"Brain Dead?" Don't Trust that Alleged Diagnosis

Brain dead means not dead. Further, these real life examples of people who have recovered after being pronounced "brain dead" shows that doctors and hospitals are sometimes dead wrong:

  • January 2015 - George Pickering, a 27-year old Texan, was pronounced brain dead by doctors at the Tomball Regional Medical Center when his father threatened to shoot himself if anyone disconnected his son from life support. During the standoff with police, the son repeatedly squeezed his father's hand, and then woke up later that evening, has made a strong recovery, and in April was baptized after converting to Christianity.
  • March 2014 - A Mississippi man wasn't pronounced "brain" dead, but dead dead, and zippered into a sack, and shipped to the morgue, where he freaked out the workers by kicking his way out of the body bag just as they were ready to embalm him. Shesh. If multiple nurses and a coroner could get death so very wrong, one would hope that the medical industry could have more humility before God regarding patients who are noticably breathing.
  • July 2013 - A New York woman who was pronounced ‘brain dead’ by doctors unexpectedly awoke just as her organs were about to be removed for transplant.

H.R. 36 and Good vs. Bad Abortion Incrementalism

[For "pain capable", waiting periods, heartbeat, informed consent, anesthesia, "protected class" bills, Georgia's effort to ban racially-motivated abortion, etc., see Compromised Incrementalism below.]

PRINCIPLED INCREMENTALISM

When personhood is finally enforced in law, of all the abortion laws then in effect, only the principled incrementalism bills will not be thereby abolished. All compromised incrementalism will be repealed when personhood is in effect. As American RTL wrote to Dr. James Dobson in our full-page open letter that appeared in newspapers around the country, "Incrementalism is fine; compromised incre­mentalism violates God's enduring command, Do not murder."

Examples of Principled Laws

  • Fetal Crimes Bills: only principled UVCA bills, but not those re-affirming abortion
  • Divesting Pension Funds: from companies that perform or support abortion
  • Parental Involvement: in medical care, but not mentioning nor re-affirming abortion
  • Born-Alive Infant Protection: though moral, legal protection for survivors backfires
  • Prohibit Embryonic Stem Cell Research: for both publicly and privately funded use
  • Prevent Insurance Coverage: prohibit any health insurance from covering abortion
  • Prevent Funding of Abortion: prohibit financing of abortion (without re-affirming abortion and its funding as is usually done)

American RTL's two must-read articles, Oppose Regulations Because... and Oppose Exceptions Because... explain the principles that must be adhered to in order to write principled incremental legislation. In summary, the God-given right to life must be advocated without exception. As an example of a horrendous violation of those principles, see ARTL's PBA Summary: Saved Not One, about the 15-year fundraiser that took in a quarter-of-a-billion dollars for the pro-life industry, yet as Dr. Dobson wrote, "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." Rather than being a victory, many pro-life leaders have since condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart ruling upholding the PBA "Ban" for being a virtual late-term abortion manual.

COMPROMISED INCREMENTALISM

On the other hand, morally compromised legislation can be recognized in that they are child-killing regulations, present child-killing exceptions, and in that they therefore:
   - end with "and then you can kill the baby"
   - would keep abortion legal if Roe were ever merely overturned.
"And then you can kill the baby" bills include:

Examples of Unprincipled Laws

  • Informed Consent (here's an example)
  • Waiting Periods
  • Partial-Birth Abortion "Ban" (for example PBA: Saved Not One)
  • Late-term Bans (including pain capable, heartbeat, and anesthesia bills)
  • Fetal Pain Bills (here's an example)
  • Parental Notification or Consent
  • Etc.

Use the Personhood Test: One way to help people see whether or not an abortion law is principled or not is to apply the personhood test. When America finally recognizes the personhood and God-given right to life of every child, some pro-life laws will become redundant and unnecessary. However, other laws which include "pro-life" regulations and exceptions will be explicitly invalidated and annulled. The pro-life laws that will be merely rendered no longer necessary are the principled incrementalism. The abortion regulations that will be invalidated are the compromised laws. An example of this is found in Ohio's HB 125 "heartbeat bill" which bans the killing of an unborn child only after the detectability of a heartbeat). Morally compromised incremental efforts have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for their supporters but undermine the nation's recognition of the sanctity of human life. Principled pro-life laws build toward victory. So American Right To Life urges everyone to oppose compromised incrementalism and to support only principled laws, and especially personhood!

Compromised: Pain Capable, Heartbeat, Etc: Just like Roe v. Wade, pain capable bills, heartbeat bills, etc., regulate the age at which a child can be killed, showing them to be violations of God's command, Do not kill the innocent (and so also unconstitutional). Therefore, by the law of unintended consequences, though well-intentioned, passing a heartbeat bill can actually increase the number of unborn children killed. For if a "heartbeat bill" becomes law, there would be a predictable significant increase in the use of mechanical abortifacient IUDs and chemical abortifacients like RU-486 (mifepristone) including the routine use of the Morning After Pill.

 

Without personhood enforced, the child's right to life is denied. So people find ways to comply with the regulations for how and when they can kill unwanted children. The genocidal Roe and Doe v. Bolton opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, issued concurrently, presented gestational ages after which states can prohibit, although with exceptions, the killing of the unborn child. The 2012 Ohio heartbeat bill, for example, likewise presents an age, with exceptions, after which the child cannot be dismembered or otherwise killed. Of course with opposing motives, these are substantively similar showing that a heartbeat bill is fundamentally a variation on the immoral Roe ruling. And as a heartbeat bill regulates the timing of killing the child, it inherently undermines the recognition of that boy or girl's God-given right to life and personhood. So being instructed by the "pro-life" law that they can only kill their children in the earliest weeks of their lives, a greatly increased percentage of women and young girls, at great risk also to their own health, will start popping Plan B like a vitamin with their morning-after breakfast. As sure as the sun rises in the morning, a heartbeat bill will help mass market the various abortifacients (which are non-surgical). Then multiple factors including biological, economic, and behavioral, can easily combine to kill millions of additional children who, without their mothers even knowing they are there, nor having even a chance for a change of heart, will get flushed down the toilet, children whom we will all meet when we stand before God. Thus because the heartbeat bill is not principled and is not based upon the God-given right to life, that strategy will predictably backfire, give a false sense of victory, and kill even more children, but just not by a scalpel. Any abortion regulation is immoral if it creates a protected "class" of children that makes it obvious that there is also an unprotected "class", as here, the youngest kids and children with quiet heartbeats. Historically, efforts at 100% abortion bans did not create an obvious unprotected class of children, and so, as explained below in ARTL's Esther Analogy, such bans were not morally compromised.

"Pro-Choicers" Who Want to Legalize Infanticide


Advocating for Infanticide
: Examples of public figures, ethics and religious authorities, student bodies, and leading media outlets, despicably arguing for the decriminalization of killing children after they are born:

  • • The Journal of Medical Ethics, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live, "...fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons... the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled." -Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva

  • • The New York Times, Why They Kill Their Newborns, three page article advocating decriminalized infanticide by MIT's Stephen Pinker
  • • Philosophy & Public Affairs, Abortion and Infanticide, and online: "It will be seen that this condition is not satisfied by human fetuses and infants, and thus that they do not have a right to life." -University of Colorado professor Michael Tooley
  • • Discover Magazine, The Evolution of Infanticide, "Infanticide is thus at one extreme in a spectrum of parental care." -Sarah Hrdy. Ideas have consequences and a life of their own.
  • • The Guardian describes a non-judgmental French infanticide novel as "the darker side of maternal love" and quotes the translator: "It apportions no blame. ...you come out of it sympathising with her... It may not be an evil act; it may be... a misguided act of love." 
  •  
  • • The world's leading promoter of the evolution theory of Charles Darwin, evolutionist and child killer advocate Richard Dawkins:



  • NewbornBeyond Abortion: Those rebelling against God's command, Do not kill the innocent, are not satisfied with just the unborn. After decades of misguided pro-life effort to regulate child killing, the AmericanRTL.org/abortion-regs teaching helps pro-lifers get back into the actual war. The opposition is now killing infants, handicapped children, and the elderly, exposing regulatory efforts based on heartbeats, waiting periods, and clinic regulations as utterly irrelevant.
  • • Church of England, Outrage as Church backs killing
    severely disabled babies at birth
    , reported the Daily
    Mail in reaction to a paper two years in the making
    by the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, vice chair
    of the Church of England's Mission and Public
    Affairs Council.
  • • The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology,
    proposes "deliberate intervention" to kill handicapped
    babies after they are born, reports the BBC.
    "Withdrawing treatment [i.e., food and water] is
    already permitted..."
  • • Drudge Headline: (see screenshot below) Shock Report:
    College students increasingly support 'post-birth abortion'.

  • • UK Telegraph on J. of Med. Ethics: In a largely
    positive report, Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say, the Daily Telegraph quotes the journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in a grotestquely ironic criticism of those enraged at the journal. "This 'debate' has been an example of 'witch ethics' - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty." Advocacy of child killing, whether in or out of the womb, leads to a kind of moral insanity.

  • • Huffington Post March 2015: A report on this very American RTL infanticide article refers to this concern as "hype". Sadly, this leftist news and opinion site criticizes our pro-life efforts to oppose such infanticide advocacy, but displays no moral outrage, nor even criticism, of any of those above advocating killing children.

  • • UK Telegraph April 2015: In "Woman jailed for 'killing her foetus' - this is a sad day for us all", this popular British newspaper uses the term fetus for a South Bend, Indiana child whom the courts determined had been alive after it was born. The Telegraph report shows not the least interest in whether the cause of the baby's death occured before or after birth.
  • • Etc., etc., etc. See also the horrific euthanizing of
    four-year-old Dylan Walborn at the direction of
    Denver's Children's Hospital. Authorities would jail someone who starved to death a horse or even a dog, but starving a boy? They call that compassion.
  •  
  •  • Use our Contact Us form to notify American RTL of other such horrific examples of the godless effort to expand abortion services to newborns and toddlers.

Drudge points to college student's increasing support for killing newborn children

The abortion theater of war is so far removed from regulations like informed consent and waiting periods, that efforts in that direction are not only misguided. Regarding regulating child killing, worse than all that, is that these efforts remove troops from the actual battlefield. But even then, that's not the worst of it. Click to see what is actually the worst of it.

Hear this Colorado RTL radio spot warning about the growing advocacy of infanticide.

 

Focus on the Strategy

Hear Reagan Ally Bob Dornan: In sixty seconds former congressman Dornan powerfully endorses this must-see video. This pro-life hero said it best:

"I'm indebted to you American Right To Life. I got your documentary, Focus on the Strategy II. You gave me seven simple words, and I will never look at another piece of pro-life legislation without saying those words. It's a bad law if it concludes, 'and then you can kill the baby.'"

- U.S. Congressman Bob Dornan

 

Personhood Vote Grows from 2008 to 2014!

Colorado's Personhood Vote Grows from 2008, to 2010, to 2014! The YES vote on Personhood grew to narrow our loss from a 27%, 3-to-1 defeat in 2008, to a 29% defeat in 2010, to now 35% voting YES on the pro-life Brady personhood Amendment 67. So we've narrowed the loss from 3-to-1 to better than 2-to-1. That encourages us!