supreme court

“Gosnell”

kermit gosnell

—

…..Even though I knew the story, I came home from watching the movie “Gosnell” somewhat shell-shocked and remained that way for hours.  I found myself starting sentences like this, “I…uh…” and “Yes,…uh…” and being unable to finish.  My emotions were in such turmoil that I couldn’t think clearly.

…..Kermit Gosnell was an abortionist who practiced his bloody trade for more than 30 years in his Philadelphia clinic.  In 2011, it was raided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies because of drug violations.  Then, a horrible secret was discovered.  The grand jury report said, “The clinic reeked of animal urine, courtesy of the cats that were allowed to roam (and defecate) freely. Furniture and blankets were stained with blood. Instru-ments were not properly sterilized. Disposable medical supplies were not disposed of; they were reused, over and over again. Medical equipment – such as the defibrillator, the EKG, the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure cuff – was generally broken; even when it worked, it wasn’t used. The emergency exit was padlocked shut. And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains.  It was a baby charnel house.”1

…..Although Gosnell could have been tried for many more, he was only charged with, and tried for 7 counts of murder (along with many other violations of law including a third-degree murder charge regarding a patient who died).  He was found guilty of three murders and much more, and sentenced to life in prison.

…..When Gosnell botched an abortion and the baby survived, he murdered the baby by snipping its spinal cord.  Prosecutors wanted to try him for a hundred murders but the Philadelphia police department didn’t want their murder rate to be affected.  A clinic worker who was also convicted of murder said that “there were nights when there were so many living babies born it was almost impossible to keep up with the pace of killing.”2

…..Abortion murder advocates would like us to believe that the Gosnell case was an anomaly, but in many ways it was not.  It was part of abortion and the horrors of Gosnell’s clinic were caused by abortion.

…..Because of the absolute right to abortion that the bloody supreme court of 1973 gave in Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, health inspectors were forced into a hands-off position for a number of years until additional decisions were handed down.   Edward King, a deputy director of the Chicago Medical Society, said in 1978, “The Courts very effectively knocked the Department of Health out of the picture.  We’re not even entitled to cross the threshold of these clinics.”3  Abortion, as ordained by Roe vs. Wade, placed many women in danger in clinics that would not have met normal inspections if they had been allowed.

…..The movie reveals that abortion made the Gosnell situation possible in another way.  Gosnell’s clinic went seventeen years without inspections because the governor of Pennsylvania ordered that no inspections be made “in order not to interfere with women’s reproductive rights.”  In the movie, these words ring out, “Nobody wanted to say anything; nobody wanted to know.”  The idea of abortion is so important that the health and well-being of the women who the “right” is for does not matter.  Reproductive rights for women are more important than the women.  This idea is not limited to that Pennsylvania governor.  It’s fairly common.   
…..The movie reveals another common aspect that abortion in general has with the Gosnell case.  A woman who ran/worked another abortion clinic testified in the Gosnell trial.  While being questioned by the defense attorney, she admitted that babies did survive abortion in her clinic as well.  Some, she said, “Are out and breathing.”  Gosnell would snip the spinal cords of such babies.  What did the other clinic do?  They gave them “comfort care.”  Aren’t you glad that those babies were given comfort care?  It sounds wonderful, but that means they were kept warm and comfortable and put aside, normally alone, while they struggled and gasped for air until they died.  This again is common to abortion.  This is part of the horror pro-choice people and Murdercrat voters continue and participate in by their votes and other support.

…..But there are some who also murder just as Gosnell did.  One facility would take the babies and put them in water so they would drown.  Three workers in another clinic reported that “babies were born daily and killed.”4

…..The movie also revealed that the liberal media, which supports abortion murder, is reluctant to report on anything that is negative about the abortion industry (as if 2500 abortion murders per day isn’t negative!).  Because of the significance of the case, the sheer number of murders that Gosnell had committed and the horrors of his filthy abortion clinic, court officials set aside row after row of seats for the media.  The movie shows the prosecutors driving to the court on the first day, being told how to respond to the mob of media that would immediately begin to crowd and question them when they got to the courthouse.  “You’re going to be swarmed by reporters.”  But none came.  No one was on the courthouse steps waiting for them.  The rows of seats that had been set aside in the courtroom were almost empty.

…..The movie shows one persistent reporter (Mollie Hemingway, I think) who chided the media and shamed it until they finally could duck the attention they were getting, and the liberal media came to court.  The “New York Times” reporter came and stayed five minutes.  Yes, you can certainly trust the liberal media to present the truth and give you all the important news – 5 minutes of reporting on the worst serial killer (of those born) in the history of the United States.  Kermit Gosnell may have cut the spinal cords of hundreds of babies that had been born from his botched abortions but the media had to be forced to cover that huge story because it was linked to abortion murder that they support and help continue.

…..Abortion on demand is all about abortion and not women at all.  It is abortion’s availability that matters, not the women who have them.  In my book, Murdercrats: Millions of Abortion Murderers which is available at Amazon, I compare abortion to communism in that respect.  “Gosnell” reveals the circumstances that allowed the abortionist who murdered in the womb and out of the womb to go on and on, harming numerous women on the way.  But it didn’t really matter, did it, liberal media?  It didn’t really matter, did it, abortion murder advocates?

…..How about you?  Does it matter to you, or is your heart hardened by voting for abortion through votes for Murdercrats and then defending yourself with the absurd arguments that the murderers themselves have deceived you with?  See the movie.  If it doesn’t grip you, there’s simply no hope for you.

                                                                                                                                     Dennis Lange

 

  
1 https://cdn.cnsnews.com/documents/Gosnell,%20Grand%20Jury%20
  Report.pdf

2 https://townhall.com/columnists/phelimmcaleer/2018/10/18/nbc-abortion-fanatic-attacks-gosnell-movie-n2529707

3 Forsythe, Clarke D. Abuse Of Discretion (New York: Encounter Books,   
  2013), p.211.

4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fhyJItGPko

Human Beings

.
.

…..The abortion crowd pushed abortion to make it legal by slanting the issue, avoiding the fact that abortion murders an unborn child.  In their arguments today, pro-murder people continue to slant discussions in order to persuade the gullible and protect their murderous position.  Essentially, that’s what the bloody supreme court did in 1973 – slant its discussion about the unborn child in the womb.  Those justices did it by relying upon a philosophical term (person) and using it rather than simply asking science and common sense if this was a human being or not.  Science says it is and thus abortion is murder.  But they skirted that by focusing on “person”.

…..In discussions with others, and in articles here, I routinely speak of a child in the womb or the unborn baby.  That’s common language that the world uses.  A woman who is pregnant is “with child”.  She will be asked, “Have you felt your baby move yet?”  But those who argue in support of murdering that baby will almost invariably try to slant the discussion by changing terms.  It’s not a baby.  It’s a fetus.  It’s not a child.  That’s not a person.  Or, it’s a zygote.  Or, it’s just a glob of tissue.  It’s the Nazi mind at work, making that unborn human being subhuman.  Before beginning to slaughter the Jews, gypsies, the infirm, Poles, and others, the Nazis used words and arguments to reduce those groups to something less than human beings.

…..Consider this list of some of the stages of a human life:

  1. zygote
  2. blastocyst
  3. embryo
  4. fetus
  5. newborn infant
  6. toddler
  7. teen
  8. young adult
  9. middle-aged
  10. senior

    Is a newborn infant not a human being because he is not a young adult? Is a toddler not a human being because he’s not a teen?  Is a senior not a human being because he’s not middle-aged anymore?  Those are absurd suggestions just as saying a fetus is not a baby so it’s not a human being and we can destroy it.  It’s absurd to argue that a woman can choose to have it torn apart within her womb because it’s just a fetus, not a baby.In discussions, a pro-choice person will slant his argument with the words fetus or zygote or others.  Always bring him back to the fact that whichever word he uses (and whichever word we use of those ten above or others that are not included), a human being is what exists in the womb and is merely developing into another stage of its existence.  Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School testified, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”1

…..If I’m challenged in a one-on-one discussion about my use of the word “baby”, I may shrug and say, “Okay.  To be exact, the unborn baby is not a baby but a fetus.”  Then, I will use the phrase “human being” exclusively.  I will not allow the pro-murder individual to make the unborn child subhuman by using “fetus”.  I will reveal the truth that he wants to conceal and avoid by his slanted choice of terms by using “human being”.

…..Millions have been deceived by the pro-murder advocates because of their deliberate choice of words and phrases, because they carefully avoid the truth about what they desire- the death of a human being in a woman’s womb.  We must now reshape and re-capture the discussion by the words we deliberately choose that reveal what they try to hide from those they are misleading.

…..No matter which way they twist things, science is against them and they are murdering human beings at the rate of 2500 per day, in gruesome ways.

 

1 http://clinicquotes.com/scientists-speak-before-the-senate-human-life-begins-at-conception/

 

 

 

Abortion Techniques

  An abortion murders an unborn human being during one of the three trimesters that would lead to birth.  Various techniques are used to murder the unborn, just like other human beings are murdered in various ways (shooting, stabbing, strangling, poisoning, etc.).  We may read of the murder of a family in a distant city and be sorrowed by a headline or the opening paragraph in the report.  But when we read of the details of how gruesome such an attack was, we become horrified by that crime against humanity, and angry at the wicked person who committed it.  The same is true about the murder of the unborn.

   During the first trimester of pregnancy (weeks 1 to 12), about 90% of all abortions1 are performed (if one includes the thirteenth week as well).  Two abortion procedures during this time are listed simply as “medical” abortion procedures by pro-choice sites.  They don’t reveal what happens to the unborn child when those poisons (not medicines) are used.  The first is Methotrexate, a “highly toxic chemical” that “directly attacks and
breaks down the baby’s fast growing cells. It also attacks the life-support systems the baby needs to survive.”2  The second is Mifepristone, also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill.  This chemical prevents the unborn baby from getting the nutrients it needs to live and it is starved to death in a few days.  A third method during the first trimester is called suction aspiration and is described as a “surgical abortion procedure used to terminate pregnancy between 6 to 12 weeks gestation. It is also referred to as suction curettage or vacuum aspiration.”3 What that description conceals is what happens to the unborn baby.  Here’s a description of what this does to it: “The abortionist inserts a suction tube (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into the mother’s womb. The suction and cutting edge dismember the baby while the hose sucks the body parts into a collection bottle.”4

   Still another method used to murder the unborn during the first trimester is dilation and curettage (D&C).  The abortionist uses a “loop shaped knife” to cut the baby to pieces and scrap the wall of the uterus to remove the parts.  The butchered child is then put back together outside the womb to ensure that nothing is left in the womb.  Though they have torn the child apart, they want to make certain that the mother stays healthy!

   During the second trimester (weeks 13 to 27), almost all of the remaining 10% of abortions not performed in the first trimester take place (again including the 13th week as part of the first trimester statistics).  The D&C method of murder of the first trimester is also used during the second trimester.  Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) is another procedure.  Again, pro-abortion sites won’t detail what happens to the unborn baby, concealing the ghastly butchery.  Here is a description:

        “The cervix is dilated and the unborn child is dismembered with plier-
         like forceps. Force is needed to pull the baby apart. The instrument is
         used to seize a leg or other part of the body and then, with a twisting
         motion, tear it from the baby’s body. The baby’s spine is snapped and
         the skull crushed. After the baby parts are removed, they are
         reassembled outside the womb to be sure all are removed. “5

If a child took her doll and started tearing it apart, limb by limb, and then crushed its head, we would recognize that something was terribly wrong with that child.  But this isn’t a doll that’s being ripped apart.  It’s a living human being, a baby, that is being shredded while living until it dies during the butchery.  Let’s see.  How many people are PETA people and don’t want animals mistreated and yet are for abortion?  Let’s just all let the woman choose to do what she wants – right?  Strange.  The PETA people don’t want to allow others to have exercise their choice of putting animals in a cage in a zoo.

   How many would want the snail darter protected (or some other species) while standing by and allowing your own species to be murdered?  But it’s the woman’s body so she has the right to have the body of another human being torn apart – right?

   Another second trimester method of abortion is called induction abortion where a salt solution, for example, is injected into the sac where the baby is growing.  Of course, pro-murder people wouldn’t want the pregnant woman told what will occur prior to killing her baby, but this is what happens:

        “A needle is inserted through the mother’s abdomen and 50-250 ml
         (as much as a cup) of amniotic fluid is withdrawn and replaced with a
         solution of concentrated salt. The baby breathes in, swallowing the
         salt, and is poisoned.  The chemical solution also causes painful
         burning and deterioration of the baby’s skin.  Usually, after about an
         hour, the child dies. The mother goes into labor about 33 to 35 hours
         after instillation and delivers a dead, burned, and shriveled baby.”6     

This method, which was once widely used, is now largely abandoned due to the possibility of harming the mother.  While one is murdering the unborn baby, one wouldn’t want to hurt the mother, would they?  Consider a woman who hires a hit man to murder her husband during a break-in.  “If I’m there,” she says, “be careful when you shoot him not to shoot me as well.” The hit man and the abortionist both must take care to murder only one person, not two.  Aren’t they considerate!

   During the third trimester, less than 2% of abortions take place.  The method used is, in sterilized terms, is Dilation and Extraction (D&X).  It’s also called partial birth abortion.

        “The abortionist reaches into the mother’s womb, grabs the baby’s  feet with a
……..forceps and pulls the baby out of the mother, except for  the head. The abortionist
……..then jams a pair of scissors into the back of the baby’s head and spreads the
……..scissors apart to make a hole in the baby’s skull. The abortionist removes the
……..scissors and sticks a suction tube into the skull to suck the baby’s brain out. The
……..forceps are then used to crush the baby’s head and the abortionist pulls the baby’s
……..body out the rest of the way.”7

Let’s remember that this is a live human being, capable of feeling pain, that a doctor (some of them are such wonderful healers!) is jabbing in the back of its head with a pointed instrument and sucking out its brains.  In dry medical terms that help mask what occurs, this method of murder is called intrauterine cranial decompression.  Cranial decompression translation – they crush the baby’s head.  Intrauterine translation – they do it in the womb.  Why do they do it there?  For one reason, it is murder to take a baby that was born a second ago, jab it in the back of the neck or skull, suck out its brains, and crush its skull.  Out in the room of the world, it’s not acceptable.  But inside the room of the womb, it is.  It is just as much a living human being a few seconds before birth as it is one second afterward.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was chairman of the DNC helping rig the primary against Bernie Sanders and for Hillary Clinton, was asked if she thought it was all right for a seven pound baby to be aborted (partial birth abortion).  She replied, “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.”  When asked later by another interviewer about whether her stance was that it was acceptable to abort a seven pound baby, she didn’t deny that it was her stance and said, “We have very different definitions of personal liberty. I made that clear in my response the Democratic Party’s position is we are pro-choice,” Schultz said. “We believe a decision on a woman’s reproductive choices is best left between a woman and her doctor….”8  The Murder Party is fine with allowing the murder of a seven pound baby.  It just has to be in the womb.  A second later in a different place, and it wouldn’t be okay.  Who makes such an obvious foolish distinction?  Why the wise supreme court, of course.

   Aren’t you smarter than the Bloody Court of 1973?  Can’t you see through the veil that the murder crowd puts between the public and the reality of what occurs to an unborn child during abortion?  Quit being deceived and vote against the Murdercrats, voting for the party that will end the murder of the unborn.     

by Dennis Lange


1 https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states?gclid=CjwKEAiAkajDBRCRq8Czmdj-yFgSJADikZggsRrpnsSeFZZhimCIqSEI877pbaTr0nqdX_2tewAn4BoCWV3w_wcB

2 http://www.all.org/learn/abortion/methods/

3 http://www.thehelpline.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion/types-of-abortion-procedures/

4 http://www.all.org/learn/abortion/methods/

5 http://www.prolife.com/abormeth.html

6 http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/medicalfacts/techniques/

7 http://www.all.org/learn/abortion/methods/

8 http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/14/cnn-asks-top-democrat-if-its-ok-to-kill-a-7-pound-baby-in-abortion-heres-her-answer/

 

The “Not Viable” Argument

 

…One of the common arguments to justify aborting an unborn baby is the argument that the fetus cannot live outside the womb at the time it is being aborted.  It is the “not viable” argument.  A fetus is not “capable of surviving or living successfully”1 outside of its mother’s womb.  It is totally dependent upon her for its survival. The earliest a baby has been born and has survived is 21 weeks and 5 days.2  Thus, the viable argument cannot be even be used about a baby at that stage because it could be viable, rather than “it is not viable”.

…But the argument is bogus to begin with.  The baby is viable in the mother’s womb.  It is only unable to survive if removed too early from where it is developing.  It is viable in the womb and not viable outside the womb.  It is viable in one place, but not another.

…In the same manner, the murdering abortionist is viable in one place but not viable in another.  If the Mafia took the killer out of his cozy abortion clinic, put concrete shoes on him, and dropped him into the depths of the ocean, the abortionist wouldn’t be viable in that situation.  He’s viable in one place, but not another.

…If a baby is aborted by giving it a chemical poison, it was alive and capable of continuing to survive in the womb, but the poison kills it in the very place it should have been nurtured.  It was no longer viable in the very place it once was viable.  If Jim Jones Kool-Aid is given to a person who is an accessory to murder by supporting and sustaining abortion, that person was alive and capable of continuing to survive in the place where he was.  But the poisoned Kool-Aid kills him and he was no longer viable in that same place.

…But here is the over-riding fact that one must always return to – viability doesn’t matter.  The supreme court was wrong in using that as an excuse for murder in Roe vs. Wade and those who parrot that argument are wrong as well.  One doesn’t have the right to murder a human being in the womb just because it wouldn’t be viable outside of the womb.  Abortion is murder and no one has the right to murder another human being.

…Do NOT let the murderers divert arguments from that fact.

 

 

1 https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=Xw#q=what+does+viable+mean

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth

The Cause and the Solution

    At the beginning of the twentieth century, laws against abortion existed in each state.  At the time of Roe v Wade in 1973, thirty states still prohibited abortion while twenty allowed it under some extenuating circumstances.1  Roe v Wade was simply the supreme court being political and reacting in a political style to a growing sentiment of support for abortion.  How did that occur?  How did this nation go from being against abortion to so many accepting it with loud voices so that the supreme court heard and found excuses to accept it as well?

    In 1970, Dr. Malcolm Watts wrote an article for the California Medical Association in support of abortion.  He talked about the Judeo-Christian ethic that values all life, and titled his article “A New Ethic For Medicine And Society.”  He wrote, “In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary….  Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”2

   In many people with loud voices, a new ethic supplanted the old Judeo-Christian ethic.  A disregard for human life (the unborn) replaced the recognition of the value of each life from conception to the grave.  Dr. Watts explained how.  It was done by separating “the idea of abortion from the idea of killing”, by “avoidance of the scientific fact…that human life begins at conception.”  It was done by “considerable semantic gymnastics”, by rationalizing “abortion as anything by taking life.”

   Many people were deceived by the methods Watts described and are continuing to be deceived as that methodology continues. That’s how the United States has come to murder 60,000,000 babies since 1973. 

   What’s the solution? 

   The solution is the opposite of the deceit used by those who wish to murder the unborn for their own selfish reasons.  Tell the truth.  They separate the idea of abortion and killing.  We must present the facts and join the two since abortion is murder.  They want to speak of sterile procedures.  We must speak of unborn babies being poisoned by a salt solution and writhing in convulsions for perhaps an hour as its skin is burned.  We must speak of the babies being torn apart, limb by limb; of their skulls being crushed; of their brains being sucked out.

   Not only must we speak of this so that the deceived will understand that abortion is not just a medical procedure but the murder of a human being, but we must speak of it everywhere we go, at all times and in all places.  We must speak of it on social media.  We must put up signs along the highways and byways.  We must put it on bumper stickers on our cars.  We must teach it with the clothes we wear.  We must proclaim it on billboards and in ads.  We must saturate this nation with the truth to a greater degree than the deceitful spread their wicked lies.

   Start today in every way you can and keep going until an amendment is passed to ban abortion.  My website is now fully functional and bumper stickers can be ordered there.

   

 

 

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

2 Brennan, William.  The Abortion Holocaust, p.107

Two Facts – The Second

Two facts (not preference and opinion like most of politics) must forevermore affect the votes of those who still have a heart and soul.  The first is that abortion is murder.  The second is that any support of the Democratic Party (which endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform) makes one an accessory to murder and guilty as well.  The first fact is proven here:

Two Facts – The First

The second fact:

Supporting the Democratic Party that endorses the murder of the unborn as part of its platform makes one an accessory to murder and guilty of murder as well.

One of the planks in the platform of the Democratic Party wholeheartedly supports the right to abortion.  The following is from their 2012 party platform:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v.
Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her preg-
nancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.
We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her
family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or
government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and
education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and
thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and un-
equivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing
affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to
programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a
child, including caring adoption programs.”1

To support the Democratic Party with contributions, or just by one’s vote makes one an accessory to murder.

……….“Aiding and abetting in a murder means that you were an accessory
……….to the crime. While you may not have been part of the actual crime,
……….you had knowledge of the crime before or after it was committed, you
……….may have assisted in it commission through advice, actions, or
……….financial support.”2

……….“A person who aids and abets stands to be sentenced with the same
……….punishment as the actual perpetrator under federal law, and many
……….states follow the same guideline.”3

Many religious people who are against abortion still vote for the Democratic Party.  In the 1996 presidential election, 43% of evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton.4  In the 2016 presidential election, 45% of Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.5  If all the religious who are against abortion would vote against the Democratic Party because of the murder of the unborn, more pro-life congressmen would be elected and no pro-choice presidents would be elected.  The supreme court would have fewer liberals on it, increasing chances that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.  If religious voters voted against the Democratic Party for that single reason, they would influence others.  Eventually, an amendment to ban abortion would be passed.  At the moment, however, a person who is somewhat on the fence about abortion might look at all the religious people who don’t mind voting for it and think that it is all right for them to vote for it, too.  Voting for the Democratic Party helps sustain the holocaust against the unborn.  If a man drives the vehicle when a second man goes into the liquor store and murders the clerk, the first is an accessory to murder.  If a voter drives the political vehicle in which abortion murder is the plan, he’s an accessory to murder as well.  Only politics can end the murder of the unborn.  One either supports it and continues it with his vote or helps to ban it by voting for the only party that would end it.

As shown previously, our government’s laws mean that one who supports a murder is an accessory to murder, to be sentenced with the same punishment as the murder because he himself is guilty of it.  God’s law is the same.

……….“Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of
……….Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he
……….has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does
……….not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do
……….not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting
……….participates in his evil deeds.” (II John 9,10)

In the first century, a Christian traveler was often invited into the home of another Christian to stay.  The apostle John said that if one helps a false teacher in this way, or even gives him a greeting (such as “God be with you”), he participates in his evil deeds.  Those who support the cause of candidates favoring abortion participate in the evil of abortion and are accessories to murder.

   The religious in this country who oppose abortion and then vote for the Democratic Party because of some trivial reason (all is trivial compared to murder, opinions versus fact) are guilty of hypocrisy, something Jesus roundly condemned when He saw it in the Pharisees (Matt.23).  They are guilty of saying and not doing.  Jesus said this of the Pharisees before repeatedly calling them hypocrites, “  therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them” (Matt.23:3).  Many say they are against abortion and then act in such a way that supports and sustains it.  They say things, but do not do.

The Babylonians destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and killed, or took into captivity, those in Judah.  Israel in the north had already been destroyed and taken into captivity by Assyria.  When their captivity was over, some who remained came back to Jerusalem and settled again.  God spoke to them through the prophet Haggai, saying, “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses while this house lies desolate?” (Haggai 1:4).  They had built their houses and were comfortable in them while the temple had not been rebuilt.  And, in their comfort, they said, “The time has not come, even the time for the house of the Lord to be rebuilt” (Haggai 1:2).  They put themselves first and God second and God was not blessing them.  Many who are against abortion have been comfortable in their own houses and have been mostly passive while the slaughter of the unborn goes on and on.

The time has come to arise and fight, and stop the holocaust instead of being an accessory to murder and voting for the Democratic Party.

–

************************************************************

 

 

1 http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

2 https://www.quora.com/What-does-aiding-and-abetting-in-a-murder-mean

3 https://www.reference.com/government-politics/sentence-aiding-abetting-70e37f22c477f64

4 https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-history-of-the-evangelical-vote-in-presidential-elections/

5 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/