Pro-Abortion NARALers Hold Mother’s Day Brunch; Program Features Mom Pushing Baby Carriage!
By John Lofton, Editor
BALTIMORE The minute I saw the website announcement, read it and saw the silhouette art used to illustrate this announcement, I knew I had to attend this event. And I wanted to attend this event because I wanted to ask some of the sponsors: “What were you thinking when you did this?!” I wanted to tell them: “How dare you use this word and this symbol considering what you stand for!”
The website I’m alluding to is that of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland. The announcement was about a “Mother’s Day Brunch” the group was sponsoring at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Baltimore. The silhouette artwork illustration accompanying this announcement showed, of all things, a woman pushing a baby carriage!
That’s right. The folks who defend “a woman’s right to choose” to have her unborn baby murdered in her womb 44 million-plus such murders since 1973 were celebrating “Mother’s Day”! To be sure they were “honoring Motherhood by choice!” Can you believe this motley crew would have the gall to have anywhere on their website the word “mother,” much less a silhouette of a mother pushing a baby carriage?
Oh, well. Satan, if nothing else, is brazen and bold, as are his demon children.
I arrive at the hotel well before the brunch is served. It is a beautiful, bright day. The fifth floor is well-lighted with sunlight streaming in from the overhead skylight. The carpets are clean. It is warm. A few men and most of the women are well-dressed, groomed and manicured. No voices are being raised. As I watch the food being brought in and put on tables, and the guests begin to arrive, I think of what C.S. Lewis writes in “The Screwtape Letters”:
“The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.”
Exactly! And if ever there was “a thoroughly nasty business concern” it is NARAL (and business must be good because a hotel official tells me it costs $8,000 to $11,000 to rent the entire fifth floor of the Renaissance Hotel for four hours, which NARAL did because of security concerns).
What there is to eat is excellent. There are eight shiny, sterling silver chafing dishes full of hot food; the cold food includes large shrimp, green bean salad, bagels, pastries, grapes and watermelon, pineapple, honeydew and cantaloupe fruit cubes. Several rows of glasses are neatly arranged, bottoms up; plates are stacked; butter balls are in small bowls. Arriving guests greet each other with handshakes, hugs, laughter. On a table, nametags are arranged alphabetically.
Outwardly, this event appears to be no different from hundreds of events held at this hotel annually. But, this event is different, very different. The folks here believe it should be legal for a woman to murder her innocent, unborn baby.
I interview a lady visiting from California who looks to be in her late 50s. She is nicely dressed, meticulously made up and has a flower pinned to her lapel. She says she is a registered nurse. Has she ever seen an abortion? “Oh, yes,” she says calmly, with a condescending smile. “But, the consequences of unwanted children are far worse the violence ” She does not finish her sentence. I guess she meant, possibly, that “unwanted” children either commit violence or have violence committed against them. Maybe she meant both.
But, then I wonder: Has she really seen an abortion? Has she really seen an abortion? Is shredding an innocent unborn baby by abortion, or scalding to death an innocent unborn baby by a saline abortion, not also “violence”? And how, as a nurse, can she mouth such pathetic platitudes as she does, telling me a woman “has a right to do with her body as she sees fit” when she should know, as a nurse, that an unborn baby is not the same as the body of the pregnant woman?
The main speaker at the brunch is the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, who says she’s a Roman Catholic. Following, evidently, Adolf Hitler’s Big Lie theory that if you tell Big Lies often enough some people will believe them she tells several whoppers about the pro-life movement:
Big Lie No. 1: “[They are] for life but against protecting womens’ health.”
Big Lie No. 2: [They are] for life but against making it possible for women to have healthy pregnancies.”
Big Lie No. 3: “And [they are] for life usually until birth and then you’re on your own.”
One is tempted to say Keenan should be ashamed to tell such preposterous, demonstrably untrue Big Lies. But this, of course, would be quixotic, because people on her side of the abortion issue have no shame or they would not favor the “right” of some people to “choose” to murder their unborn babies.
Midway through Keenan’s talk, a young man down front gets up from his table and walks the full length of the room, passing several tables. He holds in his right arm a little girl who looks to be maybe 4 years old. She is holding a small, stuffed bear. She says, looking back at their table, over and over, loud enough to be heard: “Bye, bye, Mommy; bye, bye, Mommy.” As they pass each table to exit the room, almost every female at every table looks at the father and daughter. They all smile as if to say: “Look, isn’t she cute?”
Well, yes, she was cute. And although I’m not as certain as I’d like to be about this crowd, I do not believe one person in that room would have said, if asked, that yes, this little girl’s mother had the “right to choose” to kill her now because such killing would, indeed, be murder. But, before she was born, while she was in the womb? No problem. Her mother has the “right to choose” to murder her by abortion.
Outside the hotel, a few pro-lifers picket this brunch. One sign has on it a large, color photo of an aborted baby, a pair of forceps holding its bloody, partial skull. Ordinarily, I’m opposed to showing such pictures indiscriminately. However, as I sit in the back of the room and hear the lying language of speaker after speaker blathering on about “rights” and “choosing,” I find myself wishing that suddenly, on the big screen behind the podium, this abortion photo would appear.
And here I am certain what would happen. There would be screams and cries of “Oh, my God! That’s disgusting! That’s gross! Who would do a thing like this! Call security! This must be stopped! This kind of thing should never happen!”
But, of course, all these complaints would be about showing this picture of a murder victim. None of the complaints would be about the murder itself. And I’ll be honest with you. I have debated the abortion issue for decades and will continue to do so, but I’ll never really understand people who think showing a picture of a murder is worse than the murder itself. Only the Lord Jesus Christ can change such sinful thinking.
This article appeared first on the World Net Daily Web site