"Society Will Be Judged by How it Treats its Weakest Members"

Stunning. Simply stunning. These are our "supposed" lawmakers. But to their great shame, they are derelict. Derelict in every way imaginable. They make their arrogant statements, vote "no" without even so much as deigning to watch the videos. Taking their marching orders from the powerful lobbyists because they don't have a mind of their own. Even the Los Angeles Times parrots their message. The so-called judge bangs his gavel, because, guess what? His wife is an anti-abortion activist! But of course! Who thinks for themselves anymore? 

 If our nation is being judged by a righteous God who cares for the weakest of our society, so be it. We deserve it. To paraphrase from another despicable woman (yes, Michelle Obama, I'm referring to you), never have I been so ashamed of my country as I am today. Where are the real women? Where are the REAL women (because men are cowards) who will defend the WEAKEST of our society?




 

Oh, and "ladies"? Of course babies feel pain in the womb. 

Insanity. 

I'm so disgusted. Who will speak out for the helpless in our society? Because surely it is not these heartless, imbecilic, insane, foolish, arrogant so-called "women." 

Click on image to go to link. 

Oh, and by the way...

And, for those who have forgotten or who never learned. . . 

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). 

"A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization" (Samuel Johnson).

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped" (Hubert H. Humphrey).

 "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members" (Mahatma Ghandi). 

 "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest" (Cardinal Roger Mahony). 

"The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn" (Bill Federer). 

 "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying" (Pope John Paul II).

FOR FURTHER READING

"Democrats Who Voted Against Defunding Planned Parenthood Never Even Watched the Expose Videos" (InfoWars.com)

"Wife of Judge Who Blocked Pro-Life Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood is a Pro-Abortion Activist" (LifeNews.com)

"Political Grandstanding on Planned Parenthood" (Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 4, 2015).

What's So Controversial About This?

Since the Los Angeles Times (among other papers) won't publish this ad by Heroic Media in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act because it's "too controversial," I'm posting the ad here, with this question: Since when is it controversial to publish images of babies? 

Obviously the "controversy" here is not the picture itself, which is not offensive, but what's implied by the picture: that babies at this stage of development can be legally aborted even though scientific evidence and advances in neo-natal medicine have conclusively determined that the unborn can feel pain, can even survive outside the womb, indeed, are as much human as you and I. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's implied by the picture: that these tiny human beings are not protected by the very people entrusted to their care: the adults responsible for conceiving them and the government entrusted with guaranteeing them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's at stake by the publishing of the image: the awakening of a seared, collective conscience that maybe the so-called constitutional "right" to abortion must be re-examined. The unborn are not property, not things, not political football. They are people. They're human. They're vulnerable. They need heroes, not cowards.

That's the controversy. By refusing to publish the ad, the Los Angeles Times and their ilk are exposed as the cowards that they are.