Via Created Equal… #Prochoice activists don't seem interested in dialogue with @createdequalnet today. @JillStanek @PPact @NARAL pic.twitter.com/fqwrbuPs9W — Seth Drayer (@sethdrayer) August 15, 2014

An August 15 op ed in the Washington Post makes the case that a common depiction of abortion by proponents plays right into pro-life hands.

Janet Harris, former communications director for the pro-abortion group EMILY’s List, cites several reasons why calling abortion a “difficult decision” cedes ground. She also posits the first clear reason I’ve read why “pro-choice” is problematic:

Another letter of support, also on UCSB letterhead, comes from Eileen Boris, a professor in the Department of Feminist Studies. Prof. Boris seeks clemency for her colleague, stating, “she was at the stage of a pregnancy when one is not fully one’s self fully, so the image of a severed fetus appeared threatening.” “If she […]

Although pro-choicers admit over and over and over (and over and over and over) that they are losing the epic battle over abortion, they continue to be shocked and awed by pro-life prowess.

I can only deduce they think they are losing not because we’re so smart but because they’re so stupid.

Which may actually be true, a case in point being that NARAL Pro-Choice Texas and Progress Texas are under the mistaken impression they conducted a super sleuth undercover investigation of pro-lifers. LiberalAmerica.org excitedly reported that “a member of the Progress Texas team managed to slip into the Texas State Capitol last Monday for ‘Keeping Abortion Clinics Closed,’ a training seminar sponsored by the Texas Alliance for Life.”

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• At Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal details the perfect storm swirling in Australia (as well as the United States) where empirical evidence on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link is confronted with an ideology which seeks to suppress the data:
  Melbye, Brinton, and the rest of the NCI coterie deny the validity of their own data (as well as data from all over the globe), data that time and time again substantiate the ABC link. Their sole reason for denying the data in case-control studies (which are retrospective analyses) is the assertion that women who have had induced abortions are more likely to recall them, or report them if they have breast cancer. Dr. Janet Daling who included in one of her studies a test of this putative bias, studied women with cervical cancer and found absolutely no recall bias in her cases or controls. That makes sense because nearly all cervical cancers are caused by human papilloma virus. Janet Daling also publishes with the deniers….

  The issue is the legality of induced abortion and what the frightening specter of breast cancer fifteen or twenty years later might mean. In other words, it’s scientists denying scientific data because of a political agenda.

by Hans Johnson Many a television sitcom has portrayed fathers as bumbling and even clueless. Yes, this has been a gentle push-back to patriarchal authority. But in recent years we have been reminded of the indispensable role that fathers play in the family unit. This full-length version of a Cheerios tv commercial is a salute […]

by Kelli The interesting thing is when you’re in the neonatal nursery and you’ve got a one-pound baby, everybody acknowledges that that baby has rights, the Bill of Rights applies to that baby and nobody can hurt that baby… It’s a one-pound baby. But a week before, even a full-term seven-pound baby has no rights, […]

by Kelli

Comedian Andy Kline (pictured right) gained some attention from NARAL this week on Twitter for his 2012 joke about transvaginal ultrasound laws.

The female author of this Upworthy article, which includes Kline’s comedy routine transcript, says Kline “makes an excellent point,” but I can’t seem to find it: