Great article, Jill. I am also surprised he wasn't more prepared for that question. It comes up so often, you'd think he would have expected it.

D. Some sensed by getting through the pregnancy, they would conquer the rape, reclaim lost self-esteem. Giving birth in this circumstance would be totally selfless, generous, courageous, and proof they were better than the rapist. He destroyed, they nurtured.

This is my favorite point.

Brownback got the general essance of the pro-life argument, but fell short of actually pointing to any evidence. I don't think his answer was terrible, just not great.

Its unfortunate that instead of Sen. Brownback being praised for taking an unpopular position on abortion to a national debate -- a position that most so-called "pro-life" politicians refuse to take -- instead of pro-lifers embracing and praising him for it, they criticize him for it.

Senator Brownback has done more to protect innocent human life in Congress then anyone. He is a humble man who will always fight for life and what is right, even when the people who should be behind him aren't.

I don't know much about Senator Brownback, and I apologize if my comment sounded mean. I just meant he could have been better prepared for the question. I completely agree with everything he said....I don't think this post by Jill was written to criticize him as much as it was to explain what he might have said to explain his position on rape better.

Billy, you trigger a point that should be accentuated: Brownback is a great champion of life. Perhaps I should prefaced my post with that.

Brownback has taken the 100% pro-life position, for which I'm sure he's beaten up often.

Call what I said constructive criticism. I'm grateful for his stand. He could just help himself and the movement to present his rationale better. I didn't merely complain. I offered a solution: talking points.

Did any of the other candidates respond with anything this pro-life?

Just for the heck of it, click on Amanda's name. It will take you to her blog. Look at all the evil, hateful venom they spew. Amanda looks mean. I guess I would too if I had to listen to those comments day in and day out!

PS Amanda makes a few of her own as well. These people are so immature.

Lauren, here's the transcript:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Yes Heather, she is very mean and nasty. Their not very happy people at all. She often boasts about the fact she's from the Church of Satan.

Jill,

If you think Brownback needs constructive criticism, what do the other candidates running for president need?

Do you realize how Pro-Lifers felt when they heard Romney say in 2002 that he would preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and he would not change any of the Pro-Choice laws/policies in his state.

And what kind of constructive criticism was offered when we all found out that Rudy had personally contributed to the murder of the unborn through his financial contribution to Planned Parenthood, even though he says he "hates abortion."

Had one of the other major Republican candidates for president been asked the question Brownback was asked they may have said the murder of the unborn would be just "Okay," as Rudy did during the first debate.

What I'm trying to say is that Brownback is our greatest ally in the fight to end abortion, and he always has been. A word of THANKS might be more appropriate!

She sure could pass for satan [look at that mean face] Yikes! Doesn't she have a child?

"I don't know much about Senator Brownback, and I apologize if my comment sounded mean. I just meant he could have been better prepared for the question."

yes, Bethany, that's why he should consult Jill or one of you ladies on how to respond. I'm sure he'd accept your offer or suggestion.

I'm not sure, if she does, I feel sorry for the child.

Billy Valentine, I read your article about Brownback, then went to The Sam Brownback page...well, let's just say he has my full support.

Jasper, I honestly didn't mean it in a mean way, I feel terrible now. There are so many times I could have been better prepared for questions too. I certainly wasn't trying to say I have all the answers or am better than him somehow. :-( I'm sorry if what I said sounded arrogant.

Josh:

On Romney and Rudy: One was pro-abortion at the time and one is pro-abortion now. Apples and oranges as related to this discussion.

Look, Brownback is solid on our issue. But that does not force me to excuse ineptness. If Brownback is on the campaign trail speaking to thousands of people a day in person and millions on television, he must be skilled in apologetics. Otherwise he fumbles a valuable forum. This isn't just about standing for what is right. It's about winning converts, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks Jill.

Bethany, You arrogant? No way! I am afraid that I don't have a full understanding of the whole issue either. Call me an airhead, but I'm not really seeing where he was ill prepared. I do know that he is pro life, but that's about it. I'm willing to learn more.

jasper, I think Amanda does have a daughter. That poor kid! If this woman so despises life,then why on earth ever have children? She will just breed more hate. It's like the KKK teaching their offspring their hateful ways.

Jill,

I do understand your criticism. I worked for the Susan B. Anthony List in Alexandria, a pro-life woman's organization for four years all through high school and part of college. I know the talking points, and they are great.

But nothing Brownback said was wrong -- it just wasn't from the standpoint that you were hoping to hear him speak on.

But if you read around the blogs, especially open thread blogs about the debate, people loved his answer. The only people criticizing it seem to be pro-aborts and two writers from the National RINO Review.

My point continues to be this -- never have we had a politician on a national scale who is against rape and incest. Its incredible. Nothing he said was inept. It's all true. And yes, of course abortion hurts the woman, and Brownback acknowledged this when he said that getting an abortion does not put the woman in a better situation. But everything he said about how abortion ultimately takes the life of a child is right.

How can the truth ever be inept?

Amanda who? And comparing abortion to the KKK isnt really a good analogy Heather (being sincere, not starting a fight this early in the morning). The KKK is an organized group that *hates* all minorities, especially African Americans. What they teach makes my blood boil and I wish that group would fall off the face of the earth.

midnite, Amanda is the girl at the top. She is hateful, and if I could cuss, I would! She is a hate filled woman. Go check out her blog.

I hate the KKK too, but I am pointing out the fact that they teach their young children to hate. Amanda probably does the same as she boasts about being from the church of satan. You can't get much more hateful than that!

Huh, Church of Satan? Ok, I gotta go to the doctor and I will read up on this woman when I get to work. I sincerely hope someone wouldnt teach their child about the Church of Satan (and seeing that I am not religous, and I find that bad, definitely means something)....

Tootles For Now!

Bethany, You arrogant? No way! I am afraid that I don't have a full understanding of the whole issue either. Call me an airhead, but I'm not really seeing where he was ill prepared. I do know that he is pro life, but that's about it. I'm willing to learn more.

I can see how it must have sounded that way. I really didn't mean it that way though.
I was being oversensitive to the fact that certain statements can be so easily picked apart by pro-choicers and made to sound bad. Then I went and did the same thing that I didn't want the pro-choicers to do. That wasn't my intent, honestly, but I can see how others would see it that way, and for that, I apologize.

"Jasper, I honestly didn't mean it in a mean way, I feel terrible now. There are so many times I could have been better prepared for questions too. I certainly wasn't trying to say I have all the answers or am better than him somehow. :-( I'm sorry if what I said sounded arrogant."

No, it's OK Bethany, I think you mis-understood me, I was serious:

Jasper: yes, Bethany, that's why he should consult Jill or one of you ladies on how to respond.

Billy, your points are well taken. Perhaps "inept" was too strong a word. And perhaps my thought on what I wished he would have said was so strong it caused me to disparage his entire answer.

At the time, watching him on television, I have to say I thought even the answer he gave was weak and jumbled. That's easy for me to say, sitting in my armchair, I know. But I'm not running for the president of the United States either.

Are you saying Brownback was the only candidate on stage with no exceptions? I didn't know that, if so. If that is true, however, I think that is even more cause for him to be better prepared to answer this critical question, don't you agree? It is the rape/incest question that causes good people who would otherwise be pro-life to go left.

jasper, I tried to leave a comment on Amanda's site. Guess what? It never made it cuz she deleted it. Now that's a real shocker! LOL

Jasper, thank you for letting me know it was a misunderstanding...it makes me feel better! I get confused a lot. (I think I might be catching Valerie's condition). :-D :-P

Wow, look at Rudy's response to the suggestion that his stance on abortion is similar to a "pro-choice" stance on slavery.

"Well, there is no circumstances under which I could possibly imagine anyone choosing slavery or supporting slavery. There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are as of good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion. And I think in a country where you want to keep government out of people's lives, or government out of people's lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that. There are things that you can oppose, things you can be against; and then you can come to the conclusion, in the kind of democracy we have, the kind of society that we have, and the kind of society we have where we want to keep government out of people's personal lives, that you can respect other people's view on this. And I think everyone on this stage, including most Democrats, could probably very, very usefully spend a lot of time figuring out how we can reduce abortion.

It's going to take a while for the courts to figure out what to do about this.

And while we're looking at that, we should do what I did in New York, which is to try to reduce abortions as much as you can, try to increase adoptions."

Wow.

Heather, see, they can't handle it. If they thought it was nonsense, they wouldn't care and would not delete it. But it srikes to their conscience which they are ignoring.

jasper, The reason I wanted to point that out is because of the same mindless insults directed at the Pope, Mother Theresa, and Reverend Falwell. Now, had any of this been about an abortionist passing away, they would all be riding that wave and endlessly praising the abortionist. Sick.

yes, of course...They turn what is beautiful about women (childbirth),motherhood, etc, into something bad.

I was just on My Space reading about another PP bust. This time it was in Arkansas. A 44 year old step father brought his 15 year old step daughter in for an abortion.

I hate the KKK too, but I am pointing out the fact that they teach their young children to hate.

So what's teaching your children that people who don't believe in God are going to hell? Or that homosexuality is evil? Wouldn't teaching those notions to be the 100% truth be teaching them hate, as neither notion is, you know, proven?

Frankly, Brownback makes me ashamed to be from Kansas. He's a nutjob.

So what's teaching your children that people who don't believe in God are going to hell?

No, from what I was told about Hell, i was told that I deserved it as well as everyone else, and so I was equal with all other people in that respect. The only thing that makes me any different than another is the redemption through Christ, which I am grateful for. And this is the typical belief about Hell. No true Christian would be taught to be happy others are going to Hell. However, people in the KKK teach their children that people of other colors and races are to be hated and despised, and that they are inferior.

Or that homosexuality is evil?
Again, that's not targeting a person, but an action. Just like saying stealing is wrong is not saying, "You should hate everyone who steals!"

P.S. I already understand that you do not believe homosexuality is a choice... but we can agree to disagree on this because arguing on it will get us nowhere, and this is an abortion blog.

Okay, I glanced over her site and I am not seeing anywhere on there that she believes in the Church of Satan. Could someone please tell me a specific blog to look in perhaps?

Also, Less you have a point on the teaching your children to hate.

"Frankly, Brownback makes me ashamed to be from Kansas. He's a nutjob."

And I am sure Tiller the Killer makes you proud to be from Kansas. So it all evens out.

Bethany, I think Less was saying some religons teach that. Not all, but some and thus teach the children to hate homosexuals (or we wouldnt have "hate" crimes) & to hate people who dont believe what they do. I know not every church does this, but I have witnessed some that do teach this, and it makes me very sad...

Good one, Sandy.

Oh Sandy, you beat me to that!

Midnite, it sounded to me like she was saying, "Well you guys support hating homosexuals and hating people who aren't in your religion, so you have no room to talk about the KKK", when that is clearly not the case at all.

Granted, I can not speak for Less, but I dont think she was personally saying you do. I havent taken it to think you hate homsexuals or people who arent relgious. If that was case, you wouldnt talk to me, b/c I am agnostic and far from religous. But that's just my spin on it, and I cant speak for her.

Although I know some churches (here in the south) teach people to hate homosexuals and people of differnt religons. It makes me sick, but anyways....

The reason I brought up the KKK to begin with is because they were the first group of people that came to my mind when it came to teaching hate. Especially when it comes to their children. I was saying that Amanda seems evil, and I feel bad for her offspring. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.

Heather:

Where on her blog does it say she follows the Church of Satan?

jasper knew about it - see above post.

Personally, I don't care for the way that she and her blog visitors speak about people. They all sound really ignorant.

As I know very, very, little about Dr. Tiller, I have no idea, Sandy. As Brownback brings his faith into his politics and would force a woman who was raped to carry her attacker's child, well, that's all I need to know. He makes me ashamed that anyone from the state where I lived even part of my life would vote for him.

Jumping on him about his speaking gestures seems a bit excessive, though. We're already aware that he believes he can and should choose for every woman in the US, why do we need to read that into his gestures?

Jill, regarding your online source: David C. Reardon is a major BS artist who has argued in print that penile amputation with a kitchen knife is a consequence of abortion. (http://www.afterabortion.org/bobbitt.html)

His (Reardon's) name is a joke among those who study abortion seriously.

"Dr." David Reardon?
I have a fabulous article about the good "doctor." It turns out that he received his Ph.D in Bioethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited online diploma mill with no actual facility. The "university" never actually offered a Ph.D in Reardon's major. It has since been shut down in California. The "Elliot Institute" is a post office box, and also has no actual facility.
You HAVE to read this. It includes a letter from the liar defending his credentials. It's just SAD...
http://nerofiddled.blogspot.com/2005_07_19_archive.html

I watched the debate the other night and heard Senator Brownbacks answer and initially thought it was a little weak. I was following a live-blog of the debate and one of the commentators said, "what a ridiculous question, everyone knows that rape accounts for less than 1% of all abortion."

It does seem like he could have answered differently, but go back and read it. It is exactly what we want a President saying about the issue of abortion.

It just so happens that I was at a luncheon with Senator Brownback today (he is speaking to the Justice Fondation Dinner tonight in Dallas) and I asked him about his answer. He acknowledged that he could have given statistics but wanted to focus instead on the humanity and sacredness of the child in the womb. My prediction is that this will be a major focus of his campaign.

By the way, if any of you pro-lifers on here get a chance to meet him and hear him actually talk for a little while, unlike these terrible debates where soundbites rule, I have no doubt you will be impressed with him.

Thank you, Laura, for that interesting post and link. I didn't know that his PhD was BS too!

Reardon is a propagandist, not a scientist. It's a mistake to take anything he writes or says seriously.

Laura, I guess I'll have to pull out my list of corrupt abortionists. Stay tuned!

Excuse me, Heather. It was Jill who brought up David C. Reardon by linking to his site.

Heather, do you have anything at all to post besides that list? The list with absolutely no citations...links....anything....

Less, no.

Funny that you don't wish to hear the truth about those scum bags!!!

It was Jill who brought up David C. Reardon by linking to his site.

Most of the footnotes at the end of David Reardon's article (which Jill referred readers to) are not by Reardon. Just wanted to point that out.

Heather, you generally don't cite anything, provide any sources, and it seems that as of late you can't even space properly. Why, then, should I read your entire list, none of which you prove?

Less, I do have proof! Go ahead and disprove it if you think you can.

Do your proofs include legimate newspapers, scholarly journals, or police reports? If there isn't a trail that leads to one of these things, it isn't legitimate proof.

What's the point? We can list bad right-to-lifers just as easily (in fact, from the leadership: Randall Terry, who got kicked out of his church for multiple adulteries; Randall Tobias, who was Bush's abstinance czar until he got caught using prostitutes, just to start.)

SMOG, save it. You are as phony as a three dollar bill. Less, I shall return tomorrow with proof. G'nite.

Oh and Newt Gingrich, who was committing adultery on his desk while managing the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Jill, I think that it's great that Brownback has spoken out on behalf of life. I also agree that it's a shame that he was not more articulate when it came to explaining why he was unwilling to make an exception in the case of rape and incest. It definitely would have been an improvement if he had cited the various reasons you listed.

As a person who believes in the importance of principles and the importance of logical consistency, here's my own take on the issue of rape and incest in relation to the issue of abortion:

Arguing that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape and incest constitutes an acknowledgment that abortion is normally wrong, and that the unborn child normally has a right to life, and that the state normally has a moral and societal obligation to protect that right.

Therefore, arguing that we should make an exception in the case of rape and incest amounts to arguing that even though the unborn child normally has a right to life, the unborn child somehow forfeits that right on account of circumstances of conception which were beyond the unborn child's ability to control.

It appears to me that very few people have thought through the logical implications of the argument.

If in fact a person forfeits the right to life on account of having been conceived as the result of an act of rape or incest, even though the person would otherwise have had that right, then why limit that principle to the womb? Why isn't the principle equally applicable to people of any age who were conceived as the result of rape or incest? If the principle is applicable to the most fundamental right of all (the right to life), then why isn't it equally applicable to other human rights, such as the right to free speech?

Why not argue, for example, that even though a person normally has a right to free speech, the person forfeits that right if it can be determined that he or she was conceived, twenty or thirty years ago or more, as the result of an act of rape or incest?

If a woman reported that she was raped, we could issue a special type of social security card to her child, designating that the child was a member of an inferior social class consisting of people who were not deemed worthy of the normal constitutional protections. The child could be forced to wear a special patch or button (similar to the ones Jews and others were forced to wear in Nazi Germany), stating that that particular person had no constitutional rights, and that it was permissible to assault that person at any time for any reason.

Now, you may think that's an appalling idea, and as it so happens, I agree with you. However, if the premise underlying the idea of making an exception in the case of rape and incest is true, then that's exactly where such a premise would logically lead. And that's precisely why no such exceptions should be made or advocated.

The divinely endowed human rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in no way contingent on the circumstances of a person's conception. To say that they are in the case of abortion is to open a Pandora's Box and to jeopardize the constitutional rights of all Americans by undermining the principles upon which our rights are based.

"Do your proofs include legimate newspapers, scholarly journals, or police reports? If there isn't a trail that leads to one of these things, it isn't legitimate proof."

A little off-topic but, Less, I've been asking for the exact same thing when it comes to crisis pregnancy centers supposedly "lying" to women about their pregnancy.

Please provide any kind of legitimate proof, such as newspapers, scholarly accounts or police reports to back up your claims.

From Guttmacher, a summary of a congressional report on pregnancy centers

Actual Congressional report, including a scholarly research paper, including methodology

Some selections from the above report:
* One pregnancy center told a caller that abortion would affect the developing milk in her breast and inevitably cause cancer.

* Despite the fact that first-trimester abortions have been shown not to affect future fertility, one center told a caller that such loss of fertility was "common" and happened "a lot."

* One center claimed that suicide rates after abortion increase seven times, despite the fact that no research has ever shown that.

Despite the fact that these centers maintain that birth and pregnancy is a natural female role, implying that all females ought to go through these roles (see second link), these centers recieve federal funding.

Less, we have already explained that Guttmacher is a biased source for information. It is the research arm for Planned Parenthood, largest abortion provider in the US. It clearly has abortion interests at heart. Incidentally, Alan Guttmacher was vice president of the American Eugenics Society.

Less, just a question: Would you trust the tobacco industry's reporting on nicotene without carefully comparing their data with other sources first?

I agree--allowing an exception for rape undermines the whole pro-life argument.

Andrew: A little off-topic but, Less, I've been asking for the exact same thing when it comes to crisis pregnancy centers supposedly "lying" to women about their pregnancy.
Please provide any kind of legitimate proof, such as newspapers, scholarly accounts or police reports to back up your claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'VE GOT IT!
Congressman Henry Waxman's office launched an investigation against inaccuracies by Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
His work has lead to a Federal investigation.

Here, have some documentation:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1080

The dirt:
Monday, July 17, 2006
Public Health
Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers Mislead Teens about Abortion Risks

A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.

87 percent of the centers reached by investigators provided false or misleading information about abortion. Under the Bush Administration, pregnancy resource centers, which are also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” have received over $30 million in federal funding. The new report assesses the scientific accuracy of the information they provide. Female investigators, who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about an unintended pregnancy, telephoned the 25 pregnancy resource centers that have received capacity-building funds from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Twenty of the 23 centers reached by the investigators (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion. According to the report:

The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. There is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years," while another told the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts” and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.
The centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk of infertility. However, seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to “many miscarriages” or to “permanent damage” so “you wouldn’t be able to carry,” telling the caller that this is “common” and happens “a lot.”
The centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. Research shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion is no more common than after birth. However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion “goes up by seven times.” Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is “much like” that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and “is something that anyone who’s had an abortion is sure to suffer from.”

Documents and Links
False and Misleading Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers

As for the second article.... hmm, "coincidentally", Henry A Waxman just happens to be very strongly pro-abortion.

"Waxman scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record

"For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position. "

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Henry_Waxman_Abortion.htm

How come your articles can come from pro-aborts, and ours can't come from pro-lifers?
As you've stated, such people have an agenda, therefore, their evidence can't possibly be scientific. This is your logic, not mine.
Just wanted to clear all this up.

Got any objective news sources, police reports, etc?

Less...

I don't think that saying that birth and pregnancy is a natural female role is tantamount to arguing that all females ought to go through with such roles. There's an easy way for women to legitimately choose not to experience birth and pregnancy, without harming any unborn children. It's called abstinence.

For that matter, I have no problem with the use of contraceptives, either, provided that they are genuine contraceptives (in other words, devices which prevent conception), not abortifacients in disguise.

Pro-choice people say that the question is whether or not pregnant women ought to be forced to become mothers. My response is that pregnant women are already mothers, whether they choose to acknowledge that fact or not. The question is not whether or not such women will be mothers. The question is whether or not they will fulfill their moral responsibilities to their unborn children by providing for their unborn children and nurturing them rather than murdering them in utero.

The reason for emphasizing the fact that pregnancy is a "natural" condition is to counteract the propagandistic garbage coming from pro-choice people who talk as if pregnancy is an illness in need of a medical cure. To argue that something which is essential for the continuation of the human species is a sickness in need of a cure is absurd.

Bethany: How come your articles can come from pro-aborts, and ours can't come from pro-lifers?
As you've stated, such people have an agenda, therefore, their evidence can't possibly be scientific. This is your logic, not mine.
Just wanted to clear all this up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bethany, Congressional reports - and especially congressional testimony, such as Henry Waxman's - garner congressional oversight and swearing-in. Deliberate misinformation is better known as "perjury" and is a Federal crime.

My problem with Life Dynamics?
They are held to no such standards.
I could call every Crisis Pregnancy Center in my county 10 times tomorrow (I live in San Bernardino County - there are almost 60) Claim that I'm an abused 15-year-old, and charge every center that fails to report to the police as abetting child molesters.
By the time Life Dynamics had launched a widespread campaign in Texas, everyone knew that there were liars posing as victims, and were instructed to wait for the ARRIVAL of a victim to insure that one actually existed.
(In 2005-2006 Texas saw the most amazing wave of meth violence and arrests on the planet. The fact that Life Dynamics chose THAT moment to highlight some vaguely possible non-existent crime is, well, MORONIC!)
There is NO felony involved in scheduling a patient.
Patient lies on the phone and never shows up - no harm, no foul...

Guttmacher is not "the research arm of Planned Parenthood". That's an exaggeration of their relationship.

Guttmacher is the data-gathering agency most respected in the GYN community. The agency the abortion docs are willing to share information with.

To Bethany: Life Dynamics made hundreds of calls to clinics that did NOT schedule appointements, just consultations.
Many knew that they were under scrutiny.

My worst nightmare is that there actually WAS an abused 15-year-old out there who could not garner counseling nor treatment because Planned Parenthood could offer them NOTHING by the way of discretion.
I think it's tragic that a young girl in a crisis situation has only one option: WE'RE GONNA TELL ON YOU! YOUR PARENTS WILL KNOW! WE'LL ARREST YOUR 18-YEAR OLD BOYFREIND! HE'LL DO PRISON TIME AND SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE AS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER! IT'S YOUR STEPDAD? YOU'LL BE ON THE FRONT PAGE BY TOMORROW MORNING! YOUR LITTLE SISTERS WILL BE SPLIT UP AND PLACED IN THE FABULOUS FOSTER CARE SYSTEM! YOUR MOM WILL NEVER HAVE CUSTODY OF YOU OR YOUR SIBLINGS EVER AGAIN! SAY BYE TO YOUR FAMILY!
(You think I'm kidding? It happens all the time. There's a reason young girls stay quiet, and the last thing they need is their desperate phone call to be percieved as a lie by someone trying to protect themselves from people with TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS - like those at Life Dynamics...)

You know, I had a response ready, but I tend to think I'm covered now. Laura makes me happy. :)

Mark:
There's an easy way for women to legitimately choose not to experience birth and pregnancy, without harming any unborn children. It's called abstinence.

I never want to become pregnant. Ever. I am engaged. Is it my responsibility to remain abstinant for the rest of my life because I don't want to become pregnant? Is the choice either celebacy or motherhood? Is everything so black and white for you?

Also, Jill, you wrote: " Most women who are raped do not become pregnant."

Where did you get that silly idea? There's nothing about it in the Reardon article you linked to.

BEEP BEEP BEEP goes the bull-dung detector.

SMOG, I've told you before that the beeping is your house arrest ankle bracelet going off.

Bethany, Congressional reports - and especially congressional testimony, such as Henry Waxman's - garner congressional oversight and swearing-in. Deliberate misinformation is better known as "perjury" and is a Federal crime.

Yeah, it's perjury to lie under oath...what is your point? That abortion supporters never lie? Glad to see you have a sense of humor. :D

My problem with Life Dynamics?
They are held to no such standards.
I could call every Crisis Pregnancy Center in my county 10 times tomorrow (I live in San Bernardino County - there are almost 60) Claim that I'm an abused 15-year-old, and charge every center that fails to report to the police as abetting child molesters.

Would you? That would be awesome. If they do what they did in the Life Dynamics calls, they would absolutely be abetting child molesters. (abetting: a law term implying one who instigates, encourages or assists another to commit an offence.)

To Bethany: Life Dynamics made hundreds of calls to clinics that did NOT schedule appointements, just consultations.
Many knew that they were under scrutiny.

Wow, that would make it even worse, don't you think? They knew they were under scrutiny and still failed to help the girl? Even when they're being tested they fail? That's pretty darn sad.

I think it's tragic that a young girl in a crisis situation has only one option: WE'RE GONNA TELL ON YOU! YOUR PARENTS WILL KNOW! WE'LL ARREST YOUR 18-YEAR OLD BOYFREIND! HE'LL DO PRISON TIME AND SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE AS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER! IT'S YOUR STEPDAD? YOU'LL BE ON THE FRONT PAGE BY TOMORROW MORNING! YOUR LITTLE SISTERS WILL BE SPLIT UP AND PLACED IN THE FABULOUS FOSTER CARE SYSTEM! YOUR MOM WILL NEVER HAVE CUSTODY OF YOU OR YOUR SIBLINGS EVER AGAIN! SAY BYE TO YOUR FAMILY!

You do remember that the caller was portraying herself, not as 15, mind you, but as 13. Her boyfriend was 22, in the calls.
Laura, you know very well that if it was reported in the news, the girls name would be left out of it.

No one is going to scream in bold caps to a girl all the things you just said. There are better ways to handle it.

And is it worse to have a girl to be cautious of change (all of them would be, of course), than to be sent back back to her rapist to continue to be raped by him? Which is worse...a naive child, fearing the unknown (the unknown which could provide them with salvation from their abuser)...or a naive child being sent back to be abused by what they are already expecting?

SOMG, wrong again.

"PPFA establishes the Center for Family Planning Program Development as its arm for research, policy analysis, and public education. In 1977, it became an independent corporation and special affiliate of Planned Parenthood known as The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Today it is known as the Guttmacher Institute."

Guess where this came from? Straight from the horses mouth.

I would like to reply to the so-called "evidence" that CPC's lie and give false information to women, but unfortunately, I have all day meetings and will not be able to until later.

I figured Guttmacher would be a part of this as Rep Waxman's "investigation" (which I believe is closed down) stems from the Guttmacher research.

Suffice to say, that there are many medical organizations that confirm a link between abortion-breast cancer, there is plenty of research (non Elliott Insitute research) that proves post-abortion snydrome and the same goes for fertility after abortion.

Laura, your logic about the phone calls to the abortion mills defies logic. Imagine calling your family doctor about a persistent cough and them having the attitude that since your not in the office, then they're not going to care about what they say to you. That's just ridiculous.

And exactly what is the connection between meth arrests and abortion mills lying to women?

I never want to become pregnant. Ever. I am engaged. Is it my responsibility to remain abstinant for the rest of my life because I don't want to become pregnant? Is the choice either celebacy or motherhood? Is everything so black and white for you?

Ooooor, you could get your tubes tied. As has been explained ad nauseum. Heck, go for a full hysterectomy for all we care. Just don't create then kill babies. That's all we ask.

Less, you sound like a broken record. What is it you're looking for? You have already said that you don't want kids. So be it. Get your tubes tied. You aren't too young. Look around and find a doctor that will do it. That's all.

Less, ask your s/o to have a vasectomy. If he love you and feels the same, he will.

Less,

Can you explain why you think it is proper to
give the death penalty to a baby because her
father is a criminal?

Why not give the death penalty to the criminal?

Bethany, what part of the phrase "independent corporation" don't you understand?

SOMG, what part of "PPFA establishes the Center", and "special affiliate of Planned Parenthood" don't you understand?

Alternatively, she could be non-surgically sterilized using the quinacrine method. See http://www.drwhitney.com

SOMG, I didn't say I didn't care about her HEALTH. I was referring to her sex life. I don't care how much sex she has, and with whom, as long as she doesn't create and kill babies.

By the way, an FYI about the quinacrine method (SOMG already knows this), Quinacrine has not been adequately tested or approved as a sterilization agent anywhere in the world.

And I have often said that I have no desire to get my tubes tied. I enjoy being free of unnecessary surgery. My s/o doesn't want to have a vasectomy any more than I want to have my tubes tied: additionally, if we seperate and he marries someone else who does want children, it would be in his best interest to remain intact, so to speak.

lesforlife, the "child" is invading the mother's bodily integrity.

Less writes: "I never want to become pregnant. Ever. I am engaged. Is it my responsibility to remain abstinant for the rest of my life because I don't want to become pregnant? Is the choice either celebacy or motherhood? Is everything so black and white for you?"

In addition to your inability to spell the words "celibacy" and "abstinent", you really are not a very attentive reader, are you? My second paragraph made it clear that I had no problem with contraceptives, as long as they were true contraceptives, not abortifacients in disguise.

As for those who have astutely commented that having your tubes tied is always an option, I am grateful for their contributions to this discussion. But you've made it plain that you have no desire to have your tubes tied. You'd rather live with the guilt of knowing that you've killed her own child.

Regarding your question about black and white, no, everything is not black and white for me. But some things are indeed black and white for me.

Deliberate murder of an innocent human being is completely unacceptable. There are no shades of gray where that issue is concerned. There is nothing wrong with sexual pleasure per se, but your understandable desire for sexual pleasure does not take precedence over the life of an innocent human being.

Reading over my comment that I posted just now, I realized that I edited part of my third paragraph, but failed to edit it completely, so it sounds a bit disjointed.

I should have written, "You'd rather live with the guilt of knowing that you've killed your own child." So I guess we're all imperfect when it comes to spelling, punctuation and grammar. But at least I caught my own error, without needing for someone to bring it to my attention.

Less, You are just being difficult. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. I will continue to speak out about abortion. I really don't care what you say anymore. Get your tubes tied. Let me fill you in on something. If you are having sex before you are married, and you and he will agree on an abortion should you become pregnant, I'm willing to bet that he's just using you for sex! Sorry.

Mark, great post!

Heather: If you are having sex before you are married, and you and he will agree on an abortion should you become pregnant, I'm willing to bet that he's just using you for sex! Sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh right, and your husband is just using you as a semen receptacle and broodsow. Sorry!

Laura, whatever. Why would a guy buy the cow if the milk is free?

Laura, Listen up! Who likes abortion? Answer; Irresponsible women, cowardly men, perpetrators, and pedophiles!!

Earlier, Laura impugned the credibility of Dr. David Reardon, based on her assertion to the effect that Reardon's Ph.D. came from an unaccredited college and therefore was illegitimate. In my opinion, the only thing illegitimate is the premise of her argument, which is the idea that only accredited schools are capable of providing students with a quality education.

Accreditation of colleges is a fairly recent phenomenon. Harvard University, for instance, is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. The NEASC has been "improving education through accreditation since 1885," according to its web site.

But Harvard University began in 1636, a good 249 years before the NEASC even existed. President John Adams and President John Quincy Adams graduated from Harvard in 1755 and 1787 respectively, long before the NEASC existed. President Theodore Roosevelt graduated from Harvard in 1876, again prior to the creation of the NEASC. So at least three U.S. presidents graduated from Harvard prior to its accreditation by the NEASC.

If Laura's argument against Dr. David Reardon is valid, then that means that the Harvard diplomas received by at least three U.S. presidents were illegitimate, and that those presidents therefore lacked credibility.

And let's not forget the educational background of one of America's most famous presidents, Abraham Lincoln. Wikipedia states:

His formal education consisted of about 18 months of schooling from unofficial teachers. In effect he was self-educated, studying every book he could borrow.

The phrase "unofficial teachers" sounds an awful lot like the phrase "unaccredited school" to my ears. And unless I'm very much mistaken, Lincoln's studies were all undertaken by means of correspondence (or what is now called "distance learning"). Of course, folks didn't have the benefits of web access in those days, so it's likely that the education Abraham Lincoln received was inferior to the education provided by means of today's distance learning programs.

In short, the assumption behind Laura's criticisms of David Reardon's academic credentials is false. The lack of official accreditation is not necessarily a sign that a particular college is a diploma mill. And even if that were the case, the fact remains that Reardon's writings should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of whether or not he attended an accredited school.

Heather: Laura, whatever. Why would a guy buy the cow if the milk is free?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah! Your husband bought himself one HECK of a cow!

Ooooooh! Catfight!

Excellent post about Reardon's qualifications, Mark. Thank you.

You're welcome, Bethany.

Mark: The lack of official accreditation is not necessarily a sign that a particular college is a diploma mill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then how about this little item from "Quackwatch." It includes Reardon's Alma Mater, Pacific Western University. The man is a total fraud:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/dm4.html
"Moreover, diploma mills and other unaccredited schools modify their billing practices so students can obtain payments for degrees by the federal government. Purporting to be a prospective student, our investigator placed telephone calls to three schools that award academic credits based on life experience and require no classroom instruction: Barrington University (Mobile, Alabama); Lacrosse University (Bay St. Louis, Mississippi); and Pacific Western University (Los Angeles, California). These schools each charge a flat fee for a degree. For example, fees for degrees for domestic students at Pacific Western University are as follows: Bachelor of Science ($2,295); Master's Degree in Business Administration ($2,395); and PhD ($2,595). School representatives emphasized to our undercover investigator that they are not in the business of providing, and do not permit students to enroll for, individual courses or training. Instead, the schools market and require payment for degrees on a flat-fee basis."

Hey! For $2,395 you can be DR. MARK!

More on Reardon's alma mater, Pacific Western University:
In May, 2004, the US General Accounting Office presented the results of an eight-month examination of diploma mills and federal employees holding their degrees to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs [3]. Pacific Western University in Los Angeles was one of the six schools on which the investigation focused.

Internationally, Pacific Western University has a similar reputation — the Government of Sweden's National Agency For Higher Education (Högskoleverket) listed PWU in a report entitled, Fake Universities and Bogus Degrees [4].

As was revealed in the Irish Independent on 9th October 2005, high-profile individuals, including the government of Ireland's Chief Science Advisor Barry McSweeney, have been revealed to have advanced their careers using suspect degrees obtained from Pacific Western University [5][6]. In Australia, the Brisbane Courier Mail reported on a 6 January 2004 that a lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland was banned from using the title of "Doctor" after it was discovered that his Ph.D. had, in fact, been purchased from Pacific Western University.

Laura:

California Appeals Court BLUDGEONS Quackbusters...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

April 23, 2003

A California Appeals Court, yesterday, April 22, 2003, bludgeoned the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and their whole argument about what constitutes good and bad health care. The quackbuster's operating theme, the argument they use against alternative proponents, came under a major American Court's scrutiny. The Court, basically, in their decision, said the the quackbuster's arguments were hogwash, and they had no business meddling in California's system.

The Court also declared that top quackbusters Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) "were found to be biased and unworthy of credibility."

The quackbusters lost in a PUBLISHED case. The quackbuster premise failed. Not some of it, not most of it - but all of it. The "quackbuster" measuring stick for how to evaluate health care has been completely discredited. Official quackbuster credibility is now ZERO.

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm

(1) There is plenty of information on the internet that shows that Barrett has been OFFICIALLY proclaimed, in a published Appeals Court Decision (NCAHF v. King Bio), as "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

(2) It would have been easy to find that Barrett, quackwatch.com, the NCAHF, and its president Robert S. Baratz MD, have been named as co-conspirators in a RICO (racketeering) action in a Federal Court (Cavitat v. Aetna).

(3) Even a simple scan of Barrett's history would have shown that Barrett couldn't make it as a Psychiatrist. He couldn't pass the test for Board Certification, at all, and his so-called career in Psychiatry, according to his own resume, was limited to part-time employment, primarily at the Allentown, PA mental hospital, where evidence shows, his function was to give out band-aids in a ward. He was terminated from that position in 1993.

(4) Even a simple scan of Barrett's history would have shown that Barrett couldn't make it as a Medical Doctor. Barrett had to give up his MD license in 1993, after his part-time employment terminated. His testimony in Federal court shows he only had an average of nine private patients per year, for his last five years of practice. Barrett couldn't afford, according to his own testimony, the malpractice insurance premiums that Pennsylvania required. Pennsylvania shows Barrett's license as "Not in good standing."

(5) Court records show that Barrett and Baratz used the NCAHF, without NCAHF Board permission, to sue over 40 victims in California using the State's Business & Professions Code 17200 - to give themselves "expert witness" fees. Their project failed, dramatically. One of those cases resulted in Barrett being declared "biased, and unworthy of credibility." Another of those cases seriously backfired, and the Courts awarded over $100,000 in attorney fees to the victim - and the NCAHF can't pay the money. And, neither Barrett or Baratz have offered to pick up the tab...

(6) The NCAHF you quoted has been belly-up since 2003. The self-styled National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), the "quackbuster's" flagship, has sunk - it is financially insolvent, legally defunct (its corporate status has been suspended since 2003), and its members owe the homeopathic world over $100,000 in legal fees it can't pay. The NCAHF president, Bobbie Baratz, has been ripped apart in the Courtroom (Wisconsin v. Kadile) and his "testifying" income has been curtailed.

From Wikipedia:

In 2001, Barrett testified before a California court as an expert witness in NCAHF v. King Bio. The court found that "Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications" in the area of "FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs" and indicated that his evidence in this area should be given little weight by law.[30] The court further stated that Barrett and the co-witness, both members of the board of NCAHF, were "zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said" they "are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barrett

As for the Wikipedia article you posted information from (but did not cite), it's locked from further editing due to:
"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

OK,
How about some sworn congressional testimony from the Government Accountability Office? They accually list the flat fees for Pacific Western University degrees:

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday, September 23, 2004

DIPLOMA MILLS
Diploma Mills Are Easily Created and Some Have Issued Bogus Degrees to Federal Employees at Government Expense
Statement of Robert J. Cramer
Managing Director
Office of Special Investigations

GAO-04-1096T

____________________________________

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss work performed by GAO’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) related to degrees from “diploma mills.” For purposes of this overview, we defined “diploma mills” as nontraditional, unaccredited, postsecondary schools that offer degrees for a relatively low flat fee, promote the award of academic credits based on life experience, and do not require any classroom instruction. Over the past 3 years, OSI has purchased degrees from a diploma mill through the Internet, created a diploma mill in the form of a fictitious foreign school, investigated whether the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills for federal employees, and determined whether high-level federal employees at certain agencies have degrees from diploma mills. My testimony today summarizes our investigative findings.

Purchasing Degrees from a Diploma Mill

In response to a request from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, OSI purchased two degrees from a diploma mill through the Internet. After identifying “Degrees-R-Us” as a diploma mill, our investigator held numerous discussions in an undercover capacity with its owner. Posing as a prospective student, the investigator first contacted Degrees-R-Us to obtain information regarding the steps to follow in purchasing degrees. Following those instructions, we purchased a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and a Master of Science degree in Medical Technology. The degrees were awarded by Lexington University, a nonexistent institution purportedly located in Middletown, New York. We provided Degrees-R-Us with references that were never contacted and paid a $1,515 fee for a “premium package.” The package included the two degrees with honors and a telephone verification service that could be used by potential employers verifying the award of the degrees.

Creating a Diploma Mill

OSI also created a diploma mill to test vulnerabilities in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL). We created Y’Hica Institute for the Visual Arts, a fictitious graduate-level foreign school purportedly located in London, England. We first created a bogus consulting firm that posed as Y’Hica’s U.S. representative and the principal point of contact with the Department of Education (Education). In addition, we created a Web site and set up a telephone number and a post office box address for Y’Hica. Using counterfeit documents, we obtained certification from Education for the school to participate in the FFEL program. Education has since reported that it has taken steps to guard against the vulnerabilities that were revealed by our investigation.

Investigating Whether the Federal Government Has Paid for Degrees from Diploma Mills

The Homeland Security Act amended section 4107 of title 5, U.S. Code, by allowing federal reimbursement only for degrees from accredited institutions. Specifically, section 4107 states that an agency may “pay or reimburse the costs of academic degree training … if such training … is accredited and is provided by a college or university that is accredited by a nationally recognized body.” (Emphasis supplied.) For purposes of this provision, a “nationally recognized body” is a regional, national, or international accrediting organization recognized by Education.1 Because the law governs only academic degree training, it does not preclude an agency from paying for the costs of individual training courses offered by unaccredited institutions. Prior to the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, federal agencies were not authorized to pay for employee academic degree training unless the head of the agency determined that it was necessary to assist in recruitment or retention of employees in occupations in which the government had a shortage of qualified personnel.

___________________

1 5 C.F.R. § 410.308(b).

To investigate whether the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills, we requested that four such schools provide information concerning (1) the number of current and former students identified in their records as federal employees and (2) the payment of fees for such employees by the federal government. In addition, posing as a prospective student who was employed by a federal agency, our investigator contacted three diploma mills to obtain information on how he might have a federal agency pay for a degree. We also requested that eight federal agencies—the Departments of Education, Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation (DOT), and Veterans Affairs (VA); the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—provide us with a list of senior employees, level GS-15 (or equivalent) or higher, and the names of any postsecondary institutions from which such employees had reported receiving degrees. We compared the names of the schools on the lists provided by these agencies with those that are accredited by accrediting bodies recognized by Education. We also requested that the agencies examine their financial records to determine if they had paid for degrees from unaccredited schools.

Several factors make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent of unauthorized federal payments for degrees issued by diploma mills. First, the data we received from both schools and federal agencies understate the extent to which the federal government has made such payments. Additionally, the way some agencies maintain records of payments for employee education makes such information inaccessible.

For example, HHS responded to our request for records of employee education payments by informing us that it could not produce them because it maintains a large volume of such records in five different accounting systems, has no way to differentiate academic degree training from other training, and does not know whether payments for training made through credit cards are captured in its training payment records.

Moreover, diploma mills and other unaccredited schools modify their billing practices so students can obtain payments for degrees by the federal government. Purporting to be a prospective student, our investigator placed telephone calls to three schools that award academic credits based on life experience and require no classroom instruction: Barrington University (Mobile, Alabama); Lacrosse University (Bay St. Louis, Mississippi); and Pacific Western University (Los Angeles, California).

These schools each charge a flat fee for a degree. For example, fees for degrees for domestic students at Pacific Western University are as follows:

Bachelor of Science ($2,295); Master’s Degree in Business Administration ($2,395); and PhD ($2,595).

School representatives emphasized to our undercover investigator that they are not in the business of providing, and do not permit students to enroll for, individual courses or training. Instead, the schools market and require payment for degrees on a flat-fee basis.

However, representatives of each school told our undercover investigator that they would structure their charges in order to facilitate payment by the federal government. Each agreed to divide the degree fee by the number of courses a student was required to take, thereby creating a series of payments as if a per course fee were charged. All of the school representatives stated that students at their respective schools had secured payment for their degrees by the federal government.

Information we obtained from two unaccredited schools confirms that the federal government has paid for degrees at those schools. We asked four such schools that charge a flat fee for degrees to provide records of federal payments for student fees: California Coast University (Santa Ana, California); Hamilton University (Evanston, Wyoming); Pacific Western University (Los Angeles, California); and Kennedy-Western University (Thousand Oaks, California).

Pacific Western University, California Coast University, and Kennedy-Western University provided data indicating that 463 of their students were federal employees. Pacific Western University reported that it could not locate any records indicating that federal payments were made, although this claim directly contradicts representations made to our undercover investigator by a school representative that federal agencies had paid for degrees obtained by Pacific Western University students. California Coast University and Kennedy-Western University provided records indicating that they had received $150,387.80 from federal agencies for 14 California Coast University students and 50 Kennedy-Western University students. Hamilton University failed to respond to our request for information.

After identifying from school records the federal agencies that made payments to California Coast and Kennedy-Western, we requested that DOE, HHS, and DOT provide records of their education-related payments to schools for employees during the last 5 years. As previously discussed, HHS advised us that it could not provide the data. DOE and DOT provided data that identified additional payments of $19,082.94 for expenses associated with Kennedy-Western, which Kennedy-Western had not previously identified for us. Thus, we found a total of $169,470.74 in federal payments to these two unaccredited schools.

However, a comparison of the data received from the schools with the information provided by DOE and DOT shows that the schools and the agencies have likely understated federal payments. For example, Kennedy-Western reported total payments of $13,505 from DOE for three students, while DOE reported total payments of $14,532 to Kennedy-Western for three different students. Thus, DOE made payments of at least $28,037 to Kennedy-Western. Additionally, DOT reported payments of $4,550 to Kennedy-Western for one student, but Kennedy-Western did not report receiving any money from DOT for that student.2

___________________

2 Our investigation was limited to direct federal payments to schools and did not include federal reimbursements of school fees to employees.

Determining Whether High-Level Federal Employees Have Degrees from Diploma Mills

On the basis of the information we obtained from eight agencies, we determined that some senior-level employees obtained degrees from diploma mills. Specifically, we requested that the agencies review the personnel folders of GS-15 (or equivalent) and above employees and provide us with the names of the postsecondary institutions from which such employees reported receiving academic degrees. The eight agencies were Education, DOE, HHS, DHS, DOT, VA, SBA, and OPM. The agencies informed us that their examination of personnel records revealed that 28 employees listed degrees from unaccredited schools, and 1 employee received tuition reimbursement of $1,787.44 in connection with a degree from such a school.

We interviewed several federal employees who had reported receiving degrees from unaccredited schools. These employees included three management-level DOE employees who have emergency operations responsibilities at the National Nuclear Security Administration and security clearances. We also found one employee in the Senior Executive Service at DOT and another at DHS who received degrees from unaccredited schools for negligible work.

Moreover, we believe that the agencies are not able to accurately determine the number of their employees who have diploma mill degrees. The agencies’ ability to identify degrees from unaccredited schools is limited by a number of factors. First, diploma mills frequently use names similar to those used by accredited schools, which often allows the diploma mills to be mistaken for accredited schools. For example, Hamilton University of Evanston, Wyoming, which is not accredited by an accrediting body recognized by Education, has a name similar to Hamilton College, a fully accredited school in Clinton, New York. Moreover, federal agencies told us that employee records may contain incomplete or misspelled school names without addresses. Thus, an employee’s records may reflect a bachelor’s degree from Hamilton, but the records do not indicate whether the degree is from Hamilton University, the unaccredited school, or Hamilton College, the accredited institution. Further, we learned that there are no uniform verification practices throughout the government whereby agencies can obtain information and conduct effective queries on schools and their accreditation status. Additionally, some agencies provided information about only the most recent degrees that employees reported receiving.

Concluding Remarks

Our investigations revealed the relative ease with which a diploma mill can be created and bogus degrees obtained. Furthermore, the records that we obtained from schools and agencies likely understate the extent to which the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited schools. Many agencies have difficulty in providing reliable data because they do not have systems in place to properly verify academic degrees or to detect fees for degrees that are masked as fees for training courses. Additionally, the agency data we obtained likely do not reflect the true extent to which senior-level federal employees have diploma mill degrees. This is because the agencies do not sufficiently verify the degrees that employees claim to have or the schools that issued the degrees, which is necessary to avoid confusion caused by the similarity between the names of accredited schools and the names assumed by diploma mills. Finally, we found that there are no uniform verification practices throughout the government whereby agencies can obtain information and conduct effective queries on schools and their accreditation status.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contacts For further information about this testimony, please contact Robert J. Cramer at (202) 512-7227, Andrew O’Connell at (202) 512-7449, or Paul Desaulniers at (202) 512-7435.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laura,you are a cow!

Heifer sounds better.

Heather: Laura,you are a cow!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pithy retort!
Were you the captain of your debate team?

Cow fight. Moooo

Laura, you never proved that Gennifer Flowers lied about her abortion/pregnancy from Bill Clinton. Show me something. You said that she's a liar, but so is he. Do you have any proof that the abortion was a lie?

Yeah, Heather - I posted 50 lies that Gennifer Flowers has told. She's a compulsive liar with no education, talent or credentials. No rational person would ever take her seriously. You really should stop garnering your information from tabloids.

I read it in her book and she openly discussed it on a talk show. Are you saying that Bill was credible? He looked the entire nation in the eye and lied! I can't understand why women continue to defend that homely dirt bag! He used women for one thing, and then kicked them in the ass! After that, he threw them in the garbage! Bill was nothing more than a whore monger.

Heather: Bill was nothing more than a whore monger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Moral indignation is envy with a halo.
HG Wells.

PS Laura, I am sorry for being juvenile on my earlier posts.

Heather: I read it in her book and she openly discussed it on a talk show.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Talk Show? Why have I always assumed that the source of most of Heather's information was Jerry Springer?)

Laura, maybe she did lie. I only know what I read/heard. Gennifer and Bill are the only 2 that will ever know for sure. *peace*

No, it was Oprah.

Laura, it appears that the information you posted about Pacific Western University is correct. Because of this, I can see why he would lost credibility in your eyes. I have to be honest, I don't know much about universities, diploma mills, etc. I've been researching about it all day though, on and off.
Is it possible that prior to 1995 (the year Reardon finished his studies)- regardless of the university not being accredited by the CHEA, as this is not disputed- that the PWU was not doing these things?

Remember, I'm pretty ignorant on this topic, so I understand that could be a very dumb question. What do you think?

Bethany, I think we're losing track of the main point in all these details about the diploma mill.

The main point is, David C. Reardon is a clown, and his pronouncements should not be taken seriously.

He is known for publishing studies where the group studied is taken from small, self-selecting religious/political organizations such as "Women Exploited by Abortion", and then attempting to generalize his conclusions to the whole population.

No one with any standing takes him seriously, and it is a mistake for Jill to cite him as an information source.

SOMG, I'm sure that Jill really appreciates all of your constructive criticism on how she should run her blog. I think we all are aware of how motivated you are in your good-natured desire to help the pro-life cause. :-P

Incidentally, did you ever find any evidence to support your statement about how the cervix is damaged more in normal full term childbirth than in an abortion?

Bethany: Remember, I'm pretty ignorant on this topic, so I understand that could be a very dumb question. What do you think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm hardly an expert-
I just use use this standard; would I use a pediatrician or veterinarian who had gone to an unaccredited online university with no classes, facility nor faculty?
(By the way - I got slammed over the head with Reardon's amazing research for 3 years before I figured it out. The tip off? When he started quoting that HORRENDOUSLY bad Finnish study. A woman did her Master's thesis on Probability and Statistics at Stanford that featured Reardon's bad research practices. It was almost funny except I felt so foolish...)

I just use use this standard; would I use a pediatrician or veterinarian who had gone to an unaccredited online university with no classes, facility nor faculty?

I understand that point you're making, but wouldn't you also agree that an ethicist really doesn't need to be held to the exact same type of scrutiny that someone who is going to be medically treating children or animals should be?

As David put it, in the article you posted,
"When it comes to heart surgery, one may rightly want to be sure that the surgeon is board certified (accredited). But when it comes to arguing medical ethics, the merit of one’s matter far more than one’s alma mater."

As for the Finnish study, I'm not sure I've read it. But even if it was one bad study (out of however many dozens or hundreds of others he has referred to), is it not possible that every researcher errs at times?

Bethany: I understand that point you're making, but wouldn't you also agree that an ethicist really doesn't need to be held to the exact same type of scrutiny that someone who is going to be medically treating children or animals should be?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because a "bioethicist" with no credentials is just some dude with an opinion. My opinion counts every bit as much as Reardon's. Your opinion counts ever bit as much as Reardon's. (...And you know what they say about opinions.)
I'd say the big difference is that neither of us bought a pointless piece of paper and tried to pass our opinions off as expert testimony! That's what identifies Reardon as a liar and a fraud - well, that and some REALLY bad research.

In addition to your inability to spell the words "celibacy" and "abstinent", you really are not a very attentive reader, are you? My second paragraph made it clear that I had no problem with contraceptives, as long as they were true contraceptives, not abortifacients in disguise.

Aw, is someone laboring under the delusion that condoms are 100% effective? Even with using hormonal birth control and condoms, there is still miniscule chance that I could become pregnant. So, knowing that I could become one of those unlucky few, is it my responsibility to remain abstinent?

Frankly, I’ve known more women to feel relief than guilt after an abortion, and I’m quite sure that I’d be in the former camp rather than the latter. As innocence implies knowledge of good and evil, fetuses cannot be innocent: that’s another emotionally charged word you throw in there to make you seem like some great moral crusader. As you’re pixels on a screen to me, I’m not particularly concerned.

Heather, Heather, Heather. I’m not even having sex right now: I haven’t gotten any for two years. Honestly, that’s probably why I’m so cranky these days. Knowing my fiancé (engagement says that he’s willing to stick around for more than just the sex, hm?) as I do, your insistence that sex is the aim of the game is quite laughable. As I’d be content without getting married, I’m frankly not very concerned

Bethany, did you ask your GYN about that?

Hint: 10-14 cm is more than 14 mm.

So, knowing that I could become one of those unlucky few, is it my responsibility to remain abstinent?

Less, do you enjoy arguing in circles? This question has been answered so many times now it's become quite ridiculous.

Hint: 10-14 cm is more than 14 mm.

Hint: Already covered this point, and it doesn't matter. Got any real evidence? Come on, SOMG, I know you're smarter than this. Why are you going back to the old argument we've already been through?

Less, I really don't believe you. I think you say things to stir up controversy. He's using you.

Less, engagements mean diddly squat sometimes. Did you set a wedding date? I was engaged to a man for a year. I had a beautiful ring, and a wonderful relationship. After he graduated from med school, he dumped me. He was using me.

Heather, Heather, Heather. I’m not even having sex right now: I haven’t gotten any for two years.

I'm just curious... why?

Yes Why? Is there someone else? Never in a million years did I think that my "rock solid" engagement would come to the screeching halt that it did. I wanted to point it out, because it can happen to any of us if we aren't careful. I was having sex without marriage. Think a ring is enough? Think again. The thrill of the chase was over for him. He moved on. I had a lot of heartache after that, but it was a lesson I needed to learn.

Heather: I was having sex without marriage. Think a ring is enough? Think again. The thrill of the chase was over for him. He moved on. I had a lot of heartache after that, but it was a lesson I needed to learn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If he was that dead-set on dumping you, I can guarantee that no piece of paper would have stopped him. He just wasn't into you.

I think that Brownback should have been more prepared to give a better response to this question simply because this is such a major point of conflict for which he is well-known to take the unpopular stance. I dont understand how his gesturing was offensive, however, and I think the blog attacks on his hand motions are just a futile effort to find something wrong with a logical position. I think men by now are pretty well aware that they cant bear children and do not have uteri, and I personally am getting tired of women complaining that men arent compassionate, and then turning around and saying that they cant understand because they will never have children

Furthermore, Bethany, I saw absolutely nothing wrong with your initial comment on the situation, and I dont think you should feel the need to apologize for politely stating that a man in an unpopular position should be better prepared to more articulately defend said position in a presidential debate.

Yeah! Your husband bought himself one HECK of a cow!

If you ladies cannot maturely debate the topic at hand without resorting to demeaning one another for what you consider to be less than desirable physical characteristics, why dont you go wallow in the mud with the pigs and get it over with? The one thing that pro-lifers and pro-choicers seem to be in agreement about is that the situations leading to abortions should be rectified and eliminated. Your childish antics are wasting time and space that would have been much better spent discussing the problems that lead to abortion and the solutions by which the lives of abortive mothers can be improved.

Why? It’s a very long story. For the first six months, I was still in the tail end of a long distance relationship. Then I broke up with the guy and I wasn’t in a relationship for a while, which explains about six months of it. My fiancé and I dated for quite a while, of course, before I wanted to have sex with him: another six months. At that point, we clashed on the idea of premarital sex and argued about it for another six months. Voila, two years without having sex. That’s all approximate, but the basic gist of it.

Heather, we’ve set a date and told everyone in the family on both sides. He asked permission from my parents. And I can guarantee that having premarital sex didn’t ruin your relationship: people ruin relationships, not sex. You can disbelieve me all you like, but I think you’re more concerned with the fact that you might be wrong.

Less, congratulations on your engagement! I think I remember your saying that you had a fiance, but setting a date makes it really so final! Im sure you will have a beautiful wedding.

Hehe, thanks! I'm pretty excited: we're both really flexable about how it'll look and whatnot, so planning it will be a blast.

I hope so! I have a good friend whose planning became such a nightmare with her family's insisting that so-and-so be invited that she finally exploded, and now the ceremony is going to be limited to immediate family only. I hope it is the wonderful and memorable season an engagement is meant to be!

Haha, you'd be surprised how often that happens. My parents have given all of my siblings money to go elope, so if things get too bad, Vegas is always there! Thus far it's been great, though. His parents are a bit more insistent about things, but whatever happens, you have to look toward the end, you know?

Why? It�s a very long story. For the first six months, I was still in the tail end of a long distance relationship. Then I broke up with the guy and I wasn�t in a relationship for a while, which explains about six months of it. My fianc� and I dated for quite a while, of course, before I wanted to have sex with him: another six months. At that point, we clashed on the idea of premarital sex and argued about it for another six months. Voila, two years without having sex. That�s all approximate, but the basic gist of it.

Your fiance disagrees with you about premarital sex, and wants to wait till marriage? If so, you really picked a winner, Less! No kidding, he must really love you. I am happy to hear it! If I'm wrong in assuming that your boyfriend wants to wait, feel free to correct me.
I just think it's great.

Heather, we�ve set a date and told everyone in the family on both sides. He asked permission from my parents.

I have to say, he really does sound like a great guy, from what you've said so far.

Congratulations on setting the date! :)

Furthermore, Bethany, I saw absolutely nothing wrong with your initial comment on the situation, and I dont think you should feel the need to apologize for politely stating that a man in an unpopular position should be better prepared to more articulately defend said position in a presidential debate.

Samantha, thank you for that.

Samantha T. You are right. I apologize. Laura, I pointed out that he wasn't in to me. I didn't need your input.

Actually, it was kinof funny cuz I ran into him a year ago. He lost most of his hair and gained about 30 pounds. Not my type anymore.

Heather, when I click on your name to try to get to your webpage, I go to a wikipedia website about http...

Heather: Actually, it was kinof funny cuz I ran into him a year ago. He lost most of his hair and gained about 30 pounds. Not my type anymore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, if you had married him and he gained 30 lbs. and lost his hair he would no longer have met your standard?
He was smart to run. I hope he's met somebody kinder and less shallow. (You're always baggin' on people's looks; Valerie, Bill Clinton, your ex... You're one of THOSE chicks, aren't you?)

Yeah! Your husband bought himself one HECK of a cow!
Posted by: Laura at May 19, 2007 02:39 PM

(You're always baggin' on people's looks; Valerie, Bill Clinton, your ex... You're one of THOSE chicks, aren't you?)
Posted by: Laura at May 20, 2007 04:36 PM

Where I come from, referring to someone as "one HECK of a cow" is a derrogatory term attributed to her appearance. That would make this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or just an immature inability to properly debate, otherwise known as an ad hominem attack. Which do you prefer, Laura?

When did I ever mention Valerie? I don't even know what you're talking about! I don't find Bill Clinton attractive. It's a free country.

Thank you Samantha T. I did apologize to you before Laura, but you don't have to attack everything I say. As far as my ex goes, I have every right to criticize him. I treated him quite well, and towards the end of our relationship, he turned cruel. It's called Karma.

And please, let's listen to Samantha. This is a pro life site. Let's stick to the topic. I was only trying to point out that sex outside of marriage CAN bring disastrous consequences. I used my own experience as an example. It happened to me, and it's not very easy for me to discuss it. Again, this does NOT apply to everyone! If it could help one woman out there, then it was well worth writing it.

Samantha T., I almost forgot to answer you. I don't have a site at the present time. I am pretty brand new to the computer.

When did I ever mention Valerie? I don't even know what you're talking about! I don't find Bill Clinton attractive. It's a free country.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 20, 2007 05:10 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just for the heck of it, click on Amanda's name. It will take you to her blog. Look at all the evil, hateful venom they spew. Amanda looks mean. I guess I would too if I had to listen to those comments day in and day out!

Posted by: Heather4life at May 18, 2007 09:31 AM
She sure could pass for satan [look at that mean face] Yikes! Doesn't she have a child?

Posted by: Heather4life at May 18, 2007 09:43 AM

That was Amanda, not Valerie. Oh and don't expect an apology for everything I write. I am entitled to my opinion. She does look evil and she speaks evil! She has a blog open for the public.

Heather, what happened to your site? I looked at it once and was very impressed with your web designs. That was when you were "momof3" tho. When are you going to gt pictures of the little one to Jill to post? I bet she is adorable!

And excuse me! What did you mean by "Oh You're one of THOSE chicks." What kind of "chick" are you? You are here defending the murder of unborn children.

Samantha T., I don't think that my page ever hooked up to anything. Well, not anything I'm aware of. LOL. I am going to send Jill an updated pic. I sent her 1 "test" photo of the baby minutes after birth. Jill requested one with the baby's eyes open. So, I am now waiting for the sis-in-law to send them to me. She has the "fancy" camera. It won't be long.

Samantha T., Maybe Jill could give you my e mail tomorrow, and I will send you some.

Because a "bioethicist" with no credentials is just some dude with an opinion. My opinion counts every bit as much as Reardon's. Your opinion counts ever bit as much as Reardon's. (...And you know what they say about opinions.)
I'd say the big difference is that neither of us bought a pointless piece of paper and tried to pass our opinions off as expert testimony! That's what identifies Reardon as a liar and a fraud - well, that and some REALLY bad research.

Laura, David Reardon's book, Aborted Women, Silent no More, says this on the back cover:

"David C. Reardon received his Ph.D summa cummlaude from the University of Illinois."

The book copy I have was printed in 1987, so he must have gotten his Ph.d before 1995.

He originally didn’t want to have premarital sex: a few weeks ago, he changed his mind. As there is currently no place in which to celebrate this turn of events, however, we remain unhappily celibate. I actually requested that he ask my parents for permission. From what I’ve read about weddings, the father of the bride in particular isn’t much involved, which I don’t think is fair, so I want my dad to have every opportunity to be able to do something. This was such an opportunity, and while I don’t necessarily agree with the idea of asking permission, I wanted him involved. My fiancé was happy to oblige.

He is a great guy, though, and an example of everything that’s still right with the world. We’re so different that it’s been a rocky relationship at times, but we both want it to continue, and we work at it. It’s been tough at times, but the best relationship is the one you work for.

She does look evil and she speaks evil! She has a blog open for the public.

So it would be okay if I insulted Jill’s appearance?

Less, I was talking about Amanda's blog! She is never smiling. The people on that blog spew hate. She tolerates it. She adds to it. This is MY personal opinion!

Yes, but you implied that it was okay for you to attack Amanda's appearance due to that. Have you seen some of the posts here? They get pretty hateful. Jill encourages HisMan. Who, in my personal opinion, is pretty darn hateful. Do I get to insult Jill's facial structure/makeup/general apperance now?

Less, His Man is not hateful. Don't change the subject Less. Nice try though. It's a free country. I said it, and I meant it.

Heather, would you like me to post all the hateful things he has said? I can whip out my large post o' insults if you really would like me to, but as it's two pages long...

Less, who's stopping you? It would only make YOU look bad.

Heather's comment was not about her physical appearance, it was about her demeanor. The girl is attractive, as I'm sure Heather would agree. However, she has a scowl on her face, which makes her appear mean.

That last comment was in response to:
". Do I get to insult Jill's facial structure/makeup/general apperance now?"

Bethany, it's never fair to attack someone's physical appearance. I disagree with Jill on almost every turn, but I would not sit here and talk about how she looks: that's unfair, and as you say, it would only make me look bad. The way Jill looks has nothing to do with her opinions, and to confuse the two is unfair to Jill.

Bethany thank you! Less, I never said Amanda was unattractive! She's very pretty, but inner beauty is what makes or breaks someone. Have you ever met a phisically beautiful person, and the minute they spoke you didn't want to know them anymore? I never said she was ugly!

As far as my remarks about Bill Clinton.... I do not find him attractive! I'm not very fond of Brad Pitt either. He/they don't appeal to me! My girlfriends find Brad HOT beyond belief! I don't! We all have different taste! I like Jeff Goldblum myself!

She sure could pass for satan [look at that mean face]

Does that imply that she is pretty, Heather?

Less, I guess so.

It isn't that hard to keep comments about personal appearance out of your posts, Heather: I manage to do it, Bethany generally manages to do it, even HisMan contents himself with comments about the future damnation of my soul instead of the ruination of my skin.

Less, you must be bored today. Goodbye *yawn*

Bethany: "David C. Reardon received his Ph.D summa cummlaude from the University of Illinois."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING!
His "Ph.D" in Bioethics is from Pacific Western University.
(Just one more lie the man rides into the dust. Why would you site your doctorate in Electrical Engineering to buy credence in the field of Bioethics? The man is a compulsive liar.)

Laura, where do you get that information?

Good points on what he should have said, I was thinking the same thing during the debate. We've got to stop bumbling around the issue and explain it in a factual, concise and logical way that drives home the point.

Thanks, Faciamus.