City Council Bill Threatens Maryland Pro-Life Advocacy

By Whitney Dotson
 
“Misleading” is the description City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake recently used to slur the conduct of certain Baltimore Pregnancy Resource Centers. Presented before committees in October 2009 under the legal title Bill 09-0406, the proposed document will signify certain requirements and alterations for pro-life resources. Upon ratification in meeting the mayor’s approval, the potential bill will fine a minimum of $150.00 per day to any clinics that fail to publicly communicate the “limitations” of their services—mainly, the refusal to include referrals to abortionists and the dispensation of contraceptives. While notable organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the NARAL seemingly deem this action a crusade for truth, however, many Maryland citizens question their challengers’ ability to do so in consideration of the companies’ moral and Constitutional transgressions.

“Ethical management,” “reproductive health,” and “choice” are all terms regularly utilized by pro-abortion advocates. Within a span of mere years, however, Planned Parenthood alone has been faced with charges involving malpractice and illegal admissions. In Texas, institutions were forced to close when allegations revealed that induced abortions were being administered by uncertified professionals. Establishments elsewhere drew more attention when supposed minors were given abortion referrals without required parental consent. Concerning the matters of reproductive health and choice, the company has refused to integrate ultrasounds in counseling, and has encouraged anything but true reproduction. Of the many services explicitly stated on its website, the company presently equates reproductive health with the promotion of STD testing, abortion and birth control services, and HPV vaccinations as easily accessible and affordable. Apparently, “choice” to this company refers not to a decision between life and death, but upon the varying ways to enact murder. Ironic is the fact that the very union decrying the moral standing of departments has been so apparently secretive and contradictory itself!

The protection of Amendment One and briefest recognition of natural right as secured by Amendment Fourteen are sufficient in refuting the document in question. While often misunderstood and abused, the liberty commonly recognized as “freedom of speech” originated from a deep-seated desire to restrict governmental censorship where unnecessary. Only when a circumstance aroused the suspicion of being morally unsound or treasonous was regulation summoned. The right to “life” simply and generally acknowledged every man as commonly and innately entitled to protection under the Creator of all life (John 14:6). As the pro-life cause has reputably defended every duration of life and avoided serious illegalities, it may be safely concluded that Planned Parenthood, the NARAL, and similar organizations should reconsider the party truly in need of public posts and moral correction. Only then can a female, in reiterating Ms. Rawlings-Blake’s misapplied rhetoric, make an independent, “informed” decision which is Constitutionally and ethically compliant.

http://www.lifenews.com/state4595.html

In the Name of the Defender and Originator of Life (Psalm 82:3),

– Whitney

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: