Faux-lifers are the self-identified “pro-lifers” who supported the health care bill.  They fought having the Stupak Amendment added and/or they risked the bill’s passage to ensure that taxpayer-funded abortions would be included.  From now on I consider them pro-abortion, not pro-life or even pro-choice.

These folks claimed that they wanted to reduce abortions.  But you don’t reduce abortions by increasing abortions, and that is what this bill will do.  They’ll insist that better health care will reduce the need for abortions, but under no circumstances does giving away free abortions reduce abortions.

Social justice Christians like Jim Wallis and the Sojourners claim to be pro-life, but they celebrated the passage of the bill. They are pretending that the Executive Order by Obama actually means something. Even Stupak knew it meant nothing.  Do they know something that Planned Parenthood doesn’t know?  Because PP thinks the EO was symbolic and that they will be increasing abortions soon.  And why did they champion the bill all along and not fight for the Stupak Amendment?

False teachers like Chuck Currie specifically cheered the abortion coverage.  That is a twisted but predictable response from someone who claimed to want to reduce abortions.

I would love to be wrong on this, but anyone who thinks that the pro-aborts who fought that long and hard are going to give up because Obama signed an unenforceable piece of paper are either naive or foolish.

They play the fallacious safe, legal and rare card and the “I’ll oppose abortions once there is absolutely no demand for them” line of reasoning.  But they have un-masked themselves permanently: If they weren’t on record strongly fighting for the Stupak Amendment, you know they are really faux-lifers.

21 thoughts on “Faux-lifers”

  1. I’m still trying to figure out whether Stupak was duped or threatened in order to change his vote. Maybe it was for both reasons? Heard that Obama hasn’t even signed the E.O. order yet. It doesn’t matter anyway, an E.O. doesn’t have power over the legislation voted on and signed.

    I know you are not a Glenn Beck fan, but his T.V. show today was awesome! He did quite the verbal shellacking of Wallis’ “social justice” agenda. Record the re-run if you can. I plan to add the videos to my recent post about today’s show at my blog when I find them.


  2. Hi Neil,
    Off topic. I wrote on this article this morning. By Peter Hitchens,,

    One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers’ assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

    On this misunderstanding is based my brother Christopher’s supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

    Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

    I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions committed by different countries, often with great vigour.

    For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

    Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html#ixzz0j6HM3aTO


    1. I like Peter Hitchens. He’s a thoughtful man, and has bit more tact than his brother. His debate with Christopher from 2008 is online, and is interesting, if a little restrained.

      Needless to say, I disagree with his assertion that a moral code requires a God, but it’s nice to hear respectful debate.


      1. disagree with his assertion that a moral code requires a God

        Was that his claim? Or did he say that a universal moral code requires a God? I don’t know anyone who denies that moral codes exist. It is just that without God there is no grounding for a code that everyone should follow.


      2. Yes, you are right, your explanation of his claim is more accurate.

        As you know, I don’t think a moral code requires grounding, and if it did, I don’t think the Bible grounds it effectively.

        Christopher Hitchens’ recent rewriting of the 10 commandments illustrates well how the morality of the Bible is inconsistently grounded. It’s widely available on youtube, as is his oft-told story of why he is an atheist, which is the most convincing argument I have heard.


      3. I don’t think a moral code requires grounding

        That is why meaningful discussion on that topic is impossible with you. If you can’t ground it then it is just your opinion or majority rules. And nothing personal, but I don’t care about opinions that people can’t stand behind.


      4. But the only type of grounding you think is possible is that which is provided by God. So you won’t discuss this with me unless I subscribe to your theory?


      5. If it is not grounded by a supreme lawgiver then by definition it isn’t universal. “Survival of the fittest” doesn’t ground morality, it makes it a free-for-all.


  3. Neil good post. The Bible makes it clear that our actions speak louder than our words. We can say we are whatever we want, but it is what we do that defines us.

    They can say they are pro-life, the proved they are not.


  4. Would someone please show me where this new health care legislation allows for abortion coverage? I have tried to find it in the bill and can’t. Can someone point me to the actual wording in the bill regarding this? I’ve looked until I’m blue in the face.


    1. Marty,

      The abortionists are evil, not stupid. They don’t come right out and say, “Free abortions for everyone! Abortions are super fun!”

      If it wasn’t there, why did they fight the allegedly redundant Stupak Amendment? Why did they have zero issues with the Executive Order which supposedly did the same thing as the Stupak Amendment?

      Roxanne’s post has some details which might help you — http://haemet.blogivists.com/2010/03/24/obamas-executive-order-is-invalid/


  5. Umm…didn’t really help. There was one link to an article by Pam Fichter which outlined a few problems, but no links were provided to the bill… so… I couldn’t verify her claims. I have searched Factcheck.org, but all I can find there is info regarding the public option, which did include public funds for abortions, but the public option is no longer in the bill. I’ll just keep wading through the bill.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s