March for Life Just Announced Their 2019 Theme and It’s Really Good

This year’s theme is a good one, confirming that pro-life is pro-science.


The 2019 March for Life event will take place on January 18, 2019, in Washington, D.C., per usual. Next year’s theme, in fact, was just announced: “Unique from Day One: Pro-life is Pro-Science.”


Science supports the most basic and important tenets of the pro-life movement.


Medical and technological advancements affirm the humanity of the unborn child. Consider that a person’s DNA is present at the moment of conception/fertilization and no fingerprint on earth – past, present, or future, is the same.


A baby’s heart beats at just three weeks post conception and ultrasound technology provides a beautiful window into the womb. As science and technology develop, we see more and more clearly that every life is unique from day one in the womb.


Here’s a corresponding video, featuring spoken word artist Justus Dominic:

Over 60 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade was ruled in 1973. That’s a travesty. This administration has signaled their interest to defund Planned Parenthood (yet hasn’t made strides much in Congress yet) and do a more apt job of promoting a culture of life.


To learn how to attend the March, go here.

The Pro-Life Heart of Blade Runner 2049

The big questions of life—how long we have, how memory defines us, what it means to be human—figure prominently in the Blade Runner universe, first introduced to cinemas by Ridley Scott back in 1982.  Working loosely from the trippy Philip K. Dick novel  Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Scott jettisoned most of Dick’s hippy-dippy drug culture subtext and instead focused on a visual style in which the setting drove the narrative just as much as the characters.  In this fully-realized world, we meet Rick Deckard—the titular Blade Runner, a police assassin tasked with tracking down and “retiring” escaped replicants.  These bioengineered androids, who resemble people down to the smallest detail, were created as a slave labor force and are considered utterly disposable.  The only problem:  the replicants are a little too human, and have started to develop their own emotions and sense of self.  They have also developed a strong will to live, and will do whatever it takes to stay alive.

Blade Runner was a gorgeous, fascinating and enthralling movie.  It was also a box office flop.

Perhaps it was because moviegoers, familiar with the dashing Harrison Ford from Star Wars, didn’t know what to make of his complex and conflicted Rick Deckard.  Or maybe they were just expecting a straightforward sci-fi shoot ‘em up, in which the robots were the bad guys and mowing them down didn’t present any moral issues.  Whatever the cause, Blade Runner might have been entirely forgotten if it hadn’t been for home video, where the film had far more time and latitude to find an audience that appreciated it—and appreciate it they did.  Since its initial release, Blade Runner has become the definitive vision of a dystopian future, imitated by countless other works of science-fiction.

Now comes Blade Runner 2049, a sequel that only took Hollywood 35 years to get around to making.  Was it worth the wait?  Absolutely—but with one big caveat.  Although the film is fully-realized and stands completely on its own, it would be very difficult to appreciate it without having seen the original.  Not only are the themes a continuation of the first film, the emotional impact of the events in Blade Runner 2049 are blunted if you’re not familiar with the original characters.

And it’s obvious that director Denis Villeneuve has great affection for those characters, because they form the central mystery that drives the story.  Ryan Gosling plays Officer K of the LAPD, himself a replicant—and a Blade Runner.  He’s a newer model who is programmed to obey his superiors without question, who send him out to find—and kill, if necessary—older models who are still hiding among the human populations left on Earth.  During a mission that opens the film, K confronts a replicant named Sapper who asks him how it feels to hunt his own kind.  Accusing K of being a soulless automaton, Sapper says cryptically, “You’ve never seen a miracle.”  He then attacks K knowing that the Blade Runner will gun him down—a suicide by cop meant to cover up a secret.


K later finds that secret buried under a a tree outside the replicant’s home—the bones of a woman that have been there for decades.  An LAPD medical examiner performs an autopsy which reveals that the woman died during childbirth, but also reveals something else that should be impossible:  the woman was a replicant.  This was the miracle Sapper told K about.  And it represents an existential threat to the notion that replicants are less than human.

The rest of Blade Runner 2049 follows K as he tries to track down what happened to the child, with orders to kill the child if he finds it alive.  The trail eventually leads him to Rick Deckard, and a final confrontation that will change everything K thought he knew about himself and about humanity.

It’s pretty heady stuff—and all done with a cinematic flair that would have made Ridley Scott proud.  Rather than copy the style of the original Blade Runner, Villeneuve actually builds on it, integrating elements made famous from the first film—the flying cars, the rainy streets, the holographic advertisements—with his own visual style, making the most of advancements in CGI to expand the depth of that world without cluttering it up.  It all feels very real.  The cinematography by Roger Deakins is also every bit as stunning as the original, which is particularly vital for a sequel to a film practically defined by its look.  Never has bleak appeared quite so beautiful.  It’s almost—but not quite—enough to make you want to experience that world first hand.

There are also a great many ideas floating around here, not the least of which is the intrinsic value of life.  In the first film, animals have become so rare that realistic facsimiles of them are among the most prized—and expensive—of possessions.  The replicants, meanwhile, realize that their allotted lifespan of four short years is running out, so in desperation they come back to Earth to find a way to extend that time.  “I want more life,” Roy Batty, the leader of the rogue replicants, demands of his creator.  And in the end, Roy spares Rick Deckard even though he could have killed the Blade Runner sent to kill him.  “I don’t know why he saved my life,” Deckard says.  “Maybe in those last moments he loved life more that he ever had before.  Not just his life—anybody’s life.  My life.”

Blade Runner 2049 takes that idea and runs with it, extending it to the replicants being able to have children of their own.  In fact, in the film, this is what defines them as human.  The people running the show don’t want anybody to find out about the child, because they know it would completely upend the existing world order.  Replicants would no longer be seen as slaves if they were capable of creating life themselves.  As K observes at one point, to be born is to have a soul—and to have a soul is to have value,

This is a profoundly pro-life subtext.  I’m not sure if this is what the filmmakers intended, but it’s definitely there—and it’s bound to make some people uncomfortable.  Just as it’s more convenient for people in Blade Runner to not think of replicants as human, so is it easier for pro-abortion activists to cast unborn babies the same way.  But real life, as in the film, is a lot more complicated than that.  Pretending otherwise doesn’t change anything.

Fans of strong female leads will also find lots to like in Blade Runner 2049.  As the replicant Luv, Sylvia Hoeks is an appropriately badass henchman (henchperson?) to Jared Leto’s blind megalomaniac Niander Wallace, and Ana de Armas nearly steals the show as K’s holographic companion Joi.

As to Harrison Ford, the actual time he has on screen as Rick Deckard actually amounts to more of an extended cameo than a starring role.  His appearance, however, carries a great deal of emotional heft and firmly grounds the story in the Blade Runner universe.  When it comes to the action, though, he isn’t given that much to do—although, at the age of 75, he still gets a chance to throw a few impressive punches.

My only complaint might be that the film’s climax seems a little abrupt and underwhelming for a nearly three hour movie.  Then again, with the orgy of CGI destruction that you typically find at the end of most blockbusters these days, it’s refreshing to see filmmakers opting to keep it simple.

Notorious Late-Term Abortion Clinic in MD Closed, Bought By Pro-Life Group

One of three abortion clinics that openly performs late-term abortions has closed down in Germantown, Maryland. Even sweeter? The Maryland Coalition for Life has made a bid to purchase the office.

Germantown Reproductive Health Services operated for over 20 years, but came under fire by pro-life activists when it tapped LeRoy Carhart, a Nebraska doctor who performs late-term abortions, to operate out of this facility.

“It’s a miracle. You fight for something for seven years, and all of a sudden it’s handed to you,” said Dennis Donnelly, media director for the coalition, to Washington Post.

LiveAction has more on the notorious butchery of LeRoy Carhart–with him being one of three late-term abortionists not held to accounts for their brutal practices:

The Germantown facility is one of three in the United States that are notorious for committing late-term abortions on a regular basis. The other two are located in Colorado and New Mexico. Carhart has a history of injuring and killing women during abortions, as well as committing health violations and gross negligence. For years, he has committed abortions after 26 weeks gestation when babies are clearly viable (though viability is medically possible much earlier) and when the health of the mother can be saved more quickly through a C-section.

Carhart told WaPo that he plans to keep his doors open as long as he can. Earlier this year, Carhart severely injured a patient out of his Nebraska clinic:

“I am doing everything in my power to keep my practice open, and I am considering options looking toward the future,” he said. “It’s heartbreaking that anyone would want to take health care away from women and families by targeting our clinic.”

LiveAction conducted an investigation into this baby butcher’s practice. You can watch it below:

Woman: — for some reason, I’m not able to deliver, you’ll be able to get it out–

Dr. Carhart: We’d take it out in pieces.

Woman: — in pieces. …

Woman: What do you use to break it up? Just–

Dr. Carhart: A whole bunch of, you know–

Woman: (Laughs) You’ve got a toolkit.

Dr. Carhart: A pickaxe, a drill bit, yeah (laughs).

The sale hasn’t been approved yet, but will likely transpire. The Maryland Coalition for Life set up a pregnancy crisis center across the street in 2011 and has offered sidewalk counseling there since 2011.

Let’s hope with advances in medicine and attitudes trending pro-life continue to shed light on the evil nature of abortion.


Sad News: Oregon Senate Passes Free Abortion Bill

On Wednesday, the Oregon state Senate passed House Bill 3391 – a $10 million reproductive healthcare bill that forces insurance companies in the state to provide abortions at no cost to patients.

The legislation sailed through the state House by a vote of 33-23 and passed the state senate 17-13, all along party lines. No Republican lawmaker supports the bill, but the GOP is unable to block its passage when Democrats control all the levers of power in the state. They attempted to move the bill back to committee to remove the abortion language, but failed. Gov. Kate Brown, a former abortion lobbyist herself, is expected to sign.

Included in the legislation is a $500,000 allocation to cover illegal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the state’s medicaid program. The bill’s supporters also shot down GOP attempts to include late-term abortion bans “undertaken solely because of the known or suspected sex of the unborn child.” Residents could, theoretically, terminate a pregnancy if they are unhappy with the expected gender of the baby – for free. Taxpayers will be footing the expenses entirely.

If signed by Brown, it would likely make Oregon the most abortion-friendly state in the Union.

This is really nothing new. The Beaver State has been a pioneer in the abortion battle for years. State lawmakers permitted some abortion procedures as early as 1969. After the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling 1973, Oregon has since made the practice inexpensive and easily accessible.

Critics of HB 3391 also point to one glaring detail: this legislation is a golden goose for Planned Parenthood.

If passed, the bill would place millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of the nation’s largest abortion provider. Many Oregon Republicans are claiming this is simply a scratch on the back to PP after years of supporting Democrats during campaign season. It is true that PP has supported Democrats in the state for a long time. In fact, Cecile Richards, national president of Planned Parenthood, even participated in fundraising emails for Gov. Brown, calling her “one of the most effective and progressive leaders this nation has ever seen.”

Senate minority communications director Jonathan Lockwood has been on the ground in Oregon and is getting the word out about the horrors of this bill. He took some time to speak with The Resurgent and explained the relationship between Gov. Brown and Planned Parenthood.

“Gov. Kate Brown got her big start as an abortion lobbyist and she’s cashed in checks from abortion providers so of course she’s going to sign this late-term and sex-selective forced abortion funding bill into law. This bill is a political gift card to Planned Parenthood while they provide some services that help women, are more interested in political action. Democrats ran this bill and forced it on the Floor so they can weaponize legislation. What’s also interesting is how shut up the Democrats were sitting on the Floor listening to Republicans dismantle every argument for passing the bill.”

We will be watching to see what the governor does.





Video Shows Abortionists’ Savagery, So, Of Course, The Videographer & His Lawyers Must Be Jailed

Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle” in 1906. Within months, Congress enacted the Pure Food & Drug Act in response to the book’s exposure of the filth permeating Chicago’s meatpacking and livestock butchering industry.

David Daleiden’s videos are exposing the filth of today’s human butchering industry. Daleiden is an undercover journalist who, as described by LifeSite News, produces undercover videos showing “Planned Parenthood executives and workers haggling over the prices of baby body parts, picking through the arms and legs of aborted babies in a pie tray, and discussing how to alter abortion methods to obtain better body parts for sale.”

Listen to the audience’s reaction when, a little over a minute into the video posted here, an attendee at the National Abortion Federation’s 2014 conference complains about an abortion in which “an eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross!”

Listen to the laughter again. It is the sound of unmitigated evil. Torture and mutilation bring out the jovial side of modern-day savages, be they abortionists chuckling about a baby’s severed eyeballs, Auschwitz staffers enjoying a break, or ISIS-inspired Muslims giggling as a woman gets raped.

Abortionists asked William Orrick, a federal judge, to gag Daleiden. Orrick was a board member of an organization that has a “key partnership” with Planned Parenthood, and his wife has posted public comments, pictured with her husband, that are supportive of Planned Parenthood and critical of Daleiden. Not surprisingly, Orrick promptly ordered Daleiden not to post his video of the 2014 abortion conference.

State prosecutors then piled on. Xavier Becerra, California’s Attorney General and recipient of over $5,000 from Planned Parenthood between 1998 and 2014, filed 15 criminal charges in state court against Daleiden. This was too much even for a left-wing rag like the Los Angeles Times, which called Becerra’s criminal filing “disturbingly aggressive.

Abortion fanatics weren’t satisfied with Daleiden having all the fun. Daleiden’s criminal defense attorneys, Brentford Ferreira and Steve Cooley,* posted a copy of the video a few months ago. Abortionists demand they be held in contempt. So now, along with Daleiden himself, Daleiden’s attorneys are facing jail (and disbarment) even though Judge Orrick’s gag order against Daleiden in the federal civil case placed no restrictions on the attorneys handling the state criminal case.

On Wednesday, by some miracle, the state court threw out 14 of the 15 charges. But the abortionists still have the upper hand. One criminal count survived, which is enough to force Daleiden to stand trial in a state criminal case, while being defended by attorneys with their own criminal exposure, while also having to defend against a federal civil lawsuit presided over by a judge whose impartiality is subject to question, to put it charitably.

Planned Parenthood and others are desperate to suppress Daleiden’s videotaped, abortion-themed sequel to “The Jungle.”  But they’re worrying too much. Saving unborn children from skull-crushing cranial forceps doesn’t stir America’s heart the way that saving cattle from unsanitary stockyards did a century ago. Instead, Republicans in Congress will continue funding Planned Parenthood with tax dollars while the Republican Party uses the specter of abortion to fleece pro-life Americans. The Party long ago made its peace with savagery because, like Planned Parenthood, too many of its contributions would dry up if abortion mills closed their doors.

Abortionists demand Orrick impose legal destruction upon Daleiden and his attorneys. Orrick likely won’t disappoint. But, someday, a higher Judge will issue a judgment upon the “doctors” and other “health care providers” in Daleiden’s videos. And they won’t be the only ones on the receiving end of that judgment. The videos will negate any defense of ignorance offered by those who, while quietly financing a holocaust against the unborn, publicly proclaim “the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.


* Full Disclosure: I worked with Ferreira a decade ago when we were prosecutors in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. I consider him a friend. I’ve also had dealings with Cooley, though not quite as cordial.

Why Principals Cuss Out Kids

A few weeks ago, Zach Ruff – assistant principal at the STEM high school in Pennsylvania – suffered an absolute meltdown on a public sidewalk at the end of the school day. He was triggered by the scientifically sound Christian conservative opinion being expressed by two teenagers that abortion kills a living human child.

His profane explosion cost him his job, but there’s something far more important to expose and understand here than just Ruff’s contempt for free speech. That’s the topic of this week’s 414 Project video:

YES! Oklahoma House Recognizes Abortion As Murder

On Monday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a resolution selecting abortion to be murder and criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions allowing women to seek “elective abortions,” The Hill reports.

The resolution “carries no wait of law,” but states that the Supreme Court “overstepp[ed] its authority and jurisdiction” in landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which “affirmed” a woman’s right to seek an abortion.

The resolution calls on public officials to “stop the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion,” and commands the Oklahoma Supreme Court to “stay out” of any future cases involving state abortion law.

Under Oklahoma state law, a woman who wishes to obtain an abortion must undergo counseling and wait 72 hours before getting  the procedure. Abortions performed after 20 weeks are banned unless the life of the mother is at risk.

Only five medical facilities in the state provide abortion services.

A Democrat Civil War May Be Brewing Over Abortion

News stories often point to internal squabbling among Republicans and speculate as to whether the GOP is in the midst of a civil war because of the frequent disagreements. Mainstream outlets may be missing a budding civil war among the Democrats, however. Recent comments by several Democrat leaders indicate that the party may be splitting over one of its core issues.

For years, Democrats have marched in virtual lockstep on abortion. If pro-life Democrats were endangered before Barack Obama’s presidency, they were almost nonexistent after the elections of 2010 when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and a cadre of pro-life congressional Democrats bowed to pressure to vote for Obamacare and lost their seats as a result.

Fast forward to 2017 when Tom Perez, elected chairman to rebuild the Democratic Party in the wake of the disastrous 2016 election, seemed to draw a line in the sand last month on abortion. “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

If support for unrestricted abortion is “not negotiable” as a litmus test for Democrats, then the donks can plan on writing off about half of the American electorate. Polling has shown that Americans are split almost equally between the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints. When examined more closely, only small factions support either extreme on the issue. Most Americans say that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Perez’s comments have set off a battle between Democrats who favor a big tent party and those who believe that ideological purity is more important. The debate is similar to the one that Republicans have had in recent years on issues such as spending, immigration and the details of replacing Obamacare.

Some party leaders rejected Perez’s comments. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on NBC that “of course” pro-life Democrats should be accepted and supported by the party.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she told the Washington Post. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Minority Leader, agreed on MSNBC. “Look, we’re a big tent party as Nancy Pelosi said, but we are, let’s make no mistake about it, we are a pro-choice party. We’re a strongly pro-choice party,” Schumer said. “We think that’s where the American people are, and in fact, if anything, are moving even more in that direction.”

Some members of the Democrat base disagreed with their leaders’ inclusiveness. “It was great to see Perez discover a spine,” Erin Matson, a pro-abortion activist, told The Atlantic, adding that “Schumer and Pelosi’s recent comments are cowardly.”

“It’s about policy, not feelings or labels, and anything less than a bold stance that makes clear that the Democratic Party must be united in protecting a woman’s right to an abortion is a betrayal of a core constituency of the party,” Matson continued. She stopped short of calling big tent Democrats “DINOs.”

Elyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America noted in the Washington Post that last year’s Democratic platform “went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access — it sought to expand it,” while failing to note that Democrats lost that election. “If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles,” she added.

“I don’t know why we would want to start walking away from folks, like myself, who have a personal conviction on the pro-life issue,” said Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), a pro-life Democrat congressman. “We ought to be able to include everyone, as opposed to saying ‘no, we don’t want these folks, even though they fight with us on jobs, even though they fight with us for economic rights, even though they fight with us on healthcare.’ It just seems to me to be very, very short-sighted.”

Nevertheless, even Bernie Sanders, the sometimes-Democrat with the cult-like following, is not immune to criticism when he deviates from the party line on abortion. Sanders drew fire from fellow progressives for his support of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Mello had a pro-life voting record and reputation during his time in the Nebraska state legislature.

Pelosi later claimed to the Washington Post that the abortion is “kind of fading as an issue” for Democrats. That may be wishful thinking.

This week failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray with a speech to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. “Protecting access to the full range of reproductive health care: it is a health issue, of course, it is a core economic issue,” Clinton said, quoted by The Blaze. “Women in every corner of our country understand that intimately. And anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this is an issue of morality.”

By claiming that opposition to abortion is immoral, Clinton has upped the ante and made it clear that pro-lifers will not be welcomed by a large part of the Democratic Party. Framing the issue in moral terms makes it almost impossible to compromise.

“I believe we can and should respect deeply held beliefs of our friends, our neighbors, our fellow citizens, even if they differ from our own,” Clinton continued. “That’s what should make America, America. But it is possible to do that while holding firm to what we know is the only right approach in our diverse democracy. Oh, yes, let’s respect people’s convictions, but never back down from our commitment to defend the ability of every woman to make these deeply personal decisions for herself.”

In other words, Democrats should respect the immoral opinions of pro-life Democrats as long as those opinions have no impact on the party platform or policies.

The decision on whether to welcome (or tolerate) Democrats who differ from the party dogma on an issue like abortion is an important one. It is very difficult for a political party to win if it is actively seeking to expel many of its members. Even if pro-life Democrats are permitted to stay, it is unlikely that the official Democrat position on abortion will change any time soon.