Life Links 10-20-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Planned Parenthood of Indiana is refusing to separate abortion services from its other services in order to retain government funding:
State attorneys suggested in a brief filed in August that Planned Parenthood should just separate its services to ensure no public money goes toward abortion. While officials with the state group say they’re open to that, the outcomes of similar battles in Missouri and Texas give them pause.
Texas set up a Medicaid waiver program in 2005 to provide family planning services for low-income women but banned abortion providers from receiving any of the funds. In response, that state’s Planned Parenthood formed a separate abortion affiliate….
Indiana state Sen. Scott Schneider, author of the proposal to defund Planned Parenthood, called the organization’s split in Texas a “superficial” one. He said the group simply “moved the abortions to the second floor.”
- In Colorado, abortion protester Jo Ann Scott (pictured left with husband Ken) has agreed to pay two women $750 each for blocking their way into a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic:
The agreement signed Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer states Scott, 59, will not use “force, threat of force or physically obstructing any person because that person is or has been obtaining or providing reproductive health services.”
Her husband, Kenneth Scott, is accused of having “physically obstructed patients and staff,” on 10 occasions; a federal lawsuit against him is pending, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Here’s the Justice Department complaint against the Scotts which originally sought $5,000 from Jo Ann Scott for each individual and a $15,000 civil penalty for allegedly touching one woman on the shoulder and poking another person (not the abortion client) in the back and pushing them in the chest.
- Here’s another poor pro-abortion editorial in the New York Times. This one is on the Protect Life Act. As usual, they take their talking points directly from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and provide not the slightest bit of evidence that the legislation would allow hospitals to refuse to perform emergency abortions on women whose lives were in danger. The author notes that the sponsor Rep. Pitts disagrees with this assessment of his legislation but then simply asserts Pitts is wrong.
Evidence? Who needs that when you can just throw out wild accusations?
[Scotts image via The Passionate Pro-Lifer]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m confused – why aren’t these laws being challenged under the equal protection clause? We have people blockading doors in NYC, protesters flooding the streets, stopping traffic – yet they are not being prosecuted with such harsh penalties etc.. Seems to me this is the Achilles heel in F.A.C.E.
Confused, one in CA was successfuly challeneged exactly for that reason. The law was declared unconstitutional not on it’s face, but in it’s enforcement. If they are going to block pro-life people from interacting with people they have to block pro-abortion people (deathscorts) from interacting with people too. I haven’t heard any follow-up to the ruling however.
Are the people who regularly participate on this site really that ignorant on the life issue? How in the world can over 51% of poll participants think Mitt Romney is the strongest pro-life Republican candidate?
I’m surprised the video showing Jo Scott assaulting the woman wasn’t linked to here. Here it is —> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJhcavmOsZg
Pretty violent huh?
Hey Danny,
How about you assume that we are all ignorant on the life issue instead of just asking, “Whats up with the poll?”
FYI
It’s an old poll and how about we have some patience for the mods and Jill Stanek until it’s taken down?
Wow, Danny, I’m surprised that she didn’t end up locked up for life years ago! What a menace to society.
That is sarcasm, BTW.
Danny: Are the people who regularly participate on this site really that ignorant on the life issue? How in the world can over 51% of poll participants think Mitt Romney is the strongest pro-life Republican candidate?
Danny, what chance do you really give any of the other candidates, besides the Mittster? Is being un-electable a “strong candidate”?
Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. :: adopts Cajun accent :: I gare-rone-tee!
And if Mitt Romney is elected president that will be yet another reason why our country will continue going down the tubes imo. He is a fraud.
Doug, exactly what formula are you using to determine who is electable? I’ve always wanted to know how people figure that out. They told me McCain could win and I couldn’t stop laughing. He never had a chance.
Isn’t it sad that “electability” (whatever that means) has become a more important standard than righteousness? Mitt Romney accomplished things in Massachusetts that Obama has only dreamed of doing.
If you could give me that equation for determining electability, then I can run that on each candidate to decide who to vote for. That would be helpful.
i was under the impression that medicaid (our tax dollars ) were going for their abortions anyway. when they began squacking “keep your laws off my body” i want to yell back “then pay for your own abortion.”
there is this new youg liberal on tv and he did have some lady on who was with a pl organization. i will give him a little credit. he was nice to her and he didnt ever once tell her she was wrong, but they put up the planned parenthood stats and the woman sitting with him pointed out that only 3% of pp funds went to abortion.. bull!!!
Doug, exactly what formula are you using to determine who is electable? I’ve always wanted to know how people figure that out. They told me McCain could win and I couldn’t stop laughing. He never had a chance.
Danny, of course there is no certain “formula.” Very surprising things can and do happen. This time, however, among the Republican candidates other than Romney, I see such a vanishingly small chance that any of them could beat Obama that in the end the Republicans are going to pick Mitt.
I think McCain had a much better chance against Obama than any of the current Republican candidates, save for Romney. Perry had a big “pop” in popularity, but has since sunk far back down. The same, or similar, will happen to Cain. Cain is so “over-the-top” on enough things that he’ll scare too many voters away. I personally don’t disagree with all he says – our tax system certainly does need revamping, for instance, though I wouldn’t do it as Cain proposes. Yet he’s not much of a debater, and will appear too much of a blustering “crazy man” to be electable.
And of course, I could be wrong.
____
If you could give me that equation for determining electability, then I can run that on each candidate to decide who to vote for. That would be helpful.
Well Sir, you’ve cut me to the quick! ;)
How about this equation: “Who can get enough electoral votes to beat Obama?” From your point of view, I’d say that’s the ticket.
Meh, I’ve never based my primary vote on electability. (I think to ascertain electability requires a level of trust in the polls and the media, which I don’t have.) For the primary I’m voting for the candidate I really want to see win a place on the ballot. If that candidate doesn’t make it, I hope whoever does is someone I can really believe in. But if the best I can do on voting day is cast a vote against Obama, I’ll do it.
oops meant sqwaking…above post hadnt had my coffee yet
Mr. Cain was obviously talking about incest which is very rare and a terrible subject to address. While I am solidly pro-life, I would have a hard time telling a girl who was raped by her father that she had to bear his child.