us with freedom of choice. He allows us to make our own decisions--even to the point of making wrong decisions--but does not force anyone anywhere to choose for Him.

IMHO we are modeling the character of Christ if we let each person make his/her own decision as to birth control, or any of its attendant choices. As for me and my house, we will not employ abortion; but I can't walk in the shoes of every other person on this earth, so I can't experience what stresses they might be going through. Please, please, let us show the Christlike method -- let us never make laws concerning a woman's right to decisions relating to her own body.

[Neil D]

Jeannie,

I am so glad you said what you did....

And TB, just to let you know, a person who chooses to be pro-choice, always has the choice to be pro-life as well...that is, if one is to be consistant....but a pro-life person can never choose choice, as that would involved a contradiction of terms.

So, if reality made it such that you had to choose between the life of the baby or the life of your wife, pro-life individuals MUST choose for the life of the baby...that is if you want to be consistant with your views.

Just a thought....

[Twilight]

True Believer, you may feel you speak for the SDA denomination, but you truly do not. Our church has taken no official stand on the issue of when life begins. And I hope they never decide to do so.

I feel just as strongly as you do, but I feel that pro-choice must be the answer. The woman's life is more valuable than that of an embryo which could never live independently outside the womb. You may disagree with me, but we can each be members of the Adventist church in good and regular standing while disagreeing on when life begins. After all, God did create us with freedom of choice. He allows us to make our own decisions--even to the point of making wrong decisions--but does not force anyone anywhere to choose for Him.

IMHO we are modeling the character of Christ if we let each person make his/her own decision as to birth control, or any of its attendant choices. As for me and my house, we will not employ abortion; but I can't walk in the shoes of every other person on this earth, so I can't experience what stresses they might be going through. Please, please, let us show the Christlike method -- let us never make laws concerning a woman's right to decisions relating to her own body.

Maybe we are modelling the character of Christ when we make the following statement:

Thou shalt not kill.

People have a choice to sin and take life, but should we confuse that with doing God's will?

No, not in my view.

So if we are to be Christlike, we will stand against the taking of life.

It is like arguing for someone to have the right to rob a bank...

It goes against Gods law and that should be sufficient for us to see.

Twilight

[bonnie]

Quote:

So, if reality made it such that you had to choose between the life of the baby or the life of your wife, pro-life individuals MUST choose for the life of the baby...that is if you want to be consistant with your views.

Just a thought....

There has always been or at least from 1965 onward provisions for the life of the mother.

Not a whole lot of debate in the fact that if a pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother and the worst happens both mother and baby are gone. If the pregnancy is far enough along where the baby is viable,take the baby and spare both. Except a partial birth abortion is an unwanted baby and therefor can be eliminated.

[Dr. Shane]

Our church has taken no official stand on the issue of when life begins.

[BobRyan]

I feel just as strongly as you do, but I feel that pro-choice must be the answer. The woman's life is more valuable than that of an embryo

First of all -- let's say for the sake of argument that we all agree with you on that point "in detail".

That the woman's LIFE is more important than the EMBRYO's LIFE so that if the woman's LIFE is at all in danger caused by the EMBRYO's life - then the EMBRYO's LIFE is the one that gets sacrificed.

I think you could easily find a lot of people that would agree on that point -- even among the pro-life group.

A 5 month old is not "an embryo". A 9 month old is not an "embryo". The babies that survived the abortion process were not "embryos'. The Babies left to die without food or water or care after the abortion process were not "embryos".

A 4 month old is not an "embryo". If all the killing of children were limited to the embryonic stage AND IF the killing were limited to cases where the choice was between the LIFE of Mother and LIFE of embryo -- there might be less attention given to the topic.

hint: The embryonic state covers at most - the first two months of life. The history of the killing that goes on - - is not limited to the first 2 months of life NOR is it limited to cases where the life or death choice is between the Mother and the embryo.

Hint: In 2005 almost 40% of abortions that people would voluntarily tell the CDC that they did (so that would exclude horrific abortion prolific states like CA) -- almost 40% were being done AFTER the embryonic stage.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm

To see just how Californit skews the numbers off of the national averages - see this link

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pdf/california.pdf

In Lev 18 -- the judgments of God are clearly declared to be applied to nations (even non-Bible pagan nations) that violate this rule and engage in killing children.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

If it were not so sad -- it would be funny!!

The California report referenced above has this quote.

Quote:

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the United

States. Fewer than 0.5% of women obtaining abortions experience a

complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about onetenth

that associated with childbirth.

Wait a minute!! The risk of death is LOW for abortions? I thought it was nearly 100%!!!

Oh no wait! Killing the child doesn't count. (Unless the person counting is "God")

BTW it was instructive that 20% of pregnancies end in aborting the life of the child in the U.S.

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

Well she is from California..

[Gerr]

I take issue with the extremism on both sides. No abortion at any cost, to me is clearly wrong. I agree with you that when the mother's life is in danger, then, yes, the woman and/or her husband should be able to chose to terminate the pregnancy. Also in cases of rape or when a girl is the victim of sexual abuse, or some fetal condition that could be diagnosed early on that would result in no meaningful life. But abortion ad lib, to me, is clearly wrong. It cheapens life. Consentual coitus without contraception is an invitation to a pregnancy. At that point, IMHO, a woman/couple gives up the freedom to choose about what to do with her own body and have no right to abort a life that did not asked to be conceived.

[Dr. Shane]

That is a well thought out position, Gerry. The only reason I am "pro-choice" is because I do not see that abortion in countries where it is illegal (Mexico, Kenya, etc.) is any less common. However countries where abortion is legal, but restricted (Denmark) the abortion rate is less. So since I really want to decrease the number of abortions, I think it best to keep abortion legal but use public policy to both restrict and discourage it. I do not believe abortion should be legal after 12 weeks, there should be a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, mandatory counseling (not done by the abortion provider) and parental consent laws for minors.