Offered as "common ground": How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life

I might not do this perfectly, but I think it needs to be done.

I've been keeping tabs on Reproductive Health Reality Check (RHRC) since they announced a "common ground" forum on abortion.

Problem is, if pro-lifers want to head East towards life and pro-aborts want to move West towards the death of unborn children, any turning to the center of common ground by pro-lifers is movement in the wrong direction.

My patience and sincere attempt to be understanding and open to RHRC's common ground forum is about out. What might be the breaking point is a piece by Cecily Kellogg, who describes herself on her blog as a "foul-mouthed liberal, feminist, fat, recovering alcoholic, mother, wife, woman and writer."

So what did this individual contribute to RHRC?

"How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life"

It turns out to be yet another eulogy for late-term abortionist George Tiller, and a defense of late-term abortions in general. Now, because she makes her case based on her own personal experience, I have to talk about that to make my points.

Tiller, she claims "was committed to his work." Why? She says, "because he believed 'abortion is a matter of survival for women.'" I'd like to find out how many of his abortions saved women's lives. I know every one of his abortions killed a child. But that's not fair for me to say, apparently. That's not acceptable common ground. And yet it is acceptable for Kellogg to claim that Tiller "saved" lives.

She proceeds to narrate her nightmare story of succumbing to sever preeclampsia, which resulted in her doctors saying if she did not "terminate" her pregnancy, she was going to die "immediately."

After this experience (she had her son killed through "intact dialation and extraction") she "searched and found other women like me -- women whose lives were saved by the late-term medical termination of a pregnancy. I also met women who chose to spare their children from agonizing health conditions and birth defects by having an abortion."

... wait a second though, Kellogg just jumped from abortions which aim to preserve the life of the mother over into abortions for genetic disease and birth defects. That's called eugenics. And who wishes to be "spared" from their problems through death? When she came down with severe preeclampsia - an "agonizing health condition" (in her own words) - would she have wished to be "spared" from it ... by death? This sort of thinking isn't merely unacceptable common ground, it's insane and inhuman.

Kellogg, in her ideological quest to eulogize Tiller and all the evil things he stood for, jumps more logical tracks: "... doctors only perform [late term abortions] in cases of extreme medical need. Dr. Tiller himself never performed a late term abortion without counseling the parents -- and getting a second opinion from another doctor. My doctor described the day of my surgery as the worst in his professional career."

And yet Dr. Tiller did not only perform late term abortions in "extreme medical need." He did them at will. And what does Kellogg mean by Tiller "counseling the parents"? Of course he "counseled" them; late-term abortion is a major medical procedure! Kellogg's doctor might have had a hard day, but Tiller did this every day - he chose it. And just what, might I ask, is so hard about this decision, if Kellogg truly made the "right" one? If late-term abortion is medically "necessary", what need can there be for second opinions, counseling of options, etc?

Kellogg's last sentence is especially deceptive and indeed, manipulative:

"My doctor knew the procedure and was willing to perform it; something that has already become rare and will be rarer still if doctors have to put their lives on the line to perform this life saving medical procedure. If it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?"

Quite honestly: how dare she say that. She paints abortionists as heroes who "put their lives on the line to perform this live saving medical procedure." However, medical situations in which the woman's life can only be saved by a late-term abortion are incredibly rare. They represent a failure in medicine. The answer to "medically necessary" abortions is to make them medically unnecessary. That is the challenge. Her manipulative "if it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?" is about as honest as claiming we need to kill all the sharks in the world because one of them might take a bite out of you or your daughter.

Finally, at a deeper level, Kellogg's argument is one of exception. And honestly, you could not find a more extreme exception than the personal one she describes. Through this exception, where she chose to have her son half-birthed, and have his brains vacuumed out, she proceeds to argue that George Tiller was a hero for doing this to dozens (if not hundreds) of children, and then she even has the nerve to scare her readers into wanting this "right" to be preserved for mothers and their daughters.

This is not common ground. It's a repulsive trick.

It's especially repulsive because Kellogg is presuming that no one will dare disagree with her because, by inference, she can claim they "want" her to die or would "be okay" with it. 

Well of course I don't want her to die. I desperately want her, and all innocent human beings, to live. But I cannot condone her killing of another person to ensure the continuation of her own life. And I will not stand by and allow her to use the choice she made to preserve her life as a false justification for killing other innocent lives, including and up to those lives which are in no way threatening another person - such as the sick and disabled.

As I said at the outset, there are pro-abortionists who want me to move West, but I wish to move East. Meeting her in the "common ground" she offers of allowing late-term abortions, is a step in the wrong direction. It's a step towards death.

Related: Mary Davenport, MD asks "Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?"

Quote of the Day - Nixon on Abortion

Just nasty:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

The background:

On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence. (NYT)

I'm not sure if "ambivalence" is the first description that comes to my mind.

RHRealityCheck offers abortion "common ground" ... on the edge of a cliff

Dan Gilgoff on the oddity (my description) of a "Major Abortion Rights Site [Launching an] Online 'Common Ground' Forum":

"Coinciding with the Obama administration's move to ready a plan for "reducing the need for abortion," a major abortion rights website has launched an online forum aimed at finding what it calls "common ground" in the abortion debate. The forum, called On Common Ground, is hosted by RHRealityCheck.com and went live yesterday.

The unusual project—moderator Cristina Page, a prominent abortion rights advocate, calls it an experiment—already includes posts by Third Way's Rachel Laser, Beliefnet cofounder Steven Waldman, Faith in Public Life's Katie Paris, and others.

One of the striking features of the project's launch is that it uses the recent murder of abortion provider George Tiller to argue that the abortion debate must be wrested away from extremists. It will be fascinating to watch how antiabortion rights groups respond. Some will almost surely brand On Common Ground a cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement. It will be interesting to see how some of the more moderate antiabortion groups react."

I take Gilgoff's line about "it will be fascinating to watch how antiabortion rights groups respond" as an invitation to take a look at RHRealityCheck.org's "common ground" forum. I don't want to immediately fulfill Gilgoff's prediction that "some [pro-life groups] will almost surely brand On Common Ground a cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement" ... so let's look at the facts first.

First of all, RHRealityCheck is a radical, pro-abortion organization which specializes in attacking groups, bills and politicians who do not stand up to their litmus test. Just take a look at their profile of Fr. Frank Pavone's Priests for Life, where they claim: "Despite claims of being opposed to violent tactics such as bombing of clinics or murdering doctors, Pavone has long had ties to some of the most extreme anti-abortion activists who sanction such activities."

So, Fr. Pavone hangs out with bomb-throwers? Check.

Another gem from RHRealityCheck's profile of Priests for life: "While their primary mission is to educate and mobilize Catholic clergy as anti-family planning activists, their tactics are often aggressive and overtly political."

So, Priests for Life is essentially a republican front organization? Check.

I could go on and on, but time is short, space is precious, and let's get right to the main points.

Point #1: RHRealityCheck's "common ground" is not an attempt to reduce abortion, it's an attempt to reduce the "need" for abortion, often through recourse to contraception. And they will never rule out abortion.

Christina Page, the front-woman for RHRC's common ground initiative, is also an active blogger at Birth Control Watch.org, where she writes about Alexia Kelley, co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and new Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

"Kelley is a new style pro-lifer, one who believes a progressive agenda will produce pro-life results...

...Make no mistake, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a Catholic organization that accepts the Church's position on abortion and contraception. But under Kelley's leadership, its efforts were spent exploring an array of policies that succeed at reducing the need for abortion. The organization has taken a notably passive role towards the church's dictates. It has not worked to restrict abortion or make contraception less available, approaches most other anti-abortion and Catholic groups focus on exclusively.

... pro-choice people need to improve the national dialogue on the abortion issue. We can lower the vitriol. We can expose the anti-abortion groups that oppose all the proven ways to reduce the need for abortion. We must isolate those that only stoke the coals of hatred in this conflict and, especially those who create the inflamed environment that inspired Dr. Tiller's murderer. The vast majority of self-described "pro-life" Americans abhor the violence, want to move past the conflict and have both sides work together to find common ground. The American pro-life public has longed for leaders like Kelley and, the truth is, so have we."

Page literally wrote the book on radical access to abortion in American politics. She titled it "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex". I highlighted one line in red above to make a simple point: contraception technically reduces the "need" for abortions, but it is an unacceptable "solution" for Catholics, for many reasons grounded in faith and reason. Page's line highlighted in red is classic wedge-politics.

Point #2: RHRC has pre-defined the terms of debate in an unacceptable way. 

Page's operating framework is that the only type of acceptable "pro-lifer" is an apologetic one, who admits the necessity of abortion and contraception, and only from WITHIN that framework, works to reduce the instances of abortion. That's simply unacceptable, to me.

Point #3: Only such "apologetic" pro-lifers are invited to Page's common ground table. 

The profiles of those involved features people who are either militantly pro-choice or covertly pro-choice, with Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life of America being the only exception I can see. But Chris Korzen of Catholics United? Sarah Stoesz, a Planned Parenthood CEO? Why are such individuals included, who have a clear bent to one side of the debate, when there is not a fair representation of the other side? In other words, if those who will always support abortion are invited, why aren't those invited who will never support abortion? (Elsewhere RHRC contributor Rachel Laser basically admits you have to "Find the Right People" to engage in dialogue. Well that's right in a twisted way: you probably won't like the outcome if you try to engage people who aren't willing to meet your unreasonable demands.)

As for the proposals offered by RHRC's common ground, the Prevention First Act "aim[s] to improve access to family planning and encourage the development of effective state-level sex education initiatives." Note, family planning includes both contraception and abortion. This is, again, a wedge move: it implicitly attempts to paint pro-lifers as hypocrites when they do not endorse the proliferation of contraceptives and condoms. The proposal of contraception as "common ground" is poison to faithful, practicing Catholics. 

The other proposals, from what I can see, are not as problematic. But I welcome others to do the leg work on researching the nuts and bolts of them. Sadly, the devil often hides in the details of these "common ground" proposals. 

Point #4: The viewpoints of the RHRC-sanctioned contributors are toxic to faithful Catholics. As I was saying about nuts and bolts, let's take a look at what the contributors to this forum are actually saying. Debra Haffner:

"Here is my suggestion: Let's stop talking about reducing abortions as a goal in itself. Let's keep talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position; it is a faithful and moral one as well."

Okay, so wanting to reduce the destruction of unborn human life is always off the table? Check.

Steve Waldman of Belief Net:

"... pro-lifers need to decide which of their beliefs is more important: their concern for the unborn or their concerns about the nature of premarital sex."

This is slippery, he's actually making an argument that Catholics should quit worrying about contraception. He just can't bring himself to actually say it:

"It’s hard for pro-choicers to take pro-life “common grounders” seriously if they won’t budge on birth control; it’s equally hard for pro-lifers to take pro-choice common grounders seriously if they won’t accept the basic premise of the exercise. So who will be the brave souls to break that conceptual logjam?"

Waldman, if he is sincerely trying to present a Catholic position, shouldn't be challenging Catholics to "budge" on birth control. Catholics cannot budge on intrinsically-evil choices. That's NEVER common ground.

The path to common ground in abortion involves Catholics fudging on contraception? Check.

Sarah Stoesz, a Planned Parenthood CEO, meanwhile takes a swing at recent poll numbers suggesting that America is becoming a more pro-life country: "Read deeper into the results of this and other recent polls and you'll find that, no matter what the label, most Americans want to keep abortion legal."

Oh, so of course we should always have abortion. Most Americans will always want abortion? Check.

Conclusion: So, going back to Gilgoff's prediction, do you think there are reasonable grounds for thinking this innitiative is a "cynical attempt by abortion rights supporters to co-opt the antiabortion movement"? 

As a Catholic who is striving to live out the commands of Jesus Christ when it comes to respecting the dignity of the human person, and as a reasonable fellow who cannot abide any solution which unjustly destroys the rights of the innocent, and who will not accept common ground that results in the destruction of human life, in RHRC's common ground initiative, I see no room at the inn for me, but rather a trap door into a precipice.

Statistics: Pro-Life States Have Lower Abortion Rates

If you have a culture of life, less babies die:

It seems, however, that people do practice what they preach. For each increase of about 10 percent in the number of residents who identify themselves as pro-life, the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion is reduced by about 5 percent.

Also important to note, states with more ready access to abortion ... have more abortions:

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately one-third of American women live in a county where there is no abortion provider. There is a very strong (inverse) relationship, additionally, between having access to an abortion provider in one's county, and the pro-life leanings of that state."

Much more at FiveThirtyEight.com.

Sometimes its easier to convince people about common sense when you can show them the numbers.

Grieving for a baby "who will not be", the NYT tries to talk about miscarriage

The New York Times tries to talk about the grief of miscarriage, but finds itself struggling for words:

In the comments here last week, several of you asked about miscarriage: Why won’t people stop saying “you can try again soon”? What is the “right” amount of grief? Are there more miscarriages now or does it just seem that way? What to tell the children about the baby who will not be?

Is the grief really just caused by the baby "who will not be"?

I want to be clear: I don't in any way wish to be insensitive about the true grief of miscarriage. I wish to point out that much of this grief is exacerbated by our culture and the way it avoids acknowledging unborn life.

Obama's First 100 Days ... of promoting abortion

Get anywhere near a TV or news website today and you'll be hearing about Obama's 100 days.

It will be interesting to see how often his project of expanding reproductive rights (a euphamism, of course, for promoting abortion) - let alone funding for embryonic stem cell research - will be mentioned as an achievement.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser:

"President-elect Barack Obama spoke of finding 'common ground' on abortion policy, but abortion advocates groups clearly have an open door. It's only been 100 days, but President Obama has managed to check off ten of the fifteen demands of the abortion industry. This is the most aggressive, pro-abortion administration in decades. Yet pro-life activists are more energized than ever to defend women and unborn children at every opportunity. The Obama Administration should be prepared – commonsense abortion policy like the Hyde Amendment will not be repealed without a fight by pro-life Americans."

{update: she also provides a detailed list of what Obama's administration has done.}

More on Obama's already-significant pro-abortion legacy detailed at LifeNews.

Video: Hillary Clinton Advocates Exporting Abortion

From the SuzyB blog:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned by the House Foreign Affairs Committee today. This video shows highlights of the pointed questions by pro-life Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry, as well as Clinton's responses.

Hillary: "... we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive healthcare."

No change here.

More from the Cathoholic on why this is significant here.

U.S. News Editor happy about economy causing more abortions

Someone forgot to read the memo - even people who promote abortion aren't supposed to like it:

"The recession is driving American demand for contraception and for abortions. The media have been riven this past week with stories about the rising number of couples and single mothers doing the math and deciding this is no time to bring a child into the world," Erbe writes.

"The media have also been rife with stories portraying this trend as something of a tragedy," she continues. "Let me propose a counter view: it is not." (LifeNews)

She calls abortion a "good decision" instead.

Email your complaints about her new column to bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com

Hillary Clinton to receive Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood

Honestly, I can think of few things more offensive than a "Margaret Sanger Award".

Glad to see our Secretary of State is bending over backwards to receive it:

Doing a rare domestic political event, and continuing the Obama administration's forceful, if understated alliance with abortion-rights groups, Hillary Clinton will receive an award from Planned Parenthood Friday night in Houston, the group says.

"The 2009 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award, the organization’s highest honor, will be presented to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a champion of women’s health and rights throughout her public service career," according to the release.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is an old Clinton ally, and women's health was a central issue for her in the Senate. Her appearance, though, suggests she's raising her profile a bit beyond what had been, to date, a determined effort to keep her focus entirely on her new portfolio. (Politico)

Family Research Council forcefully (and succinctly) makes the case that it's outrageous for Hillary to accept such an award even if you disagree about abortion. Planned Parenthood engages is many illegal practices, and Margaret Sanger - its founder - was an evil eugenicist. And yet because of Planned Parenthood's financial ties and sympathetic ideology, the organization remains on the inside track of this administration.

Breaking: RNC head Steele says abortion is a "choice"

In an interview with GQ, Michael Steele, the new head of the Republican National Committee says abortion is a choice.

This is very dissapointing news, if it turns out to accurately portray his view on abortion:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

As a Catholic, Mr. Steele should know better.

More from CMR and Politico.

Photo: GQ.

update: Steele, under fire, walks back 'choice' remark (read to the bottom for Tony Perkins comment)

As promised - Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

Common ground my asterisk (*):

Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush. (AP)

Ryan T. Anderson responds in the Weekly Standard: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics. Obama at least stopped short of approving cloning.

More from LifeNews:

The following are several news stories related to President Barack Obama's decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stemcell research. The research requires the destruction of human life and has never helped a single patient. On the other hand, alternatives are already in use -- including adult stem cells andinduced pluripotent stem cells -- that are helping patients nowwithout killing days-old unborn children....

• President Barack Obama Makes Taxpayers Fund Embryonic Stem CellResearch
• Pro-Life Groups Blast Obama for Funding Research Destroying HumanLife
• Congress May Fight Battle Over Embryo Research After Obama StemCell Order
• Former Head of NIH: Embryonic Stem Cell Research ProspectsDiminished Now
• Obama Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research Seen as Ideological, Not Scientific

update: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has released a statement by Cardinal Justin Rigali on President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research.

An Obama Anti-Life Hat Trick

Just to bring your blood to a boil....

1. Obama Takes Next Step to Scrap Protections for Pro-Life Doctors on Abortion

(what we can do: Public Comment on Removing Conscience Protections Starts Today)

2. Obama Expected to Reverse Restrictions on Stem Cell Research Funding Monday

3. Obama's nomination of Kathleen Sebelius to lead Health and Human Services

I'll try to find something hopeful on the horizon to outweigh all this. It's not going to be easy.

(for the record: Joshua Mercer of CatholicVote.org called this a Anti-Life Hat Trick first.)

"Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church"

This is a tough one:

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. (TIME)

Cardinal Re responds to the backlash:

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops, told La Stampa, an Italian daily newspaper, that the case was sad, but that “the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated.” (NYT)

Not surprisingly, both TIME and the NYT fail to report an important detail: did Archbishop Sobrinho formally excommunicate the parties who procured the abortion? You see, under Canon Law, anyone who procures the abortion is automatically excommunicated - no special intervention of the bishop is necessary.

So yes, this is a tough case - and it puts the Church in the worst possible light. But the fact of the matter remains that there were two innocents destroyed here. And added to the first grave wrong of the rape, is the second grave wrong of this double murder.

Expect the individuals who disagree with the Church's stance of defending innocent life to take as much advantage of this situation as possible, especially in Brazil. It's the closest they can ever get to a "winning argument." And they are masters of using the leverage provided by "hard cases."

Of course, nothing should be hard about defending the innocent.

update: LifeSiteNews gets all the important points on this story right.

More on Sebelius

If you want the short take: "She's just bad news."

If you want the sordid details.... let's start with more words from Abp. Naumann:

“I think if Governor Sebelius was going to be appointed a cabinet post, from my point of view, this is the worst possible one that she could have been appointed to.”

That’s the assessment of Archbishop Joseph {fixed} Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, who in May 2008 requested that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not present herself for reception of Communion because of the public scandal caused by her support for legal abortion. (NCRegister)

[Abp. Naumann also gave an interview to OSV yesterday.]

Kansans for Life has been tracking Sebelius' record for a long time and has reams of information.

As for Brownback's support (blogged about yesterday here) Daniel at GOP3 says Brownback shouldn't sweat it. I would say Brownback should sweat one thing: he caused pro-lifers a grief he could have spared them by more tactfully handling the situation. I hope a lesson is learned here about solidarity. We need that virtue these days.

Related:

• CNA: Obama’s pro-life backers risk usurping bishops by redefining Catholic life
• Dan Gilgoff: Kathleen Sebelius Explains Being a Pro-Choice Pro-Lifer

PP president invited to White House Forum on Health Reform

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, makes Obama's short list, not surprisingly.

I wonder what sort of reforms she is in favor of? Here's what she's doing to her own organization.
Related: Pro-Life Groups Left Off Obama's Health Care Summit List, Abortion Advocates OK (LifeNews)

Breaking: Abp. Naumann responds to Sebelius appointment/Brownback endorsement

John Norton at Our Sunday Visitor has an excellent, timely interview with Abp. Naumann on Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Brownback, etc. Some pull quotes follow.

On Sebelius' claims of a "pro-life" record:

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion.

On Obama's choice to pick Sebelius, and Sen Brownback's going along with it:

I personally find it offensive that he would choose a pro-legalized-abortion Catholic to head this office. I think, as I interpret Sen. [Sam ] Brownback’s and Sen. [Pat] Roberts’ support of sorts for the nomination — it’s simply saying we elected President Obama with the positions he took. We can’t expect that he’s going to appoint someone to these cabinet positions that do not share his views. And in a sense I can understand that. When there is a pro-life president, we resent if there is an effort to try to prevent the president from appointing people who share his vision. So, I can understand why they might acquiesce, I guess, is the best way to put it, to her appointment.

Finally, as a bonus, what he thinks of the organization Catholics United:

Archbishop Naumann: I don’t think they have much impact and I don’t pay much attention to them personally. And I think from what you just read, they’re either not very honest or they’re not very competent in the research that they do.

Actually, they're both: competent and dishonest. They know what they are doing.

Also, on a related note, Matt Bowman has an excellent article in the American Spectator today:

But the most intriguing component of Sebelius's nomination is her Catholicism. Not that Catholic abortion supporters are rare -- see Obama's failed nominee to HHS, Tom Daschle. But Sebelius is significant as an attempt by Obama to foment a civil war within Catholicism to neutralize its pro-life efforts.

Like a shrewd general, Obama is using Catholics themselves as his ground troops.
Two dozen prominent Obama supporters quickly launched a letter supporting Sebelius, and claiming that they are Catholic and pro-life. The letter's signers are the same liberal Obama Pro-Lifers from his presidential campaign, led by Professor Doug Kmiec and the Soros-funded group "Catholics United."

The first step to responding to these sorts of attacks is to realize that one is being attacked. Kmiec, Sebelius, et al. are making a concerted effort to destroy the connection between being Catholic and pro-life.

"Miami abortion clinic owner threw newborn away, prosecutors say"

LifeNews:

"An abortion center staff has finally been charged in
a botched abortion case that has drawn national attention. The
incident involves the birth of a baby who was born alive on the
second day of a two-day abortion procedure, killed, and then
hidden from investigating authorities."

AP coverage here. Drudge has also picked up on the story.

A short movie named 22 weeks (website here) tells the story of a very similar(ly tragic) episode.

Breaking: Obama moving to overturn conscience regulations

LifeNews:

The White House quietly announced on Friday that President Barack Obama is starting the process of overturning protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions. The move is the latest that will add to Obama's growing pro-abortion record.

Existing federal laws already make it so doctors and hospitals are not required to perform abortions. Because those laws aren't always followed, the Bush administration added additional protections.

Now, the Obama administration is Starting the process to remove them.

LA Times: 'Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned

update: NARAL is happy. That's never a good thing for the unborn children of America.

Ph/t: AmP reader Colleen.

White House Officials Admit Abortion/Tiller Holding Up Kathleen Sebelius Pick

LifeNews:

White House officials have acknowledged that abortion and the controversy surrounding embattled late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller are holding up President Barack Obama's potential selection of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to become the next Health Secretary.

... Now, White House officials tell CBN News that abortion and the Tiller-Sebelius connection are causing pause when considering Sebelius for the Cabinet post.

CBN News White House correspondent David Brody indicates that a senior Obama administration official confirmed that "concerns voiced by pro-life groups about potential HHS Secretary Nominee Kathleen Sebelius have come up in high level White House discussions but it has not disqualified her from the job."

The official also admitted that "Tiller’s name has come up in discussions and acknowledges that if she’s picked there will be people gunning for her, but that ultimately the Kansas Governor is getting a bum rap on the abortion issue."

"The discussion inside the White House centers on whether Sebelius's stellar record as public servant trumps the controversy that could arise over Tiller," Brody indicates.

Hmm, I just realized my tag for Kathleen Sebelius reveals a dyslexia I didn't know I had. I type too fast.

Underage Abortion? Sure! Underage Tattoo? Parental Consent!

AmP reader Don writes:

The [Maryland] House of Delegates approved a measure to require consent for minors who want a tatoo.

And yet our legislators continue to support a state law that does NOT require consent for an abortion!

I dunno, it makes sense to me: I mean, a tatoo can be dangerous....

/sarcasm.

Get ready for a deluge of condoms & other contraceptives

All the pieces are lining up:

"The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, released a pitch today for more taxpayer funding for ‘family planning services’ – contraception and abortion. Every dollar spent on ‘family planning programs’ saves the American people $4, the study says." - Read a response from the American Life League

LifeNews: "However, the report doesn't appear to square with the facts in places where the number of abortions have been compiled following extensive promotion of family planning."

Ross Douthat: "I admire the persistence with which Will Saletan argues for common ground in the abortion debate, and attempts to sell his fellow liberals on the notion that reducing the abortion rate belongs in the Democratic Party's agenda. But I remain unconvinced that his preferred method for such reductions - a dramatic new push, whether political or cultural, to expand the use of contraception in the United States - would produce anything like the results that he envisions."

"Congress increases "family planning" budget by $95.5 million to whopping $852 million" - Jill Stanek

"Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase." - AP

"Boston College Students Vote to Demand Free Condoms, Other Birth Control" - Cardinal Newman Society

[From an article promoting condom use]: "And learn to live with the guilt. Hey, I’m Catholic — you can learn to live with guilt. Potentially life-threatening infections and diseases, on the other hand, not so much."

Video: The outrageous case of Pastor Hoye

This is getting me really worked up.

From LifeNews:

A pro-life African-American pastor has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for sharing a pr-life message outside local abortion centers. Walter Hoye was previously found guilty of violating what pro-life attorneys call an unconstitutional city law designed specifically to target him.

From AmP reader Bryan:

Walter Hoye, a Baptist minister in Berkeley, was sentenced to 30 days in jail today and received an $1130 fine for the following harassing behavior:



If you read a bit on the testimony presented at trial, you'll find the clinic escorts and director fabricated much of the testimony regarding Pastor Hoye's behavior. Apparently, the Oakland DA's office even collaborated with the abortion clinic on how best to entrap Pastor Hoye.

Related links:

• Issues4Life Foundation - The Legal "No Christ Zone" in Oakland, California (contains video)
• California Catholic Daily - “We ought to stand with him”
• Catholics for the Common Good - Walter Hoye and His Wife Lori Need Your Support

Did they? Didn't they?

This really irks me.

Yesterday I picked up on reports that Pelosi had managed to fit in her promised meeting with Archbishop Niederauer on Feb. 8th.

Last night I found someone citing a Feb. 13th email from the Archbishop's spokesman saying the meeting had not taken place. Reliable enough it would seem, right?

Wrong - because this report was itself corrected today ... Pelosi and Niederauer did actually have the meeting:

“It went well,” [Pelosi spokesman] Daly said. “They both thought it was productive and agreed they would meet in the future at some point.” Daly said they did not set a date.

Daly said that the meeting did not sway Pelosi's stance on life issues. “She is not changing her position on abortion,” he said. Daly said Pelosi still goes to Mass and Communion every Sunday at San Francisco's St. Vincent de Paul parish or elsewhere when she is traveling. Why are we hearing of this meeting only ten days later? “It was a private meeting. They didn’t feel the need to publicize it and we didn’t feel the need to publicize it," Daly said.

It was so private that the archbishop's own press spokesman, Maurice Healy, seemed unaware of it. He told OSV on Friday that no meeting had taken place, despite the archbishop making himself readily available.

Oooooohhhhhhh boy. Let's go through what's wrong with this picture:

1. Pelosi's office shouldn't be setting the tone. "They didn’t feel the need to publicize it and we didn’t feel the need to publicize it"?! That doesn't fly with me. Pelosi, after all, likes publicizing everything she does. Abp. Niederauer's invitation to meet with Pelosi was a public invitation, because of public comments she made, causing very public scandal. Was he hoping everyone would just forget? Well, I sure didn't. I know plenty of other Catholics are concerned as well.
2. Abp. Niederauer's spokesman shouldn't be thrown for a loop by this. Let's face it: the ongoing scandal caused by Pelosi should be near the top of the Archdiocese's concern lists. Or it should at least be on the list. To have the spokesman so unaware of things as to publish a false-negative answer when queried about their meeting ... is simply unprofessional.
3. Pelosi shouldn't be presenting herself for Communion after meeting with her Archbishop! I hate to be cynical, but if Pelosi is still presenting herself for Communion, if I were her Archbishop, I wouldn't want people to know that I had met with her privately. Here's why: I think it's completely reasonable to say that in their very first meeting the Archbishop was bound to plainly state to Pelosi that her voting record on abortion makes her ineligible to receive Communion, and that in submission to his rightful authority, she ought not to present herself for it, because doing so harms her at this point. That's the teaching of the Church, at least - a teaching the Archbishop is bound to present as her pastor. Pelosi can no longer dodge behind the excuse that she "doesn't know it's wrong".
4. This can easily appear like Pelosi and Niederauer are in cahoots. I'm sorry, but to quietly "get this meeting over with", with no amendment of ways on Pelosi's part, and seemingly no effort to embrace the opportunity on the Archbishop's part, this has all the earmarks of "oh my, the little people are up in arms - here, let's go have dinner and talk about something important so they'll get off our backs." Now, I'm not saying this is what happened ... but it's not hard to read it that way, given Pelosi's long-standing obstinacy on this issue, and Abp. Niederauer's long-standing reticence to challenge her.

It's not a perfect world. In a perfect world, after Pope Benedict was put in the hot seat by having to meet with Pelosi, the Holy Father would have gone back to his desk, and picked up the phone:

*ring-ring*

Abp. Niederauer: "Heeeeeeee-llo!"

Pope Benedict XVI: "George! I thought we talked about this! You said you were going to meet with Pelosi last week! What gives? Nothing's changed! She's just as clueless as ever!"

Abp. Niederauer: "Umm...."

Like I said, it's not a perfect world.

Update: Pelosi will meet Pope Benedict on Wednesday

Presumable after the Holy Father's Wednesday audience.

Meanwhile, she continues to keep her Archbishop waiting.

Vatican to receive briefing on Pelosi record prior to papal meeting

Pelosi is not denying that she rushed to pass this massive stimulus bill because she had to catch a plane for her europian tour - a tour that includes a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI.

No doubt she's looking for a quick photo-op with her Pontiff to convince her voters back home that everything is "okay" with her "identity Catholicism".

Some people, however, have a different plan in mind (underlining mine):

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International (HLI), told LifeSiteNews.com that HLI will be briefing the Vatican "so they are aware of her dismal record on life issues.

"It is our hope that the Holy Father will not grant the floundering Speaker of the House what she surely wants and expects, a quick and valuable photo-op, but will rather give her a stern lecture on contraception and abortion and let her know that her eternal salvation is in danger," said Fr. Euteneuer.

"Further, this would be the perfect opportunity to formally excommunicate the Speaker, as she has done everything a public official possibly can to declare her lack of communion with the Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church on every conceivable issue." (Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews)

To be clear, I don't think Pelosi is going to get excommunicated. It is, however, the perfect time for the pope to sit down with her and have that chat she so obviously needs to have about the teachings of the Church. You know, that chat she promised her Archbishop she would have him with him 162 days ago. So, no time for her Archbishop, but plenty of time to tour Europe?

Talk about a woman with dysfunctional priorities.

LifeNews: "Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee Diane Wood Strongly Pro-Abortion

Bad news at home:

"With Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recovering from surgery for pancreatic cancer, speculation is ramped up about who President Barack Obama may choose as a potential replacement. One of the names on the short list political observers have pieced together is pro-abortion Judge Diane Wood." (LifeNews)

After Daschle's defeat, pro-abort Sebelius floats to the top

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

After nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle (a Catholic) was forced to withdraw his name because he failed to pay his taxes, Obama's second choice is even-more-radically-pro-abortion Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius (also Catholic).

Sebelius' home bishop - Archbishop Joseph Naumann - has already said Sebelius should not recieve Communion because of her support for abortion (as I reported last May).

More information from LifeNews and the Associated Press.

Video: Pro-life Students Assaulted by Pro-Abortion Mob

AmP reader Matthew explains: This video is from Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. There was a presentation on life issues at the university, and the situation showed just how ugly it can get (jump to 1:00 for the counter-demonstration):



From the video description:

Students at Saint Mary's University were bombarded with insults and crudely rhymed slogans when a screaming mob laid siege to the auditorium where a Pro-Life presentation was about to take place.

The small group of Abortion supporters blocked the projector, swore at the presenter, and drowned out attempts at communication for over an hour, until a St. Mary's Conflict Resolution Official inexplicably chose to order the students (still sitting quietly in their seats) to leave rather than have the unruly mob arrested by police.

A smaller number of students and media were able to make their way to a second location where the presentation and question period concluded peacefully.

Pray for the brave individuals who choose to proclaim the dignity of human life in the face of mockery.

update: More on this from the Island Breezes blog.

Update: Medical Board Revokes License of Abortion Practitioner in Botched Abortion

Remember that horrible story I discussed yesterday? An update from LifeNews:

Tampa, FL -- The Florida Board of Medicine has revoked thelicense of an abortion practitioner who allegedly acted negligently in a shocking botched abortion case. The July 2006 incident involves baby Shanice Denise Osbourne, who saw abortion facility staff hide her body from officials after a botchedabortion. {Full story here}

Drudge even covered this story.

As the AmP motto (on the top of the page) reads: "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11.

Expose the horror of abortion.

FL doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

People are calling this story shocking. I don't find it shocking because I've been desensitized over the years by reading about abortion centers doing similar things:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp. (Buffalo News)

Right: this should not be happening. But if the doctor had been there and had managed to kill the infant in the womb a couple hours earlier? ... Well that's okay, I guess.

Obama: "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."

Sometimes irony is tragic, this from today's National Prayer Breakfast:

[Obama:] “But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

Really? Do you know?

Picture: The face of pro-choice protestors

Anyone who has been on a pro-life march or participated in a public prayer witness knows instantly what I'm talking about. But for the rest of us who have not had the displeasure, consider:

And sadly, this is just a mild case. Details on this one from AmP reader Jerry:

"... he was counter-protesting in a most dispicable way at last year's Rally for Life March here in Austin. Of course, the press have used a different photo from the same event where he wasn't holding that sign. [The person pictured above] is on trial for building molotov cocktails for protests at the Republican National Convention ... this violent thug is a pro-choice activist and this kind of ugliness is what we are up against."

Let's pause a moment and say a prayer for the brave souls who seek to defend the unborn ... and for sorry souls like this young man who persecute them.

Only Six Catholic Senators Vote "YEA" to Stop Tax Money from Funding Overseas Abortion

Embarassing:

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 37 to 60. The majority of Catholic senators rejected this pro-life amendment with only six of twenty-five Catholic senators supporting it.

The Mexico City Policy was first adopted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, was ended by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and then reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001. Obama's reversal of the Mexico City Policy was applauded by liberal abortion rights groups across the country. The name comes from the city where a U.S. delegation first announced the law at a UN International Conference on Population.

... Six of the eight Catholic Republican senators voted "YEA." These senators are Martinez (FL), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Vitter (LA), and two newly elected Senators; Johanns (NE) and Risch (ID). {ONUG}

... and shame on the rest of them. They will be receiving letters from their bishops ... when?

$335 *Million* dollars for STD prevention?

Here's what you have to understand: the Democrat leadership views the economic stimulus package as an unprecedented opportunity to sneak huge amounts of money to their private supporters.

Earlier this week, we tracked House Speaker Pelosi's attempt to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to Family Planning services (like Planned Parenthood). Well, thankfully, she failed (once it received a great deal of attention and became an embarrassment).

Today, Drudge reports:

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

The radioactive paragraph:

"(4) not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/ AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director."

Hopefully the same attention shown to this waste of money will result in an identical result: removal.

update: if you are looking for how to let your voice be heard, The Anchoress shows us how.

Worse than FOCA: Prevention First Act

This act, introduced three weeks ago, is more dangerous than FOCA because it is already in Congress.

{updated} Select things the Prevention First Act (PFA) will do:

• Make Title X (family planning) a permanent program and fund it at $700 million or more.
• Mandate that health insurance programs that cover prescriptions must cover abortifacient contraceptives.
• Create a government program to push abortifacient "Emergency Contraception."
• Take all federal money away from any hospital that refuses to administer the abortifacient Emergency Contraception to victims of rape.
• Create additional massive government funding for Planned Parenthood style sex education programs (abstinence-only programs are specifically excluded from funding).
  Permanently include family planning services as part of the Medicaid program.

"All of these programs will result in more babies being killed and more taxpayer money going to the largest abortion chain in the nation ? Planned Parenthood." - {Source.}

American Life League has a comprehensive overview of what this bill will bring about should it pass.

LifeNews also covered this story. They recommend contacting members of the U.S. Senate.

Ph/t: AmP Reader Fr. William.

Amazing: "Woman gives birth to octuplets in SoCal hospital"

An amazing story, to be sure, and with a surprise:

A woman gave birth Monday to eight babies, only the second time in history octuplets have survived more than a few hours, doctors said.

The mother gave birth to six boys and two girls weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces, and 3 pounds, 4 ounces, doctors at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said. The hospital had scheduled a Caesarean section for seven babies, but doctors were surprised when an eighth came out at 10:48 a.m.

"My eyes were wide," Dr. Karen Maples said, explaining her reaction to the last birth. (AP)

My heart is saddened, however, by all the euphamisms for abortion used in the last paragraph:

It's easier to control the number of births through in vitro fertilization, which involves combining egg and sperm in a lab dish and transferring the embryo into the uterus. Fertility drugs induce or enhance ovulation and couples often opt for selective reduction, in which women carrying multiple fetuses reduce the number of viable fetuses to two.

Control the number, selective reduction, reduce....

kill.

"Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding"

As expected:

President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama will sign the executive order one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The move, long expected in the Democratic president's first week in office, will be welcomed by liberals and criticized by abortion rights foes.

The so-called Mexico City policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." (FOXNews.com)

update: AP weighs in - not a single mention of the March for Life, of course.

Listed: President Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Record

LifeNews.com Editor Steven Ertelt has been working overtime:

"The following is a complication of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions." [See the list.]

No, I'm not trying to be pessimistic. I'm trying to remain hopeful despite the evidence.

And in contrast: "President Bush Will Leave Strong Pro-Life Legacy on Abortion, Bioethics"

Krispy Kreme and A.L.L. spark online "Donut Wars"

A couple days ago I blogged about Krispy Kreme's unfortunate decision to offer free "Freedom of Choice" Donuts for Barack Obama's inauguration next week.

In response to KK's announcement, American Life League President Judie Brown released a statement:

"The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand."

After plenty of people voiced their non-appreciation of the charged phrasing to KK, the company released a statement which clarified: "On Election Day, November 4, 2008, Krispy Kreme ran a promotion that provided customers with one free star-shaped doughnut at stores nationwide. The Inauguration Day promotion is not about any social or political issue."

I take KK at their word. I think it was unfortunate how they decided to phrase their promotion, because the simple fact of the matter is that "freedom of choice" means something specific in this country's ongoing debate of ideas in the "culture wars."

Unwittingly, however (and here's where it gets interesting) Judie Brown's public comments have uncovered a cesspool of anti-life hate. It really takes your breath away. To my mind, this is a classic example of typically-unarmed (anti-life) combatants jumping at the opportunity to attack pro-life spokespersons.

And are they nasty. Take Jezebel (an online magazine of "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women"):

"The American Life League has finally discovered the secret, immoral ingredient that makes Krispy Kreme doughnuts so very addictive: fetuses. ... Freedom isn't really free, people, it takes thousands and thousands of aborted, dried up and reconstituted fetuses to make a single box of Krispy Kremes, and the American Life League is determined to stop this abomination!"

I guess Jezebel thinks it's being funny. So much for all people of good will agreeing that abortion is always a painful decision, etc. And of course, this isn't even close to ALL's actual point (I'll get to that).

Or similarly, Wonkette DC Gossip:

"Observe how they use that terrible code word “choice,” which in addition to meaning “being able to decide between one thing or another,” means “mandatory forced abortions for every citizen over the age of five”"

Hmm - which side is really exaggerating?

Or again, the Miami New Times blog:

"File this under "Overreactionary Wing Nuts" and another attempt of conservatives to redefine words for their political means (You can try to rewrite the Constitution, but not the dictionary). Of course, the "overreactionary libtard" counter to this is that conservatives want to demonize all choice from America until we're living under a fundamentalist dictatorship. A fundamentalist dictatorship without doughnuts."

This come-back is especially odd because "freedom of choice" is a liberal-invented euphemism for "abortion on demand" to begin with! Judie Brown is merely pointing out that "freedom of choice" has taken on a specific connotation tied to abortion rights (and other false "rights") and that we should sedulously avoid incorporating it into our common parlance.

But why do I even bother making these finer points? I can't help but think these would be completely lost on the three authors I quote above (and believe me, a blog search shows dozens of anti-lifers gleefully following suit).

This all is just a small taste of what pro-life activists have to put up with, ideologically and rhetorically, on a regular basis. I'm told that Judie Brown has been sent letters threatening her life, and that she's even been accused of racism (huh?!).

We can thank these "donut wars" for giving us a devastatingly-revealing view into the mindset of these opponents of life, a sad glimpse into their hatred and incivility, and a better appreciation of their uncanny ability to miss the point, and then mock the people whose message they are missing.

I mean, come on, did they really think it was just about some stupid donuts?

Krispy Kreme Celebrates Obama with Free “Freedom of Choice” Donuts

The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday (underlining mine):

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Commentary from ALL President Judie Brown.

Even though I walk right by a Krispy Kreme every day, I'll have readers know that AmP runs on dunkin'.

ALL: Top Ten Pro-Abortion Moments of 2008

American Life League has an informative and accessible top ten list:

2008 was a down year for the pro-abortion movement's talking heads. As you read the quotes below, despite the seriousness of the subject - after all, we are talking about matters of life and death - it's hard not to laugh at their ridiculous attempts to justify their position. [Read the top ten moments here.]

'Cancer-free' baby born in London, but how "cancer-free"?

Keep track of stories like these, and how they describe with other names what is actually eugenics:

The first child in Britain known to have been screened as an embryo to ensure she did not carry a cancer gene was born Friday, a spokesman for University College London told CNN.

Her embryo was screened in a lab days after conception to check for the BRCA-1 gene, linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

People with the gene are known to have a 50-80 percent chance of developing breast or ovarian cancer in their lifetimes.

British newspapers have dubbed the girl the "cancer-free" baby.

"The parents will have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for generations." (CNN)

But here's the reality check: no disease has been cured here. Instead, if the test revealed that the baby girl carried the gene, she would have been destroyeed (and the parents would have presumably tried to conceive again, then re-tested, and on it goes).

Thus, to say "the parents ... have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their daughter" is misleading. What the parents were actually spared was "the chance that a daughter with the potential to develop a disease would be allowed to survive until birth."

Two added wrinkles: the testing process can only take place if the baby is conceived in vitro ... and this is the first time a baby has been screened for a likely disease-causing gene as opposed to a guaranteed one.

One sobering line:

"When [the disease] hits your family over and over again, many couples are saying: 'Enough of this. Let's prune this out of our family tree forever.'"

"Prune this out of our family tree forever?"!

Prune disease out all you want, but for heaven's sake, we're talking about pruning people out here!

Cash offered to addicts, alcoholics who agree to sterilization

This is so offensive to the dignity of the human person!

Instead of attempting to cure the cause of people's ills, some are attempting to nullify the inconvenience these people cause to the rest of society:

Folks at downtown's Ronstadt Transit Center on Tuesday afternoon had a way to make a quick $300.

The only stipulation was that the people be drug addicts or alcoholics who agree to long-term birth control.

The group Project Prevention, started by Barbara Harris in 1997, has so far paid more than 2,800 men and women across the nation.

.... Acceptable long-term birth control includes tubal ligation, Depo Provera shots and IUDs for women, or a vasectomy for men. (Tuscon Citizen)

Here's how Project Prevention responds to criticism:

"Those who oppose what we're doing should be willing to step up and adopt a few of the babies," Harris said. "These women can't raise these children."

Don't bother mentioning why people might oppose this.

I wonder how these unfortunate addicted people are going to use this $300 ... oh, that's right.

Abortion industry to receive $1.5BILLION bailout

Talk about change we don't need.

With all the money being tossed around by the government these days, pro-abortion activists smell blood in the water. The Susan B. Anthony list gives us some of the grim details:

The Abortion Bailout Package:

* $1 BILLION dollars in taxpayer funding for International Abortion Groups
* $700 million in taxpayer funding for “Title X” Health Clinics (aka your local Planned Parenthood affiliate)
* $65 million for the UNFPA, an international aid organization connected to coercive abortion as part of China’s coercive one-child policy
* Repeal the Hyde Amendment – Vastly expanding federal taxpayer funding for abortions
* Include Abortion coverage in any taxpayer-subsidized national health care program

SBA provides an online form to let you write a letter to your Senator easily.

Deal Hudson provides more context:

Go to Change.gov, the Web site of President-elect Barack Obama, and you'll find a document titled "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration." Signed by dozens of pro-abortion groups, including Catholics for Choice, this 55-page document provides an overview of the marching orders for the Obama administration in removing all present restrictions on abortions while dramatically increasing abortion funding.

... The attitude expressed in "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration" is anything but moderate -- it is imperial, determined, and uncompromising. The fact that it is posted on the official Web site of the Obama-Biden transition is an unambiguous endorsement of its policy recommendations.

Permanent birth control through intentional self-mutilation

It's the latest and trendiest in the contracepting world - "Essure coils" (one pictured at left):

Getting your tubes tied is not the most appealing phrase, but it's way more user-friendly than sterilization. Maybe that's why the maker of Essure--a newer, cheaper, faster, scalpel-free alternative to tubal ligation--is marketing the procedure as "permanent birth control."

... The 1 1/2-in.-long (38 mm) coils--which are like pen springs but smaller and softer--contain fibers that irritate the tubes and prompt scar tissue to grow into and around the tiny loops. After three months, the Fallopian tubes are blocked, preventing eggs from reaching the uterus to be fertilized.

... Unlike some tubal-ligation methods, Essure cannot be reversed. (Time)

What an idea: insert a foreign object into your body, lacerating the Fallopian tubes until scarred tissue clogs the passage (graphic images: an Essure coil in operation). Gee, that doesn't sound like medicine to me.

To be fair, Time is well aware this procedure could raise questions in some people's minds:

Of course, there is another choice for couples who don't want to take any chances--right, gents?

Hmm, that's not actually one of the questions I had in mind.

SF Jesuit U. requires *abortion* coverage for students

update, 4:30pm: SF Jesuit U. *drops* abortion coverage for students

From an AmP reader:

It has recently come to light that the Jesuit University of San Francisco requires all students to buy health insurance that provides coverage for abortion. This means that a Catholic institution is directly funding the killing of children with tuition, and even worse, with our tithes and offerings.

I will link to the University's Web site which details the plan (Scroll down to page 15, and at the very top, under Maternity Expenses, you will see the following):

"Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy Covered Medical Expenses are payable as follows: Preferred Care: 90% of the Negotiated Charge. Non-Preferred Care: 70% of the Reasonable Charge."

Also see the press release from the Cardinal Newman Society, original reporting from the Catholic Key blog, as well as this article by LifeSiteNews, which gives us the email address of the USF President, Fr. Stephen Privett: "privett@usfca.edu".

Drop him a line and tell him (with charity) of your disapproval.

Angelicum invites Cherie Blair to speak in Rome

Troubling news from the Social Sciences Faculty at the Angelicum in Rome. It seems we have new stories like this all the time:

"Pro-life Catholics around the world are responding with outrage that the Pontifical University of St. Thomas in Rome (the “Angelicum”), one of the premier Catholic institutions of higher education, has invited Cherie Blair, the pro-abortion wife of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, to speak at a conference on women’s rights on December 12th." (LifeSiteNews)

Cherie Blair is simply very bad news when it comes to sexual ethics, as the LifeSiteNews article details at length. She's also made the AmP pages on occassion.

Fr. Philip Powell has obtained a copy of the reply written by Sr. Helen Alford, OP, the dean of the Angelicum social sciences school, who claims that because the Pontifical Academy invited her, so can they.

Her response doesn't satisfy John Smeaton who writes: "it was not justified of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to have invited Mrs Blair to speak in 2006, nor is it justified of the Angelicum today."

I have to say inviting Cherie Blair on the topic of women and human rights is a paradoxical choice because it is in this area where she most directly opposes Catholic doctrine and practice, energetically and continually.

Ph/t: Dawn.

update: Hilary White, LSN's Rome correspondent, posts an update.

Friday Pro-Life News

A warning from C-FAM's Austin Ruse:

We report today on the prospects at the UN for the re-emergence of Hillary Clinton on UN social policy. Clinton was the driving force for much abortion mischief at the UN during the tenure of her husband. Much more mischief is expected with her and other pro-abortion radicals now in the employ of the Obama administration.

C-FAM is also planning to present a petition to the UN against a (counter-)petition for abortion to become an internationally recognized right ... anyway, sign it please. It took me about 20 seconds to become signature #151,424.

Meanwhile, as CNN reruns year-old interviews on "the problem of pro-life doctors", Fox News runs a special report on Planned Parenthood's infamous Christmas stocking stuffers (which I blogged about here), and Bill O'Reilly interviews the brave girl who exposed Planned Parenthood Indiana (which I blogged about here).

Keep it up.

Time: Obama can't keep both pro-life & pro-abortion camps happy

Color me not surprised:

Amy Sullivan, National Correspondent for Time Magazine, says that during the election season pro-Obama religious liberals felt "thrown under a bus" by the Obama campaign.

Many had gone out on a limb to say Obama favored abortion reduction. But the campaign then went into a minor panic after Sarah Palin's selection, fearing she would help attract independent women to the Republicans. So Democrats began running ads emphasizing traditional support for abortion rights sans abortion reduction. This infuriated pro-life Obama supporters who had gone out on a limb.

Subsequently, Obama and Joe Biden talked more about abortion reduction. But in an interview we did for Trinity Wall Street, Sullivan -- the nation's foremost expert on the religious left -- argues, that Obama will have a difficult time retaining the trust of pro-life Obama voters, while still satisfying his pro-choice supporters. (Steve Waldmen)

I wonder if this makes me the "nation's foremost expert on the religious left."

Because I've been saying this since day one.

Video: Planned Parenthood breaking laws to get 13yr-olds abortions

Not to upset your lunch, but this sort of thing should upset us.

Live Action Films has posted an undercover video of a Planned Parenthood nurse in Indiana violating about every law she can think of ... just to make sure a 13 year old girl can get her abortion. And when the nurse is told the young girl's "boyfriend" is 31? "Oh, don't tell me his age, I don't want to hear it."

LifeNews has more background.

Remind me, again, why Planned Parenthood continues to be the go-to organization of choice for Obama administration appointments? Including, yesterday, our new Secretary of Homeland Security? Why, with each year, does Planned Parenthood receive more and more government money?

Planned Parenthood of Indiana made the AmP radar last week for offering Gift Certificates for Abortions.

What other organization in the United States could get away with all of this?!

update: in a related vein, Jill posts about the amazing success of the 40 Days for Life campaign.

update 2: Planned Parenthood Suspends Employee After Statutory Rape Coverup Video

Evil Stocking Stuffer: Gift Certificates for Abortions

I'm not making this up:

Gift certificates have become a popular holiday gift option, but a controversial new one, already has people talking. For the first time, Planned Parenthood in Indiana is offering gift certificates.

.... asked if the gift certificates could be used towards abortions. The answer is yes. But, Planned Parenthood said that's not the purpose of the gift certificates. (Local 8)

Video:



PP of Indiana has made it onto the AmP radar before, back in February, where it offered to prepare students for their spring break with a "free emergency contraception day." PP of Indiana certainly appears to be innovative and pro-active when it comes to promoting their wide range of harmful services.

Related: "Planned Parenthood Issues Christmas Gift Certificates: Give the Gift of Abortion" (LifeNews)

Keeping track: a list of Obama's anti-life appointments

As LifeSiteNews records, they include so far his:

1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
2. Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson (Catholic)
3. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle (my posts on him)
4. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
5. Communications Director Ellen Moran (my post on her)

... and we can expect:

1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
2. Secretary of the Interior: Raúl M. Grijalva

Discouraging, not unexpected.

Radical pro-abort picked for Obama communications

Put your friends in high places:

Ellen Moran, executive director of EMILY’s List, was named White House communications director by President-elect Obama on Saturday. Moran, a well-known grassroots organizer, has also managed statewide Democratic campaigns and managed the Wal-Mart corporate accountability campaign for the AFL-CIO. EMILY's List, one of the most important Democratic constituency groups, says it is "dedicated to building a progressive America by electing Democratic pro-choice women to office." (Politico)

Even when phrased in saccharine political-speak, there's no real masking the fact that Emily's List pushes pro-abortion candidates, period:

EMILY's List - which stands for "Early Money Is Like Yeast" (It makes the dough rise) -was formed more than two decades ago to support pro-choice women candidates. Over the years they'd raised millions for them. They helped, among others, political tyros like Diane Feinstein, Jennifer Granholm and Clinton (during her Senate run) reach their desired end.

EMILY's List also states being "committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation."

For a candidate to be considered for funding from EMILY’s List there are three requirements: The candidate must be a woman; she must be a Democrat; and she must support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

The List’s support for abortion-on-demand is so strong that it has cut funding from politicians who voted against extreme pro-abortion positions. Two examples of this are Senators Mary Landrieu from Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas who lost funding from EMILY’s List when they voted to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion. (CNA)

Once again - these are Obama's friends.

"Expect Obama to sign FOCA in the first 100 days"

I often talk about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and how revealing it is that Obama has promised to sign it into law as "the first thing" he'd do as President. Fr. Thomas Berg explains FOCA:

Sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) in the Senate (S. 1173), and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House (HR 1964), FOCA is a piece of legislation designed “to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

In fact, FOCA, if it became law, would go well beyond Roe, sweeping away all limits on abortion -- state and federal -- including restrictions on government funding of abortion and conscience protections for healthcare providers. We have no reason to believe Obama would hesitate to sign FOCA into law as soon as it were to passed by the 111th Congress -- a probable outcome in early 2009 if Democrats gain enough new seats in November.

... And I alert my readers that you can find an extremely useful FOCA fact sheet here and many other useful FOCA-related articles and materials here, courtesy of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life activities.

Fr. Berg also conducted an informative interview with Susan Wills of the USCCB's pro-life committee.

Video: Feminist scare tactics

The Feminists are "scared":



More rage from other Feminists (warning: adult language).

Both websites strongly support Obama - surprised?

More Bad news: Legalized suicide in Washington

NPR has an audio report saying "Washington could become the second state [behind Oregon] in the nation to have an assisted suicide law for the terminally ill. The state has an initiative on the November ballot and it is currently ahead in the polls."

Needless to say, the Church teaches that suicide is a grave evil against the dignity of the human person.

Want to do something about it? Visit http://www.noassistedsuicide.com/

Related: New Study Shows 26% in Oregon Who Requested Suicide Were Experiencing Depression

Need a hotel discount? Schedule an abortion.

Complimentary breakfast provided.

From the Christian Newswire, economic incentives for women facing problem pregnancies:

An abortion clinic that performs abortions up to the sixth month of pregnancy has worked out an arrangement with two area hotels to provide substantially discounted room rates for women seeking abortions.

Based on reports from local citizens participating in the 40 Days for Life prayer vigil outside the Cherry Hill Women’s Center, New Jersey Right to Life has confirmed that the Clarion Hotel in Cherry Hill offers a reduced rate of $59 for a room originally priced at $109 to those women who provide a receipt from the clinic that says they have to stay overnight. In addition, the Quality Inn in Maple Shade offers a discounted rate of $74.95 for a room originally priced at $99.99 and a free breakfast of eggs and pancakes for women who present a stamped pamphlet from the clinic.

Every sarcastic comment I could think to make about the importance of eating a balanced breakfast in such a situation struck me as being completely out of place. Also out of place? This group:

Good Counsel Homes, a Catholic agency that assists homeless pregnant women, recently cancelled its banquet at the Clarion upon learning of the hotel’s arrangement with the abortion clinic.

Marie Tasy, Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life said, “This experience shows us that the Legislature needs to act immediately to place a parental notification constitutional amendment on the ballot without delay.”

Oh no, clearly legislative solutions won't help. Why should parents get involved, anyway? The girls already have found a place to stay, for a good rate, and they even get breakfast as part of the deal.

(that was sarcasm.)

Picture: Facebook ad seeks human eggs

A friend of mine here in Washington DC, like most girls her age (2o's), has a profile on Facebook.

And what does Facebook consider an appropriate advertisement for her demographic?

See for yourself:

Egg donation can be an appealing solution to the financial difficulties young women face, especially those attending higher education.

But the fact of the matter is that egg donors are most often recruited in order to assist couples trying to become pregnant through In Vitro fertilization, which is condemned by the Catholic Church.

Egg donation, while reducing the donors fertility, also treats a woman's reproductive gametes as a product that can be bought at a market price, which is against human dignity.

I don't think Facebook should be allowing such ads to be targeted at young women.

On lying to American Catholics about Obama

I've reached that moment of feeling powerless to put out all the fires being started by pro-Obama "Catholics." Maybe if I received funding from George Soros like some of these "Catholic" groups do, I'd have the free time to take all of this on. But I don't.

I will, briefly, however, simply point out the many lies published on the "Catholics For Obama" website, specifically it's "Catholic Case for Obama." Just one example:

• "Senator Obama and Senator John McCain hold indistinguishable positions on embryonic stem cell research"

False. Obama wishes to dramatically expand it, while McCain allows for the use of already-created embryos. This leads to very different results, as Robby George points out. CFO also makes the claim that recent technology is acceptable to Catholics. Some of it is - but that's not the kind that Obama supports. He wants to create and then kill (more) embryos. That doesn't stop CFO, however, from quoting an irrelevant statement by Cardinal Rigali. They use the same tactic in their other points: misquote, misrepresent, misapply (oh, and avoid). I sure hope they haven't deluded themselves into thinking they are being objective.

"Taken all together, Senator Obama is a man who is familiar the Catholic Social Tradition, and has striven throughout his life to work for the common good. He chose a Catholic running mate..."

The only way one can claim Obama has worked for the common good is if you define unborn human life as not being part of humanity's common good. Catholics refuse to make that admission, so the above statement is false. Furthermore - Obama chose a Catholic running mate? A running mate who has been criticized by his own bishop, and numerous, numerous other bishops for his charecterization of Church teaching, and who remains a continual source of embarassment and scandal to Catholics. Good point, CFO, Obama sure did pick him. Thanks for that.

Finally:

"Senator Obama has proposed a new, more constructive approach to solving the abortion problem in a way that brings people together rather than pitting them against one another."

Parsed another way, Obama's solution is to say to pro-lifers "I respect your position, and now I'm going to repeal every possible restriction on abortion access in this country and make you help pay for it, which was a course of action demanded of me by the very most radical pro-abortion elements in my party, whom I have befriended, and to whom I intend to grant every wish."

Some solution! I'm sure pro-lifers felt brought together and not in the least pitted against one another.

I could go on and on in a similar vein, but really there's no point. Regular readers have heard the arguments before, and hopefully understand the deception taking place here. I'm just continually amazed by the power of the dollar to get their false arguments out there. Hopefully people spend some time looking for the truth.

Biden claim: "I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

I don't understand how someone can seriously say this about themselves:

"I was raised as a Catholic, I'm a practicing Catholic, and I'm totally at home with the Catholicism that I was raised in and this whole culture of social responsibility, reaction to abuse of power, the whole notion that there is collective civic responsibility. It's the Catholic consciousness that I'm totally comfortable with."

... only to spew this nonsense:

"It is not choice. It's always a very, very, very difficult, difficult decision. I know that, my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years.

We've always believed from the outset that abortion is wrong. But throughout the years, debated the degree to which it is wrong. There are always cases where it is never a first choice. It is always viewed as a dire decision. But throughout the church's history, we've argued between whether or not it is wrong in every circumstance and the degree of wrong. Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.

We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception. It's always been a debate."

And then conclude by saying:

"I take my religion very seriously."

(... just obviously not enough to study it.)

Oh well, I guess I'm just no Joe Biden.

Another jem:

"I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

At least that puts him ahead of John Kerry, who claimed he was a "Pope Pius XXIII" kind of guy.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Coming out of the woodwork

Why is it that all these catholics have waited until now to come out for Obama?

It's not like he's new to the scene. Why the 11th-hour endorsement that serves to comfort Obama-leaning catholics that "people in high places agree with me", but does not allow time for a sustained debate about Obama's merits, or the merits of catholics voting for him.

It's called a pile-on, and the gates are apparently wide open.

Over the very same weekend that catholics in the pew heard the famous "render unto Caesar" gospel passage, numerous Catholics have decided who they are giving their denarius to this November.

Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College criticizes the "partisanship" of American bishops in the National Catholic Reporter (I know - what a surprising venue for such views!):

"Abortion is a moral tragedy for Catholics and many Americans. But when the Catholic church is perceived to be cheerleaders for one political party a rich faith tradition is badly damaged and loses its prophetic voice. Bishops should correct Catholic politicians who misrepresent Catholic teaching on life and justice issues in public interviews."

Why is it impossible for some to see that the bishops aren't cheerleaders for one political party, they are cheerleaders for the unborn, who happen to be defended better by one party?! Why, when the vast majority of culprits who "misrepresent Catholic teaching on life and justice issues" are democrats, is it the bishops and republicans who are criticized for being partisan on this issue?

M. Cathleen Kaveny of Notre Dame, meanwhile, does some philosophical gymnastics over at America:

For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal? The language of intrinsic evil does not help us here. Only the virtue of practical wisdom, enlightened by charity, can take us further.

This might be an interesting thought experiment in another case, but in the practical situations presented to Americans this November, I can't see how it even applies. It's quite obvious that the occasion for this re-re-visiting of the obligation to eliminate "intrinsically evil" acts is prompted by the Obama candidacy and catholics desiring to vote for pro-choice politicians.

It does not seem to me a hyper-expression of practical wisdom that the candidate who will proliferate embryonic stem cell research and sign the freedom of choice act into legislation will increase, not decrease, the number of unborn human lives exterminated in America each year. How can someone who sees abortion as an inaliable right of women that can never be questioned or challenged somehow the actual path to eliminating the scourge of abortion?

CNA coverage of Cathleen Kaveny here.

update: Grek Sisk has penned an excellent, lengthy rebuttal to Kaveny over at MOJ.

Discovered: Obama article on abortion rights in 1990

Politico found the unsigned law review article penned by Barack Obama in 1990. Excerpts:

The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.

... And he concluded the article with a flourish: "Expanded access to prenatal education and heath care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."

But wait, I thought Obama advocates hope. I guess he thought that these little ones only had despair to look forward to in their future. Better to end their lives then see them live in pain, I guess. What sort of hope is this?!

Full coverage here.

Robert George on Obama and Infants Born Alive

I know, I know. But it needs to be brought up again. If Barack Obama has in-fact been lying about his record on this topic it's important because he re-enunciated this lie as recently as the last presidential debate.

Robby George:

But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002 statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care.

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

This is George's conclusion after running through the evidence.

Dutch abortion ship makes for Spanish harbor

Caption: "29-08-04, 17:15 hours: The Portugese Navy circles the Women on Waves ship and orders the captain to stop approaching Portugal. Photo: Nadya Peek for Women on Waves" (source)

Today one of these "abortion ships" will be visiting the coast of Spain:

A Spanish pro-life group said it plans to protest the arrival on Thursday of a Dutch boat that is offering to provide abortions that circumvent Spain's strict laws.

The boat is due to anchor off the Mediterranean port of Valencia, the Dutch non-profit organisation Women on Waves said on its web site.

From Friday, it will offer abortions on the ship in international waters under the Netherlands' more liberal abortion laws.

This "symbolic initiative" will allow "abortions outside Spanish law for the first time in Spain's recent history, but without violating it," said Spanish gynaecologist Josep Lluis Carbonell, one of the promoters.

But it has already sparked controversy.

Valencia's conservative mayor Rita Barbera termed the plan a "provocation that has sparked indignation."

The anti-abortion group Provida in Valencia said its members plan a protest aboard a smaller vessels when the boat arrives. (AFP)

The concept is pretty simple - take a storage container and put a mini-abortion clinic in it (source):

Then sail it around and provide abortions on international waters (source):
Note how members of the pro-abortion movement are willing to break and circumvent laws, while simultaneously criticizing pro-life people who try to save lives by working around government policies.

(And for anyone who has seen the end of the movie Children of Men, what an anti-type this is!)

Video: Obama and Palin on abortion

First, Sarah Palin connecting the dots:

Via GodSpy.

Now see Obama at Planned Parenthood:

Note the contrast.

In Obama's crosshairs: Abortion alternatives

LifeNews:

Pregnancy centers across the country that provide women with abortion alternatives could be shut down or face severe regulations if Barack Obama wins next month. That's because a bill targeting pregnancy centers could easily be approved in a pro-abortion Congress and land on Obama's desk.

Obama has already promised pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL that he will be their lap dog in the White House and these are the groups leading the effort to pass the bill.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey reintroduced the bill in April in the Senate and issued a statement alleging that pregnancy centers mislead women by giving them information on abortion's risks and alternatives.

The so-called "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act" would place burdensome regulations on pregnancy centers.

It would also force the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit deceptive practices that pregnancy centers say they never use to reach women -- such as advertising under the "abortion services" section of the phone book.

I don't think it's that unlikely a scenario. Pregnancy centers are a huge factor in immediatly, effectively reducing the incidence of abortion in this country. They are, morever, in the eyes of Planned Parenthood and professional abortion providers - "competition" in the reproductive services market. And we all know that PP doesn't mind bending and breaking the rules when it can get away with it.

Does Obama support universal coverage for abortion?

John McCormack on the Weekly Standard Blog:

Dduring a campaign conference call about health care yesterday, I asked Obama-Biden surrogate Gov. Kathleen Sebelius if Obama's health care plan would mandate coverage for all legal abortions.

"I really don’t know the specifics of that," she replied. An Obama-Biden spokesman told me via email that he'd find an answer to my question. But subsequent emails and phone calls in the past 24 hours from me to Obama-Biden spokesmen have gone unanswered.

Apparently the Obama-Biden campaign doesn't think it needs to provide basic factual information about their candidate's health care plan. Will any one in the mainstream media hold Obama accountable?

Family Research Council notes:

If abortion coverage is an element of Obama's plan, a poll commissioned by FRC earlier this year shows that it would be to his detriment. A majority of voters (56%) said they would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to 31% who would be "more likely" to support such a candidate.

So of course the Obama campaign wouldn't make the "yes" explicit if they could avoid it.

CUA student posts open letter to Professor Doug Kmiec

I thought this was an excellent summary response. This was written by Therese Cory, a graduate instructor at the Catholic University of America. AmP readers will recall that I have taken issue with Kmiec's arguments, as well as the "Pro Life, Pro Obama" website.

Dear Prof. Kmiec,

I wish respectfully to protest against the claims on your new website, "Pro Life, Pro Obama," that pro-life Catholics can in clear conscience vote for Senator Obama.

As a philosopher myself, I respect the fact that you have clearly given long and serious consideration to the problem of pro-life voting. Nevertheless, it seems that one should consider whether promises to fund programs for pregnant mothers counterbalance the social and moral damage done by the strong pro-abortion positions that Senator Obama and his party support, including universally funding abortions through Medicare, banning state parental consent legislation, etc. (see FOCA) This kind of legislation sends the message that abortion is acceptable and makes it more rather than less easy to get an abortion. I heartily endorse offering support to pregnant mothers to alleviate the social problems which fuel abortion. But it seems that such support will be in vain, if a government also sends the contradictory message that abortion is a morally neutral event, by vastly increasing abortion availability. How can truly support the needs of a pregnant mother, without encouraging her as to the value of the life she bears, and while cementing a culture of increasingly free and easy access to abortion?

As a Catholic, moreover, I cannot help but find Senator Obama's pro-abortion voting record antagonistic to the goals set out by recently by numerous U.S. bishops on pro-life voting, and I see no indication that his accession to the presidential office would result in a change of direction. You mention that Senator Obama does not support late-term abortions. But what about his support for partial-birth abortion and criticism of the Supreme Court's upholding of the partial-birth ban? This point at least deserves mention on your website, in view of presenting a complete case. Moreover, his voting record on the case of infants born alive deserves closer investigation; his explanation that the bill in question would overturn Roe v. Wade is most questionable, in view of the provisions stated in the bill (see for instance, here).

In conclusion, Senator Obama's position clearly contravenes the Catholic position on the value of human life. While it may be unrealistic to expect a reversal of Roe v. Wade in the immediate future, Obama's policies would usher in a new era of unprecedented funding for and unrestricted access to abortion. It would consequently solidify the culture of disregard for the value of unborn life. No matter how many mother-friendly programs we support, how can we truly be "pro-mother" when we are constantly sending the contradictory message that her unborn child is of no value?

Respectfully,

Therese Cory

=====

Please consider sending your own letter to Professor Kmiec here: Douglas.Kmiec@pepperdine.edu

Related:

• Catholics Misled Who Back Barack Obama Thinking Abortions Will Go Down
• USAID Decision Points to How Barack Obama Would Fund US, Intl Abortions

Obama v. Babies

If you are looking for a simple, succinct, chilling overview of Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act controversy, see Hadley Arkes.

Meanwhile, Jill Stanek fact checks factcheck.org, which as I said in my last post on this topic, makes the best possible attempt at a counter-claim.

BornAliveTruth.org is also asking for support to spread its message.

As Hadley Arkes mentions above, the Obama camp is playing very aggressively on this issue (almost for broke), trying to make reverse political profit on it.

More ignorance than I care to point out

How the consensus arose that people who hold pro-life views are ignorant, biggoted and nasty - I'll never know. Certainly posts like "The Zygote Vote: You're doing it wrong" seems to fit the bill for all three of these. But here's the thing - it's by a pro-choice feminist named Jessica.

She writes for a blog that promotes websites that scare women into thinking they'll all be thrown into jail if abortion were to be made illegal, for starts.

Jessica asks "Can I just say how totally sick I am of anti-choice orgs putting out weird [crap] that implies zygotes and fetuses can do things like vote and carry election signs?"

She's referring to this picture over on the left, which hardly - to any rational mind - would make one think the people who drew the picture honestly believed fetuses can actually hold signs and vote.

I mean, ever seen a cartoon of a penguin holding a "stop global warming" sign? It doesn't mean the cartoonist thinks penguins actually carry signs.

Jessica is more distressed that some people seem to think unborn infants can "sport war gear." Hello Jessica, that website/product is actually an anti-Christian website. You just made fun of ... your own kind, so to speak. Or at least people who join you in rideculing those who regard unborn human life as deserving protection.

She then claims the pro-life organization behind the t-shirt has its fingers in its ears (as if they are the ones ignoring realitY), and follows that up by just getting plain nasty:

"Those pesky things that carry fetuses around? They're called women, and unlike fertilized eggs, fetuses, or any other part of said women's bodies, they can actually vote. You may want to remember that next time you make a t-shirt."

The ironic thing is that most the people in the pro-life organization are probably women trying to safeguard unborn life. And does Jessica seriously think an unborn child is just a part of women's bodies? Pregnant women can have two blood types, two heart beats, different sleep patters, etc, etc.

Ignorant? Check. Bigoted? Check. Nasty? Double-check.

Shame, or something unlike it

It appears that "Take Care Down There", the most offensive Planned Parenthood online initiative to date, has removed the most offensive content from the website since I first noted it in July. This decisions follows an outcry that went up once the story made it into mainstream news outlets.

If I had to guess, the Dawn Patrol or American Life League might have more details for us soon.

Once again, let's all remember that PP received 336.7 million dollars of our taxpayer money last year. So we can be happy in knowing we probably helped pay to create, then take down, this offensive material.

update: Mike Hitchborn of ALL adds:

"Score one for the Good Guys!!! Because of the wide-spread attention you gave our ALL Report on Planned Parenthood's DISGUSTING website, the story made its way onto the main-stream media. You can see our ALL report on it here or here.

The resulting bad publicity forced Planned Parenthood to remove ALL of the offensive videos!This is the New Media in action! When you draw as much attention as you did to the nastiness of Planned Parenthood, the drive-by media can no longer ignore what's going on."

A press release should be forthcoming. Keep it up!

"Better sterile than sorry": vasectomies in America

Lifewire has the story. I found it useful mostly for the statistics. Some snips:

• Health agency: One in six men over age 35 had a vasectomy by 2006

"In a 2007 Pew Research Center telephone survey of 2,000 U.S. men and women, only 41 percent said children are "very important to a successful marriage." In 1990, that figure was 65 percent."

McClure says he spends most of his time "putting vasectomies back together," performing more than 2,000 reversals since 1975.

"Over the last several years, it appears that more males under the age of 25 who've never had children and who had a vasectomy are coming in [for a reversal] because they've found a new partner and they want to have children," says McClure.

A little window into pro-abortion scare tactics

And how they are being used by national-level figures in the democratic party:

Attacking presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. Barbara Boxer said that McCain has a rating of zero percent from NARAL and zero from Planned Parenthood.

“Now you have to be pretty radical to have a zero rating,” she claimed.

The California Senator then attacked McCain’s pledge to appoint Supreme Court justices similar to Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are considered hostile to Roe v. Wade.

“They want to, essentially, make it illegal for us to have a right to choose, and to make us criminals, and to make doctors criminals!” she exclaimed.

Noting Barack Obama’s 100 percent rating from pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood, Boxer emphasized the slogan “He’s a hero, John McCain’s a zero!”

She received a standing ovation for the remark.

Boxer also claimed that McCain had voted against a program to help children who witness domestic violence.

Later in the caucus meeting, New York U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter warned the audience “we are in as much danger today… as we were almost when we first started here. There is so much at stake for women on this one issue, and it’s critical that we elect Barack Obama.” (CNA)

Stop Slaughter.

update: Carl adds his comments.

"By 2015, deaths will surpass births in the EU, study reveals"

The suicide of the West.

Weekend project: Sign the USD Petition

If you haven't yet signed the petition to support USD's correct decision, please consider doing so. If you have, tell a friend. It only takes a few seconds and requires an email address (no spam I promise).

I promote this not only because it's a good cause in itself, but also because I'd like to see the online Catholic community become better organized when it comes to petitions like these. They do make a difference.

Today, LifeSiteNews joined the news organizations which have mentioned our efforts:

Although the Catholic University of San Diego (USD) came under fire for reversing their decision to appoint a radical feminist to an honorary chair in Theology, it has stood firm, and now two opposing petitions either supporting or attacking the decision are gathering support.

Thomas Peters of American Papist, with fellow blogger Brian McDaniel of the Ora et Labora blog, has organized a petition to support the University in its decision.

Previous AmP coverage of this story here.

"New rules proposed to protect anti-abortion doctors"

And let me just say to begin with - this Associated Press news story title is very unsettling. Let me get this straight: abortion doctors need protection ... in order to not practice abortions. What a world.

Anyway, I early reported on this story here, and now it's made the mainstream:

The Bush administration proposed stronger job protections Thursday for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," Leavitt said. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

Leavitt, as I said before, seems very capable of handling himself, which is relief because it's rare to find someone in a position of authority who's on the right side of this type of issue.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about protecting doctors - how about not protecting doctors who remove organs from infants before they've met the criteria for brain death.

And let's focus on protecting the vulnerable party.

update: whoo-boy, are the "feministas" angry or what?

Another day, another cure from ADULT stem cell research

Monotonous, ain't it?

The abortion-rights arguments that cite embryonic stem cells as the potential solution for a vast array of human diseases has taken another significant hit with an announcement from a San Francisco research and development company that it has defined and isolated an adult cell that has been shown to develop into tissues matching those in the heart, lung, liver, pancreas, blood vessels, brain, muscle, bone and fat. (WND)

But don't worry, we still have to destroy human life if we want to get anything accomplished - or so some keep telling us .... (update: meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research continues to result in more complications).

And yet we're the ones labled "anti-science."

CA court ruling: Doctors must inseminate lesbian couples

The doctors were even willing to instruct the couple how to "self-inseminate" after fertility drug treatment, but that was not enough:

California's high court on Monday barred doctors from withholding medical care to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the unanimous ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain anti-discrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from assisting her further.

The case drew the attention of religious organizations, medical groups and gay civil rights organizations.

The American Civil Rights Union supported the Christian doctors, siding with the Islamic Medical Association of North America, the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and anti-abortion groups.

The California Medical Association reversed its early support of the Christian doctors after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay rights community, joining health care provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose the Christian doctors. (AP)

It saddens me to see that these Christian doctors did not receive at least equal support from the Christian community, although obviously I am not trying to assign blame in this matter because I only heard of it myself after the decision was handed down, and this apparently has been in litigation for some time. It's hard to be an ethical doctor these days.

And I wonder how homosexual men could be discriminated against in this instance ...? Do I want to?

update: CNA picks up on the story here.

Ph/t: AmP reader "J."

Video: "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

The real Obama:

Of course, don't expect to learn about this from CNN.

Related: A Catholic case against Barack by Pat Buchanan

Also related: Americans United for Life announces available funding for voter guides

Video: ALL takes on "Catholics" for Choice, others

Described:

This week, we take on "Catholics" for Choice and 62 other oddities who seem to think that somehow, sexual deviancy and abortion are compatible with Christianity. Anyone who has ever taken a cursory glance through the Bible can clearly see that they are not. And yet, these fringe groups had the audacity to take out a half page open letter to the Pope in Italy's most prominany newspaper, calling on him to reverse 2000 years of Church teaching. Clearly, the Pope isn't about to rewrite Jesus' teachings, so the obvious impetus behind this underhanded move isn't to get the Pope to change the moral teachings of the Church, but to generate public justification for these anti-Christian beliefs.

Video:



I think it's imperative to take the offensive against "Catholics" for Choice and similar pro-abortion fronts.

"Call me biased..."

So begins a Feministe blogger's post about pro-life positions and organizations. She continues:

"…but I just can’t wrap my mind around anti-choice rhetoric. I am fairly skilled at seeing both sides of most complex social issues and I even try to give credit to those that oppose my view if their reasoning is sound, but anti-choice stuff…it is just totally illogical to me."

Oh goodness, what an inexplicable dilemma! Whatever could be the cause of her predicament?

Let's look at the beginning of the second paragraph:

"As most of you know, I work in public affairs at a Planned Parenthood affiliate."

Oh, suddenly this begin to make sense.

She goes on to maligne the "favorite anti-choice groups [which] makes your blood boil the most."

And if her blog's title and content wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy itself, the commentors proceed to misunderstand (with some notable individual exceptions) every truth the pro-life community attempts to reveal and defend.

A perfect case of what I'm talking about? The blogger denies Margaret Sanger was a racist.

"Call me biased..."

No, "bias" doesn't begin to describe it.

Planned Parenthood's latest teen web site most offensive yet

Dawn peers into the lion's den (again):

American Life League reports on Planned Parenthood's latest teen Web site, TakeCareDownThere.org (see video here).

As usual, ALL errs on the side of restraint, demurring from showing the most offensive material on the site. In plain fact, TakeCareDownThere.org, which is run by Planned Parenthood's Pacific Northwest chapter Planned Parenthood Columbia Williamette, is so gratuitously exploitative of underage teenagers that it makes the national organization's Teenwire look like Abstinence Clearinghouse by comparison.

I am sorry to be in the position of recommending you view the site. It is especially not for those who practice what Christians call "custody of the eyes" (and ears). But, because TakeCareDownThere is a taxpayer-funded site that targets children, I believe it is important to have an idea of just what Planned Parenthood is promoting. The site's pro-promiscuity agenda is truly degrading to human beings in general and children in particular.

[Continue reading.]

PP received 336.7 million dollars of our taxpayer money last year.

"What makes for a good abortion?"

Not to upset our Saturday, but there are actually people who pose and answer this question, mostly on a blog called "Abortion Clinic Days", "a blog of abortion providers telling their stories."

And as the feminist blogger adds, "I'd just like to say thanks to all of the abortion providers out there who literally risk their lives to bring compassionate reproductive health care to women - you are amazing."

Yes, plenty of work to do, and prayers to say.

"Papal spokesman calls Catholics for Choice ad 'paid propaganda'"

Good to see the Vatican speaking out:

Responding to an open letter from dissident groups asking Pope Benedict XVI to change church teaching on birth control, the pope's spokesman said the letter was "paid propaganda in favor of the use of contraceptives."

The letter, sponsored by the U.S.-based Catholics for Choice and signed by dozens of its national chapters, sections of We Are Church and groups promoting women's ordination, was published July 25 in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

... Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the papal spokesman, told Vatican Radio that the ad was "nothing new" from a collection of small groups already known for their opposition to church teaching on a variety of topics."

In addition, the harshest accusation -- that the Catholic position is the cause of the spread of AIDS and, therefore, of suffering and death, blocking enlightened policies of public health -- is demonstrably unfounded," he said.

The spread of AIDS has nothing to do with someone's religion, he said, and policies responding to AIDS that rely chiefly on the distribution of condoms "have largely failed."

"Responding to AIDS requires interventions that are much deeper and detailed," he said, and Catholic agencies and religious orders are actively involved in those projects.

The most interesting thing about the protest letter, Father Lombardi said, was the fact that "it does not touch -- in anyway -- the true question at the center of 'Humanae Vitae,' which is the connection between spouses' human and spiritual relationship and the exercise of their sexuality as an expression of it and its fruitfulness."

"In the entire letter," he said, "the word 'love' does not appear once."

Father Lombardi said the letter does not "express a theological or moral position," but seemed to be "paid propaganda in favor of the use of contraceptives. One also could ask who paid for it and why." (CNS)

I normally tend to not quote articles at great length, allowing instead my readers to follow through themselves if they have an interest. But I found everything Lombardi had to say to be topical and enlightening. Well done!

"Aborting children through lack of healthcare" and other nonsense

An unlikely gathering, I would have thought:

Black church leaders gathered at Howard University School of Divinity in Washington this week to discuss the future direction of the black church and what they said was the importance of advocating the causes of abortion rights and greater inclusion of homosexuals.

The event, part of this year’s 12th annual National Black Church Summit on Sexuality, featured workshops that spoke of the importance of pro-choice reproductive rights and ending what speakers said were failed federal abstinence approaches to sex education in schools. (update, link fixed: Christian Post)

The quotes start with being simply self-contradictory:

“We can teach our young people, ‘Yes, I believe in abstinence only,’ but I also believe I have to be realistic enough to tell my young people how to protect themselves and to keep from becoming pregnant,” Veazey told Cybercast News Service, while explaining his opposition to abstinence education programs.

... then you don't really believe in abstinence only education. Here's a (I think, somewhat reasonable) parallel: "I believe in not abusing drugs, but I also believe I have to be realistic enough to tell my young people how to sanitize the needles and keep from getting HIV."

See my point? Then he really doesn't believe in not abusing drugs.

Then the quotes just get sickeningly outrageous:

Veazey, however, dismissed the voices of black pro-life advocates.

“They talk about abortion, and I tell them ‘you are the ones who believe in the fetus, you all worship the fetus, and then when the baby really gets here you all abort them,’” he told Cybercast News Service.

“I say you abort them every time I drive through southeast Washington, where there’s a lack of health care, lack of housing, lack of opportunity. Some of those kids are aborted walking around. And do you know where they go when they are aborted? They go to jail. They go to the criminal justice system. They go to drugs. But these are the same kids that they were so anxious to bring here,” he added.

"Aborted walking around?" I wonder if Veazey would dare say something like this to the face of one of the persons he is referring to. At least people in these situations challenge us to care for them better. But killing them sure isn't the solution. I thought that would be obvious. Well, maybe not to Veazey.

The article also cites:

"Abortion, in particular, has been a thorny issue in black communities as blacks reportedly account for as much as one-third of all abortions in the country, despite accounting for only 12 percent of the population."

Many black leaders, including Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., have called abortion a “racist, genocidal act” and are preparing to boycott the NAACP’s annual convention next week in Cincinnati for what they say is the group’s harmful support for abortion.

The article makes other good points. I just wish Veazey's midset weren't so sadly typical of the rabid pro-abortion lobby. One would hope members of his congregation would be quick to call him out on it.

Finally: "Complaints cause cervical cancer vaccine scrutiny"

In February 2007 I did a story on Gardasil, a vaccine for certain STDs that cause cervical cancer. What upset me most about the story at the time was that Texas had decided to mandate this drug for all school-age girls, even those who did not intend to engage in sexual activity.

Such a decision is outrageous because this vaccine can cause serious side effects. Quite simply: why inoculate girls for an STD they have no chance of contracting (if they practice abstinence) and thereby put them in danger of suffering the vaccine's own harmful side effects?

Texas is not alone in this quest to mandate Gardasil. As recently as June 18th, Alberta was trying to force Catholic schools to give the vaccine to girls in pre-sexual activity age groups.

In January of this year, two instances of Gardasil-related deaths finally made it into the mainstream: "Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination" (UK Daily Mail).

By June, the FDA had refused permission for Gardasil to be marketed among women age 27-45. This decision came as a blow to its pharmaceutical producer Merck, because Gardasil "has been one of [its] most successful newer products and has helped the company recover after the 2004 withdrawal of its Vioxx arthritis treatment." Again, to put it simply: Gardasil is big business for Merck.

Today, it caught my eye that even CNN thinks there could be a story here:

A vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer is coming under fresh scrutiny amid thousands of complaints linking it to a range of health problems.

Gardasil has been the subject of 7,802 "adverse event" reports from the time the Food and Drug Administration approved its use two years ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Girls and women have blamed the vaccine for causing ailments from nausea to paralysis -- even death. Fifteen deaths were reported to the FDA, and 10 were confirmed, but the CDC says none of the 10 were linked to the vaccine. The CDC says it continues to study the reports of illness.

It's nice to see the mainstream media finally noticing a story that I (and many, many others) have known about for about 16 months. So why did it take them so long?

I would argue that this is only getting reported now because their fixation on eliminating the harmful side-effects of promiscuous sex often causes them to turn a blind eye to the drawbacks of mandatory universal vaccination. And the sad thing is that even young women trying to live a chaste lifestyle, in these situations of mandatory vaccination, are in danger of the vaccine's own harmful side effects.

Now whose freedom is being violated?

NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigns, questions about his abortion bill remain

He's officially stepping down on Monday.

Family Foundation calls Spitzer "Perhaps the most extreme pro-abortion elected official of his generation" who recently introduced a bill in New York that would have "expanded abortion to a fundamental right" and "would have forced Catholic hospitals to do abortions." "His pro-abortion zealotry is legendary in New York" they conclude. LifeNews also profiled Spizter.

MM reports that this morning Spitzer had been scheduled to speak with abortion advocates.

Some of the legislative provisions Spitzer introduced and supported in his nefarious bill:

• Allow non-doctors to perform abortions, including a dentist, a social worker, or a health care practitioner.
• Let girls as young as 12 obtain abortions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy without ever having to tell their parents.
• Force health practitioners or Catholic hospitals to lose their medical licenses if they don’t perform abortions since they would be denying women the “fundamental right” of an abortion.

More information about stopping this bill here.

I echo MM in hoping that Spitzer's scandal and resignation will contribute to knocking this bill flat on its face.

A profile of slaughter

This individual is a real piece of work.

I first heard of her when she was asking people to "Help Save Funding For International Family Planning", partly because it is "subject to constant attack by far right-wing ideologues in Congress and outside groups."

She means pro-lifers.

For her, the debate is over: "The current level of funding is simply not sufficient and women and children are dying because of it. Access to reproductive health care ... is an issue of basic human rights. Period."

She has a 100% NARAL voting record, with not a single pro-life vote. She's endorsed by Emily's List a pro-choice donor network. She voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions, says its okay to transport minors across state lines to get them abortions, not a crime to harm a fetus while committing other crimes, wants Planned Parenthood to get US funding for its international programs, and says that only organizations which provide abortion information should get federal funding.

Human cloning? That's fine. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research? You bet.

Oh, but she reaches out to religious groups, as her House of Representatives website claims:

"[She has] Organized a series of educational briefings featuring prominent members of the Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, and Jewish clergy to discuss the pro-choice position from a faith-based, values-based perspective."

On the day after the anniversary of Roe V. Wade this year, she wrote:

"Leaders of conservative organizations interested in scoring cheap political points, not solving problems, have sought to limit women's rights and freedoms by imposing stricter penalties and enacting laws to criminalize doctors and women. However, at the same time, these leaders have done next to nothing to ensure that millions of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are prevented in the first place. If you oppose abortion, you must be for preventing unintended pregnancies."

Other pearls of wisdom:

"Contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women and children, preventing unintended pregnancy, and reducing the need for abortion."

"For most women, including women who want to have children, contraception is not an option; it is a basic health care necessity."

"Moreover, 1 in 3 girls becomes pregnant before the age of 20, and 80 percent of these pregnancies are unintended."

I consider her concern about in-utero poisoning especially ironic:

"If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb."

"Let's clean up our environment. Let's clean up our bodies, but most importantly, let's not permit our babies of the future to be polluted before they are even born."

"That we have children coming into this world already polluted, at the same time we don't know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immorally wrong." [sic]

That it can be "immorally wrong" to let children in the womb be polluted by chemicals but okay to kill the same children in the womb if they are unwanted ... well, I said she was a real piece of work.

Who is she?

Rep. Louise Slaughter

Now, I realize that one cannot choose the name one has been given. And it's completely invalid to criticize someone based on their name. I understand that. But in this case, if anyone was ever called to avoid their nomenclature, and seems instead to have embraced it (intentionally or not), I think it's Rep. Slaughter.

For an example of the ongoing slaughter of abortion, see Jill Stanek (warning: graphic images).