by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Another sad development for Democrats for Life of America. They’ve endorsed Tim Kaine in the U.S. Senate race in Virginia and Steve Pestka in the Congressional race in a district in Michigan. Neither of these candidates call themselves pro-life. In fact, Kaine’s web site says this:
I strongly support the right of women to make their own health and reproductive decisions and, for that reason, will oppose efforts to weaken or subvert the basic holding of Roe v. Wade.Pestka spent a inordinate amount of money in the primary noting his love for Planned Parenthood because his opponent highlighted an old funding vote which Pestka has now disavowed:
I am personally opposed to abortion and I would never counsel anyone to have an abortion…. I oppose late-term abortion, but at the end of the day, I don’t support making abortion illegal.
Does Democrats for Life have any kind of standard on who they endorse?
- Forbes notes how the FDA has approved a clinical trial which will use umbilical cord blood in an attempt to treat autism:
The 30 children that will participate in the placebo controlled trial, ages 2-7, had umbilical cord blood banked at birth, as part of the Cord Blood Registry, a highly organized and well known stem cell bank. The goal of the trial will be to evaluate whether stem cell therapy has any effect on behavior and language difficulties commonly experienced by children with autism.
- Heikal Badrulhisham, a student at the University of Wisconsin, provides probably the worst argument ever against using graphic images as part of an effort to educate people about abortion:
The problem with the use of gruesome images in anti-abortion campaigns is the messages delivered by such images are distinct from the proclaimed rationales of the campaigns. Pictures of aborted fetuses have nothing to do with the moral arguments frequently used against abortion. If the purpose of a campaign is to convince people abortion is disgusting, by all means use the pictures. If not, tear down those repellant posters for the sake of reasonable dialogue.Huh? How do the images have nothing to do with the moral arguments used by pro-lifers? What a ridiculously absurd assertion. Maybe Badrulhisham makes this assertion because of an unfamiliarity with pro-life arguments as the piece also states, “I am not concerned about the arguments made by these campaigns.”