Category: pro-life

Wal-Mart Caves to the Pro-Abortion Crowd

Wal-Mart Caves to the Pro-Abortion Crowd

By |

Effective March 20, Wal-Mart began stocking the non-abortion abortion pill Plan B.  This policy reversal was made after the company lost lawsuits in Illinois and Massachusetts, forcing them to carry the pill in those states. 

From the Sapulpa Daily Herald, “We expect more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives,” said Ron Chomiuk, vice president of Pharmacy for the chain. “Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country’s only major pharmacy chain not selling it.”

This change in policy makes Wal-Mart the largest abortion provider in the world in terms of the organization’s overall size (though, not necessarily in terms of procedures performed).  That Wal-Mart would make this decision I find unconscionable, which I told their CEO in an email sent from this page:

As a former Wal-Mart employee (ISD, Bentonville, ’97-’98), I’ve watched with great sadness the company I once loved so much slowly strip itself of just about everything admirable. I’ve actively defended Wal-Mart in the face of accusations regarding the environment, slave labor, poor wages, etc., but the recent decision by Wal-Mart to stock the abortion pill has put me in a position where I can no longer do so. The decision to carry this abortifacient marks, for me, the final step in Wal-Mart’s seemingly concerted effort to strip itself of every ideal that Sam Walton stood for. That the world’s largest retailer and private employer would cave in to pro-abortion groups and assist in the death of millions of pre-born children is unconscionable. My wife and I almost always have a “Wal-Mart list” going on our refrigerator. Now, it appears that my wife, my son, and my unborn child will have to make that a “Target list.” I’ll grant that they, too, carry this horrid pill, as do many other major pharmacies, but it’s not a question of the bad being bad. It’s a question of the “good” becoming bad, and Wal-Mart has just crossed that line. Please, for the sake of the millions of silenced voices, reconsider your position on this pill. Ultimately, you, as the CEO, will be held responsible for the infanticide in which your company is assisting. You can change the course of your company, should you choose. I beg you to do so.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Should we as pro-lifers call for a general boycott of the company?  I don’t know.  As a general rule, boycotts are rarely effective in any tangible sense, though I can see the value in the statement it makes, even if it doesn’t markedly impact the target’s bottom line.  Though I would probably stop short of calling for such a boycott, I have no hesitation in suggesting that those who care about pro-life issues to prayerfully consider if they should refrain from doing business with the company, and, if they do so, to let the company know.  It may be like spitting in the wind, but we will all be called on to give account for our deeds done in the body, whether good or bad.  Our actions will be judged, not their results.

For those that buy the line from Plan B’s manufacturer, let me quote from their web site on “How Plan B works“:

Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.

Here, we have a very convenient and subtle redefinition of pregnancy.  To them, and to countless others, pregnancy starts at implantation, but what’s significant about implantation?  Morally, not a thing.  The location of the fertilized egg (or, more accurately, baby) has changed, and it’s now attached to something, but the baby itself is basically unchanged from this process.  Duramed is correct in making their statement only if their definition of pregnancy is correct, which it’s not.  It’s deceptive and self-serving, and, ultimately, infanticidal.

South Dakota’s swinging for the fence

South Dakota’s swinging for the fence

By |

Anybody that follows abortion laws even loosely will know by now that South Dakota has passed into a law a bill that will outlaw all abortions except those done to save the life of the mother.  Christianity Today has a pretty good article describing many groups’ disappointment with the bill.  Even President Bush differs with the bill.  The differences seem to coalesce around two things:  strategy and scope.

Those that take issue with the strategy of the bill (which is explicitly and openly aimed at generating a court challenge to Roe) prefer an incremental approach.  They feel that it would be better to continue slowly chipping away at abortion “rights.”  They have a point:  if the legal challenge to this bill prevails, at best we’ll have another pro-abortion precedent but no clear victory (i.e., the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case), or, worst case, a punch-in-the-face loss (i.e., the SCOTUS firmly strikes down the law and upholds Roe).  That certainly is a legitimate fear, and I do hope that we’re not disappointed in this regard.  However, i think State Rep. Roger Hunt is correct in saying, “After a while you can only chip away so much.”  At some point we have to stop passing laws that say, in the words of my friend Brian, “if you do this, this, and this, then you can kill your baby.”  So, while I am a bit nervous, I think this is the way to go.

The second source of unease for some is the scope of the bill:  abortions will only be allowed to save the life of the mother.  There are many in the pro-life camp, including President Bush, who feel that there should be exceptions made for rape and incest.  I could not disagree more.  While I think rape is a horrible, horrible thing, I think it is just as monstrous to kill any child resulting from abortion just because it was conceived in such an ugly manner.  What that boils down to, basically, is capital punishment for the other victim of rape.  (As an aside, I think I’d be pretty comfortable with capital punishment for the rapist.)  Of course, those that oppose any restrictions in this particular scenario will point out issues with adoption, etc., and, while those are valid concerns that need to be addressed, I fail to see how that justifies killing an innocent human being.

Overall, I’m pretty happy that South Dakota passed this bill and that several other states are considering similar measures.  In the end, black-robed tyrants may disappoint us and uphold murder, but that’s the risk we have to run.  The time for bunting is past.  It’s time we step up to plate, boldy call our shot and swing for the fence, and South Dakota is leading the way.

What are we doing about it?

What are we doing about it?

By |

Brian’s a good friend of mine. He and I are a lot a like in many ways. Both politically and theologically, we’re very similar, with only what I consider to be minor differences of opinions. One area in which we are in lock-step agreement is our opposition to the scourge of abortion. We both find it to be a repugnant and repulsive destruction of human life. As such, our conversations often drift to that topic. This morning was such an occasion. Brian related to me a conversation he had with a former college professor, and challenged me with a question with which this professor challenged him: What are we doing about it?

That’s an exceedingly interesting question. As Brian and I discussed, as Christians, we seem to be placing our hopes in Supreme Court justices, lawyers, and/or activists. Our hope is that someday, we’ll have enough justices on that bench to overturn Roe, and that a brave lawyer will step forward to push a case all the way through to the Supreme Court. Someday, someone will step up to the plate and make something happen. That’s all well and good, but the question still stands: What are we doing about it?

More often that not, we prefer to sit back and let someone else do the work. Whether it’s evangelism, discipleship, discipline, or protecting the unborn, most of us are not comfortable with getting our hands dirty. The reasons for that are many, and, in this context, completely irrelevant. Regardless of reason, we as the body of Christ will continue to marginalized and ineffective as long as we’re sitting on the sidelines. If we want the world to take notice and to realize that our Faith does have something authentic to offer the modern world, we actually have to do something.

On a practical level, in this context, what does that mean? Do we picket abortion clinics? Do we write letters to politicians? Do we volunteer at pregnancy centers? Do we adopt "unwanted" children? I don’t know. Those are all fine suggestions, and there are likely many more (though I staunchly oppose opposition that involves firearms, thank you very much, Mr. Rudolph). The answer to that question, though, will vary from person to person, so each Christian should carefully think about that question: What are you doing? What does God want you to do? It’s time that we quit sitting on our hands and waiting for someone else to do something, and get involved ourselves, whether the issue is abortion, gambling, or something else entirely. Being a change agent for Christ is not someone else’s responsibility. It’s ours. It’s yours. Now, what are you going to do about it?