Watch: Pro-Life Doctor Silences Liberals With Horrifying Demonstration Using Abortion Tools

Friday marks the 43rd anniversary of the watershed Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and one doctor has committed himself to educating the American public by using the abortion’s tools from a practice he bought out over a dozen years ago.

“Dr. William Lile is a board certified physician in obstetrics and gynecology and the former OB/GYN department chair at Sacred Heart Hospital who has delivered over 3,000 babies. He is also the medical advisor for Priests for Life,” CNS News reports.

The Pensacola doctor purchased an abortion practice in his area 16 years ago and is using the instruments from the facility to demonstrate just how abortions are performed in the first, second and third tri-trimesters.

“He was the largest provider of abortion services for the tri-county area,” Lile told “We stopped all abortions on day one, all referrals on day one, and we had him sign a restrictive covenant where he could not practice any medicine in the tri-county area at all for the next 24 months, which pretty much pushed him into retirement and he moved back to Sweden.

“And we saw a dramatic decrease in the number of abortions in those three counties for the next several years until other providers came into the area,” the doctor said.

To illustrate how the procedures are performed to audiences nationwide, Lile brings an abortion machine, which is about the size of dishwasher, and he hooks it up to an empty steel can of paint thinner. The machine sucks with such force that it crushes the can. See video below: 

Lile told CNS that he is supportive of the series of undercover videos that the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released last year that revealed just what goes on behind closed doors at Planned Parenthood.

The OB/GYN doctor thought there would be even more of a public outcry, with change coming quickly, presumably including the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

“When there wasn’t a huge response, I realized that this is a spiritual battle. When the lives of a million babies a year are being taken, and 55 million babies’ lives since 1973, and you can see the obvious videos about the sale of those babies’ parts, and there’s not a dominant outcry from the public, that’s when you realize this is a disease of the heart,” Lile said. 

The pro-life advocate has put together a 60 minute video called God’s Miracle of Life to show how doctors used ultrasound and even cameras in the womb to diagnose and treat unborn babies as early as 18 weeks.

“A lot of people just do not realize how well developed the baby is on the inside. So we’ll show them videos and ultrasounds of the baby’s heart beating 28 days after conception,” the doctor said. 

Lile sees great hope in the youth. “The group I have the most hope in as far as really changing hearts and minds here in the United States are the kids. They are visual learners … They can see the heart beating 28 days after conception. They can see the fingers moving. They no longer believe that it’s just an inanimate blob of tissue.

“So my hope is in this upcoming generation. I really see the pendulum swinging,” he said.

WATCH The 1999 Video Of Donald Trump That’s Spreading Like Wildfire – It’s NOT Good

Old words have come back with new implications as a 1999 video of Donald Trump shows him taking a far different position on abortion than he has expressed in his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

I’m pro-life and I have been pro-life,” Trump said in a January 2015 interview. “It’s an issue and a strong issue.”

Yet in a 1999 interview with Tim Russert of NBC, Trump said something very different.

“I’m very pro-choice,” Trump said in the video, now making the rounds on the Internet. “I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it, I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I hear people debating the subject. … But I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion.”

Asked if he would ban abortions or the gruesome partial-birth abortions, Trump replied that he would not.

“No, I would — I would — I am pro-choice in every respect, as far as it goes. I just hate it.”

In wording that carries an extra echo after Trump’s clash with Republican rival Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at Thursday night’s primary debate, Trump ascribed his feelings at least partially to being “from New York.”

“I grew up in New York, and worked and everything else, in New York City,” he told Russert.

The 1999 video had a brief return to prominence in 2011 when it appeared Trump might run for president. By then, he said he had changed his position. He was grilled about the change.

“Evangelicals do want to feel secure that they’re going to have a nominee that’s going to at least be solid on those issues, those social issues. Someone that’s not just going to cut and move on,” he was asked by CBN News’ David Brody.

“One thing about me, I’m a very honorable guy. I’m pro-life, but I changed my view a number of years ago,” Trump said.

One of the reasons I changed — one of the primary reasons — a friend of mine’s wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn’t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story,” Trump. “He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It’s the greatest thing that’s ever happened to him. And you know here’s a baby that wasn’t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life.”

“So those stories did change you, they came around and changed you?” Brody asked.

“They changed me. Yeah, they changed my view as to that, absolutely,” Trump responded.

In an April interview with the Des Moines Register, Trump revisited the subject of his changing opinion.

“If you look at it, I said, ‘It really, really troubles me, and it really, really bothers me, the whole concept of abortion.’ This was years ago, and even then it really bothered me, but I went on the other side of the line,” Trump said.

“As I’ve grown older, as I’ve seen things happen in life, I’ve changed my views — and others have also,” he said.

h/t: Young Conservatives

Churches Sue Over California’s Imperious Decree


It was a shockingly gross violation of the First Amendment when California’s Department of Managed Health Care ordered churches to pay for abortions requested by their employees.

Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a civil liberties lawsuit on behalf of three Southern California churches, but the mandate is not just unconstitutional. It flies in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings striking down regulations requiring abortion coverage that conflict with religious faith. It also violates federal rules prohibiting states receiving federal funds from requiring abortion coverage in a benefits package, whether or not faith is an issue.

Of course it should be no shock in our time to discover government is the most lawless constituency in the land. My prayer is this lawsuit does more than just succeed; may it set state government flat on its back with heads rolling over the wasted public funds spent defending it.

Taking matters in reverse order, the suit should succeed because of the very lawlessness of government at all levels, though it may fail for that reason. ADF filed a complaint with the feds when state bureaucrats ruled in August, 2014. Although the mandate is a clear violation of federal rules, the national bureaucrats sided with their state-based cousins, and ADF then sued.

Attorneys called the state action nothing short of strong-arming and one pastor represented in the suit vowed he would go to jail before he would pay for abortions.

The first issue is simplicity itself: Government under the 14th Amendment is required to follow its own rules. Yet this doctrine is nothing more than a piece of paper until hundreds of thousands of professing Christians – and otherwise freedom-loving Americans – show the courage of Pastor Jack Hibbs. Our constitution is not paper under glass in Philadelphia; it is literally “we the people.”

The second issue is as simple. Are we a nation of laws, or of men in power with big guns behind them?

Officials at all levels and all political persuasions love to tout the U..S Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of law in our land. The Court – beginning with the Hobby Lobby case – has repeatedly ruled in Obamacare litigation that government cannot force people to violate their faith to provide abortion coverage to employees.

Yet California’s Department of Managed Health Care issued its edict in the full knowledge it was violating the law as interpreted by their beloved SCOTUS. The bureaucrats know their resources are orders of magnitude above those of their victims. They can do as they please for as long as it takes to navigate the full-court press of the court system. It is time they were pressed down like olives pressed for their oil.

Most potent is the constitutional issue itself. The First Amendment is clear that government may not encroach on freedom to hold, teach and practice religious faith subject – except in extraordinary cases – to nothing but the dictates of the conscience of the practitioner. Courts have held that where a compelling public purpose presents faith may be restricted.

For example, polygamy, child abuse, and snake handling are fair game for government even if the religious exemption is claimed; healthy families, safety for children, and public health are compelling in their urgency. Since no one is preventing anyone from obtaining an abortion – churches are simply refusing to pay for them – there is no legitimate government interest at stake.

We have state policy clashing with faith tenet. State and federal Constitutions say faith trumps government – and the state bureaucrats know this if they passed high school classes in American government. This suit should succeed in reversing the ruling and pinning back bureaucratic ears.

Our rights are not granted by Constitution; they are gifted by God and recognized in Constitution as sourcing a higher power. These issues seem political, and politics is either beneath the spirit realm or more pragmatic, depending on whom we question. But this higher power presents Himself as a person passionately concerned and involved with people where they live and work.

This person says He came that we might have abundant life – right here – and feeds our physical hunger for bread and wine – at picnics and weddings – as readily as He feeds our hearts with precepts and concepts. He calls us to honor those in authority at the same time He sometimes calls us to sue and defy them. He calls us to forget what our comfort zone used to look like.

He says this because (Luke 12:32) He deeply desires to give us His Kingdom right here on earth.

That is worth whatever sacrifice of personal comfort may be required.


Planned Parenthood And Hillary Clinton

In what is being embraced by Hillary Clinton as the highest praise, Planned Parenthood, America’s longtime leading provider of abortion, is enthusiastically endorsing Clinton as president. Clinton can boast the first-ever endorsement of a candidate in a presidential primary in the century-long existence of Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood endorsement contains this eye-opener from its leader, Cecile Richards: “Everything Planned Parenthood has believed in and fought for over the past 100 years is on the ballot.” And the organization believes that no one fights for this more than Hillary Clinton, whom Richards and friends rightly view as the truest true believer.

As someone who wrote an entire book on Hillary Clinton, and has long followed her very carefully, especially on matters of her faith and abortion beliefs, I can say without equivocation that she is not mildly or even strongly pro-choice; no, Hillary Rodham Clinton is fanatically pro-choice. There is nothing more ideologically worthy to her. To borrow from Nancy Pelosi, this is political “sacred ground” to Mrs. Clinton.

In a statement, Clinton said she is “honored” by the endorsement. She assured Planned Parenthood, “As your president, I will always have your back.”

When Cecile Richards invokes Planned Parenthood’s past 100 years aside her glowing endorsement of Hillary Clinton, it naturally brings to mind the matron of Planned Parenthood—one Margaret Sanger, a hero to Richards and Clinton.

I’ve written here before of the checkered history of Margaret Sanger, especially on race, which her devotees either excuse or avoid like the plague. There was her Negro Project, her May 1926 speech at a rally of the women’s chapter of the KKK in New Jersey, her general championing of an ideology of “race improvement,” and much more. It is no surprise that a group of African-American pastors are demanding the removal of the bust of the progressive icon from the Smithsonian’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit.

Sanger deemed certain human beings “morons,” “idiots,” “imbeciles,” “human weeds,” and “misfits.” She wanted her Planned Parenthood to spearhead a movement to generate “a race of thoroughbreds” from the misbegotten “dead weight of human waste” soiling the national landscape courtesy of undesired and “unfit” breeders. She extolled Stalinist Russia’s birth-control policies, and urged after a fact-finding visit there in 1934: “We [in America] could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”

That’s exactly where Clinton and modern progressives stand today: they demand that birth control be part of the regular welfare service of the government, and funded by taxpayers regardless of religious objection. If you disagree, the Obama administration will take you all the way to the Supreme Court. Just ask Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties, and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

None of Sanger’s sordid history has deterred Hillary Clinton’s unflagging admiration, just as none of the video exposes of Chianti-sipping Planned Parenthood personnel fingering their Caesar’s salad as they discuss crushing unborn babies has deterred her crusade to keep America’s largest abortion funder awash in tax dollars.

“I don’t have all the facts but Planned Parenthood has apologized for the insensitivity of the employee who was taped,” protested Mrs. Clinton of the Center for Medical Progress[‘s video-sting revealing a Planned Parenthood employee casually discussing the “harvesting” of babies. “But for more than a century Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women.”

To Mrs. Clinton, the bad guys in the video-sting of Planned Parenthood were the video-makers—that is, the exposers, not the perpetrators. “I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood had been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years,” she complained, “and it’s really an attack against women’s rights to choose.” To Mrs. Clinton, it’s the exposers who are the attackers, not Planned Parenthood.

Clinton, whose spokeswoman says she has not actually seen the videos, nevertheless reaffirmed that Planned Parenthood does “really good work” and she remains “proud to stand with Planned Parenthood.”

The organization gives more money to Mrs. Clinton (by far) than any other Democrat.

Fittingly, in 2009, Clinton proudly accepted Planned Parenthood’s self-described “highest honor,” its coveted Sanger Award. She gushed that she was “in awe of” Sanger. The then-secretary of state accepted her award at Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s annual Awards Gala.

The admiration is mutual; thus the group’s historic endorsement of Clinton.

Someone in the media who can get near Mrs. Clinton should ask if she’s willing to repudiate Margaret Sanger and her organization’s highly questionable and objectionable history in everything from race to the literal business of baby parts. Now that Clinton has received Planned Parenthood’s endorsement, and promises to have its “back,” it seems a fair thing to ask, doesn’t it?

– See more at:

Ted Cruz Heard Why Obama’s Leaving An Empty Seat At The State Of The Union And Made A Vow

During President Barack Obama’s last State of the Union speech Tuesday, there will be an empty chair beside the First Lady in her balcony box section. The symbolic empty chair will be used by Obama to draw attention to victims of gun violence. Obama has stated that his greatest disappointment in his presidency was the fact that he has been unable to institute what he has called “common sense gun reforms.” The White House issued a statement about the empty chair.

We leave one seat empty in the First Lady’s State of the Union Guest Box for the victims of gun violence who no longer have a voice – because they need the rest of us to speak for them. To tell their stories. To honor their memory. To support the Americans whose lives have been forever changed by the terrible ripple effect of gun violence – survivors who’ve had to learn to live with a disability, or without the love of their life. To remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this.

Pro-Second Amendment Americans will likely see the empty chair as another freedom that is soon to be lost during Obama’s last year in office, the constitutionally protected right to to keep and bear arms. While the president has stated that he has no intention of taking away rifles and shotguns, his words may not have much weight considering Obama said that he supported marriage between a man and a woman, yet his presidency refused to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and actively pushed to allow for same-sex marriage.

When Senator Ted Cruz heard about Obama’s empty chair stunt, he made a promise of his own. Cruz drew another analogy to the empty chair and he made a promise to the American people.

Pro-life supporters will most likely be pleased with Cruz’ stance as he called out Obama for supporting Planned Parenthood, an abortion providing organization currently receiving half a billion dollars in federal funding.