In The Politico's "Court ruling hints at new abortion stance," July 18, author Chris Gacek explains the three major features of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's Partial Birth Abortion Ban ruling and how this will affect future abortion jurisprudence. One is he legitimized the psychological damage of abortion, much maligned by pro-aborts, and to do so he referred to work by Dr. David Reardon, also much maligned by pro-aborts.

Gary Bauer, in "Democrats' abortion relapse," featured in Human Events, July 20, compares the reality of the abortion-fanatic Democrat-controlled Congress vs. promises they made before the 2006 election to focus on common ground between pro-lifers and pro-aborts, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said 1.5 short years ago, "there is an opportunity to find common ground if we are willing to join together and seize it."

Dr. Reardon is the doctor who is studying PAS. The diagnosis that supposedly does not exist. I just googled his name. He has some excellent points.

I just thought I'd stop by and say a quick good morning to everyone.

After about 7 hours, I have finished the new Harry Potter book, and am getting ready to finish my work (I decided the book was more important) and then go to bed...maybe.

So, good morning and have a good day, everyone!

Gary Bauer is correct, I really don't see Demorats finding common ground on abortion, they're just to much in the pocket of PP and Naral. All that talk about common ground after the election was a lie.

Good article:
RE: the 15 yr old boy who stomped on his pregnant girlfriend, killing her unborn baby:

"While reading about this vicious attack, I had to wonder this, though: If someone kills your unborn baby by fracturing its skull while you are waiting for a bus, it is a crime. But if someone stands in Planned Parenthood and kills your unborn baby they are protected by law and paid for their services"

..this is what you call insanity.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707200330

jasper or anyone, Can someone e mail me or show me how to post a link? I am pretty new to computers.

Heather, at the top of your screen, you will see an address bar, with the URL in it. An example of a URL is http://www.jillstanek.com.

If you click the URL, it will be highlighted blue. Once it is blue, right click on it, and you will see the options to 'cut', 'copy', or 'paste'. Select 'copy'.

Next, go to post, and when you are ready to post the URL, right click, and click "paste".

Hope this makes sense! : )

Harry Reid said the war was lost in Iraq.

He has no credibility and should be recalled, tried and executed for treason.

Oh hush HisMan, quit being so melodramatic. Goodness. Though I do agree with you...that Harry Reid is a terribly ineffectual leader. As is Pelosi. I have no idea what on earth the Democrats were thinking when they chose those two clowns.

Oh, honestly. Executed for treason? You start going after people who think the war is nonsense and you're going to kill off half the country, including me.

Anyone who would listen to "Dr." David Reardon - a man who got his Ph.D from an unaccredited online university with no actual classes, curriculum or facility - is a fool.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Nero Fiddled:

Tuesday, July 19, 2005
My New Friend, Dave

When I was doing research on abortion facts, one name kept popping up as a source on pro-life websites. Every time a statistic popped up that didn't jive with my other statistics - he was there. Every time I went to a webpage and was confronted with crazy, circular logic, he was there. He was everywhere - studies, book excerpts, quotes, interviews, all claiming scientific proof that abortion is wrong.

His name is Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD and this is his story.

Before I begin, I'm sure you'll want to know under what authority I can tell another man's story. Well, even though Mr. Reardon and I have only written each other a few times and our correspondence ended a few weeks ago, I've read so much of his work and so much about him, I feel I already know him intimately. And how well does David C. Reardon know me? Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD knows all women. Better than they know themselves. He's better than a mind reader. He's a subconscious reader.

Mr. Reardon espouses a common pro-life belief that women who have abortions are usually forced into it and always regret it. If a "post-abortive" woman says she doesn't feel that way, it is because she is burying her true feelings. But luckily, she has Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD to unravel the deep mysteries of the subconscious mind for her.

His studies and books primarily deal with "Post Abortion Syndrome," but his expertise into the female psyche includes the thoughts and feelings of victims of rape, incest, and even, in one case, the secret motivations of Lorena Bobbitt (I added the emphasis to these quotes):

"Unlike pregnancies resulting from rape, most incest pregnancies are actually desired, at least at a subconscious level, in order to expose the incest."

"The [rape] victim may sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor...It is proof that she is better than the rapist. When he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture."

"Lorena felt as though her abortion had left her sexually mutilated and she blamed John for making her have it. That she chose to attack John's sexuality, not his life, indicates that Lorena was subconsciously choosing to retaliate in kind---'an eye for an eye,' so to speak...When fleeing the house, then, she was, on some subconscious level, simply trying to take 'her baby' with her..."

Yes, folks, here he is - David Reardon. He's the one you've all been waiting for. He's the man who can cut through all the gobbledygook coming out of women's mouths and tell us what they're really saying. Lorena Bobbitt carried her husband's severed penis around because she wanted a baby. It's all so simple. This guy is amazing! Intrigued and sparkly-eyed with wonder, I went hunting for more information on this man-who-knows-all-women's-hearts.

In his online biographies, Dr. Reardon is described as:

...a biomedical ethicist, director of the Elliot Institute, and editor of their quarterly publication, The Post-Abortion Review. He is widely recognized as one of the leading experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women, a field in which he has specialized since 1983. He is the author of numerous books and popular and scholarly articles on this topic. His studies have been published in such prestigious medical journals as the British Medical Journal and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and have proven that abortion compared to childbirth is associated with higher rates of maternal death, subsequent substance abuse, clinical depression, and psychiatric hospitalization.

Now, in 1983, when Reardon apparently began specializing in Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS), he had not yet started the Elliot Institute. The Elliot Institute, by the way, is a tax exempt organization that exists solely for the purpose of funding Reardon's work. There is no "Elliot." According to the institute's website:

"Elliot" was literally picked from a baby names book. The personal name was added with the intention of making the name more personalized, yet formal and a bit stuffy - in an academic way. This was done with the hope to make the Institute's name more "friendly," yet plausible and dignified, for the sake of the recipients of our survey forms.

So, our name is not of any particular significance. We are even willing to change it. So, if you or a rich aunt would like to underwrite our work with a large endowment, we would be glad to change the name to the "Smith Institute", the "Charlie Group," or whatever memorial name you would like! Just let us know.

(In addition to being psychic, Dr. Reardon is also very dignified.)

The first thing that troubled me about Reardon's bio was that when, in 1983, he became "one of the leading experts on the aftereffects of abortion on women," he had not yet written a single book or article on the subject. The only thing he'd had published was a Review of Federal Energy Policy for the Illinois Energy Resources Commission. And he did not have a PhD in biomedical ethics then. He had a degree in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois.

Apparently to Reardon, just as human life begins the second sperm hits egg, human expertise begins the moment one becomes aware of a subject. This is a great realization for me. I'm trying to get a job in some sort of women's rights organization and adding "has specialized in the field of women's health since 1989" to my resume will be a big help. Though really, when I hit puberty I automatically became far more of an expert on women than Reardon will ever be.

The second thing that bothered me about his bio was the whole idea of his PhD in biomedical ethics. Everyone knows he has a PhD. It's in his bio; he's consistently referred to as "Dr." in the pro-life press (and in his own press releases; and when he cites himself in his work, which is often). But it's difficult to find out the details, like where he studied. After several attempts to find this information on his website, and other websites that post and cite his work, I finally found the answer on a pro-choice message board: Reardon earned his degree from Pacific Western University.

I say "earned" because Reardon didn't "attend" PWU. Nor did he "go" to PWU. After reading the brochures, I cannot in good conscience even say he "studied" at PWU. Pacific Western University is an unaccredited on-line university offering Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate degrees via correspondence courses. According to their website and brochure:

A good candidate for a Doctorate degree program would be someone who needs the qualification to facilitate foreign travel, obtaining a work visa, publish a book or professional articles, join professional associations or to evaluate his or her standing in professional circles, particularly in the consulting field.

I've read this paragraph over and over again and I can only assume they meant to say elevate.

The description of their program continues:

The doctorate is earned by candidates who complete advanced level coursework and demonstrate theoretical competence leading to a dissertation which is the faculty recognized contribution to the literature of the discipline.

Apart from this vague statement and others like it, there is no indication of exactly what one would be studying in order to get a degree at PWU. There are no sample lists of textbooks, no research paper topics (though one is said to be required in each course of study), and absolutely no mention of faculty or advisors at all.

I requested an application and a few weeks later received a two-sided legal-sized document with a space for my name, address, how I learned about PWU ("advertising source"), and the remaining one and a half pages dedicated to tuition and payment information (1/3 of the total tuition plus a $100 application fee now, the remainder according to a payment plan they would set up for me). There was another questionnaire included in my information packet which asked for my social security number, transcripts and other pertinent information, but I was not to complete that one until after I had been accepted. Not only that, when I returned my application I would receive credit for it.

I graduated with a BA in Theatre. It was difficult, but I imagine getting a PhD in biomedical ethics would be far more challenging. Still, I never got credit toward my degree for filling out a form. I can only determine that PWU offers its students a fulfilling opportunity...to buy a fake degree.

Much to my dismay, I also learned that PWU doesn't offer a PhD in biomedical ethics. In fact, it offers nothing like it. It offers no science, medical or ethics courses at all. You can only get a Doctorate degree in one thing: Philosophy of Business Administration.

Even though I don't particularly care for David Reardon (or his moustache), I wasn't ready to call him a liar. So I called the administrative offices of Pacific Western University. Within the course of a 3 minute conversation, I was assigned a faculty advisor and they were already asking for my tuition and resume. Repeatedly. With MUCH PRESSURE. So I decided to end the call before it somehow ruined my credit. Before I did, the woman I spoke with confirmed that PWU did not offer a PhD in biomedical ethics.

So I called The Elliot Institute and asked to speak with David Reardon himself. The woman who answered the phone told me he was at another office, but that I should e-mail him, which I did, and I asked him whether or not he knew PWU was a non-accredited university and was he aware that they did not offer any degrees in the field of biomedical ethics. Apparently, I wasn't the first person who asked him about this, as he sent me "a standard response to questions about my qualifications to suit the particular questions [I] raised."

Since his e-mail to me was several pages long, I won't post it all now (though I do have his permission to do so). You can read the full text here(AUTHOR'S NOTE: This text has been removed as of 6.5.06 in order to omit Mr. Reardon's contact information at his request. I respectfully understand his request and will repost his email response to me as soon as I can).

In his response, Reardon conceded that PWU doesn't offer a PhD in bioethics now, but maintains that they did when he completed his study with them in 1995. He also explained that biomedical ethics was a relatively new field and there was not then, nor is there now, an institution which offers an accredited degree in it.

Well, that's not true. Not only does the Medical College of Wisconsin offer an accredited master's degree in bioethics, it was the first college to offer it online. Loyola University also offers an MA in bioethics. So does Midwestern University in Arizona. So does the University of Minnesota, Albany Medical College, University of Pittsburgh...and more. The first centers for biomedical ethics research appeared to have begun in the United States in the early 80's. Of course, when you get a master's degree, you don't get to call yourself a "doctor."

Reardon went on to say that, regardless of where he got his degree:

The fact that I have been accepted as an expert in my field by the medical and psychological community is demonstrated by the fact that a good number of leading publications have asked me to serve as a peer reviewer for articles in the field submitted by other scholars. The publications for which I have served as a peer reviewer include British Medical Journal, Acta Paediactrica, [Sisk Note: he spelled this wrong, it's really Acta Paediatrica], Medical Science Monitor, Archives of General Psychiatry, Social Science Quarterly.

So I hopped on over to the British Medical Journal to see what I could find. In response to Reardon's paper entitled "Depression and Unintended Pregnancy in Young Women" (co written with JR Cougle), there are four comments.

Robert S. Kahn, Assistant Professor of General Pediatrics at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, says that the paper "raises at least three concerns." These are that 1) the stated hypothesis is never addressed, 2) the sample size is too small to be used in this study and the third is something I cannot possibly understand (probably because I never filled out enough college applications), but he seems to have a problem with the statistics Reardon cites and his application of them to the women in his study.

Steen Goddik, psychiatry resident at the University of South Dakota School of Medicine says that the article starts with "unwarranted claims" supported by a study that in fact opposes what Reardon is saying (this may have been what Kahn was referring to in point three, above, but I just don't know). He also claims that Reardon and Cougle use "unsubstantiated speculations" to prove their hypothesis.

Deborah L Billings, a senior research associate from North Carolina says that the author's methodology is unsound.

So far, we have three professionals saying that Reardon is manipulating raw data to support unfounded analysis. Plus, he has a small sample size.

Finally, Dallas A. Blanchard, professor emeritus, University of West Florida tells us what we all want to know. "Reardon and Cougle claim no conflict of interest in their paper," she says. "The principal author (Reardon) is a professional anti-abortionist and the funding organisation for which he works has as its primary aim propagandising against abortion."

Well said, Dallas. Well said.

In fact, in an interview with Everlasting Light Ministries, Reardon says:

We believe that understanding how abortion hurts women is the key to ending abortion. Perhaps even more importantly, a deep understanding and empathy for women who have been hurt by abortion will help many of us to become more faithful witnesses of Christ's divine mercy.

The truth is that abortion is simply bad medicine. Nothing good comes from it. God has intertwined the well-being of women and their children in such a way that it is impossible to kill a woman's unborn child without exposing her to grave physical, psychological and spiritual harm..

Right now, on the first page of Reardon's website is a petition to Republicans and Democrats to "1) Oppose coerced abortions, and 2) support post-abortion healing." He says it's up to everyone "Whether or not you have ever been involved in an abortion" (emphasis in original) to sign this petition because "...the views of women who have actually had abortions are systematically been ignored [sic]" (emphasis in original).

A man who has never had an abortion making a plea specifically to others who have never had an abortion to ask a bunch of other (mostly) men who have never had an abortion to get rid of the choice to have an abortion because of the danger to women. Because they can't decide what's best for themselves. It's for their own good. This paternalistic mindset permeates women's politics, but I'm still naively amazed every time I see someone so righteously unashamed of possessing it.

The petition, which will be mailed to both Democratic and Republican leadership, contains some poll numbers that remind me of Noah's "What will you do if Bush gets a third term" choices (I would throw up/I just threw up). For instance, did you know that only 16% of the American public thinks "abortion generally makes women's lives better?" Let me ask you a question. How many of you think catheters generally make men's lives better? No, I'm not comparing abortion to a catheter. But my question is no more absurd or stupid than Reardon's. No one wants a catheter. Well, not many people. No one I know. No one I know I know. The point is, it's a very poorly-phrased poll question. Unless your intent is to skew numbers in a particular direction. Which makes sense given Reardon's obvious pro-life stance.

But David Reardon doesn't think that's fair. In bullets 13 and 14 of his e-mail, he says that "politically motivated critics" of his work "distract their audiences from the clear and evident statistical findings of [his] work by attacking." They do this by 1) claiming he has a conflict of interest because he is a professional anti-abortionist, 2) pointing out that he does not have a PhD from an accredited university and 3) citing "expert panels" who disagree with him.

Let's get this straight, David. You're all for open debate and research and peer-review, as long as no one questions your motives, credentials or whether your opinions are supported by any studies but your own. Wow. Okay. I don't really know how to respond to that.

First of all, as far as I know, no one's really disagreeing with your data (except that your population samples are too small), but with your analysis of that data. When you find a correlation between abortion and substance abuse, it doesn't necessarily mean that having an abortion creates a propensity for substance abuse. There is something called causality and if you don't prove it, all you have is, well...data and a personal opinion. I could sit here and support the argument that my ass is really a chicken using only the bible if I wanted to and tried hard enough. That doesn't mean my ass is really a chicken. Or that anyone should believe it is.

Second, when someone's publicly stated goal is to end abortion and "become more faithful witnesses of Christ's divine mercy," how can we possibly take that person at their "scientific" word? It would be like trusting a report on the psychological causes and effects of homosexuality by Jerry Falwell. I think the Reverend would probably be familiar with the verse in a certain book that talks about the inability to serve two masters. If you're a servant of Christ, everything else comes second. Including science, right David?

Third, panels of experts disagree with your analysis. Not just one panel. Panels. One of these panels was convened by the American Psychological Association and Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. So we're not talking about some third-rate, fresh out of correspondence school panel here.

Speaking of which, when you so flamboyantly display a title you received in an online correspondence course, you lose credibility. That's just the way it is in our day and time. Maybe our society isn't yet ready to accept Sally Struthers as a bastion of higher learning. Or maybe it's because people think you wanted the title without the work. Maybe it's because people think you bought that "Dr." before your name to "evaluate" yourself among your peers.

I'm all for online learning. I'd like to take a few classes myself. But I don't think I'd get much respect as an attorney with a degree from Phoenix Online University. And you know what? I wouldn't expect it.

Reardon says that "a discussion of the data is more important, however, than a discussion of [his] or degrees or personal political opinions." When your data is proven flawed or your analysis is unsubstantiated because of incompetence or an extreme personal bias, then no, David. You're wrong. A discussion of your degree, if you want to call it that, and of your willingness to present yourself and your "data" in any way that promotes your moral beliefs is just as important. You are not a scientist. You are an evangelist. You are a lobbyist. Do not expect credibility.

David Reardon may be one of the smartest men in the world for all I know. And in our correspondence, he's been very polite. But he's certainly not objective. Or for that matter, a PhD. He's a guy who wants to end abortion and is doing it by pretending to protect the rights of women. Because women can't choose for themselves. Because he's that kind of a guy. Because he's Dr. David C. Reardon, PhD.

But I have to go now. I'm late for my online figure skating class.

Well Jill,

Since you're coming home tomorrow, I think I'll let you handle this one...

Welcome Baaaaaack! ! ! ! ! !

This quote is from the 2004 Government Accountability Office report to Congress on the subject of "Diploma Mills." Please note that "Dr." Richard Reardon's degree in Bioethics is from Pacific Western University:

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.

Reardon is a clown. He has argued in print that penile amputation with a kitchen knife is a consequence of abortion.

SMaug,

And you know he's a clown because you've traveled in the same circus?

SoMG,

Ooops, I meant circles.

Smog,

He has argued in print that penile amputation with a kitchen knife is a consequence of abortion.

And we have argued in print that fetal amputation with a surgical knife is a consequence of abortion.

And you have argued in print that fetal amputation with a surgical knife is a noble thing...

Now, who were you calling a clown?
A clear case of Dan Rice calling Emmet Kelly "black".

You guys don't see it do you?

Is your son over in the Middle East risking his life and to hear a high level offiial saying the war is lost when it isn't?

That is a treasoness statement....high treason.

Why doesn't somebody think for a second.

Forget about yourselves (I know that's almost impossible for a pro-abort) and put yourself in another's shoes, just one time. Perhaps you pro-aborts think that your lives are the only lives that count?

Ooooh...I've gotta go figure kating....ooooh...I might break a finger nail.

MK: you're babbling.

HisMan: The war is over. It ended when we got Saddam. What we have now is a post-war occupation. And it's failing.

HisMan, I see it very clearly. I have known many people who have gone to Iraq for their two years of duty and are avoiding getting sent back there at ALL COSTS. They DON'T want to go back. They don't feel they are doing any good.

And to be honest HisMan, I don't see you going over to fight. Did you go to Vietnam? Did you fight in Desert Storm? Did you even *try* to get into the military?

And another thing HisMan, I rarely think about my own life, I'm thinking about the poor sons and daughters who are stuck in that hellhole, getting shot at by people who don't want them there in the first place.

HisMan,

Can you imagine if a comment like Reid's had been made by a leader of the Senate during WW2? Can you imagine a US senator asking the pentagon for details on pulling American troops out of the South Pacific or Europe as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did?
This was the era of liberal Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt, the president who put thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, who had committed no acts of treason, into concentration camps, excuse me, "relocation centers" for no other reason than that they were of Japanese ancestry.
People scream about the suppression of their rights now? Had they lived under FDR during WW2 they would have seen what suppression of one's rights was really all about. They would also learn that statements like Reid's and action like Hillary Clinton's would never have been tolerated and would have been regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy and treason.

I don't know why I keep referring to David Reardon as Richard Reardon. Maybe it's the Mojitos. Maybe it's because "Dick" would be a more appropriate name for him...

SOMG,

Look at some post WW2 magazine and newspaper articles and you'll read how the post WW2 occupation of Germany was "failing" as well. My uncle served in the South Pacific during WW2. He told me that the American people were unaware of the hundreds of soldiers who continued to be killed weekly on the "conquered" islands where "peace" had been declared. He said Iraq is nothing in comparison.
I in no way trivialize the service of our men and women who serve in Iraq or the danger they face.
I must clarify my previous post. Hillary Clinton asked the Pentagon for details on an American withdrawal from Iraq, and received a very scathing reply as to how her action only offers aid and comfort to the enemy.

Though, for the record...I'm not sure what good it would be to leave Iraq now. I've been thinking about this a lot lately actually and I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with John McCain on this...it was a mistake going in, but we need to clean up the mess we've made.

*sigh*

It would make things so much easier if the Iraqi government was more stable and actually had a mandate from the people to govern so it could at least be somewhat effective (which it so far is not). It's a shame how fractured Iraq has become, and it really is a wonder how they could ever unite again?

"It's a shame how fractured Iraq has become, and it really is a wonder how they could ever unite again?"

@Rae-Rae: Have you forgotton about the 50,000 kurds who were WMD'ed by Sadaam, or the torture chambers, the invasion of kuwait, the 18 UN resolutions that he violated. Yea, what a wonderful place Iraq was before we invaded.

@ Mary: Amen!

@ Laura: Is that the best you have?

Jasper: @ Laura: Is that the best you have?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

What? Undisputed proof that your hero is a liar and a quack?
What more do you want?

HisMan- your son and several of my friends are all in Iraq, according to you, to defend our freedom- and our right to say whatever we want to about this war. Consider that.

" What? Undisputed proof that your hero is a liar and a quack? "

No, how about the whole "pro-choice" movement is one big lie designed to exterminated innocent unborn babies.

@Jasper: I know that. I wasn't saying we caused the fractions...it was already fractured by there was no infighting because Saddam would kill all dissent. I'm really wondering if Iraq was ever truly united under its own volition...meaning not being forced to stay "united" under Saddamn (lol...Sad-damn...*gigglesnort*).

Though I can't really say Iraq is much better off, that poor country has been f-ed up since before Saddamn even took power.

*shrugs*

Whoops, I just realized I'd still been using my old email account that's been turned off for almost a month.

Jasper- no one contests that Saddam was a bad man. But interfering with the natural progression of a third world country only interferes with their ability to create and support their own discoveries about politics, economics, and social structure. Countries only suffer when more advanced civilizations thrust upon them ideas and concepts which the society hasn't yet evolved to accept or truly understand.

I've read recentlty that most of the violence is coming from people outside of Iraq (Saudi-arabia, Iran, etc. They are the ones who are trying to gin-up a civil war, i.e. blowing up mosques, etc.

Actually the kurds are doing quite well for themselves now that Sadaam is gone.

@Jasper: And that's good for the Kurds (there is a most excellent Kurdish restaurant in St. Paul btw...Babani's. I hope to eat there someday...).

How do you propose we prevent the people form other countries from coming in and messing up Iraq?

I say, from now on, we refer to Saddam as "Saddamn". :)

"Countries only suffer when more advanced civilizations thrust upon them ideas and concepts which the society hasn't yet evolved to accept or truly understand."

Really? That's only when they suffer? Not under dictatorships ?.....The Iraqi people are actually quite edjucated, my company was shipping Semiconductor equipment (to make Integrated circuits) to Iraq before Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Jasper- of course they suffer under dictatorships. I'm not suggesting that they aren't intelligent. I'm suggesting that by interfering so thoroughly in the affairs of a third-world country, we are doing more harm than good. We're thrusting upon them a system that needs to be formed by a natural rebellion of the people and their own attempts at new governments. That's how America and Europe achieved the progressive and advanced systems that they have nowadays. I'm not saying that they're stupid, or less educated, I'm suggesting that societies need to progress naturally to achieve the ideal government for that society. Remember that movie, I can't recall the title, with the Coke bottle and the African natives...I think it was called "The Gods Must be Crazy".

"How do you propose we prevent the people form other countries from coming in and messing up Iraq?"

I believe we need to further prevent outsides from coming in the greater Bagdad area, which is one of the missions of this latest surge.

But, I agree in a sense, we cannot be there forever. If must see progress by the end of this year (not just the prevention of bombings (which can be very difficult), but political progress between Shites and sunnis.

Good night Erin and Rae....

Goodnight, jasper dear.

And what if we DON'T see political progress between Sunnis and Shi'ites by the end of the year, but just see more of the same? What then? Can we leave then?

This is not our war anymore. Our war was against Saddam.

Our troops are wasting their time persuing an illusion, and it's not treason to say so.

SoMG,
MK: you're babbling.

Great comeback.

Rae,

Or Saddamned?

I thought the war was against terror?

Laura, you are such a big bully. You don't know jack. Wasn't it YOU who came here and said that the women from Silent No More "have issues" Yes they do ding dong! It's called PAS!!! Bethany, thank you. I'll try it.

Laura, I personally know of women who have suffered from abortion. I doubt they would ever receive one ounce of comfort from you. You would probably be the first to tell them that they were bat cakes.

BTW, thanks for that link on Reardon. I like him even better now. Somg, how is your in home shrine to George Tiller coming along? Come on and keep it real. You're the quack. You realize this. If you really are a nurse quacktitioner, I think any woman who came to you is in great danger. Kind of like getting John Wayne Gacy as your nurse. Note; I did not call George Tiller a doctor because he isn't. He is an abortionist.

Sicko Abortion doc who writes for the DailyKos blog compares having an abortion to an angel getting its wings.

http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/2007/07/abortionist-compares-having-abortion-to.html

Jill, where are you? I've been looking forward to some new posts today! :)

Gotta Love Mitt Romney:

"Say No to Obama, Osama and Chelsea's Moma"

http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/21/mitt-catches-s-t-over-hillary-bashing-sign/

Rae,

You don't end a war by saying you lost it and thereby strengthening your enemy. That's a cowardly thing to do.

As for me, and it's not about me, I was ready to go to Vietnam and the war ended. I had a high draft number and while I could have protested, I wouldn't have. I would have gone in a heart beat. As far as Desert Storm, I was too old by that time. So don't try to paint me into some bogus corner. I have served my country in many other ways, i.e., working extraordinary hours in the aerospace industry building all kinds of sophisticated weapons systems, i.e., control moment gyros, reaction wheel and pointing systems for spacecraft, avionics systems, assmebly systems, etc.

I don't want my son in the Middle East fighting either. But doing a wrong thing doesn't make it right.

But like abortion is wrong it would be wrong to leave Iraq and risk losing millions of people to the slaughter that would follow.

This is about doing the right thing which I understand pro-aborts have a very difficult time understanding especially if it inconveniences them or cuts into their lifestyle or personal ambitions.

It no accident that there hasn't been an attack on US soil in the last six years. We engaged the enemy in their backyard. It will be determined that the Iraq War was a stroke of genius that only history will reveal.

Heather4life: BTW, thanks for that link on Reardon. I like him even better now.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You like Reardon better now that you know that he's a compulsive liar with fake credentials?

Laura, I am not putting any stock in anything you type. Should the 'Silent No More' group shut down because people like you don't believe in PAS? It has also been compared to PTSD. So what if they gave it a name? What's it to you? I participate in the Safe Haven Ministries blog. These are women who claim everything from mistreatment from abortionists to deep regret. Though they know I have never had an abortion, they still allow me onto the site. Should I type them a note and tell them; There is no such thing as PAS. Get OVER IT!! Do you know insulted they would be? Do you know their pain? Prove to me that Dr. Reardon is way off base. BTW, where are your credentials?

I WANT MY MOM....

COME HOME!!!!!

JIIIIILLLLL!

where's Mama?

jasper, That abortionist is sick! He sounds batty. Where did they ever get the idea that an abortion was empowering? That would be like me saying "My pelvic exams make me feel so empowered." That slogan is flaky.

You go, Heather! (re:laura)

Aaah i have been waiting all day for Jill to get back too...where has she gone??

Hi everyone. Ah, we just had a power outage. I was reading a story on Safe Haven about a woman who went back to the abortion clinic for her post abortion check up. She wrote; I was lying on the table, and the doctor came in. He acted very cold. He told me to scoot down and spread my legs. He then jammed his fingers into my vagina and stated "You're fine." He took off his gloves and walked out. I was in physical pain after this. I cried all the way home thinking about him brutally killing my baby the same way he examined me. I wonder what he did to my Madison.

Jasper,
Well that was enlightening. Empowering no so much, but definitely enlightening. I'd be very curious to hear what the girls have to say about such an attitude. Every time we way that the abortion industry PROMOTES abortion we get told that noone wants and abortion...well apparently, someone does.

He makes it sound so good, I think we should all get one!

(By the way SoMG, is "Beket" another one your online identities?)

Abortionist compares having an abortion to an angel getting its wings
A Daily Kos diarist with the handle Beket, who also claims to be an abortionist in Texas, provides a script of a conference call he uses to deal with the informed consent law in Texas.

If you hear the same beeps I hear, they are kind of like in that old movie "It's a Wonderful Life," in which every time a bell rang an angel got his or her wings. Every time you hear a beep another woman joins the call – in a way gets her wings. Really. It might seem far-fetched to some of you, but for many a woman the experience of having an abortion is much more than just a medical procedure. It's often one way of claiming her wings – her wings of independence – taking charge of her own life – summoning up from inside herself the courage to claim her freedom from the old oppression of the past. It is about nearly every thing in our culture that has to do with anything. It is about life – death – sex - power – religion – God – right and wrong – family. An unplanned pregnancy challenges a woman to look at everything – her hopes and her dreams, her relationship choices, her ideas about family and career, her plans for the future. For many women abortion can be a transformational experience – one where she actively chooses what she wants for her life - one where she is in charge. One in which she is "born again."

All right, Everybody now...
WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL
*
*
*
*

I CANT HEAR YOU...
*
*
*
*

WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL
WE WANT JILL

Bethany, thank you.

JILL JILL JILL!

What's frightening is that we are actually ALLOWING people like Becket,Somg, and Tiller to perform surgery.

Here's David Reardon's peer reviewed articles..he is obviously respected by the medical community:

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles
. Women's Preferences for Information and Complication Seriousness Ratings Related to Elective Medical Procedures. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Lee MB. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006 Aug;32(8):435-8.
. Relative Treatment Rates for Sleep Disorders and Sleep Disturbances Following Abortion and Childbirth: A Prospective Record Based-Study. DC Reardon, PK Coleman. Sleep 2006; 29(1):105-106.
. Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Cougle JR. British Journal of Health Psychology 2005; 10:255-268.
. The psychology of abortion: a review and suggestions for future research. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Strahan T, Cougle JR. Psychology and Health 2005; 20(2):237-271.
. Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: a cohort study of the 1995 national survey of family growth. Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2005 19(1):137-142.
. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.
. Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 104(3):635.
. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth. Reardon DC, Coleman PK. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004 191(40):1506-1507.
. Deaths associated with abortion compared to childbirth: a review of new and old data and the medical and legal implications. Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. 2004; 20(2):279-327.
. Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Reardon DC, Coleman PK, Cougle JR. Am. J. Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2004; 26(1):369 - 383.
. Abortion decisions and the duty to screen: clinical, ethical, and legal implications of predictive risk factors of post-abortion maladjustment. Reardon DC. J Contemp Health Law Policy. 2003 Winter;20(1):33-114.
. A history of Induced Abortion in Relation to Substance Use During Pregnancies Carried to Term - Letters Reply. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM, Cougle JR. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;189(2):618.
. Psychiatric Admissions of Low-income Women Following Abortion and Childbirth Reardon DC, Cougle JR, Rue VM, Shuping MW, Coleman PK, Ney PG. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2003; 168(10):1253-7.
. Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort. Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Med Sci Monit. 2003 Apr;9(4):CR105-12.
. Jonathan Shepherd, David C Reardon, Peter Davies, and Graham V Vimpani, Violence as a public health problem: Report misses association of violence with pregnancy, BMJ, Jan 2003; 326: 104.
. History of Induced Abortion in Relation to Substance Use During Pregnancies Carried to Term. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM, Cougle JR. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;187(5):1673-8.
. The quality of caregiving environment and child development outcomes associated with maternal history of abortion using the NLSY data. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Cougle JR. J Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2002; 43(6):743- 757.
. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren FJ,, Cougle JR, Coleman, PK, Strahan T. Southern Medical Journal. 2002. 95(8):834-41.
. Depression and unintended pregnancy in young women: Authors Reply. Reardon DC, Cougle JR. British Medical Journal. 2002; 324:1097.
. Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. Reardon DC, Cougle JR. British Medical Journal. 324:151-2 (2002).
. State-funded abortions vs. deliveries: A comparison of outpatient mental health claims over five years. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM, Cougle JR. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2002; 72(1):141-152.
. Science, philosophy, religion, and use of embryonic stem cells. Lancet, 2002:359:2036-7.
. Suicide rates in China. Reardon DC, Bertolote JM, Phillips MR. Lancet 2002; 359:2274-5.
. Suicide associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren FJ,, Cougle JR, Coleman, PK. New research poster session at the 2002 American Psychiatric Association Conference, Philadelphia.
. Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse, Reardon DC, Ney P. Am. J. Drug and Alcohol Abuse 26(1):63-80 (2000)
. Differential Impact of Abortion on Adolescents and Adults, Franz W, Reardon DC, Adolescence, 1992.

Bethany, thank you for that link. He sure does sound respected to me. I'll bet you that Laura and SoMg would tell you that Becket was a great doctor.

Should we stop the suicide hot line or depression support groups, and just write these people off as "nut jobs" unworthy of any help? Apply the same concept to PAS and PAS support groups. Some people probably DO deal with their abortions better than others. What about the ones that don't? Can't they have their support groups? Why should you allow it to worry you so?

Maybe we should start a support group to support those who are upset by the idea that post abortive women might need a support group because they are upset...

Yes MK. What a great idea! Should we get rid of AA, NA, Over eaters anonymous, pregnancy crisis centers, cancer support groups, support groups for the terminally ill? Ah, who NEEDS help? That's for sissies. Be stoic America! You can do this alone! *sarcasm*

Beware of Meaningless Studies by Anti-Choice Researchers

by Joyce Arthur
Pro-Choice Press, Autumn/Winter 2003

The May 13 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) featured a research article[1] by lead author David Reardon and five other anti-choice activists. The article subtly implies that abortions are dangerous because statistics show that women who abort have more psychiatric admissions than women who deliver to term. However, to conclude from this statistic that abortion causes mental problems is unwarranted and spurious. In fact, the study is essentially meaningless. It's important to explain why, because the media can easily misinterpret such data, and anti-choice groups exploit these studies to support their political agenda against abortion.

To the journal's credit, it did publish in the same issue an excellent refutation[2] of Reardon's research by Dr. Brenda Major, who has a Ph.D in Social Psychology from Purdue University and is a professor and researcher in the Department of Psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara.

As Dr. Major explains in her rebuttal, "It is a fundamental tenet of science that one cannot infer cause from a correlation between two variables. Consider, for example, the strong correlation that exists between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches in a city. How can we explain this finding? Some may conclude that religion drives people to drink. Others may conclude that drinking drives people to religion. The most likely explanation, however, is that the correlation is spurious, caused by a third unmeasured variable that is associated both with the number of churches and the number of bars in a city—such as city size."

Or, the causality could be in the opposite direction. Major says, "Although it is possible that abortion leads to psychiatric problems, it is just as plausible that the direction of causality is reversed, namely, that psychiatric problems cause women who become pregnant to feel less capable of raising a child and to terminate their pregnancy." Reardon's study tried to adjust for this by omitting women who had been admitted for psychiatric care in the year before the pregnancy. However, Major notes that the authors did not look at psychiatric admissions prior to that year, nor did they look at other mental health indicators that might have led women to choose an abortion.

The most plausible explanation for the observed association between abortion and mental health problems, according to Major, "is that it is spurious: it reflects unmeasured differences that existed before the target pregnancy between the women in the delivery and the abortion samples." In other words, the life circumstances of women who continue a pregnancy probably differ significantly from those of women who abort a pregnancy, and this can impact mental health. Abortion providers and clinics are everyday witnesses to the fact that women who seek abortions are, on average, more likely to be younger, single, have relationship problems, suffer from health problems, have drug or alcohol abuse problems, or be going through a difficult or dysfunctional time in their lives, compared to women who carry to term. For example, pregnant women in abusive relationships are more likely to have an abortion than pregnant women who are happily married. It's reasonable to infer that the former are also more likely to seek psychiatric help—but the reasons probably relate to their abusive relationship, not the abortion.

Further, Reardon's study did not take into account the marital status of women who abort versus those who carry to term. Major points out, "In contrast to women who deliver, women who terminate a pregnancy are less likely to be married or in an intimate relationship with their partner. Both of these social factors are associated with poorer mental health."

Reardon also compared apples to oranges by not taking into account the "wantedness" of the pregnancy. When selecting comparison groups for studies, subjects should face similar predicaments with similar risk factors. But about half of all pregnancies brought to term are planned and wanted, while almost all abortions result from unintended pregnancies. Women who choose to deliver are more likely to feel emotionally and financially capable of raising a child, and be in a positive frame of mind about it. In contrast, experiencing an unintended pregnancy is often a traumatic experience, usually far more upsetting than the abortion itself, which actually relieves most women. Aside from that, women who experience unintended pregnancy are more likely to be disadvantaged in some way compared to women who planned their pregnancies—e.g., they may be less resourceful, less content, less self-assured, less in control of their lives for whatever reason. Such factors could explain why they got accidentally pregnant in the first place, and, they could also lead to a higher rate of psychiatric admissions later on. Again, it is the specific disadvantage that may be causing the psychiatric problem, not the abortion.

Reardon's findings are also inconsistent with some well-designed earlier studies that compared the psychological reactions of women who gave birth to those of women who aborted unplanned pregnancies. These studies concluded that the emotional well-being of women who abort an unplanned pregnancy does not differ from that of women who carry a pregnancy to term. Major says, "Reardon and colleagues cite none of these studies." She also notes that their research conflicts with that of the American Psychological Association, which concluded that first trimester abortion is "psychologically benign" for most women.

Serious research articles should at least acknowledge opposing evidence, instead of ignoring it. Plus, knowing the difference between correlation and causation is such a fundamental principle in science that Reardon's failure to clearly acknowledge it can only be attributed to a strong political bias against abortion. In fact, every one of the study's co-authors is a staunch anti-abortionist. Only one appears to be a working scientist with the proper credentials in psychology—Dr Priscilla K. Coleman—although one of her main research focuses is women's responses to induced abortion, including death and suicide. It's fair to ask whether such a strong bias on the part of all six authors is appropriate for a research article in a leading medical science journal.

Lead author David Reardon's only apparent vocation is running an anti-abortion propaganda mill out of Illinois (The Elliot Institute, www.afterabortion.org) since 1988, although he does have a Ph.D in Social Sciences. The other co-authors include a psychiatrist and a Family Relations Ph.D, both of whom specialize in exposing the "dangers" of abortion; a graduate student in psychology; and a medical doctor. The latter's affiliation was cited as the "John Bosco Institute." However, an Internet search revealed that this lofty-sounding place is actually the St. John Bosco Catechital Institute, a Catholic divinity school. Not only does such an affiliation have zero relevance to medical research, the omission of key words indicates a deliberate attempt to cloak its real nature.

At any rate, the real danger in research articles such as these is the potential for misinterpretation by the media and misuse by anti-choice groups. Although the study data may be accurate by itself, it's the conclusions leapt to that are the problem. Reardon's Elliot Institute is notorious for publishing research that suggests abortion is bad for women—but this conclusion does not flow from the data because of the same biased assumption that "correlation equals causation".

In subsequent issues, the CMAJ published only one short protest letter from a pro-choice medical student, but printed several lengthy anti-choice letters that attacked Major's critique and praised Reardon's article. This did not reflect the outrage and disappointment of those in the Canadian pro-choice community, many of whom complained to the CMAJ because they felt betrayed by what they saw as a breach of medical ethics by the journal. The purpose of a medical journal is to advance medicine, not to stir controversy and increase readership—and in the process impugn abortion practice and harm women.

Endnotes [1] Reardon, David, and Jesse R. Cougle, Vincent M. Rue, Martha W. Shuping, Priscilla K. Coleman, Philip G. Ney. Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 13, 2003; 168 (10). www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1253

[2] Major, Brenda. Psychological implications of abortion—highly charged and rife with misleading research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 13, 2003; 168 (10). www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1257

Laura, how do you explain that the majority of child abuse cases are on wanted children, not unwanted?

Thank God that Reardon did these studies. We now have several groups for women who want to HEAL from abortion, and we can call this PAS.

I salute Rachel's Vineyard, Silent No More, and Safe Haven Ministries. I salute Dr. Reardon for his courage to study this. At least he gives a damn about women. God knows abortionists DON'T!

Laura, Do you support those creeps from NOW and Naral? The very scums of the earth who allow abortionists to rape, molest, and stalk women?? They don't bat an eye when women die. Why did it take YEARS before abortionists Brian Finkle and Laurence Reich were finally charged with numerous counts of rape and molestation on patients? 80 counts of sexual assault on Finkle. 80!!! I REPEAT 80!

Laura, how do you explain that the majority of child abuse cases are on wanted children, not unwanted?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have no idea. I guess if I were interested in dicussing child abuse, I'd go to a child abuse board.

Laura, Do you support those creeps from NOW and Naral? The very scums of the earth who allow abortionists to rape, molest, and stalk women??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't say that I can remember that happening - mainly because it didn't.
Perhaps you have your headlines confused. I remember last week a sttlement by the RCC/LA for raping and molesting, but neither NOW nor NARAL were involved. Perhaps we should outlaw the RCC?

I was very shocked to read about the abortion clinic nurses who 'threw in their towels' They exposed the abortion industry. One nurse said "I had to get drunk every night just to stay employed there. The staff would make jokes about the aborted babies. It seemed that we had to joke around to escape the horror of it all." Another nurse; "Behind closed doors the doctor always referred to the women as "TRAMPS." Another nurse; "I had to lie to the women when they came to us. I thought, I wouldn't let this gross guy touch me with a 10 foot pole, but I had to smile and tell the women what a wonderful and compassionate doctor he was."

Hi! Thanks for all the waves! I'm sorry I was late back here today. We had to get up at 4a this morning to catch our flight. This was after staying up til 11:30p last night strolling on a beautiful DC evening to see the Vietnam Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, and Korean War Memorial, all which are better seen after dark, imo.

So I came home this morning and crashed and then spent a couple hours reorienting myself to my surroudings after being gone a week and organizing the rest of the week. Am a big fan of the Franklin-Covey planner, although as far as I can tell, being organized just frees up time to do more work. Balance is ever-elusive.

Thanks again to Bethany and MK for minding the house!

Laura, I was responding to this:

"Reardon also compared apples to oranges by not taking into account the "wantedness" of the pregnancy. When selecting comparison groups for studies, subjects should face similar predicaments with similar risk factors. But about half of all pregnancies brought to term are planned and wanted, while almost all abortions result from unintended pregnancies. Women who choose to deliver are more likely to feel emotionally and financially capable of raising a child, and be in a positive frame of mind about it. In contrast, experiencing an unintended pregnancy is often a traumatic experience, usually far more upsetting than the abortion itself, which actually relieves most women. Aside from that, women who experience unintended pregnancy are more likely to be disadvantaged in some way compared to women who planned their pregnancies—e.g., they may be less resourceful, less content, less self-assured, less in control of their lives for whatever reason. Such factors could explain why they got accidentally pregnant in the first place, and, they could also lead to a higher rate of psychiatric admissions later on. Again, it is the specific disadvantage that may be causing the psychiatric problem, not the abortion."

If this is true, then why are so many "wanted" children being abused? If people with wanted pregnancies are supposedly less likely to have mental and emotional problems, then wouldn't it make sense that people with wanted pregnancies would not be abusing their children as often as the unwanted, yet people with unwanted pregnancies (who happen to carry to term), should be more abusive, as a result of the fact that they have more psychological problems? However, it is the other way around. How do you explain this?

Laura, google it.

Missed you Jill!! Glad to see you back!

Hello Jill! So glad to see you.

Laura, I spotlighted the Supreme Court's affirmation of Reardon's work precisely because pro-aborts like you have flogged him.

All this to deny there are any negative consequences of abortion whatsoever, which as Kennedy said, seems "unexceptional to conclude," to rational thinkers, anyway.

Bethany, Heather, all, I missed you, too! "Group hug!" as my six-year-old grandson would say... :)

LOL! It didn't happen? I can prove that it did! The horror of truth. It's a real shocker isn't it? Laura our expert. She knows it all folks. I suggest you get your facts straight before you spout off without FACTS!

Laura, Why don't you tell me why Brian Finkle is rotting in an Arizona prison for the next 35 years. Any ideas? Any clue? Try 80 reported counts of sexual misconduct! 80! He referred to his clinic as 'The Vaginal Vault' His nurse testified "If an attractive woman came in for an abortion, he would find a way to be alone with her." Why? Since when is a male gyn allowed to be alone with a female? Wouldn't a competent staff member take notice? No investigating?

LOL! It didn't happen? I can prove that it did! The horror of truth. It's a real shocker isn't it? Laura our expert. She knows it all folks. I suggest you get your facts straight before you spout off without FACTS!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can prove that the members of NOW and NARAL were complicit with a rapist? That NOW and NARAL "allowed" a rapist to commit his crimes?
Let's see you prove it.

Jill, I hope you had fun in DC!

Laura, Why don't you tell me why Brian Finkle is rotting in an Arizona prison for the next 35 years. Any ideas? Any clue? Try 80 reported counts of sexual misconduct! 80!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rapists should go to prison. Your point?

Aren't NOW and Naral the scuz bags who want to keep abortion safe and legal? Don't get off topic. Are you disputing that Finkle did have 80 counts of sexual misconduct? Where were NOW and Naral when women began coming forward with their complaints? Where is their outrage? Where is YOUR outrage as a female? They turned a blind eye. You do the same.

Why do you think he got away with rape for years? Why 80 counts?

Laura, I spotlighted the Supreme Court's affirmation of Reardon's work precisely because pro-aborts like you have flogged him.

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

...And rightfully so. Kennedy took a real ass-kicking in the press for citing Reardon's "research."

Why was abortionist Lawrence Reich allowed to remain in practice DESPITE accusations of rape and sexual assalt? Shouldn't a rape suspect be REMOVED from his practice pending an investigation?

Aren't NOW and Naral the scuz bags who want to keep abortion safe and legal?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Neither NOW nor NARAL are law enforcement agencies, nor does either organization condone rape.

Well, who allowed him to stay in practice? How about all of these LEGAL abortion deaths? Where are NOW and Naral? I have never seen one iota of outrage from them. Never! If you happen to have something you can post, I would love to see it. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'll suck it up.

Why was abortionist Lawrence Reich allowed to remain in practice DESPITE accusations of rape and sexual assalt? Shouldn't a rape suspect be REMOVED from his practice pending an investigation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What the F does this have to do with NOW and NARAL?
Perhaps you should take your questions to the law enforcement agencies and state medical boards that had jurisdiction in this case.

I want to know where the F they are!

I always see NOW and Naral signs at the January March for Life in DC. Wouldn't you expect the very pukes who want to keep abortion legal to express their outrage in cases like this?

Come on Laura. You and I both know that NOW and Naral don't give a rat's arse about women. It's all about their political agenda.

Or, the causality could be in the opposite direction. Major says, "Although it is possible that abortion leads to psychiatric problems, it is just as plausible that the direction of causality is reversed, namely, that psychiatric problems cause women who become pregnant to feel less capable of raising a child and to terminate their pregnancy." Reardon's study tried to adjust for this by omitting women who had been admitted for psychiatric care in the year before the pregnancy. However, Major notes that the authors did not look at psychiatric admissions prior to that year, nor did they look at other mental health indicators that might have led women to choose an abortion.

Well jeepers, we've been saying that anyone who would have an abortion must mentally unsound, for years...

So what you are saying is that abortion should be kept legal because women who are mentally unstable shouldn't have children, and if they become more unstable after the abortion, oh well?

Niiiiiice!

Heather4Life: I want to know where the F they are!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Heather, I looked under the couch cushions, the laundry hamper and the junk drawer in the kitchen. I can't find them anywhere...

Laura,

One would think NOW and NARAL would be on the front lines protecting women from abortionists who sexually assault women, or would at the very least express some outrage.
Heather4life is correct, this is all about their political agenda and their willingness to turn a blind eye to the antics of anyone that promotes it.

Quite honestly I don't care if Dr. Reardon has a PHD in peanut butter sandwiches, as long as he's showing the world that abortion hurts women....

And other than making it easy for young women to give themselves away to men and then offering to kill their babies, the whole time pretending that they are these womens "friends" I can't think of a single thing NARAL and NOW are good for. They sold out and hijacked the true feminist movement for profit and in my eyes that makes them whores.

Thanks again to Bethany and MK for minding the house!

Yeah, yeah, yeah...talk is cheap...just send the check already!

I mean, you're welcome.

MK and Mary, you 2 are the best! MK, you crack me up!! Laura, They are hiding like cockroaches. That's why you can't find them.

Mk, Love the peanut butter sandy thing! I'll second your motion.

Laura, you couldn't find them in your junk drawer? Look again. I'm sure you will find them there.

@HisMan: I apologize for being an arse. It was uncalled for.

And I understand that by leaving Iraq (cutting and running) I think we would be doing a great dis-service. I'm not denying that, as I've been thinking about it lately and while I think it was a mistake to go there as fast as we did (should have planned it more and made it more of a "surprise" instead...or something, not sure) as we should have finished up in Afghanistan, which is now deteriorating due to not enough troops because they are all in Iraq.

I'm still not sure whether we did the right thing going into Iraq, I mean I do see the good points: kicking out Saddamned (thanks MK) and what not, but there are disadvantages, such as forcing a democracy instead of allowing one to naturally develop and the fracturing of all the groups in Iraq (Note, we did NOT cause the fracturing, Iraq was already fractured by they were held together out of Saddamned's tyranny).

It's a sucky situation, that's for certain...but I'm going to have to go with John McCain on this, we shouldn't leave until we've cleaned up the mess.

Post-abortion syndrome is not recognized as a subset of PTSD by either the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. Specifically, it is not included in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. Prior to 1994, however, the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing some or all of the symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "Physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion."

The term post-abortion syndrome was first proposed as a variant of PTSD in 1981 by psychotherapist Vincent Rue.[2] PTSD had only been accepted as an official diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association in the previous year, 1980. As a trauma specialist, Rue believed that many of the women he was treating for post-abortion reactions were experiencing a constellation of symptoms similar to that of many Viet Nam vets under his care.

Rue's proposal was immediately controversial. He was quickly put on notice by the general counsel of the APA that he would be subjected to legal action if any notes he published making reference to abortion induced PTSD did not include a specific disclaimer stating that the APA denies there is "any clinical evidence for the basis of the diagnosis of �post-abortion syndrome.'"[3] In 1994, the word abortion was excised from the description of psychosocial stressors included in the APA's diagnostic manual.

Good Lord, how far will these people go? First they change the Hippocratic Oath to eliminate "abortion" and now they change the DSM...

Talk about denial!

MK, Good morning. Let's not forget that pro aborts don't want us to acknowledge that it does exist. Nothing like sweeping the poop under the rug. It still smells though.

If women suffer from grief after a miscarriage, then why doesn't anyone believe that they can suffer after abortion? Aside from her testimony against Scott Peterson, Amber Frey admitted that she'd had an abortion. She wrote about it in her book. I was watching an interview with her. When the interviewer asked about her past abortion, Amber asked them to turn off the cameras so she could regain her composure.[she broke down] She then told about her deep never ending pain. She seems truly remorseful.

Mk, wow.

Heather, that is so right...and you know, many women who have "unwanted" or "unplanned" pregnancies who end in miscarriage also grieve, terribly! In fact, many are insulted when people tell them, "Well, at least you weren't really wanting a baby right now", or, "You should be relieved." They say that those words tear at their heart and soul and hurt so badly, because just because they weren't expecting a baby or wanting one at the time, doesn't mean that they didn't lose a child! Their grief is very real. It's sickening that people will dismiss the very real grief of bereaved mothers everywhere, just so that they can continue with their political agenda.

Grief or not is largely dependent on whether the pregnancy was wanted or not. Some women suffer emotinally after abortions, same as some do after giving birth.

If somebody wants to continue a pregnancy, it should be no surprise if grief is there if a miscarriage takes place. Likewise, if somebody doesn't want a pregnancy, the most grief by far is going to be if they can't end it.