Black Lives Matter Isn’t Pro-Life, Period

unborn-lives-matter-640x480

Recently at The Federalist, an article appeared in which the author sincerely argued that two popular social movements – Black Lives Matter (BLM) and anti-abortion advocates – pursue a common goal: the respect and preservation life.

Christina Marie Bennett- a writer and pro-lifer who works with pregnant women in crisis environments for the benefit of both mother and child- is challenging the way pro-life advocates have responded, and should respond, to claims of police brutality, the growing frustrations in the black community and Black Lives Matter.

Specifically, Bennett laments the continued dismissal of Black Lives Matter activists and others by pro-lifers who cite black abortion rates when the issue of police brutality is raised. Bennett sees this practice as a kind of pro-life, one-upmanship that minimizes the tragedy of lives “lost through violence.”

For example, Bennett claims the “knee-jerk” response of, “If black lives matter, then why are your abortion rates so high?” deflects from the issue BLM supports. She says the response insinuates that black people don’t care about unborn black lives as much as adult black lives, which calls into question black concerns regarding what lives are more valuable. I’ll return to this point.

Rather than pitting one cause against another, Bennett believes that neither movement should be used to undermine the other because in their respective ways, both movements are trying to safeguard human flourishing. For Bennett both movements are solidly pro-life.

To be fair, Bennett isn’t fully onboard with the Black Lives Matter agenda. She disagrees with the movement on several issues, including its support of killing the pre-born black children. Honorably, she admits to the difficulty of trying to empathize “with a movement that advocates for something I disagree with.” But for her, the resolution comes when she sees, “the movement for what it is,” which is, “a broad group of people with varying levels of involvement, all trying to raise awareness and fight the specific issue of police brutality.”

This exercise in nuance permits her, as a pro-lifer, to winnow away the ongoing negativity that overshadows BLM’s agenda, freeing her to sustain solidarity with the movement’s pursuit of justice- a model she believes that all pro-lifers should follow.

Though I disagree, I am sympathetic to the author’s intention- dispelling the either/or nature of supporting BLM or being pro-life. However I think some of the negativity she wants to minimize in favor of legitimizing BLM, while maintaining fidelity to being pro-life from the womb to the tomb (that part I agree) misses a few essential points.

To begin, the phrase “black lives matter” is incongruent with the movement’s agenda. Black Lives Matter as an ideological movement is primarily concerned with police brutality against blacks. It should therefore change its name to Black Americans Against Police Brutality or something similar to reflect this goal rather than a name that suggests an all-encompassing concern for confronting problems that decrease the quality of black lives.

Black Lives Matter is also a Marxist/socialist movement funded by an admitted cultural destabilizer George Soros, and other leftist organizations, which also calls the movement’s credibility into question.

Also, being pro-life as it relates to the pre-born is an exercise in proactivity. Life can’t be defended from police brutality if it’s prevented from being born. There’s a reason why people say that the most dangerous place for a black child is in its mother’s womb, and that painful admission is found in Bennett’s reflection on the more than 16 million black children killed by abortion since it was made a “right” in 1973. Increasing the black birth rate by decreasing abortion is an intrinsic good.

BLM on the other hand, to the point that it’s pro-life at all, is deliberately reactive, not to mention, misguided.

Aside from supporting black abortion, its focus isn’t on the broken families and the chaotic home and neighborhood environments that create, nurture and contribute to the predictability of blacks being in police confrontations that go south. BLM’s focus is on “systemic racism” that fosters “police brutality,” which is always initially or reflexively cited and deprived of facts to support such accusations. When facts in respective cases are released, invalidating BLM’s racial narrative, it ignores them- up to and including the responsibility and contribution of the deceased to his/her death.

In other words, BLM’s definition of pro-life isn’t discouraging blacks from self-destructive behavior that increases the predictability of encountering police. Rather, they define pro-life as law enforcement officers refusing to use force against any black person/suspect at any time, despite elevated levels of danger- including potential threats to personal or public safety. That’s racial solidarity, being pro-black, not necessarily pro-life. 

Again, Bennett argues that abortion rates and police brutality both deserve attention and shouldn’t be used against each other. I partially agree, but there are very clear reasons why they are.

One reason people, regardless of color, persist in highlighting the issue of black abortion percentages is that members and supporters of Black Lives Matter intentionally avoid discussing black abortion rates. This moral sidestep by BLM, over and over, proves to increasing numbers of people that BLM isn’t concerned with preserving and redeeming black lives in any meaningful way.

To the point, black abortion is specifically raised to gauge black integrity when it comes to the conservation of black lives.

It’s also mentioned because of the selectivity of the moral indignation that inevitably accompanies charges of “police brutality” against blacks, but is nonexistent when black abortion percentages are raised. Bennett confesses abortion destroys black children- more in any given year than all black deaths by law enforcement officers combined.

Blacks are only 13% percent of the population. Black women of childbearing age- not incarcerated and suffering from physical/mental abilities that prevents pregnancy in any given year are only 3-4% of the population. Yet, according to the CDC, these women were responsible for close to 36% of all abortions between 2007 and 2010. Though this demonic act is specifically targeted to black and Hispanic women by white leftists, no one forces these women to kill their black preborn children, all of whom are unarmed. Morally wayward black men and sexually irresponsible back women are complicit in this genocide. And all of this is done under the euphemisms of “choice” “rights” and “reproductive justice.”

The same CDC report said blacks accounted for almost 54% (16,738) of all abortions performed in Georgia (31,244 total), even though blacks are less than a third of the population. In Mississippi, between 1995 and 2010, blacks accounted for almost 72% (39,052) of all abortions while comprising 37% of the population.

In a 2012, report from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, more black babies were killed by abortion (31,328) than were born (24,758) in New York City, totaling over 42% of all abortions performed. In 2010, 60% of all viable, black pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion

According to another pro-life organization, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. The report re-emphasizes that 37 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on black women. Yet, as day follows night, there’s no outrage.

Contrast that to the data that tracks police-involved fatalities from the Washington Post.

According to the Washington Post’s data- based on news reports, public records, social media and other sources, as of 9:45 am Friday morning (10/21/2016), 772 people have been shot and killed by police this year (2016).

Of the 772 killed by police so far, 363 of them have been white, 188 have been black. This unofficial statistic here directly refutes, again, any and all claims that the police are hunting, targeting or killing blacks indiscriminately. Almost twice as many whites have been shot and killed by police than have blacks.

Of the 188 blacks killed, only 16 were unarmed when shot.

Now, of the sixteen unarmed blacks who were shot and killed by police, all but three either resisted arrest, refused orders of compliance and submission, attempted to flee or attacked an officer.

Three!

Now we can all agree- life lost under these circumstances is unfortunate. But in reality, this sort of racial exaggeration- the false cries of ‘systemic racism’, ‘racial injustice’ and cops being ‘racist agents of the state’ by BLM and other racial justice warriors and activists over the killing of three unarmed blacks, is dishonest and disproportionate to say the least.

So, 870 black babies are killed, daily, while only three unarmed blacks (who didn’t resist arrest) have been killed by police this year as of this writing, is why this issue is raised. Black Lives Matter claims to be against lethal force against unarmed blacks. What exactly is abortion if it’s not precisely that- lethal force used against an unarmed, defenseless black life?

The reality is that people correlate the level of black outrage to matters of black importance. Based upon that metric, the general public is convinced that blacks care more about blacks killed by (white) police officers than those killed in abortion clinics. Further, it’ been argued that blacks are apathetic regarding black children based on the proficiency at which they kill their unborn children.

Moreover, the raising of this issue has to do with moral priorities. There’s a moral distinction between those killed by abortion and those killed by police officers. Pre-born black children murdered by abortion are innocent; the overwhelming majority of blacks killed by police aren’t. (This isn’t to say that blacks that have been killed by cops deserved to die.) Innocent black children killed by abortion should, by definition, take priority over criminals, felons, and others who contributed to their deaths via the police by resisting arrest, attacking cops or attempting to flee.

Again, I understand the necessity and obligation of being pro-life from birth until death, but BLM isn’t the vehicle to appropriate or sympathize with in pursuit of this noble objective.

The value of black life should be protected from the very beginning; as stated, BLM is against that.

Black children deserve a stable family environment that includes a mother and father, not a 70%-plus illegitimacy rate- born in tumultuous homes of a single mothers and half-siblings from multi-sexual partnered relationships. President Barack Obama said that, “children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves.” Being pro-life means undoing this social dysfunction, which reduces run-ins with the police, which reduces the chances of experiencing police brutality and death.

Black Lives Matter says nothing about that.

Being pro-life means black children deserve quality education, which charter schools deliver, rather than inferior schooling because they’re black, poor, or both. BLM (and the NAACP) is adamantly against charter schools for black children, in favor of the status quo that has deliberately undereducated and underserved black children for generations.

The anti-charter school stance of BLM (and the NAACP) has put these so-called civil rights groups at odds with the majority of blacks. A recent study demonstrated that 82 percent of black parents with school-aged children enthusiastically support charter schools.

Black students comprise 27 percent of enrollment in charter schools, compared to 16 percent of black enrollment in traditional public schools.

Black Lives Matter can say what it will about the dignity and worth of black lives, but unless and until members and supporters of the movement start demonstrating that the totality of black lives matter to blacks first, black lives won’t matter to anyone else.

Being pro-life is commendable. Legitimizing Black Lives Matter isn’t.

Advertisements

Forty-One Years of Roe v. Wade

Today marks the 41st year since Roe v. Wade decision, which said that women not only have a right to abortion, but it it’s protected by the Constitution.

Since that decision, it is estimated that over 57 million babies in America have been put to death.

Abortion has had a devastating effect on the nation both morally and culturally, but the idea of having a “choice” to end (kill) a preborn baby’s life has had a devastatingly disproportionate impact on the black community.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s position was, according to his father: “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”  I believe that.

It is estimated by the Guttmacher Institute that black women account for 30 percent of abortions performed. The Centers for Disease Control has estimated that 40 percent of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and it is also reported that abortion is responsible for more black deaths than heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, accidents, homicides, suicide, HIV and cancer combined.

The so-called “choice” or “right” of an abortion is said to have claimed over 17 million black babies since 1973.  It’s estimated that roughly 1200 babies are aborted each day.  With these ungodly statistics, one may come to the conclusion that – through abortion – blacks are willingly participating in killing their own people.  This was underscored by the Census Bureau report that said the black population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country.”  Blacks are, in the process of accomplishing what the KKK could have only dreamed of achieving.

Blacks are only 13.1% of the population with black women obviously comprising much less.

To make matters worse, a black so-called civil rights organization- the NAACP, with help from the ACLU– has actively sought to overturn an Arizona state law that prohibits race and sex-based abortions.  Calling the law- among other things, “discriminatory,” the NAACP claims that the law violates “women’s rights” under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by “stigmatizing their decision” to kill their preborn babies.

Even after their initial suit was thrown out, the NAACP is appealing the case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which means they just might win this time around.

Again a so-called civil rights organization that purports to represent the best interests of its constituents is suing to overturn a law that would increase the numbers of abortions, which is already decimating the black community.

The so-called leader of the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP is Rev. Oscar Tillman, who’s also a member of the NAACP National Board.

“Reverend”.

And this is after what baby-butcher Kermit Gosnell was accused and found guilty of doing- particularly to poor, black women- in his abortion practice in May, 2013.

Worse still, America’s first black president has whole-heartedly endorsed this practice up to and including abortions performed during the third trimester.

Not only does this paint a sad picture of reality, but it’s unjust as well.  The notion that abortion is a “choice” is purposely misleading.  The aborted baby didn’t choose to be killed.  Furthermore, what about the rights of the preborn children who are murdered by abortion?  All of the politically progressive talk of “justice” and “rights” is nothing more than a charade when it’s not also applied to the preborn – for they are the most defenseless amongst us.

For those of us who are pro-life, it’s best that we forget about arguing about the legalities of abortion.  Instead, we should be concerned with discussing the immorality of abortion and the resulting consequences on the lives of the mothers who have them, the families in which these women belong, the communities where these women live and the nation as a whole.  The immorality of abortion, arbitrarily choosing when life ends- particularly when that decision is based on the convenience of the mother at the expense of the father, the preborn child, and the respective families- disrupts and destroys the cooperative act between God and man in creating new life in God’s image.

Even if one doesn’t believe in God, the immorality of abortion can still be sincerely and intelligently debated and defended from an ethical and moral position.  Most Americans view abortion as morally wrong.  Most of these same Americans believe that life begins at conception, which basic biology teaches.  Again, all the incessant talk about “rights” and “protections” ring extremely hollow if they’re not extended to those who need them the most. It’s impossible  to- with any sincerity or intellectual credibility- literally create “rights” out of thin air that redefines marriage on emotional qualifications, or that guarantees a constitutional protection for abortion, while ignoring the fact that a preborn child containing forty-six chromosomes is somehow immune from protection.

The moral disintegration that accompanies abortion enables men like Kermit Gosnell, Douglas Karpen, Leroy Carhart, Warren Hern, and women like Shelley Sella, and Susan Robinson to continue their gruesome barbarity against preborn children.

Jeremiah 1:5 says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…” Additionally, Psalm 139:13-14 reads: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.  Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”

We should all remember this every time we hear the euphemisms “choice,” “woman’s right” and “a woman’s body” used in conjunctions with abortion.

 

NAACP Appeals Lawsuit to Stop Ban on Race-Based Abortions

 

The NAACP is at it again- they continue to try and make it easier for people to kill more black babies.

 

Last month, the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP, represented by the ACLU, had their lawsuit- which challenged an Arizona law that bans race and sex-based abortions- dismissed because the judge claimed the NAACP and the organization who co-filed the claim, the National Asian Pacific Women’s Forum, lacked legal standing.

 

Now, the NAACP is appealing the case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which means they just might win this time around.

 

As a reminder, The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 criminalizes those individuals who perform or receive an abortion based on the race or sex of the preborn child (or the race of the parent).  It also criminalizes those who would coerce a person into performing or receiving a race or sex-based abortion.  Lastly, it requires that the woman seeking an abortion and the person performing the abortion sign an affidavit stating that the abortion isn’t race or sex based.

 

The basis of the NAACP’s lawsuit/ appeal is an unfounded notion of discrimination; they also claim the law is “unconstitutional.” The NAACP feels that the law unfairly singles out, stigmatizes and thus “discriminates” against black and Asian women who seek abortions.

 

The NAACP claim that the law is unconstitutional is simply an attempt to have the ban struck down quickly.  If one reads the law– it’s under two pages in length- one will see that this law doesn’t violate the constitution.

 

Last month, Justice David Campbell rightly said that the arguments presented to the court lacked the (legal) ability to prove the argument that specific minority groups- black and Asian women- would be denied equal treatment under the law.  Both groups of women will still have access to abortions, maintain their “right”.

 

The ACLU also claims that law perpetuates racial stereotypes to shame and discriminate against women who attempt to get abortions.

 

Bullocks.

 

The Arizona law doesn’t perpetuate racial stereotypes; nor does it discriminate.  Again, when one reads the law it clearly states that the ban is applicable to everyone who seeks to have a race or sex-based abortion.  If the law specifically singled out people based on their race, color or ethnicity in prohibiting abortions, then the claim of unconstitutionality would hold some weight.

 

But, I will say this.  Any woman- I don’t care what her color, racial or ethnic makeup is- who attempts to have a sex-based abortion (primarily done when the preborn baby is a girl rather than a boy) or a race-based abortion, should be publicly shamed.

 

One can argue the political merits of abortion; I prefer to argue the morality of it.  There is absolutely no moral reason a woman or a couple should have an abortion simply because the baby is a girl rather than a boy.

 

There is no moral reason why a woman or a couple should have an abortion because of the race of the baby.  Period.

 

As reported by a Guttmacher Institute-led study, the black teenage abortion rates are more than twice as high as the national average.  Among black 15-19 year olds, of every 1000 pregnancies, 41 are aborted; the national average is 18 per every 1000.

 

Another Guttmacher study shows that black women account for more than thirty percent of all abortions. Blacks are only 13 percent of the population.

 

Since abortion was legalized in 1973, over 16 million black babies have been aborted.  According to lifenews.com, for every 100 live births in the black community, 77 are aborted.

 

Considering these statistics, that the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP is actually trying to get Arizona’s state ban rescinded, again– which would have the effect of increasing these numbers- proves them to be immoral and actively engaged in and facilitating fratricide.  It also demonstrates how unconcerned the NAACP is with the decimating effects abortion has on the community it purports to represent.

 

The precise words escape my ability to fully articulate the extent to which I loathe the NAACP.[1]  As I’ve remarked in an earlier post, the NAACP continues to defecate on its legacy by bringing this lawsuit- not once, but twice.  The work and conduct of the modern NAACP completely nullifies the virtuous and reputable heritage regarding civil rights and should no longer, in good faith, be referred to as a civil rights organization.

 

And how can they be when they refuse to fight for the rights and protections of the most vulnerable among us?  The NAACP is actively trying to minimize the protections of the most vulnerable.

 

It’s shameful, immoral and it’s sinful.   Led by a so-called reverend, Rev. Oscar Tillman, President Member, NAACP National Board Vice President, NAACP Arizona State Conference.

 

Awful.

 

Once again, it needs to be said- with so-called shepherds like these who claim to represent or take seriously black interests, it’s no wonder why the black sheep are so wayward.

 


[1] I’m including the national NAACP in here because they have yet, through either filings of this lawsuit, issued a statement that distances themselves from the Maricopa chapter.  Further, the Maricopa chapter couldn’t proceed without the approval of the national chapter, further indicting them.