Brian Fitzpatrick (onenewsnow) asks:
How could a U.S. presidential candidate have opposed a bill that protected the lives of innocent, fully born babies, a bill so incontestably in the moral right that the most ardent pro-choicers in the U.S. Senate supported it unanimously? Is Barack Obama even more radically pro-choice than NARAL? Would Obama deny medical care to living, breathing infants just to reinforce the abstract right of mothers to decide whether their children are to live or to die?Obama was simply acting in a manner that is consistent with what he believes - his vote reflects his moral character. Yes, this means he is even more pro-death than NARAL.
Just read an awesome post regarding Planned Parenthood and it's dark lord, Margaret Sanger.
I think the post is appropriate and timely before the upcoming election in order to hopefully encourage those, or at least, some of those, now sitting on the fence to see the true face of what they may be advocating:
http://themaritimesentry.blogspo...search? q=sanger
Please pass along as you see fit, and eternal thanks