So I should probably start off this article by saying that the Planned Parenthood shooting was not actually a "Planned Parenthood shooting." That's right, the liberal media strikes again! In a recent interview about the situation, the following conversation took place: MSNBC asked, "Have you been given any indication that Planned Parenthood was specifically targeted?"
To which Dawn Laguens, Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President and Chief Experience Officer of Planned Parenthood Federation of America replied, "We have not been given any indication at all as to the targeting of Planned Parenthood. But as Vicki Coward, our CEO in Colorado said, the kind of extreme rhetoric that we sometimes, often hear, from anti-abortion and anti-women's health groups sometimes does incite people to take these actions. So we are standing by with everyone to learn more about this circumstance."
So, in other words, guilty until proven innocent. They're already indirectly labeling this man a pro-lifer, conservative, and even a "Christian" because they feel--like so many in our modern times--that they were singled out to be attacked, which apparently, isn't true at all. Word to the wise, martyrdom isn't attractive if it's based on lies.
The interviewer goes on to ask Laguens, "Have you seen any increase in the threats against Planned Parenthood since those videos were released aimed at discrediting the organization?"
And she replies saying something scary: "I think what we've seen a lot more of is actually support for Planned Parenthood! But of course, we monitor all of the kinds of threats and online chatter that you might see. But more than anything, we've seen an outpouring of support for our terrific clinicians."
This interview contains several problems.
There is no proof that the shooter was targeting Planned Parenthood--and the representative confirms it!--yet both interviewer and interviewee continue with the victim mentality line of questioning.
Pro-lifers are considered "extreme" and apparently, inciters of heinous, violent crimes against humanity--unlike Planned Parenthood.
The term "women's health" keeps getting grouped in with abortion even though the two are obviously entirely unconnected. Since when does the murder of one individual--namely, an individual housed inside of another individual--promote the health of the said housing individual? If that's true, then we should state that those who break in houses to murder and rape are simply maintaining the care of houses and thus not be charged for their crimes. Abortion is anything but "women's health."
With the idea that abortion is included in women's healthcare comes the idea that conservatives and Christians are backward thinking ogres who seek to deny women basic human, health rights which is, of course, completely ridiculous and naturally, untrue.
When the interviewer queries about the exposés "aimed at discrediting the organization" she completely negates the entire topic of harvested infant body parts from the conversation as if the undercover operators were simply trying to slander the company without a cause.
And most disturbing of all, Laguens states that after these horrific videos surfaced, support for the murderous organization has actually gone up! Most likely due to the fact that many of their supporters never watched the videos to begin with so they can continue with their blatant denials of truth no doubt.
While the shooting appears to have actually been at or at least near a Chase Bank in the same shopping center as the Planned Parenthood, let's presume for a moment that some crazed individual--and make no mistake, the shooter Robert Dear is crazed and most likely possessed--actually, intentionally targeted the Planned Parenthood. Why are Planned Parenthood supporters sad? Let's really examine this.
We can all establish that it would be thoroughly inhuman at worst and desensitized at absolute best to not be sad at the tragedy of yet another shooting. Murder is murder, right? All murderers should be condemned, right? So then why are these same doctors, clinicians, and mothers mercilessly murdering innocent children? Why are these doctors willingly breaking their Hippocratic Oath to "not give to a woman an abortive remedy"? Why should we be sad about the one and not the other? Why should we feel sad for the wounded by the shooter and not for those injured by botched abortions? Why should our anger go toward the shooter and not toward those murdering innocent children? That is a MAJOR double-standard.
America is SICK. We are in desperate need of the Great Physician, but He will only come to us collectively if we humble ourselves, pray, and turn from our wicked ways (II Chron. 7:14). God help us to do so quickly!
P.S. Robert Dear, just in case you're wondering, is NOT a Christian. Godly living does not advocate crime or vigilante justice. Christianity, according to Romans 13, promotes obedience to the set authority, to the law of the land, until the law and those authorities transgress the laws of God in which case, we peacefully protest. We don't take the law into our own hands.