by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• At First Things, Christopher Kaczor writes about the gradualist development of the right to life and why we should reject it:
  

  We should reject, for example, the analogy between the gradual development of a right to life and the gradual attainment of other rights. There is a radical difference between the right to life and the rights to vote or drive or hold public office. Those rights can be enjoyed only by those who can meet the corresponding responsibilities. Five-year-olds have no right to drive, because they cannot meet the responsibilities of drivers.

  But the right to life does not have any corresponding responsibilities, and so it may be enjoyed by those who cannot discharge any duties, like children before the age of reason or mentally handicapped adults. Although some rights are attained gradually as the person matures, the right to life is not one of them.

• Salon’s Dave Weigel really should do some basic research before making such broad generalizations:
  

  Abortions after 24 weeks (excepting medical emergencies) are flat-out illegal.

  If Weigel had taken the time to do even the most basic research, like say typing “abortion 26 weeks” into Google, he’d find this abortion advertising listing where a variety of abortion providers offer elective abortions past 24 weeks. But hey, they’re flat-out illegal, right?

  Your average pro-choice journalist/commentator has never done 5 minutes of research on abortion besides going to Planned Parenthood’s or NARAL’s web page.

• Over the weekend, the media was their usual disgraceful, blatantly biased selves regarding Wendy Davis and abortion restrictions in Texas. Ross Douthat has the list of questions ABC News asked Davis while National Review has David Gregory’s hard-hitting interview with Nancy Pelosi.
• David Freddoso on Wendy Davis and late-term abortion legislation – and how Gosnell is rarely mentioned:
  

  Imagine a parallel universe in which the media coverage of legislators’ recent efforts to pass gun control omitted any reference to last year’s slaughter of 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School….

  As of Friday, the pink sneakers Davis wore on Tuesday night while standing up for late-term abortion were mentioned in more than 90 newspaper articles and 15 television segments, according to the Lexis-Nexis database. Yet a far more relevant detail — the reason this law was ever considered — received just four mentions in the papers and two on FOX News.

• Alliance Defending Freedom is suing the University of Buffalo after it charged the pro-life student group a $650 security fee to put on a debate:
  

  UB Students for Life is an officially recognized student organization at the university. When it reserved space for a debate on abortion in April, the university required it to pay a fee for campus security because officials anticipated it would be controversial. Alliance Defending Freedom said another group that hosted a debate between a Christian and an atheist in the same building at the same time wasn’t charged a security fee.

• The U.S. Supreme Court may take up a case on an Oklahoma law which required abortionists to follow the FDA protocol when dispensing RU-486 chemical abortions:
  

  An Oklahoma court ruled that the law violated women’s bodily integrity and right to abortion and struck it down, saying it “can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions.” The state’s highest court affirmed that decision, and now the state attorney general has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the law is a reasonable exercise of state power.

[Photos via courierpress.com, charismanews.com]