Huntsville Pastors’ Pro Life Rally

From our friends with the Alabama Alliance Against Abortion:

Huntsville Pastors Pro Life Rally At 12 Noon, Saturday January 22, on the steps of the Madison County Courthouse.

Area pastors and local government officials, will be participating. This is an annual event held every year for the past 12 years. Over 30 area pastors have come and participated in our events. All area office holders are welcome to speak. All area pastors are welcome to come and participate, and speak for 2 minutes. Invite your pastor to come. Moral leadership in America begins with leadership of our pastors.

Judge Roy Moore, County Commissioner Mo Brooks, and Rev. Jimmy Jackson of Whitesburg Baptist Church were our keynote speakers last year. The Alabama Alliance Against Abortion is known for being a leader in north Alabama pro life events. We have sponsored Life Chains in Huntsville with over 3,000 in attendance.

For more information contact Alabama Alliance Against Abortion at http://www.wholeworldinhishands.com, email southernchristian1@yahoo.com or call Reverend James Henderson at 256-337-0826.

Reverend James Henderson gave the invocation at the Huntsville Governors’ Forum last Spring.

“Whatever you do for the least of them, you do for me.”

***

Congressman Robert Aderholt will be the keynote speaker at the Pro Life Rally in Huntsville on Saturday, Jan 22, at Noon. [Thanks Jessie]

29 thoughts on “Huntsville Pastors’ Pro Life Rally

  1. Congressman Robert Aderholt will be the keynote speaker at the Pro Life Rally in Huntsville on Saturday, Jan 22, at Noon.

    • pro-life and anit-healthcare is a disconnect for you redeye? He is pro-life as in he is aginst the taking of innocent life – and yet he doesn’t think people should be sitting around having everything handed to them. It is quite consistent to me . It is also biblically based which evens makes it better – go Brother Aderholt!

      • Who is sitting around expecting everything handed to them?

        republicans are pro life as long as it’s in the womb, after that all bets are off.

  2. Typo, should read, Who is sitting around expecting everything to be handed to them?

    By the way, I’m against the taking of innocent life too. In 2009 the state had 513 infant deaths for a rate of 8.2 deaths per 1000 live births. The infant mortality rate for black infants at 13.3 deaths per 1,000 live births. One of the reasons for for poor pregnancy outcome is the lack of healthcare for women before they get pregnant because they have no health insurance and don’t have access to a doctor before they become pregnant.adults and have no health insurance, call and ask her how much she would charge them for an office visit. Many women don’t have access to a doctor before they are pregnant to treat issues such as obesity or high blood pressure.

  3. The problem of high infant mortality in the black community is not one of access to medical care. The problem is more related to personal and lifestyle choices. The majority of black children born in Alabama are born to unwed mothers, so you’re talking about a generally irresponsible group of moms here. A young woman who gets into that position is much less likely to arrange for prenatal care or actually show up for the numerous appointments, even if the care is free.

    I have talked to numerous obstetricians who tell me they are routinely called upon to deliver babies for unwed mothers (of all races) who have not sought any prenatal care at all. When the doctors ask these young women why they did not seek prenatal care, most of them either shrug, make excuses, or tell the doc it’s none of his business. Studies also show — shockingly, I know — that unwed mothers are far more likely than married mothers to smoke, drink, and use recreational drugs during their pregnancies.

    Given that unwed moms are disproportionally black, these problems of course hit the black community harder. So just as with education, jumping to the bottom line results and blaming “society” just won’t cut it on this subject.

    • That’s pure unadulterated BullPoo Ben. The whole jumping to the bottom line and blaming the victims just won’t cut it on this subject.

      If you are against abortion don’t have one.

    • Noncompliance does bring up an issue to ponder. If saving babies lives is important, should treatment be compulsory like it we do on behalf of children whose parents refuse medical care for treatable conditions? Or do we step aside, acknowledging people are feel to make bad decisions? The five inch bolt dropped in the gears, though is that despite the best level of care, some babies will die irregardless.

      • I have thought about that issue before, but I inevitably come down on the side of keeping government out of it. For all the good such laws might do, it’s a short jump from there to obviously unacceptable regulations such as dictating what parents must (and must not) feed their kids and what values the kids can be taught. Children should be protected from murder, abuse, and neglect, but we can’t fix everything.

    • “moral choices in the real world seldom fit the model cases proposed by any side. It would serve us well to remember that in the debate over public policy and NOT just about abortion.”

      http://www.texaskaos.com/diary/6874/abortion-choices-and-compassion-repost-in-honor-of-roe-v-wade-day

      Women between the ages of 15 and 19 account for about 19% of all abortions; women 20 to 24 account for another 33%; and about 25% of abortions are obtained by women who are 30 or older.4 Calculating abortion rates, older teenagers and young adults have the highest abortion rates, while women younger than 15 and older than 35 have the lowest.4

      Length of Pregnancy

      Most abortions (88%) are obtained in the first trimester of pregnancy. In fact, over half of all abortions are obtained within the first 8 weeks. Fewer than 2% occur at 21 weeks or later.5

      Education, Residence, and Income

      Of the women obtaining abortions in 2000:

      57% had some college education;
      88% were from metropolitan areas; and
      57% percent were low-income.4
      Marital Status

      Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6

      Religion

      Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1

      http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

      ” we could just make abortions totally the decision of the mother (hopefully with the help of the father, her doctors and her clergyman or woman)”

      http://www.texaskaos.com/diary/6874/abortion-choices-and-compassion-repost-in-honor-of-roe-v-wade-day

      Amen.

  4. Ben and Redeye, sounds like you are both in agreement on the issue of government coercion for non compliant mothers. Myself, I can see both sides of the issue and yet the knowledge that some infant deaths are unavoidable combined with the if in doubt don’t do it principle let me decide forcing help on those who don’t want it is a no-go. though that should not prevent maintaining what services we do provide and ponder such things as a high risk nursery/NICU in maybe Camden, grants/loan forgiveness to medicos (MD, NP, PA, midwives, etc) who will commit to practice where needed, ensure maternal and pediatric care are a priority for medicaid funding over other groups.

    • WaltMoffet, I am not in agreement with anyone about non compliant mothers because I don’t know what in the world you are talking about. I thought we were talking about abortion rights.

      • Silly me, I thought you were stating the State as a moral duty to reduce infant mortality which raises the question of what do we legislate when a mother fails to cooperate by availing herself of free government services.

  5. Even though I am pro-life, it seems odd to me that the legal “choice” about whether to have an abortion lies only with the mother. The father gets no choice whatsoever in the matter, yet if the woman chooses to allow the baby to live, the father is legally required to pay child support. Of course, this is completely understandable once you realize that abortion isn’t really about choice or fairness, and certainly not morality — it’s about feminism and ensuring that women can rid themselves of inconveniences, including inconvenient children.

    • The law is looking out for the children. Its the same attitude that leads to mothers getting custody most of the time.

    • The legal choice should only rest only with the mother because the father could be a rapist and because it’s her life and her body.

  6. Wow, I was almost convinced by Redeye’s lengthy posts. But then I heard about the pro-choice butcher up in Philly using the scissors on the babies and had to backslide. It shows you where their side ends up -ultimately either with a d and c, or in this case worse. So I guess I will remain the way I was – consistent – against the taking of life whether it be an abortion or the the death penalty. As far as healthcare I will take the biblical position that I am for people helping themselves and if I choose to help others out of Christian love then I will. I think Redeye will agree with me on this last point – that there ought to be a separation of church and state and thus the government should stay out of my business – more specifically whether I care for my neighbors is a personal matter – kind of a privacy issue. You can find it there in the bill of rights.

    • Alabamajustice, my lengthly post were facts not my personal opinion. As for the case you mentioned, that’s one rotten apple not the whole bushel of apples. You and I do agree, the governemt should stay out of our personal, private business and women’s reproductive organs. You actually hit the nail on it’s head with this statement;

      ” I guess I will remain the way I was – consistent – against the taking of life whether it be an abortion or the the death penalty. ”

      You have the right to your position on abortion and the death penalty but you don’t have the right to impose your position on those who do not share your position.

      No woman is forced to have an abortion.

      If you are against abortion, don’t have one.

      Men should have the right to control a womans reproductive system when women can control a mans male members.

      I’m against the death penalty and I don’t appreciage my tax dollars being used to take a human life, but since it’s the law of the land I have to accept it.

      Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

      • Your sloganeering argument is lame. Imagine going back to 1840 and having some pro-slavery person arguing, “If you are against slavery, don’t own one.”

      • The if you are against slavery don’t own slaves analogy works too. During the time you are referring people who were opposed to Slavery were called abolistionist. No one forced anyone who didn’t believe in slavery to own them, just like no one is forcing WOMEN who don’t believe in abortion to have one. It’s not a slogan. It’s the truth.

        If you are against abortion don’t have one.

  7. Redeye – I lump you in with Bob Nicholson – I enjoy reading both of your opinion pieces because it is so rare to come across people that are able to always be so wrong. You two crack me up. LIA is like the funny pages. The best part is you have to come over here to get legitmate folks to read your dribble. Mr. Bob had a great peice this morning in the Times – taking on Mo and his vote against healthcare. I think the bottomline there is that it is unconstitutional for the government to make us (the people, the free) to do something, as in purchase insurance. That of course has never been done before – even under the commerce clause. Bob gets into the weeds about differents parts of insurance withpout addressing teh issue of whether the governent can make any of us buy insurance. I bet Redeye is standing right there with Bob- ignore the starting point that it is unconstitutional and get into the unfairness issue.

    • bamajustice The government makes you buy liability insurance for your automobiles,trucks,boats, RV’s etc. The problem with your argument is the government isn’t forcing anyone to buy anything they don’t want to buy. The Affordable Health Care Act makes it possible for people without health insurance to have health insurance. Nothing more, nothing less.

      The only people jumping up and down about government run health care are people like Mo Brooks and others who have so called government run health care. Or, people who don’t like the man who is in charge of running the government at this time. If Bush, McCain, Palin, Huckabee or a republican wanted all Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care there would be no objections. The same people jumping up and down about so called ObamaCare are the same people that didn’t say a mumbling word when Bush and Dick sent our troops to war based on DEAD WRONG INTELLIGENCE. If that wasn’t un-constitutional I don’t know what is.

      You legitimate folks over here who read my dribble crack me up too. I have to laugh to keep from crying because people who think like you put people in positions of power who share your mis guided, uniformed point of view.