In spite of the fact that doctors will testify that a partial birth abortion is dangerous to the mother, and that they are rarely necessary, there is still a huge lobbying effort to keep these procedures legal.

Maybe the reason is because of what is being “harvested” in these procedures. There is a huge market in the pharmaceutical industry, medical labs and university medical centers for perfect body parts. Which means of course, these are not fatally deformed children being murdered, but almost full-term, fully developed little babies.

But the bigger the organs, the bigger the bucks. There is actually a price list for eyes, lungs, hearts, kidneys . . . and a rate sheet with prices that increase with the age of the baby killed.

It’s funny that “extremists” are considered those who work to stop this holocaust, and the “mainstream” are those who sit back and allow this debauchery to continue.

It transforms the word extreme into a badge of honor and equates complacency with those who turned their back on the mass slaughter of jews in Germany.

Which side of the fence are you on with this issue? The days of straddling are over.

Partial Birth Abortion is an Accurate Term

The President of Planned Parenthood feels the term “partial birth abortion” is a PR campaign created to incite and confuse.”

OK, we could call it, “A baby’s body delivered breech, but murdered before the head is through the birth canal?” But that’s sort of long.

Or how about the term infanticide?

But if she is so concerned about manipulative terms that are misleading and confusing, how about “reproductive rights”? That is a euphemism for abortion, forced sterilization, and sex education designed to destroy virtue in young people.

The vast majority of women who have abortions are either forced by their husbands, boyfriends or families to do so. Whose rights prevailed there?

Women in third world countries are told how many children they can have and are forcibly sterilized if they object. Whose reproductive rights prevailed there?

Young kids are told that they should not be restricted by social mores, and explore their sexuality. Whose reproductive rights prevail there?

So, if Planned Parenthood doesn’t like the term Partial Birth Abortion . . .stop promoting the practice. And, stop lying about the term “reproductive rights.”

Barbara Harris has begun a campaign to eradicate the problem of crack babies born to drug addicted mothers.

She is offering these women money to either stay on a birth control program or voluntarily become sterilized.

In an incredible display of hyprocisy, the president of Planned Parenthood is equating her activities to eugenics, and claiming that it is unethical because these women can’t give informed consent, and that this will be a decision they will regret the rest of their lives.

This is a group whose founder, Margaret Sanger truly did practice eugenics and had as her goal, total sterilization of what she considered inferior races.

This is the same group that promotes abortion and opposes the idea of informed consent.

They also deny that women ever regret a decision to have an abortion. The truth is, almost half of the women accepting Barbara Harris’s offer are Caucasian, and they are all thankful for the option and say it is a better solution for them than abortion.

So why is Planned Parenthood complaining so loudly?

Because they make millions from the abortion industry and this practice cuts into their profits… plain and simple.

Why Not of the Dangers of Abortions?

Although it has been determined that silicone breast implants don’t cause cancer women are still warned, “It is essential that women fully understand these risks before they decide to undergo this surgery.”

Now, isn’t that interesting? A lawsuit was recently filed in New Jersey by three women who claim they were not fully informed about the dangers of an abortion.

Clearly as dangerous, if not more, than an operation for breast enlargement.

The suit contends that women are denied information about abortion and thus cannot give informed consent.

The Doctor’s claim that Roe v. Wade created a “right to choose” and it didn’t matter if the “choice” was uninformed.

The court ruled that abortion providers don’t need to explain their procedures… but plastic surgeons do?

If a woman can choose to have something put in her body that’s not been proven to be dangerous, and is not harmed..then certainly that same woman has the same rights when something is taken out of her body and damages do occur.

Women are told of potential dangers of breast implants but not of baby unplants.

I’m suggesting that this is a deadly inconsistency.

This past week an unborn baby’s life hung in the balance as abortion vs. adoption was discussed.

For the young girl, who’s body the baby was growing in, it was a life and she chose life.

She also chose to give the baby up for adoption. She chose to be accountable, to be responsible and not condemn a baby to death, just because of her mistakes.

But, when this young girl announced to her mother what her decision was, she was dragged to an abortion clinic and forced to have an abortion.

So the girl’s choice was irrelevant… to her mother… and to the abortionist.

What other industry can you legally drag someone into and carve life out of them without their permission?

This parallels the treatment of slaves who had no choice, as people, what they could do with their bodies. This young girl became a slave of lies, of a feminist agenda, of a mother’s selfishness… of a government that sees her as a non-person when it comes to reproductive rights.

She had no choice in the matter.

Until women smash the leg irons of the abortion industry that are keeping them enslaved… no woman will ever really have a choice to do the right thing.

This is Nina May, mourning the death of an innocent child.

The claim by every pro-abortion group and advocate is that they care about the welfare of women and that their primary concern is that they have the right to choose.

But that choice never seems to include information on adoption.

Many believe the reason is because the abortion industry is making billions of dollars on the ethnic cleansing of unborn Americans… and that is true.

But what if individuals desiring to adopt approached the abortion clinic and said, “We will pay you double whatever an abortion costs if you will inform the woman that we are willing to adopt her baby.”

So then, the abortion clinics can really do what they have been claiming for years that they do… protecting her right to choose.

They will still be making obscene amounts of money and more importantly, that little child would be one more survivor of a national holocaust that has been taking place in America for over 25 years.

So this is Nina May challenging families seeking to adopt to approach abortion clinics and give them the opportunity to live up to their claims of protecting a women’s right to choose.

Spike Lee, Alec Baldwin, and Rosie O’Donnell all have something in common. They don’t like the 2nd amendment . . . except when they want to invoke it to commit a violent statement against someone.

Alec Baldwin suggested shooting Henry Hyde’s wife and kids, Spike Lee wants to shoot Charlton Heston, and Rosie O’Donnell thinks Tom Selleck should be lined up with the rest.

All because these men are trying to protect freedom guaranteed in the first and second Amendments.

Ironically, all these people believe that the same constitution protects the right of woman to kill her unborn child… But what would the response be if the retort of Henry Hyde, Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck, had been as ugly and politically motivated?

For example, suggesting that Spike, Alec and Rosie have their brains sucked out after the base of their skull is punctured with scissors, as is done to live babies during a partial birth abortion?

That would be considered outrageous, cruel, insensitive and just downright mean. They are right, it would be . . . just as suggesting that people who support the 2nd Amendment and freedom, should be shot.

This is Nina May challenging hypocrisy.

The ACLU celebrated March 10 as National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.

They thanked them for their heroism, perseverance, courage and commitment to women. This, by the way, is the same ACLU that fought a Bible Appreciation Week in Arizona, and won.

But let’s dissect what we should be thankful for.

How heroic is it to exploit helpless women and murder defenseless babies? They did that in Nazi Germany.

What kind of perseverance and courage does it take to keep the truth from women about the dangers of abortion… loss of life, fertility, and emotional stress? Drug dealers do that.

And what type of commitment to women are they referring to? Commitment to lie to them about the dangers of an operation such as an abortion? Commitment to keep women… and health inspectors in the dark about the lack of sanitary facilities?

Instead of celebrating our national shame, we should use March 10 to ask God’s forgiveness for allowing this holocaust to occur.

But the big question is… how many women have ever called her abortionist and thanked him, or her, for killing their child? That is the number to look at.