• Skip to main content

March for Life

  • National March
    • 2026 March for Life
    • 2026 Speakers
    • “Life is a Gift”
    • Hotel & Travel Information
    • Events
    • Sponsorships
  • State Marches
    • Find Your State
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Georgia
    • Indiana
    • Iowa
    • Kansas
    • Kentucky
    • Maryland
    • Michigan
    • Montana
    • New Hampshire
    • New Jersey
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio
    • Oklahoma
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania
    • Virginia
  • Pregnancy Help Donation Drive
  • News
    • BLOG
    • PRESS RELEASES
    • IN THE NEWS
  • Education
    • Post-Roe America
    • Dobbs SCOTUS Case
  • About us
    • MISSION
    • Our Team
    • Our President
    • Impact
    • FAQs
    • Jobs
    • Internships
    • CONTACT US
  • Store
  • TAKE ACTION
  • DONATE

China’s One Child Policy: The Real War on Women

June 3, 2014 By Scott Zipperle

China’s One Child Policy: The Real War on Women

 

According to Wikipedia.com the War on Women is an “expression used in United States politics that characterizes certain Republican Party policies as a wide-scale assault on women’s rights, especially reproductive rights.” This rhetoric is most often used to attack Conservatives, Christians, and Republicans. It attempts to mischaracterize pro-life legislation, and the fight of many convicted religious and non-religious people against the HHS contraceptive mandate which coerces companies and organizations to pay for medical services that they deem morally offensive. This is hardly an “attack” on anything.

The real “wide-scale assault on women’s rights, especially reproductive rights” is not happening inside the American political arena. The real offensive on women’s autonomy is happening across the ocean in China. This is what a “war on women” actually looks like:

Illegal pregnancies, forced contraception and forced abortions:

In China, it is illegal for a women to get pregnant without a birth permit. There is an army of family planning police who reserve not only the right to invade a woman’s home if they suspect an “illegal” pregnancy, but the right to invade her womb. When women are found to be carrying an “illegal” pregnancy, they are routinely arrested, fined and forced to abort their wanted children.

A report from “Women’s Rights Without Frontiers” brings these atrocious human rights violations to light. Read this story about how a mother who was pregnant with her first child, but lacked a birth permit, was dragged into the streets, and forced to have an abortion:

On October 5 of 2008, an article appeared in the South China Morning Post about a young woman, Jin Yani, who was drifting off to sleep one night when the family planning police smashed the lock to her front door and dragged her out of her house in her nightclothes, screaming and terrified.  Her crime: getting pregnant without a birth permit.  Her punishment: forced abortion, even though she was nine months pregnant, and this was her first child.  Jin Yani knelt on the floor of the family planning center and begged the police to let her keep her baby.  They dragged her crying and screaming, and five people held her down on the hospital bed as they ripped off her clothes and injected saline solution with a long needle through her womb and into the full-term fetus to terminate it.  The dead baby was extracted on September 9, 2000. When her husband, Yang, returned from his business trip, he rushed to the hospital to find Jin Yani purple and near death from blood loss.   She spent 44 days in the hospital because of severe hemorrhaging. Now, she is infertile.   

Talk about a wide scale assault on reproductive rights!

Sex-Selective Abortions:

Because of a cultural preference for boys, girls are aborted at a much higher rate than boys, especially when a family is limited to one child. In China, there are 117 boys born for every 100 girls. In certain regions of the country, this number increases dramatically.  Sex selective abortions are technically illegal in China, but tracking and enforcing such a law is nearly impossible.

Suicide:

The World Health Organization reports that China has the highest female suicide rate in the world. Over 500 women in China commit suicide every day.  Chinese women have an utter lack of autonomy in the most personal parts of their lives – could the high suicide rate be linked to this? 

Fighting the War on Women: Women’s Rights Without Frontiers

This degradation of human life and liberty is so foreign to the American experience that it is almost impossible to believe that it is happening in the year 2014. Thanks to the work of Reggie Littlejohn and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, these atrocious human rights abuses are coming to light.

One campaign organized by Women’s Rights Without Frontiers is happening right inside the borders of Communist China. It is working to combat gendercide, and bring hope to parents of baby girls. It is called the “Save a Girl Campaign”. Chinese field-workers provide mothers who are at risk of aborting or abandoning their baby girls a monthly stipend if they choose to keep their girls. This campaign is extremely effective and proves that these mothers, when offered both emotional and financial support will choose life for their daughters.

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers is fighting the battle both inside China and in the international political arena.  Littlejohn is bringing reports of forced abortion to the United States Congress, the United Nations, the European Parliament, The White House, and beyond. Watch Reggie Littlejohn speak about the violence that women experience China. Inform yourself, help to spread the word about the real war on women, and the great work that this organization is doing: 

 

562
286

Filed Under: Blog

June 3, 2014 By Scott Zipperle

You are invited: Bon Voyage Kathleen Sebelius

In her time heading up Health and Human Services (HHS) the department has turned into a hyper-partisan tool to further liberal pro-abortion policies to the point that even career employees within HHS have complained about the problems.  So I can certainly sympathize why they would want to throw a going away party for Kathleen Sebelius.  This was sent out to DC area HHS staff yesterday.

To: HHS-STAFF-METRODC@LIST.NIH.GOV
Subject: Invitation to Farewell Event for Secretary Sebelius

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, after more than five years of extraordinary leadership, Secretary Sebelius will be leaving the Department.

Under the Secretary’s watch, we led our country through the H1N1 pandemic; we have worked to bring our food safety system into the 21st century; we have pushed the boundaries of science and technology to find critical cures; we have reformed and improved the way we help low-income kids prepare for a better future; we have expanded the reach of our Community Health Centers; we have increased access to behavioral health services; we have transformed the way we work with Indian Country; we have reorganized to better align our programs to maximize the independence of the elderly and people with disabilities; we have worked to reduce tobacco usage and obesity rates; we have reduced ethnic health disparities and are closer to an AIDS-free generation; and of course, we have successfully implemented the Affordable Care Act, the most historic reform of our health care system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid.

From Day One, Secretary Sebelius has been a tireless advocate for the issues we care so deeply about and the people we serve through our programs.  Through her tireless work, she has left an indelible mark on our nation’s history and profoundly contributed to our nation’s health and well-being.

We know all of us want to honor her leadership and wish her well.  Please join us on Monday, June 2nd from 4:30-6:00PM in the Great Hall of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to celebrate her outstanding service to our nation as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

We look forward to see you there.

Sincerely,

Bill Corr                       Andrea Palm

Deputy Secretary         Chief of Staff

For more on how HHS has changed for the worse under Mrs. Sebelius please go here.

 

 

Filed Under: Blog

May 20, 2014 By Scott Zipperle

Treading On Barron Ground

Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed cloture on David J. Barron to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  Ever since the Senate Democrats eradicated the democratic process when it came to nominations from the President it has been difficult to stop the parade of bad judges that have been nominated by President Obama.  So when a nominee comes along that garners strong bipartisan opposition, as Mr. Barron does, it is an unusual thing.  When you consider it is the nominees position on the matter of life that has caused this bipartisan opposition (from the ACLU to Rand Paul) it is even more unusual.

At question is the nominee’s belief of when it is okay to take a human life.   To the ACLU and for some Senators the question is the killing of U.S. citizens in war time.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) laid out the argument:

 

I’ve read the Barron memos concerning the legal justification for killing an American citizen overseas without a trial or legal representation. While the president forbids me from discussing what is in the memos, I can tell you what is not in the memos.

 

There is no valid legal precedent to justify the killing of an American citizen not engaged in combat. In fact, one can surmise as much because the legal question at hand has never been adjudicated.

 

While the pro-life Senator’s arguments are in opposition to how the federal government treats adult citizens the opinions expressed by Senator Paul can and should be applied to the unborn’s rights as well.  Mr. Barron though views that the courts should use judicial activism to change laws to fit a pro-abortion on demand view:

 

“The dilemma of politics is particularly acute when the Court interprets in an activist posture. Goldstein [a liberal ally] never endorses judicial activism explicitly, but judging from his apparent approval of Roe [abortion decision] … he does not mean his call for clarity and candor to obstruct such progressive decision making. Unfortunately, clarity, candor, and activism cannot co-exist without raising serious democratic objections, for some constitutional principles demand flouting popular will. Thus, given the costs of foregoing activism, candor and clarity seem a preferable choice for sacrifice.”[i]

Mr. Barron’s beliefs fits into his philosophy that the Constitution is a living “dynamic document.”  Writing for the Harvard Law and Policy Review, Barron said: 

 

“It has long been a precept of the progressive view that the Constitution is not frozen ….  Its provisions are, in important respects, simply too open-ended and forward looking for that not to be the case, and the deficiencies of a pure originalism are now too well known. The Constitution is, as Richard Fallon recently put it, a dynamic document. But for that very reason, the task for progressive constitutionalism, as I see it, is to engage with the substance of constitutional interpretation in light of new understandings of the progressive tradition itself ….”[ii]

 

Mr. Barron’s actions reflect a man who would abuse the traditional role of a judge being an umpire and above the fray.  Instead he clearly states he would use the power to further his own personal, rather liberal, agenda.



[i] David J. Barron, Book Note, Democracy and Dishonesty, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 792, footnote 15 (1993).

[ii] David J. Barron, “What’s Wrong With Conservative Constitutionalism?  Two Styles of Progressive Constitutional Critique and the Choice They Present” Harv. Law & Policy Rev. Online (July 2006) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added); available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20061105004547/http://www.hlpronline.com/2006/07/barron_01.html

 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: judiciary

May 20, 2014 By Scott Zipperle

Survey

0
Take our March for Life survey and enter your name to win a MfL t-shirt!
https://marchforlife.org/march-with-us/march-for-life-survey
MfL Survey
a:0:{}
596
274

Filed Under: Frontpage_slideshow

May 15, 2014 By Scott Zipperle

March for Life Survey









March for Life Feedback

Your feedback is valuable to us! Thank you for taking some time to answer a few questions

There was an error on your page. Please correct any required fields and submit again. Go to the first error

1. Have you ever participated in the March for Life in Washington D.C.? *This question is required.


0%
Survey Software powered by SurveyGizmo
Survey Software

Filed Under: Article, March with Us Tagged With: survey

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 141
  • Page 142
  • Page 143
  • Page 144
  • Page 145
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 186
  • Go to Next Page »
#WHYWEMARCH
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | ©2026 March For Life
DESIGNED BY FUZATI