Stanek Sunday funnies, “Liberal spin on pro-life victory in Texas” edition
How did liberal political cartoonists spin passage in Texas on July 13 of an omnibus pro-life bill, which includes a ban on abortions after 20 weeks? See the many ways below, but first, a zinger from our side. Make sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of the post….
by Jeff Darcy at Cleveland.com…
Moving on, a pro-death twofer by John Branch at BranchToon.com…
Another twofer, this one by Nick Anderson at GoComics.com…
by John Cole at Cagle.com…
by Ben Sargent at GoComics.com…
by Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…
by Clay Bennett at GoComics.com…
[polldaddy poll=7249341]
Jul.14, 2013 9:54 am |
Cartoons |
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.
#1 is the clear winner because the rest are all incredibly stupid.
Why is it that they LIKE to tell people that they’ll kill women with rusty coathangers if we don’t let them endanger them with rusty cannulas?
The question liberals never answer – What makes you think that a completely unregulated abortion clinic, that does not meet the basic standards of medical safety of any medical surgical facility, is any safer than an illegal one?
An illegal backalley abortion clinic automatically becomes safe just by having the government call it legal and ignore it?
I voted for #1.
Not too impressed with the pro-abortion cartoons. Just the same tired old “back-alley abortion” and coat hanger hysteria.
I find it amusing that pro-aborts whine about the GOP “being all up in a woman’s uterus” when they often support taxpayer-funded abortion. Of course, they completely ignore the fact that a child dies in an abortion. A rather inconvenient truth for them.
Julia -
I don’t have a real strong opinion on the Texas law in general other than it will pad a lot of lawyer pockets for a few years, and then we’ll see – but to answer that question that you asked, national organizations make people think that.
I know in this bill, the ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), the Texas Medical Association, and the Texas Hospital Association – all those places say that the new regulations were unnecessary.
Ex-GOP,
The PA Government said that inspections of Gosnell’s facility were unnecessary, and look how well that turned out.
The ACOG is notoriously polticial and routinely ignore evidence-based care in favor of pandering to malparactice insurance companies. Wouldn’t surprise me if the same were true for the TMA and THA.
I wonder how Nick Anderson found out that the Gosnell clinic was re-opening! I am not sure how this is pro-women/pro-choice cartoon. Oh I see, I didn’t read the sign correctly. I thought it said: “Back in business because the government never creates enough regulations to protect women’s health and never inspects our business.” Opps, my mistake.
JoAnna – do you judge the ACOG as notoriously political based on contributions? I couldn’t find much on political giving. I felt from their advocacy goals, they were pretty middle of the road – they are for tort reform, and talked specifically about reducing abortions.
I don’t know much about them though – just wasn’t sure how you came to that.
Regardless, Julia asked how people think that more regulation isn’t needed – and it seems pretty clear that if multiple large organizations, including two in the state, say more regulation isn’t needed, than that could lead a person to believe more regulation isn’t needed. Do you agree with that assessment?
Banning abortionists from committing abortion on women unless they have hospital admitting is common sense? This law helps protect women from the scum that commit abortion without the added protections of hospital admitting privileges.
If they advocate against this bill, they aren’t neutral.
Ex-GOP, ACOG is so radically pro-abortion it opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/partial-birth-abortion/aaplog-letter-to-acog-detailing-our-objections-to-the-acog-policy/
Ex-GOP, you should read “Birth Matters” by midwife Ina May Gaskin. She has an entire chapter devoted to the ACOG and how they ignore evidence-based care in favor of procedures that allow doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to reap more profits.
And, as Jill pointed out, they are so pro abortion that they opposed the PBA and they still insist that pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilization, which is a viewpoint not held by the majority of OB-GYNs (not to mention most embryologists). For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9848690/
Thanks – on ACOG.
I stand by my assertion though, in answering Julia’s question, that reasonable people could believe more regulation is not needed when a national organization and two large state associations came out against the bill.
That’s the only case I was making.
Not seeing the fetus/baby pictured…they want to keep abortion on demand IMpersonal!
And the Coathanger was brought into abortion today…by the various LEGAL abortion butchers…bringing shoddy medical practices into the Storefront Shop.
Ex-GOP,
reasonable people could believe more regulation is not needed when a national organization and two large state associations came out against the bill.
Well sure. If our great medical-government complex is against the bill, they must be right.
Ex-GOP – I used to agree with your thinking that is was possible for a “reasonable” person to be misled by the actions of national organizations and state associations – however, I now attribute people being misled by national organizations and state associations to a lack of education and due diligence. We are all susceptible to being misled, but given the current state of affairs in Western democracies people should know that Western society is in a massive culture war and that most, if not all, organizations have been drafted into this war. In my experience, there are very, very few organizations which have not chosen a side in this war. In short, people should be very skeptical when giving any moral weight to a particular group’s endorsement or opposition. In fact, I think it is a parent’s responsibility to educate their children about this state of affairs in the culture war because no one else will - not even our churches or our schools. That is just my two cents. I don’t know if you would agree or if you have had a similar experience. We have always lived in a political and fallen world – actually, perhaps ‘political’ and ‘fallen’ actually mean the same thing and I was redundant when I used the two words!
Tyler – sure, people should be skeptical of any national organization or state association, simply because they are made up of imperfect people.
I suppose I’d ask you (but mostly Julia) – who would you look to to answer her question – do these facilities need more regulation? Do we have some stats? National or state organizations that can lend an ear to the policy? Or do we just throw something out there and hope it works?
Ex-GOP, very good question. As the Gosnell case pointed out, it is not just about having regulations on the books, it is also about enforcement. There are various state agencies responsible for enforcing the legislation and regulations. However, when it comes to enforcing abortion regulations many government departments and officials turn a blind eye and use every excuse under the sun to explain why oversight and enforcement was not carried out or was carried out ineffectively. When Liberals or the Democrat party are willing to blackball people and members for going against the party program (i.e. enforcing abortion regulations) these regulations will not be enforced. Who are the government gate keepers/employees? Mostly Democrats. This is not good for conservatives or conservative policies. Often political affiliation and loyalty can trump a person’s sense of moral obligation to their Lord/truth. I am not sure if answered your question.
Tyler -
And to be fair to common sense, conservatives and the Republican party is willing to blackball people and members for going against their own party program. It’s not something that only occurs on one side of the aisle, and we shouldn’t prentend it does.
I don’t think Julia’s question can fully be answered, but it can’t be answered how she would like either. Her assertion is that these sort of regulations are needed based on some sort of factual, good for everyone type of reason. I don’t know if I’ve seen stats, association support or anything else that says that. What I mean is, it seems to be fully political – and if it is, say it’s fully political, don’t try to do (what I think Julia was doing) and saying that everyone, left and right, should support more regulation in this area.
Ex-GOP I agree that both parties engage in blackballing people. It is a too human thing to do. Everyone does it, so it is prudent to educate the public about it so they can be diligent about stopping it. It is this failure in virtue education that is part of the problem.
Ex-GOP do you really require Julia to supply facts for the common sense part of her argument? The whole cry for legalized abortion was to make it safer than illegal abortion. But if legal abortion is not policed it is actually more dangerous than back alley abortions - because the abortionists are no longer afraid of getting caught and their service has the veneer of being legal.
I am sure there are facts to back up the ideas that regulations that require vaginal ultrasounds for example are prudent and better for women than not having them. This is because some facilities do require vaginal ultra sounds already, and they consider it the gold standard of medical care for early pregnancies. Moreover, with something like medicine I think having more precautions than fewer is generally a good thing. Unlike emergency medical procedures, abortion is an elective procedure for the vast majority of women so it makes sense that more regulations will only raise the level of care, and add very little risk because the abortionist is not under the same time pressure as an ER doctor – a woman’s life is not threatened if takes the doctor a few extra minutes to follow some additional procedures. Yet, I don’t think the regulations have gotten even close to being trivial or overly invasive.
Tyler – on your question about the facts – I don’t know – should we require facts to back up arguments? I’ve heard that this law will cause women to buy more abortion causing drugs on the internet. Facts required? I’ve heard that some of the regulations will cause what would have been first trimester abortions to be second because of the delays. Should we require facts? I mean, you tell me I suppose. Even your assert that legal abortion without it being policed is more dangerous than back alley abortions – do we care about the facts there?
I’m just saying, that there’s two ways to look at this law. One, the state of Texas just passed something, that if it makes it through the courts, will cause a shutdown of many abortion providers, and those women won’t have abortions, and this will save lives.
Or the state of Texas is going to spend a lot of money in the courts to attack 1-2%(if I remember the stat right) of all abortions, and essentially validated that abortion is fine and dandy under 20 weeks, and is only problematic outside of 20 weeks.
I’m not concerned about making laws for political reasons – I’m concerned with saving lives – and I’m just not convinced that what Texas did is going to save lives. Consider me highly skeptical.
Tyler – on your question about the facts – I don’t know – should we require facts to back up arguments?
Yes I am all for fact based arguments, and most arguments in favour for regulations are backed up with facts. However, the prochoice side doesn’t care about fact based arguments – they have never backed up their assertion that a fetus isn’t a person with facts. Their assertion is all legal mumbo-jumbo. When they do this – then I will be able to take your question seriously. In fact, many liberal causes become legalized without much fact based evidence to support their claims: look at the gay marriage for instance. Moreover, many of the liberal causes defy basic common sense and yet they don’t seem to question their legitimacy.
Not every legislative proposal can be backed up with evidence, sometimes it is only based on the quality of the argument. However liberal legislation is usually not even dependent on the quality of the argument but typically based on how politically correct the legislation is perceived to be and how emotionally charged they have been able to make the electorate about the proposed legislation.
Tyler – let’s just cut to the chase – both sides have politically supported things that they make up their own facts, or ignore facts, to support.
The GOP hates regulation, except when it comes to abortion.
The Dems think that regulating guns will save lives, but are against any regulations on abortion, some which will clearly save lives.
The GOP is fine with health care rationing as long as it is free market. Dems are fine with health care rationing as long as it is government controlled.
Pork spending is always the problem with the other side.
Deficits are bad if you’re in the minority party, but okay in the majority.
Filibusters should be done away with, according to the majority, and a super useful tactic if you’re in the minority.
Polls are super awesome when they support what a person supports, but badly flawed when they don’t back up exactly what an individual is trying to say.
When people say something is biased, 99% of the time that simply means that they don’t agree with what that entity is saying. When was the last time you heard anybody say “I like this news station – they are biased, but that’s fine by me”.
And at the end of the day, 95% of political decisions that are made can easily be traced to one thing…money.
Phew…I feel better. I’m so tired of both parties that I could just scream – we need a relevant third party in a bad way.
Tyler – you got one more statement in as I was typing – and I simply think it’s b.s. I mean, you can continue to wear the GOP colored glasses all you want – but if you take a step back for a few minutes, you’ll see that the two parties are essentially the same in regards to tactics and how they go about things.
Or a lot more honesty, integrity, and forthrightness from both sides and a little less cynicism, sarcasm, and despair.
Ex- I am talking generally. I don’t deny the GOP manipulates people and voters as well – but the GOP and conservatives at least try to present sound arguments – liberals don’t even try. I am not wearing GOP rose-coloured glasses. This is just reality.
personally I like the Texas coathanger one because the proaborts are finally telling the truth. Yup maybe all the abortion clinics in Texas will HAVE to close – because under this bill they are unsafe. What does that say about legalized abortion? That in reality it never was about safe abortions. It was just about getting abortion legalized as a means of back up birth control. Who cares who does it? Who cares if the facility is clean or not? As long as its legal. Never safe. Never rare.
The first one is stupid. The rest are really rather good. Not particularly funny though. They don’t display the usual elements of being oblique or satirical. They are more straightforward reports delivered graphically rather than literally.
“Banning abortionists from committing abortion on women unless they have hospital admitting is common sense?” – if the intent of the legislation was womens safety rather than simply restricting womens reproductive freedom – which is what we all know it’s really all about – then it would have addressed some of the more unnecessary and discriminatory admitting rights restrictions.
Reality,
Concerning unnecessary and discriminatory admitting rights restrictions.
One doesn’t just knock on the hospital door and ask for privileges…or get them. Its a very drawn out process. If the abortionist isn’t credentialled in gynecology or a board certified gynecologist, then don’t be surprised if he/she doesn’t get admitting priveleges to admit or care for patients in need of gynecological surgery. In fact one of our city’s long term abortionists is credentialled at city hospitals, including Catholic ones. He is board certified in OB/GYN and takes care of his own patients, abortion or otherwise.
I’ve been at the same hospital 32 years and if I miss a credentialling deadline, let’s say I don’t repeat a CPR class when its due, I’m SOL. I have to apply to be recredentialled. No grace period, nothing. The rules are the rules and I abide by them or don’t practice.
So no, the abortionists aren’t being unfairly picked on. There can be any number of reasons they are not going to be credentialled or given admission priveleges.
Indeed Mary. Such as not meeting a minimum number of admissions requirement (ironic?), being from out of state or because of hospital doctrine rather than law. So while ‘being unfairly picked on’ may not be the outright situation, the legislation was drafted specifically knowing the difficulty abortion doctors would have, without addressing the issue.
Again Reality,
The credentialling rules are made by the hospital. One can certainly understand that a hospital would have serious concerns about a physician who if from out of state and won’t be around to care for his/her patient. Under no other circumstances, except abortion, is this considered an acceptable standard of medical care. The hospital is no more likely to grant an abortionist who isn’t credentialled in GYN surgery admitting privileges to perform or care for GYN patients than they’d allow him/her privileges to perform ear, nose, and throat surgery.
As I said, credentially is a long and involved process. It involves background checks, medical training, residencies, credentialling, and experience, as well as board certification or eligibility for board certification. It involves up to date certifications in ACLS, CPR, PALS, neonatal resuscitation, and continuing medical education.
As you can see Reality, its not that abortionists are being singled out. Its likely they just can’t meet the hospital requirements that medical professionals, including myself, have to meet.
Minimum number of admissions?
You, I and anybody else who isn’t naive or dishonest, knows that legislation such as this is not introduced with the intent of making abortion safer for women. It is done with the express intent of restricting womens reproductive freedoms, plain and simple.
Reality,
Actually that is trivial compared to what other requirements the abortionist would have to meet. For surgeons or physicians to keep up their privileges, the hospital may well expect a certain number of surgeries or admissions. Any number of surgeons and physicians in our city restrict their practice to one hospital out of preference, and do not have privileges at others simply because they don’t admit enough patients to that hospital.
However Reality, being that only abortionists who are truly qualified, credentialled, and keep up to date on continuing education are practicing, and most important stick around town to care for their patients, then it shouldn’t be a problem, right?
“For surgeons or physicians to keep up their privileges, the hospital may well expect a certain number of surgeries or admissions…..and do not have privileges at others simply because they don’t admit enough patients to that hospital.”
Like I said.
It’s dishonest legislation.
No Reality,
Happens all the time. I have lost credentialling and practice privileges at certain hospitals I freelanced at because I didn’t work there enough. Got it? I wasn’t being picked on or singled out, I just wasn’t there enough to satisfy their requirements.
That seems to make sense Mary – so only abortion doctors who send a lot of patients to the hospital would then get admitting privileges – and those who don’t run into many issues would have problems with privileges – is that correct?
It is interesting how the media keep trying to portray pro-life legislation at an oppression by the GOP. I suspect that they are playing to their liberal base in the Blue States.
The legislators of Texas were elected by the people of Texas. Their legislators passed some reasonable restrictions on abortion that were desired by the people of Texas.
The abortion mills who cannot comply with the safety regs will close for a day or two. Then a federal court will issue an injunction forbidding enforcement of the law while lawsuits challenge the right of Texans to pass regulations for the safety of Texas women and children. (At least, that’s what happened last week in Wisconsin.)
EGV,
The OB/GYN I mentioned who performed abortions and had admitting privileges also performed elective surgeries and delivered a number of babies, ironically, at a couple of the hospitals, one of them Catholic. He was around for complications, at least he didn’t skip town, and the hospital could maintain his credentialling and know he was doing a competent job. He didn’t show up in the ER one day a month or every 6 months to care for patients in emergency situations.
When hospitals revoked my credentialling it wasn’t out of spite or because of incompetence, it was that I just wasn’t there enough and it also wasn’t worth their time and effort to keep me credentialled. You see, people are hired to do this. My not being there was just making extra work for them and the hospital didn’t benefit.
Also, EGV, as I said, admitting privileges are a long involved process. It doesn’t just involve admissions. The abortionists would have to meet extensive requirements and from what I’ve read, I seriously doubt many of them could.
And as I said, Ex-GOP, the PA Government said that inspections of Gosnell’s facility were unnecessary, and look how well that turned out.
The ACOG, and perhaps the TMA and THA, may very well be in the pocket of Planned Parenthood, which is why they oppose making clinics safer for women.
If these women already know that they will POSITIVELY use a coathanger, aren’t they knowingly getting pregnant? In other words, “when I get pregnant, I will use a coathanger.” They’re chasing their own tails!
“In other words, “when I get pregnant, I will use a coathanger.”- not at all. Not if it’s planned or wanted. ‘If I get pregnant, and don’t want it, I may well have to use a coathanger because of the GOP’s denial of womens rights.’ No tail-chasing.
I will POSITIVELY use a painkiller if I get a headache. I certainly have no intention of getting a headache. But at least if I do I can take a painkiller, not have to do something dangerous in an attempt to alleviate it because of some politicians’ antiquated thinking.
Because the death of an unborn child — their passive receipt of your destructive action — is analogous to the dissipation of pain in your own head.
It’s “antiquated” to deem an extinguished human life different than a relieved headache.
Such progress.
It was analogous of the situation which has been brought about, not comparative rasqual. You can figure out the difference, can’t you?
Yes, receding in time on womens rights, such progress.
Any woman who bends a coat hanger, shoves it into her vagina, through her cervix and into her uterus to try and kill her own baby is in desperate need of medical and psychological attention and care!!
Call 911 immediately!!
PS
To help desperate women in a crisis pregnancy we offer help and support to end the crisis, not the child.
Hi Carla,
Just like some of these celebrities who claimed they coat hangered themelves as pregnant teenagers. Yeah right.
First of all their luck and aim were remarkably accurate. Second they survived and had more children. So I must say ladies, considering you were mere children, you pulled this off without a hitch, something that has supposedly killed grown women right and left.
Also, medical records please ladies. While you give us your sob stories of “complications” I would like to see verification.
Also Carla, in the book “And I don’t Want To Live This Life” Deborah Spungen describes how her mentally ill daughter Nancy attempts to “abort” herself by inserting some kind of object into her vagina when she was around 14y/o. Nancy was never pregnant, but would always maintain she had an “illegal abortion”. Deborah attributed this to Nancy’s self destructiveness and suicidal tendencies, she slashed her wrists at age 11. So you’re quite right that many of these women may have serious mental health issues.
Exactly Mary!!
Good Lord do proaborts even THINK beyond drawing a coat hanger on a piece of cardboard or waving one in the air????!!
I thought Whoopi Goldberg claims she did her own coat hanger abortion. ?!
Hi Carla,
Yes Whoopi was one. The other actress’ name I can’t think of right now though I see her face as plain as day, but sadly she suffered a serious bout of mental illness, she was found wandering aimlessly, and was diagnosed as bipolar. Again, the mental health issue.
As I said, I remain highly skeptical of these accounts. People can say anything, especially when there are conveniently no records of any kind to back it up.
Re: #8
It’s uteri, not uteruses.
(that’s about all the time these deserve)
is it common for doctors in the US to move from state to state to work. For example, would a specialist be brought in from another state to do a specific type of operation?
Is this what happens in the US regarding abortions? Are doctors from out of state brought in to do late term abortions?
Hi angel,
The only such situations I know of are abortionists. Carhart travels between states, works a few days at a mill and then leaves.
Ex-RINO or Jack, tell me how a liberal would spin this
“We refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.”
— President Obama in his weekly address, Oct. 13, 2012.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/19/news/economy/detroit-bankruptcy-bailout/index.html?source=cnn_bin