Obama may have voted "present," but Hillary voted "yes" on identical pro-life bill

I reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton is giving Barack Obama heat for voting "present" on certain bills as IL state senator, seven on abortion issues, according to Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times. I know three of those were on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act package of bills.

Well, there has been such a rich development.

emily%27s%20list2.jpgMSNBC reported yesterday on a press conference arranged by the Clinton campaign with Ellen Malcolm, head of the pro-abortion group, EMILY's List, to tout Hillary as the best credentialled pro-abort presidential candidate. EMILY's List raises funds for pro-abort female legislative candidates, and has a dismal record to show for it, btw. Continued MSNBC:

Malcolm hadn't mentioned Obama by name, but she said that those who vote "present" at tough times don't show a true commitment to leadership - referring to Obama's "present" votes on some anti-abortion measures while serving in the Illinois state Senate.

Does Malcolm really want to go there?

The fact is Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as U.S. Senator, one of the very bills she and EMILY are nailing Obama for voting "present" on as state senator. Was it not better to vote "present" than "yes"? Is that the kind of leadership EMILY wants?

This point is begging for someone in the MSM to pick up on, particularly since the Obama and Clinton campaigns are vying for pro-abort affections.

[HT for MSNBC story: Lifenews.com]


Comments:

Both Clinton and Obama are co-sponsors of FOCA.

Posted by: SoMG at December 6, 2007 8:34 PM


The fact is Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as U.S. Senator, one of the very bills she and EMILY are nailing Obama for voting "present" on as state senator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What does the Born Alive bill have to do with abortion?
Once a fetus becomes a separate entity it carries all of the rights any American has - including the right to treatment.
I believe that if the fetus delivered in Hialeah was truly alive and was actually dropped into a bag of bleach that everyone involved should hang.
Of course Hillary voted YES on the bill. I'm your evil stereotypical "pro-abort" and I wouldn't hesitate. I think what happened in that laundry room in Illinois was pathetic.

Posted by: Laura at December 6, 2007 9:22 PM


Laura,
oh...my....gosh...I cannot believe you said that! I mean, I'm really glad you did, but I surely didn't expect it! I'm speechless!!!

WOW!
(don't worry...not claiming a "pl victory or anything...just....WOW!)

Posted by: AB Laura at December 6, 2007 9:46 PM


It couldn't possibly be about "pro-life," we're not discussing abortion.

Posted by: Laura at December 6, 2007 9:53 PM


Laura,

OK....WOW!!!!!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 6, 2007 10:01 PM


This thread brings up an interesting question for all the pro-aborts out there. If there comes a time within medical science to remove a baby from a mother without killing the child, would you support the requirement of this procedure over one that kills the child?

Posted by: Charles at December 6, 2007 10:07 PM


"This thread brings up an interesting question for all the pro-aborts out there. If there comes a time within medical science to remove a baby from a mother without killing the child, would you support the requirement of this procedure over one that kills the child?"

The point of abortion is to give the woman back bodily autonomy. If the child could be safely removed at any point during an abortion I say do it. As for the born alive thing, the babies should not be killed because the point of abortion isn't to kill the fetus it's to get the fetus out of there the best way for the mother possible. If all pregnancies could be ended without the fetuses death and we had a better sex ed/ social services in this country that would be fine and dandy like sour candy.

Posted by: Jess at December 7, 2007 12:11 AM


The fact is Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as U.S. Senator, one of the very bills she and EMILY are nailing Obama for voting "present" on as state senator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What does the Born Alive bill have to do with abortion?
Once a fetus becomes a separate entity it carries all of the rights any American has - including the right to treatment.
I believe that if the fetus delivered in Hialeah was truly alive and was actually dropped into a bag of bleach that everyone involved should hang.
Of course Hillary voted YES on the bill. I'm your evil stereotypical "pro-abort" and I wouldn't hesitate. I think what happened in that laundry room in Illinois was pathetic.

Posted by: Laura at December 6, 2007 9:22 PM
..............................................................

There are reasons that I moved out of Illinois in 1976 and would never move back.

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 12:11 AM


I'm in your blog posting my opinions (again).

Posted by: Jess at December 7, 2007 12:12 AM


This thread brings up an interesting question for all the pro-aborts out there. If there comes a time within medical science to remove a baby from a mother without killing the child, would you support the requirement of this procedure over one that kills the child?

Posted by: Charles at December 6, 2007 10:07 PM
......................................

Weird question Charles. What would be served by spending millions/billions to artificially gestate embryos into possible children? Why not just bribe pregnant women with the millions/billions to do the job?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 12:18 AM


Weird question Charles. What would be served by spending millions/billions to artificially gestate embryos into possible children? Why not just bribe pregnant women with the millions/billions to do the job?

Hmmmmmmm....

Posted by: mk at December 7, 2007 4:23 AM


Some states have introduced bills that would offer cash incentives to choose adoption over abortion.

Posted by: hippie at December 7, 2007 6:11 AM


I can well remember the days when aborted fetuses were expelled alive from the womb, and the question was what to do with them now.
It happened a couple of times at a university hospital in our state and was quite an embarassement when it became public.
Determining gestational age wasn't and still isn't always an exact science. Also, you may have people working in clinics who do not have the credentials to perform ultrasound, much less determine gestational age.
Saline abortions could often result in live births, if only for a brief period. Hysterotomy was another earlier method, where the womb was opened, the fetus removed, and set aside to die.
Even a feminist manual I read years ago, I believe it was an early version of "Our Bodies, Ourselves", though I could be wrong, mentioned the possibility of fetuses being born with "signs of life"(i.e. born alive) from later term abortions. This could certainly be bothersome and was considered most annoying when it happened. They were quite distressed that the costs of keeping the baby alive would then be passed on to the woman.
She paid for a dead baby and has every right to expect one.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 9:23 AM



I should also mention that abortion methods were developed to decrease the likelihood of a baby surviving an abortion attempt and the dilemma of what to do with it, partial birth abortion being one of them. There was also the one where a fetus was dismembered piece by piece, and went by such names as D&E and D&X. Injection of a drug to stop the fetal heartbeat was another.
Even this didn't always guarantee a dead baby, as the case of Ana Rosa Rodriguez demonstrates. She survived a dismemberment attempt, she was supposed to be dead and wasn't, and was born prematurely after her arm was ripped off.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 9:39 AM


She survived a dismemberment attempt, she was supposed to be dead and wasn't, and was born prematurely after her arm was ripped off.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 9:39 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, someone idiot pumped Dennis Quaids twins full of heparin.
Did you know that there are morons in medicine, and that sometimes s**t happens? I'm not kidding...

Posted by: Laura at December 7, 2007 9:53 AM


Some states have introduced bills that would offer cash incentives to choose adoption over abortion. - hippie

Do you know what states are doing this? I'd like to learn more. It seems to me like this could be a dangerous game to play, the buying and selling of babies.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 7, 2007 9:57 AM


Laura,

Yes I heard about the tragedy and wish those little souls a full recovery. I'm very familiar with heparin and treat it with respect. First and foremost I follow the most important rule, I read the label, something that obviously was not done in this case. Second, I always double check the dose with another nurse, having her read the bottle label as well.
In my opinion, what happened to those twins is indefensible. I can't imagine what the person(s) who made that mistake must be going through. We're all human, and for the most part do not deliberately set out to harm another person.

I really don't see what this has to do with my post though. This was not a deliberate attempt to harm those children, it was a tragic accident.
My point was that methods were developed to make certain a baby was born dead after many embarassing incidents of babies not dying like they were supposed to. Ana was supposed to be one of these babies, she survived maimed instead.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 10:21 AM


"The point of abortion is to give the woman back bodily autonomy."

you have got to be kidding!!!!LOL!!!

Posted by: rosie at December 7, 2007 10:24 AM


I really don't see what this has to do with my post though. This was not a deliberate attempt to harm those children, it was a tragic accident.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is was another example of some half-wit practicing bad medicine.
Neither of those foul-ups would have occurred had those procedures been performed by competent professionals.

Posted by: Laura at December 7, 2007 11:05 AM


Laura,

By foul up do you mean he didn't kill little Ana as he should have? That was really his biggest mistake. He was supposed to have killed her in the womb and didn't.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 11:40 AM


Laura,

By foul up do you mean he didn't kill little Ana as he should have? That was really his biggest mistake. He was supposed to have killed her in the womb and didn't.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 11:40 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yup. That's exactly what I mean.
Perform the abortion or don't.

Posted by: Laura at December 7, 2007 12:09 PM


I agree with Laura. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is not a major issue for the pro-choice crowd. Even NARAL eventually decided not to oppose that law.

Posted by: tp at December 7, 2007 12:13 PM


tp,

Why is it not a major issue?

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 12:27 PM


Some states have introduced bills that would offer cash incentives to choose adoption over abortion.

Posted by: hippie at December 7, 2007 6:11 AM
................................................

If you are willing to spend the huge amount it would take to artificially gestate, you should be equally willing to pony up for women you wish to force to gestate. Isn't paying women to put children up for adoption a little too close to the buying and selling of human beings for your taste?
And since you believe that there is a baby at conception would the woman get the cash upon that event or would she have to wait until she has produced an actual child?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 12:42 PM


Laura,

Being that Ana is now a grown woman, wouldn't it be nice if you could tell her that yourself?

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 1:04 PM


tp,

Why is it not a major issue?

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 12:27 PM
...........................................................................

Why would anyone object to medical intervention in the event of a premature infant having a reasonable chance at life? No matter how it was born.
Let's take Jill's experience. Her former hospital performs 10-20 induced abortions a year I believe. Out of 10-12 how many do you suppose are viable and can survive delivery? 1 or 2? How many of those have a reasonable chance at life?
Jill speaks of an aborted fetus with Down's yet doesn't mention the extent of the syndrome let alone the implications involved if the pregnancy had been allowed to term. Would there have been a live birth? Would the infant have had a reasonable chance at life?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 1:08 PM


Sally,

The mothers of these children practiced their right to choose to abort them. They wanted dead babies, why shouldn't they have them? These are not legal persons, and some would argue even not human beings. Good grief Sally, are you suggesting these are living beings? Abortion actually kills?
In my earlier post I pointed out that even feminists at one time expressed concern about the cost of treating these babies born alive, you know, the ones expelled with "signs of life", being passed on to the woman. Certainly you would agree, since its not the fault of these women the fetus was born alive, they expected it to be dead! Now they have to pay. The nerve!
I remember how upset the PC community was when word got out from the university hospital that aborted babies were surviving. Talk about embarassing! No wonder they had to develop methods to make certain they were good and dead on delivery.
No Sally, I maintain that if you pay for a dead baby you get one before or after expulsion.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 1:29 PM


Sally,

The mothers of these children practiced their right to choose to abort them. They wanted dead babies, why shouldn't they have them? These are not legal persons, and some would argue even not human beings. Good grief Sally, are you suggesting these are living beings? Abortion actually kills?
In my earlier post I pointed out that even feminists at one time expressed concern about the cost of treating these babies born alive, you know, the ones expelled with "signs of life", being passed on to the woman. Certainly you would agree, since its not the fault of these women the fetus was born alive, they expected it to be dead! Now they have to pay. The nerve!
I remember how upset the PC community was when word got out from the university hospital that aborted babies were surviving. Talk about embarassing! No wonder they had to develop methods to make certain they were good and dead on delivery.
No Sally, I maintain that if you pay for a dead baby you get one before or after expulsion.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 1:29 PM

.....................................................

You are goofy Mary. Abortions performed at the point in gestation when a viable infant might be produced are performed for medical reasons. An infant may survive being born but unable to further support life. These are wanted pregnancies Mary. Pregnancies gone wrong. These women experience deep dissapointment. To mock them and dehumanize their experience is nasty mean.
I say that you should personally pay to attempt to keep these non viable infants alive if you are so concerned about them. You expend the millions to keep them 'alive' for however long you can.

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 2:00 PM


Sally,

According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of The National Coalition of Abortion Providers, repudiated what he call the "party line" and claimed that 3,000 to 5,000 partial birth abortions were performed annually and in the "vast majority of cases" on "a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along". Subsequently other spokespersons for major abortion providers confirmed what Fitzsimmons said and publicly defended him.(New York Times February 26, 1997).
You got it straight from the horse's mouth Sally, most late term abortions have not been performed for medical reasons.
Also, exactly what are these medical conditions women are aborted late term for?
I have in no way mocked women who have delivered a premature baby or have lost a child in any manner, shape or form.
I was referring to women who aborted babies they for whatever reason did not want and the babies survived. In case you didn't notice Sally, I was also using PC arguments.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 2:23 PM


Mary --

The mothers of these children practiced their right to choose to abort them. They wanted dead babies, why shouldn't they have them?

A woman has a right to have her pregnancy ended. What happens to the fetus/newborn afterwards is a separate issue. Whether the fetus dies or lives, the pregnancy is over, so either way the woman got what she wanted: no more pregnancy.

In my earlier post I pointed out that even feminists at one time expressed concern about the cost of treating these babies born alive, you know, the ones expelled with "signs of life", being passed on to the woman. Certainly you would agree, since its not the fault of these women the fetus was born alive, they expected it to be dead! Now they have to pay. The nerve!

I doubt this would ever be an issue. The state pays for wards of the state. If a woman doesn't want a baby and doesn't want to pay for treatment, she can just give it up.

Posted by: tp at December 7, 2007 2:25 PM


tp,

It was an issue the feminist authors of this book had, they were concerned that the cost of keeping a living aborted fetus alive could be passed on to the woman. Yes, the woman could give the child up, as was the case with Gianna Jesson(sp?) who survived a saline abortion and grew into a talented and lovely young woman. I wrote one magazine, one that was obviously very sympathetic to abortion, taking them to task for treating this young woman in such a condescending and trivializing manner. But, being she was such an embarassment, what can one expect?
tp, do you honestly think when a woman aborts late term for non-medical reasons she wants a living baby? Sure she doesn't want to be pregnant, but she sure as the devil doesn't want the baby alive either. That's why she's aborting. She expects it will be dead, otherwise she would just go to term.
I well remember the days tp when living aborted babies were a source of great embarassment and consternation to the PC crowd. Just what do you do with these things when they're alive and are supposed to be dead? Usually, they were just put aside until they did die. The PC argument was that no killing was taking place, but these living babies, gasping for air and moving, said otherwise.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 3:35 PM


Sally,

According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of The National Coalition of Abortion Providers, repudiated what he call the "party line" and claimed that 3,000 to 5,000 partial birth abortions were performed annually and in the "vast majority of cases" on "a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along". Subsequently other spokespersons for major abortion providers confirmed what Fitzsimmons said and publicly defended him.(New York Times February 26, 1997).
You got it straight from the horse's mouth Sally, most late term abortions have not been performed for medical reasons.
Also, exactly what are these medical conditions women are aborted late term for?
I have in no way mocked women who have delivered a premature baby or have lost a child in any manner, shape or form.
I was referring to women who aborted babies they for whatever reason did not want and the babies survived. In case you didn't notice Sally, I was also using PC arguments.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 2:23 PM
...................................................................

Fitzsimmons was the Director back in 1997. He no longer holds that position. Former director would be the appropriate title. He certainly was not an expert on the subject. He originally stated far fewer late term abortions than he did 16 months later when he claims to have lied in testimony. He offered no back up for his new numberical claim or his flip flop over the reasons these abortions took place.
This was all years ago. We now have better pregnancy detection as well as fetal anomaly detection. Not to mention reporting policies.
Do you really not know why late term abortions are performed. You've never heard of fetal anomalies? Fetal demise?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 6:30 PM


Fitzsimmons was the Director back in 1997. He no longer holds that position. Former director would be the appropriate title. He certainly was not an expert on the subject. He originally stated far fewer late term abortions than he did 16 months later when he claims to have lied in testimony. He offered no back up for his new numberical claim or his flip flop over the reasons these abortions took place.
This was all years ago. We now have better pregnancy detection as well as fetal anomaly detection. Not to mention reporting policies.
Do you really not know why late term abortions are performed. You've never heard of fetal anomalies? Fetal demise?

From http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.html

**************

"There is no evidence that the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by the partial-birth abortion method are any different, in general, than the reasons for which late-term abortions are performed by other methods -- and it is well established that the great majority of late-term abortions do not involve any illness of the mother or the baby. They are purely "elective" procedures-- that is, they are performed for purely "social" reasons.

"In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics:

There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added]

Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers."

In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded:

If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can.

According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas:

About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 8:03 PM


Sally,

Fitzsimmons wasn't an expert? He represented a coalition of more than 200 abortion clinics.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute about 15,000 abortions were performed on women 20 weeks or more in the year 2000, the vast majority between the 20 and 24th week.
In 1993 the late Martin Haskell in the "Medical News"(official newspaper of the AMA)stated "I'll be quite frank, most of my abortions are elective in the 20-24 week range...in my particular case probably 20%{of this procedure} are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective".
Dr. James McMahon said that of the more 2,000 partial birth abortions he had performed only 9% were for maternal{health} reasons, the most common "indication" {health reason} being depression.
A Washington Post investigation described those that elect to have partial birth abortion in the following way:
"The "typical" patients tend to be young, low income women, often poorly educated or naive, who's reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical"
I don't think Fitzsimmons was too far off the mark.
The point is Sally, if a woman is at any risk to her life or health, she can go to the nearest hospital equipped to handle her needs. There is no need for the likes of abortionist Tiller, or any other late term hack. If there is a fetal anomoly, the same holds true. Both mother and child will receive the most safe and humane care possible.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 8:35 PM


Bethany,

An excellent post, thank you.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 8:38 PM


Bethany, thank you for your post. You just highlighted several very important reasons why there should be more comprehensive sex ed and the availability of abortion clinics, as well as why we need to focus on bringing up our community, rather than dragging it down.

"71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,"

A need for better education.

"48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements,"

Due to lack of availability of abortion clinics or no public transportation? Perhaps scheduling problems, not knowing which doctor or hospital to go to? All reasons why we need more women's clinics that provide both contraceptive and abortion services.

"There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc."

A lack of money and health insurance... now why should anyone lack health insurance? If only we were all able to be paid a decent living wage with benefits, now wouldn't the world be a better place.

And again, lack of knowledge, hence the need for better education. (Hint: Abstinence only just doesn't seem to cut it)

Posted by: Edyt at December 7, 2007 8:41 PM



Mary, thank you. :)

Edyt, it seems to me that the lack of education was in the fetal development dept, from what I referenced. Not lack of knowledge of SEX.

So do you agree that it would be a good thing to allow children the opportunity to learn more about fetal development...because, believe me, we pro-lifers have bundles of this info that we'd love to share with teens!

Yes, I agree...more education IS needed in this area.

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 8:54 PM


Sally,

Fitzsimmons wasn't an expert? He represented a coalition of more than 200 abortion clinics.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute about 15,000 abortions were performed on women 20 weeks or more in the year 2000, the vast majority between the 20 and 24th week.
In 1993 the late Martin Haskell in the "Medical News"(official newspaper of the AMA)stated "I'll be quite frank, most of my abortions are elective in the 20-24 week range...in my particular case probably 20%{of this procedure} are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective".
Dr. James McMahon said that of the more 2,000 partial birth abortions he had performed only 9% were for maternal{health} reasons, the most common "indication" {health reason} being depression.
A Washington Post investigation described those that elect to have partial birth abortion in the following way:
"The "typical" patients tend to be young, low income women, often poorly educated or naive, who's reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical"
I don't think Fitzsimmons was too far off the mark.
The point is Sally, if a woman is at any risk to her life or health, she can go to the nearest hospital equipped to handle her needs. There is no need for the likes of abortionist Tiller, or any other late term hack. If there is a fetal anomoly, the same holds true. Both mother and child will receive the most safe and humane care possible.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 8:35 PM
.................................................................

Mary,
Please stop quoting proven quacks and ten year old news articles. Thank you.
A good doctor will send a woman to the nearest expert for an abortion if they are not trained or expert enough to handle the procedure. Doctors tend to specialize you know. Not every community is going to have a doctor trained to competently perform a late term abortion. Lord knows it took my hospital 18 hours to find a doctor able to attend to my particular brand of miscarriage. And I live in a big city.
You seem to have the concept that when doctors wrestled away child delivery from midwives, they magically became experts in all things gestational. It was years before the formally illegal procedure of abortion was allowed to be learned or practiced for any reason.

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 9:00 PM


Edyt,

We have comprehensive sex ed. We have Planned Parenthood clinics. Teenagers have access to birth control.
Denial of pregnancy has nothing to do with education. It has everything to do with the human psyche. The human mind is one very bizarre entity. I've seen mature women come into the ER in labor, absolutely adamant that they could not be and were not pregnant.
Why would anyone lack health insurance? Sometimes people don't give enough of a damn to get it. Yes it would be the perfect world if we all got a decent wages and benefits. It would also be a perfect world if all people made taking care of their health a priority and didn't abuse their bodies by overeating, not exercising, and abusing drugs. There are social service agencies and programs to assist individuals truly in need of medical help who are unisured for whatever reason.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 9:13 PM


Sally,

I agree the late term abortionists are hacks, though they are not regarded as quacks. The ones I quoted were and are highly regarded in the abortion community. A few developed the late term methods used by abortionists today.
No Sally, a good doctor will refer any woman to the nearest reputable specialist if there is any risk to her life or health or any problem with the fetus. Just as a doctor would refer a patient to a cancer specialist if necessary. He/she would be seriously derelict in their responsibility in not doing so.
Yes, I am well aware doctors tend to specialize.
Any OB/GYN can induce a late term abortion when necessary to save the woman's life, or for fetal demise. Depending on the fetal anomoly or maternal health or life issue, the woman can be referred for more specialized care or to a better equipped facility. I have seen mid trimester abortions performed for fetal demise right in our operating rooms by an OB/GYN. There was no need to send the woman anywhere.
Actually Sally I'm well aware that doctors wrestled delivery from the midwives, resulting initially in an increase in maternal mortality, and abortion has always been legal where necessary to save the mother's life. Thankfully in this day and age, it rarely comes down to that, but can and does happen. Thankfully we have the maternal high risk units and specialists our mothers and grandmothers never had.

Posted by: Mary at December 7, 2007 9:28 PM


tp, abortion makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Posted by: heather at December 8, 2007 9:34 AM


Mary, thank you for these posts. You would think that such things would be totally illegal. Before coming to Jill's site, I never knew that children ever survived abortions. It makes me so very sad. How can women do this? How can they destroy their own children?

Posted by: heather at December 8, 2007 6:11 PM


Heather,

You're welcome. Babies surviving abortion was not uncommon when methods for determining fetal age were not as accurate as they are now and saline abortion was the preferred method for later term abortions. This was even pointed out in the feminist book that I mentioned.
It did cause a dilemma as what to do with the surviving fetus, especially when he/she didn't die right away, despite the best efforts at neglect.

Posted by: Mary at December 8, 2007 9:23 PM


A lack of money and health insurance... now why should anyone lack health insurance? If only we were all able to be paid a decent living wage with benefits, now wouldn't the world be a better place.

Posted by: Edyt at December 7, 2007 8:41 PM

And how do you propose this happens? Let me guess, we raise the minimum wage? What happens then? It's called inflation. I'm good friends with a couple that I worked for in my teens, they own an ice cream shop, much like a Dairy Queen. When the minimum wage went up, guess what! So did their prices! These were by no means wealthy people. They made a decent living and that was about it. No crazy vacations, no luxury cars, a home and two kids.

You people rail against the big businesses while you do nothing but punish the mom and pop shops. Do you think it matters to McDonalds that the minimum wage goes up? It doesn't, I worked for their corporate headquarters in Oakbrook in the late 1990's, they don't blink an eye. Up the price of their hamburgers by 5 cents and they've just made up for the increase and raised the CEO salary by about $4 million for his trouble.

But at that mom and pop ice cream shop you are paying $4.50 for a banana split that used to cost $2.00. Business drops off and they close the shop. Great plan!

Posted by: Kristen at December 9, 2007 9:19 AM


Kristen,

Not to mention these moronic juries who reward millions to people too stupid to know that one should be careful how a ladder is placed before ascending it or that one should not jump off a neighbor's picnic table while intoxicated, to name just a few examples I know personally. Really socking it to those insurance companies, right?
Guess who the insurance companies pass the costs of these half-wit lawsuits off to with increased rates and decreased benefits. You guessed it, the customers, including the moronic jurors who think they're socking it to the insurance companies.

Posted by: Mary at December 9, 2007 11:21 AM


Mary - you are so right about frivolous lawsuits and ludicrous awards. Insurance companies don't really "pay" judgments, but rather, like other businesses, merely collect them from their customers, as with taxes.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 9, 2007 11:03 PM


Sally,

The abortionists claim that 80% of late term abortions are purely elective. Why don't you believe them?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2007 11:26 PM


The abortionists claim that 80% of late term abortions are purely elective. Why don't you believe them?

Depends on what you mean by "late term." Heck, that could be at 20 weeks, when sure - most of them are elective.

Posted by: Doug at December 11, 2007 11:46 PM


fwxiq igfvprs dyil kclgo akfoiqn cirxuv jrqfc

Posted by: zspd szenarc at December 16, 2007 1:09 AM


ujlyar qtbn wlgnshmv slwixuj tvzy zpeb exrsyzog gyda xadz

Posted by: mbvhtodul gekbhrf at December 16, 2007 1:11 AM


Good site. Thanks:-)
leather handbags

Posted by: leather handbags at December 17, 2007 8:21 PM