I was part of a group in Cincinnati that met yesterday with members of the German Parliament.
At the beginning of the meeting, the politicians likened themselves to the Democrat Party in America and indicated they were all pro-abortion. This formalized what we knew about them before the meeting.
Martin Wilhelmy, Honorary Consul of the Federal Republic of Germany Cincinnati, was the coordinator of our two-hour luncheon in a German restaurant (of course) overlooking the Ohio River downtown. Cincinnati is known for its rich German heritage and Mr. Wilhelmy was an exemplary host.
On one side of the table were members of the State Parliament of Germany, called the Social Democrat Party of Germany (SPD). They were accompanied by staff and other related individuals who organized their “tour” of Ohio. On the other side of the table were area pro-life leaders and a few conservative business people.
The Germans were keenly interested in the election, of course, and had traveled to various cities within the state due to Ohio’s consistent role as a swing state in presidential elections. Their goal was to find out where we stood on various issues and what involvement we had in the election process.
For the record, my comments represented my personal views and not that of Life Issues Institute because we are a 501 (c) (3) group, which is not permitted to advocate for or against a candidate or party.
The meeting began with this blunt question, “The German media reports on Donald Trump are making the people of Germany wonder how such a good and strong country like America could nominate such a bad person like Mr. Trump.”
Most of the pro-lifers indicated that Donald Trump was not their first choice, but that there were key issues to consider such as the US Supreme Court, which the Germans understood.
Laura Curran eloquently shared the mission of Pregnancy Center East, providing many resources for pregnant women — totally devoid of any political consideration.
At one point during the discussion, I asked the politicians at the table how, in the face of scientific and technological advancements, they could support abortion, and directed their attention to the 10-week baby feet pin on the lapel of my suit. During the resulting discussion, I used the word “kill” in describing what abortion does to the baby and saw them physically recoil. It was obvious that until now they had existed in a comfortable cocoon of semantics, obscuring the true reality of abortion.
My objection to the violent and brutal killing of a baby through abortion was unceremoniously dismissed. They were reveling in a belief that they enjoyed a vast “consensus” of German people in support of their liberal pro-abortion law. The government pays for abortion when done at 12 weeks or earlier. Of course late-term abortions are possible to obtain, after going through the right channels.
Further, one parliamentarian seemed almost proud that they are able to weed out babies with disabilities via abortion when diagnosed in the womb. A chill ran up my spine as I considered the historic significance of this callous statement.
I provided a recent shocking example of how the legal abortion industry in America often provides poor quality, back-alley style abortions to women. OH State Representative Tom Brinkman explained that when it comes to abortion, the US Supreme Court has refused to allow states or Congress to implement common sense safety requirements.
In addition, we discussed physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. I spoke of the young California mother of four who had received approval from her insurance company to pay for chemotherapy, but upon passage of the physician-assisted suicide referendum, it immediately reversed itself — ending her only hope for survival. However, in the denial letter, the insurance company offered to cover the cost of lethal medication to take her own life, pointing out that her copay would only be $1.20.
Near the end of our time together, one of the Parliamentarians again reiterated that they had a general consensus behind their liberal abortion law. Time didn’t permit me to respond, but if I had, this is what they would have heard.
“I say this with the utmost respect as one who has a solid German heritage coursing through my veins. I want to make sure I understand you correctly that you feel your position on abortion is sound because you have a consensus in the nation?
“As I recall, Germany had enough consensus during World War Two to develop its euthanasia program and establish death camps dotted throughout Europe. Was this ethical simply because of the existence of that consensus?
“In the wake of taking in one-millions Syrian refugees, and there exists a consensus to implement Sharia law — a law that requires throwing homosexuals off of high buildings, treats women worse than mere possessions, and results in the routine sexual assaults of young girls and boys — would this be ethical?”
What’s particularly alarming about their idea of a “consensus” is that it flings open Pandora’s Box to further horrific human rights abuses that they vowed never to repeat decades earlier during WWII. This German delegation appeared to have a very short memory, and if their philosophy continues to prevail, it will have devastating consequences.
A viewpoint that the majority rules—even when hell bent on weeding out less desirable individuals—has the makings of a holocaust sequel.
Did our small but impressive group make an impact with these members of the German Parliament? God alone knows, but we left the meeting content that we steadfastly defended the helpless and vulnerable in German society who are being killed for the sole “crime” of not measuring up to the Social Democrat Party’s definition of acceptability.