Does anyone know if Giuliani supports the FOCA?

Carrie, he said yesterday he was not a pro-abortion activist. I don't think so. But I haven't read anything affirming that.

Thanks, Jill.

Article about Huckabee from the NY times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I can't say I understand the Mormon issue. As a Catholic, I routinely vote for non-Catholics for political office as long as they're pro-life. What difference does it make? If Romney can convince me that he's pro-life, I'll vote for him, too. I don't really care what his theology about the Holy Trinity is because I'd be voting for him for President, not for Pope.

Hitler was elected because people thought Nazism,in a contest with communism, was the lesser of two evils.

Re: the quote of the day: Yes, those students need protection...from sexual predators, including the pill pushers. They sure won't get it from the likes of Hitlary.

jt, would you prefer 7th grade drop outs? Because that certainly happens. It can happen anywhere to a child of any age who has hit puberty. And the reality is, they do have sex.

though I do agree I don't think the pill is a good option at that age, stick with condoms.

Of course, you're all watching the debate?
I turned to FAUX news and thought my TV started to smoke. Fortunately, it was just California burning down again...

Running commentary welcome - especially snarkasm.

Can you name the candidate who said this?

"Life begins at conception but it doesn't end at birth. And if we're really pro-life we have to be concerned about more than just the gestation period. . . . the environmental quality that would affect a child's air and water; that he had a better education, & better access to affordable health care. So I think that real pro-life people need to be concerned about affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, access to a college education. That, for me, is what pro-life has to mean."

Source: Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series Jan 28, 2007

Huckabee

Dear Jill,

I am an 18-year-old Christian young man. I'll be voting in my first presidential election next year. I am writing with thoughts on the article you wrote in the Illinois Review about the presidential candidates.

For me, my mind is made up. The man our country needs is Mike Huckabee. He has a stellar record of actual accomplishment on all the issues that the pro-life community holds dear. He does not come to us to ask for our vote, he comes from us. But you know this. The other leaders of the evangelical wing of the party know this. The question is only, can he win?

He can win. The reasons are simple. We need a candidate who can unite the country, not polarize it. We need a candidate who can beat Hillary in a debate, rally the Republican base with an unassailable record on social issues, and challenge her on her own territory of health care and education—not just with conservative rhetoric, but with actual accomplishment, innovative ideas, and down-to-earth communication. That candidate is Mike Huckabee. No other candidate comes close.

I understand that certain leaders of the evangelical community remain skeptical about his viability. I need only point to the most recent polls, both nationally and in Iowa, that show him passing by and catching up with the supposed front-runners. All of this without the energy and funds of a unified evangelical community. All of this on the strength of his message and character.

Governor Mitt Romney is an incredible man, but he does not capture people's hearts, which is what the Republican Party needs. That is why he has spent $52.8 million and still lags nationally, with decreasing leads in the early primary states where he has run thousands of ads. Fred Thompson is a great man, but he will never inspire a disenchanted electorate as many hoped he would.

Huckabee can win, and he can do so because he communicates the beauty of the conservative, evangelical position. He has the experience and the vision to restore hope to America — to lead and change minds on the key issues we value.

Thanks for reading, Jill. God bless you!

In Christ,
Alex Harris

Good man Alex!

Have you guys been watching the debate?
Even Republicans - fresh off the Values Voter Summit - spent about two minutes on social issues and moved on.
Iraq, Social Security, the economy, trade, immigration, education, health care and the environment are crises that have pushed social issues off the table.

Dan,

Did you cheat?

I don't get fox news. Tell me what happens.

Ron Paul is making so much sense - it's kinda scary...
Where DID all of the fiscally responsible, small-government nationalist Republicans go?

Ron Paul scares me. He wants to reinstate the Monroe Doctrine... i mean, it didnt work 100 years ago, why would it be better now?

And he doesnt seem to grasp the difference between "small government" and "mob rule". If everything is decided by the people, bad things happen. Look at the Death of Socrates. Killed for asking questions because a majority of religious people hated him. The same could hold true for a state if Ron Paul had his way. Freedom of Religion is a Constitutional Right, but what about things NOT mentioned in the constitution? such as Language. How long before Arabic is outlawed in the Bible Belt?

Mob Rule is NOT a good political System. and neither is Laisse Faire capitalism, just look at France.

No, I figured it had to be him since that was the topic of discussion.

Simply it was a lucky guess, lol

Huckabee won this debate. It's very clear. I'd gladly vote for him... now if the rest of the conservatives would get on board, we'd be getting somewhere.

Laura, it takes less than two minutes to say "I am against killing children." Positions on economics, foreign policy, etc take longer to articulate.

A study from THE LANCET, reported on by Katha Pollitt:

"Now comes an article in The Lancet that shows in cold hard data how right we've been all along. "Induced Abortion: Estimated Rates and Trends Worldwide," a study conducted by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute, is the first global analysis of abortion incidence since 1995. It finds that rates of abortion (the number of abortions per 1,000 women) are relatively unaffected by whether it is legal. Thus, in South America, where abortion is largely illegal, the rate is 33; in northern America, where it is legal, the rate is 21. "The legal status of abortion doesn't predict whether abortions occur," study co-author Gilda Sedgh told me by phone. "It predicts whether they are safe."

See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/pollitt

Read the whole thing. It tells how some countries reduced their abortion rates substantially.

Here's the Lancet article:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext

No authentic pro-lifer is going to support legalized abortion. To do so is to concede that it's morally acceptable for a woman to have her pre-born child killed.

There is no moral right to abortion, nor should the state tolerate it.

Well apparently the Bush Administration loves, loves, LOVES abortion, or this chick wouldn't have been appointed last week:

Birth Control Foe To Head Family Planning
Bush Pick For Contraceptive Program Called Birth Control Part Of "Culture Of Death"
Comments 17
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2007

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

Dr. Susan Orr, who has advocated for abstinence over making contraceptives more available, was named by President Bush to head his government's family planning program. (Dept. of Health and Human Services)
(CBS) Family planning advocates denounced President Bush’s appointment of a contraceptive critic to be head of the federal program responsible for providing birth control and other family planning services to the poor.

Dr. Susan Orr, an associate commissioner at the Department of Health and Human Services, was named by Mr. Bush to be the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA). She would oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program.

Orr is currently on the board of directors of Teen Choice, a non-profit groups advocating for abstinence in lieu of contraception.

Before joining the Bush administration (where she has served in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at HHS), she was senior director for marriage and family care at the Family Research Council (a religious advocacy group founded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family), and director of the Center for Social Policy at the Reason Public Policy Institute.

Orr also served in the previous Bush and Clinton administrations as a child welfare program specialist at the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. She received her Masters degree and Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School, and has worked as a high school principal and adjunct professor at American University and Regent University.

Orr has been criticized for public statements which have indicated an anti-contraceptive view in areas of education, public policy and health insurance.

In 2000, while working as a policy director at the Family Research Council, she objected to a Washington, D.C., city council bill requiring health insurers to pay for contraceptives. By not including a “conscience clause” allowing employers to withhold contraceptive coverage, Orr said the council would force employers "to make a choice between serving God and serving the D.C. government.

"It's not about choice. It's not about health care. It's about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death," she said.

In April 2001, when President Bush proposed ending contraceptive coverage for federal employees, Orr said, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have it."

In February 2001 she told the Conservative Political Action Conference that President Bush's reinstatement of the "Mexico City Policy" (which prohibits federal funds going to organizations that provide, even as only part of their services, abortion) was proof that he is pro-life "in his heart." She also advocated against administration approval of RU-486.

The appointment of Susan Orr is a nightmare for anyone who believes in birth control and sex ed.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards“The appointment of Susan Orr is a nightmare for anyone who believes in birth control and sex ed, and further evidence that the Bush administration is intent on appointing an anti-choice extremist to head Title X,” said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. “This is yet another example of the Bush administration putting politics ahead of women’s health care.”

"Dr. Orr should not be entrusted with the oversight of the federal family planning program and the health of millions of Americans," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation. "For more than 35 years, the Title X program has been a hallmark of quality preventive care, enabling practitioners to provide family planning services to low-income individuals."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., released a statement saying, “This appointment is absurd.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins rallied to Orr's defense, saying her 2000 comments against health coverage for birth control were misconstrued and merely demonstrated her support of consumer choice of coverage. “The real question is why anyone would want to mandate that the insured buy coverage they do not want or currently need,” Perkins said.

Last year, President Bush appointed another prominent abstinence advocate, Dr. Eric Keroack, to head the federal Office of Population Affairs. Dr. Keroack resigned in March after criticism of his statements, including his assertion that engaging in premarital sex suppresses the neuropeptide oxytocin, which he claims subsequently impairs one’s ability to forge long-term relationships.

Orr’s appointment, ironically, comes a week after a study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute determined that in areas of the world where contraception was more widely available, such as Eastern Europe, abortion rates were lower than in other areas where birth control was not easily available.

By David Morgan
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Instructions were given not to speak to the media, and since I am the media, I took that to obviously mean details discussed and who said what were off-the-record and, of course, I'll honor that.
........................

You are the media? A bit grandeous and quite dishonest Jill. You aren't in any danger of the BBC offering you a post in Irag. You couldn't get a job reporting hog ventures in Iowa.

Since you RTLs like gore pictures, check this out:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694816/image?id=fig4&locator=gr4

Somg, no. Sorry. That's a fake picture.

A fake picture published as a figure in The Lancet? I don't think so.

Oh come on. Our pictures are fake, right? Nah, it's a fake. Probably fished it off of Rotten.com. I'll bet the old Gerri Santoro picture is also a fake.

SoMG,

Just goes to show you that sticking knitting needles in your clown car is probably not the wisest of moves. Certainly doesn't show that abortion, legal or otherwise is a good thing.

A fake picture published as a figure in The Lancet? I don't think so.

Posted by: SoMG at October 22, 2007 5:15 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SoMG, what are the chances that Heather has ever HEARD of The Lancet?
We're talking about the same person who thought that the Marquis de Sade was the chick who sang "Sweetest Taboo." (I'm not kidding...)

Earth to Heather: Look at the URL--it's a figure in The Lancet. (The one I pointed to, not Gerri Santoro.) The Lancet does not publish fake figures.

MG, it shows one of the dangers of illegal abortion.

Go read the articles I posted above. Making abortion illegal does not prevent abortions. When South Africa legalized abortion in 1997, they did not experience a rise in the number of abortions but they did experience a very large drop in the complications from abortion.

Sorry, that should be addressed to MK, not MG.

But of course, you WANT abortion to be dangerous, don't you?

I agree with MK. Laura, you just can't let anything go. I thought you spent some time with that wonderful b/f of yours. @@ Is he ever going to marry you, or are you happy being used for sex? BTW, despite what some may have told you, you aren't funny at all. I don't get your humor. Moving on. Somg is just a clown with an over active imagination. He's probably 14 years old.

Let's show that dumb picture to women once abortion is legal. Perhaps they will think twice before they stick a foreign object into their "clown cars." This lady wasn't very smart. Kind of like Laura.

Somg, what did this woman use to perform this "abortion?" What? Can you please elaborate? Did you expect me to fall out of my chair? I clicked on the piccy and went "oh puleezzzee" and clicked off. These pics are a dime a dozen on rotten.com.

Okay, I clicked on "The Lancet." What's your point?

*oops, meant illegal* [[above post]]

Hi Heather. I think SoMG is saying that women aren't smart enough to know that it is dangerous to stick a crochet hook into their "clown car". I guess he thinks we need to protect them from themselves.

But of course, you WANT abortion to be dangerous, don't you?

No, silly. We want them to be extinct.

Hi there Carrie and Bethany. I hope you guys are doing okay!! *waves*

Heather, I am really enjoying the gorgeous fall foliage. I think we are at our peak color this week.

Carrie, it's nice here too. The sun is already coming up.

See you all later. I have 2 appointments this morning.

SoMG, that picture's quite good for showing how unnatural and perverse abortion is, and why nobody should ever resort to it. Do you think that makes me think abortion should be legal? No, it makes me think abortion should be history.

Laura, more contraception in society = more abortions. At least, that's usually how it turns out.

"Is he ever going to marry you, or are you happy being used for sex?"

That's the choice? You're revealing your attitudes about sex again. "being used?" give me a break. Getting married is not every woman's goal, and some women, I'm quite sure, enjoy sex just enough that they don't feel they're "being used" when they enjoy a little.

Good morning, Heather!

"What makes this so awful is knowing that not voting for Giuliani will hand Hillary the election, and she is honestly a pro-life satan. Under her watch the Freedom of Choice Act would likely advance to law, undoing every pro-life state law passed since 1973."

this woman could really do some damage. Shes very dangerous. She has ice water running through her veins. look-out unborn babies, she coming for you with the forceps, ready to kill.

Jasper, I agree. Slick Hilly as president is a very frightening thought.

Somg,

Didn't we have a lengthy discussion on another thread where you said you can't monitor an illegal activity such as illegal abortion?

Somg wrote:

"No one knows how many women died from illegal abortion before Roe/Wade.

It was illegal, so it couldn't be monitored."

Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 1:49 PM

"You can't monitor the results of an illegal activity, unless the activity is easily detectable by objective means (such as needle marks on a drug-user's arm)."

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:23 PM

"The fact is you cannot monitor deaths from illegal activities unless the illegal activities leave unmistakable signs. You just can't know. You never will. The only true answer is "We don't know"! You just have to live with that.

It is well known that not all abortion-related deaths were reported as such, to the CDC or anyone else."

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:38 PM

If you can't tell that someone died of an abortion, how can you tell when they just go home?

Why do you think that the WHO and Gutmacher can measure what you claim is the unmeasurable?

that anon was me.

Jill, I as a Catholic Christian am required to minimize evil in our society and country. If we wait for saints to vote for, we will never vote. We are all fallen humans, however Giuliani is probably the "fallenest" human I've had to contemplate for president.

If it's Rudy and Hillary, I'll be able, in good conscience, to hold my nose and pull Rudy's lever. This is because with two pro-choice candidates, I can go down the list and see which one is the worst and vote against him or her.

However, if there is a righteous pro-life candidate on the ballot, even if Hillary would win, I can't in good conscience vote for Rudy.

By placing a third party nominee on the ballot, Dr. Dobson would guarantee I could not support Giuliani for president.

I will fight Giuliani with every fiber in my being until he is defeated or becomes the candidate. Then I will decide independently how to minimize evil in the voting booth.

SoMG said:

Thus, in South America, where abortion is largely illegal, the rate is 33; in northern America, where it is legal, the rate is 21. "The legal status of abortion doesn't predict whether abortions occur," study co-author Gilda Sedgh told me by phone. "It predicts whether they are safe."

So considering that we have 100M women in the United States, and if abortion were illegal we would save 12 children per 1000 women, this means that if abortion were illegal, we'd save 1.2M babies per year.

Works for me.

Tony, I think you got it backwards, SMOG's numbers indicate that making abortion illegal would actually increase the rate. Many other variables, of course. The main point: "The legal status of abortion doesn't predict whether abortions occur," study co-author Gilda Sedgh told me by phone. "It predicts whether they are safe."

Jasper: "this woman could really do some damage. Shes very dangerous."

Define "dangerous." what do you think she'd do that would be harmful (or even different than GWB?)

I checked out the article Somg posted from the Nation.

There was a link at the bottom to a pro abortion site about coping with abortion.

http://www.lifescript.com/channels/well_being/Meditations_Motivations/coping_with_abortion_youre_not_alone.asp?trans=1&gclid=CIyjs-bfoo8CFSCTWAodNCr7ew

Here are some lines from the article:

" I had a friend who had the decision of abortion to make. At the time, she was engaged to be married within six months of finding out she was pregnant. "

"When she told her fiancé about the pregnancy, he made it perfectly clear he did not want a child either."

I offered to go to the clinic with her, but she politely refused, saying her fiancé would go.

Several days later, she called me and we talked on the phone at length about how she was coping with abortion. She said after the procedure she was in the recovery room looking at all the other women there. She felt the range of emotions swirling in the room, all the fear, guilt, sorrow and confusion.

We had never judged her or shunned her for her decision, and it helped to make it easier. If she had to rely totally on her fiancé for support, the poor woman probably would have been a wreck. I can't tell you how angry I was when she told me he was asking how long it would be until they could have sex again hours after she had gotten home from the clinic.

In addition, women have to deal with an incredible amount of guilt and sorrow, even if they knew they terminated the pregnancy for all the right reasons.

The feelings of guilt, sorrow and anger are all perfectly normal and if you find yourself getting depressed, don't be afraid to seek out abortion help.

PAS: Post Abortion Syndrome
Post abortion syndrome (PAS) is a relatively new term that describes certain characteristics women have after an elective abortion.

Now, PAS is not an official disorder, but experts have recognized it as a "psychological stressor" very closely linked to PTSD.

The real kicker is that some mental health experts will say abortion is a harmless experience and that PAS is a myth started by the groups opposing abortion.

Regardless of whether you see abortion as a personal choice or a mortal sin, the fact is that it does have an emotional impact on the women who experience them and can be as debilitating as depression or any other mental disorder."

After viewing the Tony Perkins CNN interview, I am wondering if the FRC will appeal to other pro-life camps. Will FRC ask Catholics, Orthodox Jewish people, & Muslims to vote for a pro-life candidate? Won't other voters in addition to "Evangelical" voters rally around such a candidate?

"Define "dangerous." what do you think she'd do that would be harmful (or even different than GWB?)"

She would push and sign the "Freedom of Choice" act which would make abortion legal all 9 months of pregnancy. This is a scary bill....
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/Article020404FOCA.html

she would also nominate judges in the mold of Ruth "badgirl" Ginsberg (former head of the ACLU)

don't let Hillary fool you, she is a rapid communist...

SoMG -

I can't find anywhere in the article (Of course i cannot get the full article without being a member) that says that the picture you posted is from a legal or illegal abortion. The article is discussing how "legal" abortions as well as "illegal" abortions can be dangerous. The terminology in that article is talking about "unsafe" not necessarily "illegal". From the Summary of the article:

"Every year, about 19–20 million abortions are done by individuals without the requisite skills, or in environments below minimum medical standards, or both."

We've seen this many times here in America. The two recent ones in New Jersey where one clinic had to shut down until they met the minimum medical standards and the other was not capable of making the minimum medical standards and closed permantly.

I believe you didn't even bat an eye at those two clinics, and all the others that have been cited, closed and fined. There was a woman who went into a coma and lost her uterus because of an abortion at one of those clinics in NJ - that picture could have been from her and her safe, legal and rare abortion in America.

Or is your point that you only care about the unsafe abortions that are performed outside of America?

don't let Hillary fool you, she is a rapid communist...

Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 10:42 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GOOD! I hate them slow Commies!

this woman could really do some damage. Shes very dangerous. She has ice water running through her veins. look-out unborn babies, she coming for you with the forceps, ready to kill.

Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 8:48 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another episode of "Drama Queen Theatre!"
(hits dramatic chord)

Dun! DUN! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!

SoMG,

I know what you were sayin'...doesn't change that fact that knitting needles and naughty bits, don't go together.

"Another episode of "Drama Queen Theatre!"
(hits dramatic chord)

Dun! DUN! DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!"

Have you seen any pictures of aborted babies Laura?

Laura,

don't let Hillary fool you, she is a rapid communist...

Caught that did ya?

If you want the actual numbers from the report Somg posted.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/l-oif101007.php

of note legal abortions in Eastern Europe 105 per 100 births

vs Africa illegal abortions 12%

Since when is 50% the same as 12% ?

Have you seen any pictures of aborted babies Laura?

Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 1:11 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just the paparazzi photos.

jasper, if you read the law, abortions after viability are ONLY allowed in cases in which the health or life of the woman is threatened. The act of aborting prior to viability is already legal, as is the right to have the child. Essentially it just makes sure that no matter what the circumstance, if the mother's health or life is at stake she can abort. It reenforces what the Supreme Court essentially already ruled on in Roe v Wade.

I can see where you would worry about the restrictions, and to be honest I do have some concerns, but only time would tell how successful this bill would be if enacted.

Hippie -

The title of the article he posted is:

"1 in 5 pregnancies worldwide and 1 in 3 in Europe ends in abortion"

That is 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion worldwide and 33.3% of pregnancies end in abortion in Europe. They also switch back and forth between comparing the number of abortions to live births and comparing the number of abortions to women of reproductive age and comparing the numbers of abortion to pregnancies. This is usually done to confuse the reader. A legitimate study (Take the CDC's MMWR's as an example) will give only the same comparison or give both comparisons for EVERY NUMBER OR STATISTIC GIVEN. But this article doesn't do that.

This is how good the "spin" is in the abortion research. They do this so they can attempt to make the outcome the way they want it to be. Lets look at all the decrepencies:

"One in five pregnancies worldwide...ends in abortion. "

Then they say this:

"Globally, there were 31 abortions for every 100 livebirths in 2003"

Isn't Worldwide and Globally the same thing? How can it be that there are 20% ( 1 out of 5 pregnancies) AND 31% (31 for every 100 livebirths) at the same time! What is the difference between pregnancy and "livebirths". Does that mean that spontaneous abortion is added with the induced? They were very quick to define what they mean by safe and unsafe, but nothing to define the difference between pregnancy, livebirths etc...

They also stuck this sentence in around 3/4 of the way down:

"In the developing world, changes in rates of abortion, and actual numbers of abortions, were dominated by developments in China – which accounts for a fifth of abortions worldwide, and where abortion rates dropped 20% between 1995 and 2003."

So.... China is actually the reason for the worldwide decline and has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. oh yea - China stopped reporting a good number of their (forced) abortions to the UN and WHO around the same time as California stopped reporting to our government....that was...you guessed it 1995.

I also love this one:

"They found that on average 90% of women worldwide will have an abortion before the age of 45 "

Yet in the same article there is this:

"The worldwide induced abortion rate fell from 35 per 1000 women aged 15-44 in 1995 to 29 in 2003."

Wait a minute here - how can the number be 90% of women will have abortions when only 3.5 % to 2.9% of women worldwide have abortions every year? (don't you love how they keep going back and forth between 100 and 1,000 to compare their numbers to?) oh yea - then there is this:

"many women will have had multiple abortions and many none at all to come to this average. "

HUH? so the 90% is based on women who have multiple abortions and women who have none. somehow, they come up to 90% of women of reproductive age to maybe not 90% of women of reproductive age.

I left the best for last. Stick with me here if ya can:

"the worldwide rates of induced abortion have fallen 17% between 1995 and 2003, and actual numbers of abortions have also fallen from 46 million to 42 million in the same period."

Did ya catch it? Induced abortion have fallen 17% and the actual number of abortions fell 9%. WHAT? Could someone please tell me the difference betwwen "induced abortions" and "actual number of abortions"? Does that 42 million include spontaneous abortions as well?

Just for the fun of it:

"calculated worldwide and regional incidences of safe** abortions using reports from national reporting systems, nationally representative surveys, and published studies. Figures for unsafe abortion were estimated from hospital data, survey and other published studies. "

Such a fair comparison don't ya think? Neither one of these groups of statistics has anything to do with accuracy. In America alone there is a huge descrepency between anything that is published by the goverment and anything that is published by private research. Just compare the numbers from the CDC and Gutmatcher. Which one did this study take?

Dan,

Health includes virtually anything including psychological health.

For example, abortionists who do late abortions have a psychologist they refer the woman to who signs to say she needs the abortion for psychological health.

One such abortionist, Dr. Tiller has such an arrangement.

In all his years of practice no woman was ever denied.

The psychologist turned in the documents without even writing diagnoses and the state accepted them that way.

When the states attorney general tried to prosecute, Planned Parenthood ran adds against him because subpoenaed patient records.

Dan -

According to Amnesty Internations "grave risk of health to mother" includes if a woman will go blind if she gives birth. There very first example on their website gives the case of the woman in Poland who was denied an abortion because there was a chance she would loose her site.

Now, this is not an ideal situation, but it is NOT by any means "grave risk". If it was, that would be an insult to all the blind mother's in the world.

oops - please ignore the horrible spelling in my above post. I know I'm bad at that, but geesh! I think I should know the difference between site and sight!

;-)

Valerie, whatever you say about individual bad clinics and individual shut-down clinics, the fact remains that legal abortion is extremly safe with a maternal death rate less than one per hundred thousand procedures.

So Valerie, would you allow or prohibit an abortion if the mother's sight depended on getting one?

Valerie,

I think PP says that in the US, 50% of women getting abortions have already had at least one. By those numbers 650,000 are "new" each year. If this trend has been around for about 30 years, (just speculating) then it is only possible for less than 15% of US women to have had an abortion. The number may be a little lower because some clients may say they have not had a previous abortion when in fact they have.

Anyway, I found a published correction to that article's 90% figure here:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1271999

Somg,

Have you seen morbidity rates? If so where?

SoMG -

Would you include the mothers sight as "grave risk" to her health? I don't. The very definition of "grave" in this scenerio would be "likely to produce great harm or danger". Loosing your sight, as I said isn't ideal, is by no mean great harm or danger. Talk to any of the millions of blind mothers and they will tell you that they are very good at parenting. It is an insult to the blind to say otherwise. If it was just based on my decision - no, I wouldn't allow an abortion for that. TRUE life and health of the mother as long as the baby isn't viable I have no problem with abortion - which is in agreement with the Catholic teachings.

What is your point about the safety of abortion? In developing countries the safety of abortion vs childbirth is all the same. Less than 1% mortality rate for both. The fact is that the complications in abortion, although rare as it is in childbirth, have higher ramifications. Most complications in childbirth have more of a risk to the baby than the mother. And most complications can be found before serious harm is done. The complications for abortion (whether legal or not) are 1. incomplete abortion which can cause infection; 2. infection of the uterus; 3. Exessive bleeding; 4. Torn Cervix; 5. infection of fallopian tubes; 6. Puctured Uterus; 7. Blood clots in the uterus; 8. damage to internal organs; and that is just a few of them. Some of these do occur in childbirth, but since most woman stay at least 24-48 hours after a child is born, (or in some undeveloped countries the midwife and/or relatives stay in the home to care for the mother up to 7 days after the birth) these complication are caught before going home. With abortion you go home within hours (if not minutes) after the abortion and left on your own. Also, there is no such thing as an illegal childbirth because it is natural. Very rarely is there as many problems with childbirth as there are with illegal abortions.

Did any of you see this today..so sad

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071021/NEWS/710210357/-1/NEWS01

Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 4:40 PM--and Valerie..lets us not forget to drive home that with abortion, there is always one death. Sometimes the mother dies too!

Abortion morbidity

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=4036997&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

The authors examined the age, gestational age, parity, race, and number of previous spontaneous and induced abortions of 82,030 women who obtained abortions at less than 24 weeks' gestation. Among these women, 342 (0.4%) had serious complications, including 130 (0.2%) with fever of over 38 degrees Centigrade for 3 or more days, 172 (0.2%) who required transfusions, 67 (0.1%) who requied unintended surgery, and 3 who died.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Sep 1;153(1):14-20.

Dan: "Jasper, if you read the law, abortions after viability are ONLY allowed in cases in which the health or life of the woman is threatened."

yea, I read it Dan, this just means any abortion, at any time. "health" is refered to as anything which causes "distress". It's a joke.

Laura: "Just the paparazzi photos"

Instead of always being cynical Laura, can you ever answer a question seriously?

Jasper, why don't you listen to your own admonitions? I have a post I'd like YOU to see. You're quite the cynic yourself when you can't answer a question intelligently (which, sorry to say, is often).

A fake picture published as a figure in The Lancet? I don't think so.

Posted by: SoMG at October 22, 2007 5:15 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SoMG, what are the chances that Heather has ever HEARD of The Lancet?
We're talking about the same person who thought that the Marquis de Sade was the chick who sang "Sweetest Taboo." (I'm not kidding...)

Posted by: Laura at October 22, 2007 5:39 AM
................................................

I'm starting to get the idea of what the home schooled by the undeducated are contributing to the world.

I checked out the article Somg posted from the Nation.

There was a link at the bottom to a pro abortion site about coping with abortion.

http://www.lifescript.com/channels/well_being/Meditations_Motivations/coping_with_abortion_youre_not_alone.asp?trans=1&gclid=CIyjs-bfoo8CFSCTWAodNCr7ew

Here are some lines from the article:

" I had a friend who had the decision of abortion to make. At the time, she was engaged to be married within six months of finding out she was pregnant. "

"When she told her fiancé about the pregnancy, he made it perfectly clear he did not want a child either."

I offered to go to the clinic with her, but she politely refused, saying her fiancé would go.

Several days later, she called me and we talked on the phone at length about how she was coping with abortion. She said after the procedure she was in the recovery room looking at all the other women there. She felt the range of emotions swirling in the room, all the fear, guilt, sorrow and confusion.

We had never judged her or shunned her for her decision, and it helped to make it easier. If she had to rely totally on her fiancé for support, the poor woman probably would have been a wreck. I can't tell you how angry I was when she told me he was asking how long it would be until they could have sex again hours after she had gotten home from the clinic.

In addition, women have to deal with an incredible amount of guilt and sorrow, even if they knew they terminated the pregnancy for all the right reasons.

The feelings of guilt, sorrow and anger are all perfectly normal and if you find yourself getting depressed, don't be afraid to seek out abortion help.

PAS: Post Abortion Syndrome
Post abortion syndrome (PAS) is a relatively new term that describes certain characteristics women have after an elective abortion.

Now, PAS is not an official disorder, but experts have recognized it as a "psychological stressor" very closely linked to PTSD.

The real kicker is that some mental health experts will say abortion is a harmless experience and that PAS is a myth started by the groups opposing abortion.

Regardless of whether you see abortion as a personal choice or a mortal sin, the fact is that it does have an emotional impact on the women who experience them and can be as debilitating as depression or any other mental disorder."

Posted by: hippie at October 22, 2007 10:07 AM
...........................................
Dealing with PTSD, I find the concept of a person having emotional problems with a choice they made for themselves compared to what PTSD really is......well incredible ignorance.
Ask yourself why you ignore actual victims of PTSD and wish to create an insupportable mental illness.

On standardized norm referenced tests,

homeschool students average scores: 84 percentile

public school students average scores: 50 percentile

Follow this link

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:59ebGS0taQAJ:www.hslda.org/docs/study/comp2001/HomeSchoolAchievement.pdf+homeschool+achievement+percentile&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

These stats include many moms with only a high school education.

Educational experts and research shows the single greatest predictor of student success is student teacher ratio.

That is why special ed and ESL students are in smaller classes.

I can't tell you how many professional develpment sessions I have attended where this was explained.

Dan: "Jasper, if you read the law, abortions after viability are ONLY allowed in cases in which the health or life of the woman is threatened."

yea, I read it Dan, this just means any abortion, at any time. "health" is refered to as anything which causes "distress". It's a joke.

Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 5:07 PM
........................

You were born without a mother. Having sprung forth from the forehead of satan, only you can define distress on any level and for anyone. The more distress you can create, the better your father satan will like you. @@

Did the Polish woman give birth?

And did she lose her sight?

"Dan -

According to Amnesty Internations "grave risk of health to mother" includes if a woman will go blind if she gives birth. There very first example on their website gives the case of the woman in Poland who was denied an abortion because there was a chance she would loose her site.

Now, this is not an ideal situation, but it is NOT by any means "grave risk". If it was, that would be an insult to all the blind mother's in the world."
Posted by: valerie at October 22, 2007 4:04 PM

Seems the court disagrees valerie:

(http://www.progressiveu.org/194053-european-court-of-human-rights-orders-poland-to-pay-up)

She was awarded a settlement because she was denied an abortion. I don' know about you, bu going blind would certainly pose a grave risk to the mother's health, at least in my view. Doesn't allowing a woman to go blind because you are capable of, but refuse to carry out, an abortion, go against the preventing harm to a patient? Because going blind certainly seems to cause harm to me, not to mention it could have been prevented, another issue dealing with that oath.

article re polish woman.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2809/

"Tysiac found that illegal abortions typically cost $500. That was expensive but not impossible for Tysiac, a single mother living on a disability pension of about $175 a month.

Then the provider of illegal abortions with whom she was speaking told her that because her two children had been delivered by Caesarian section her procedure would be more complicated and boosted the charge to $1,700, more than three times the average monthly wage in Poland."

----She's not healthy enough to work and no one seems to care about her, except for sex. The abortionist didn't cut his rate to help her out. Man who got her pregnant didn't have the dough either. She is either unlucky or . . . .

Jill,

I am wondering what you heard and/or have to say about the exclusion of Alan Keyes from the FRC event. I am extremely disappointed that FRC excluded him.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58265

Dan -

*sigh*

Read what you post please.

"Alicia Tysiac was refused an abortion in Poland by three doctors, although all three said there was a risk of her going blind if she delivered the baby."

There was a risk of her going blind - not that she would go blind.

She had severe Myopia BEFORE getting pregnant with her third child. She was already severly near sighted before getting prenant. Please explain how that is "grave risk to mothers health"? She did have a retinal detatchment from the pregnancy and birth and her eyesite did prematurely worsened. But she was still going blind nonetheless even if she had the abortion she would still be going blind. Of course, none of the liberal media had information on that. I had to do fact checking through medical journals to see how this scenerio would be possible. Then, when i found no reason for a woman to "just go blind" from being pregnant, and couldn't find any way a woman 'would not know' she had eyesite difficulty I contacted some of my relatives in Poland. They filled in the blanks. She won her hearing on the issue because she went to a European court of appeals. Europe wants Poland to change their abortion laws. What a surprise that they would rule in her favor!

By the way - maybe you should tell these people "bu going blind would certainly pose a grave risk to the mother's health, at least in my view."

http://www.nfb.org/nfb/Default.asp

Dan,

ONLY allowed in cases in which the health or life of the woman is threatened.

With a million and a half abortions in this country every year, I think we should be concerned about how many seriously "ill" women are walking around. And ask ourselves, if they are that sick, then why are they having sex? Shouldn't they be in bed?

Valerie,

you wrote,

"She won her hearing on the issue because she went to a European court of appeals. Europe wants Poland to change their abortion laws. What a surprise that they would rule in her favor!"

I read that there have been 5 referendums on abortion in Ireland in the past 20 years. Each time the public declines to legalize abortion. Why does the government waste the money asking the public over and over?

A friend of mine lived in Hannover Germany. The city leaders wanted an Expo to come to town but the people voted it down twice. So they had a media campaign and asked them again and it finally passed.

It reminds me of a child who nags mom for candy till she gives in.

Valerie,

also from the blind advocacy site,

"Judy and her husband underwent genetic testing and it was determined that the blindness was a genetic disorder. Judy explained the odds were that if she had one hundred children, four of them would be blind and it could occur in either boys or girls. It just so happened that two out of their four children were born with this disorder and they both happened to be girls.

“By that time I was pregnant with Mark and the doctor wanted me to have an abortion because he thought this baby would be born blind, too,” Judy remembered. “I got up and walked out of the room. I didn’t think blindness was that horrible. I said this baby was created in love and it didn’t matter if he was blind.”

Mark, who is now thirty-one, was born without any vision problems."

Notice how the doc wanted her to kill her child with good vision, even though the genetic counselor said the risk was 4%.

Notice she didn't say he asked her what she wanted to do. He was pushing abortion. That is not pro choice, it is pro abortion.

"And ask ourselves, if they are that sick, then why are they having sex? Shouldn't they be in bed?"

That's probably where most of them had sex.

Hal,
I almost wrote "in bed with their feet up..."
but that was a "give-me"

I know, I couldn't resist.

http://forums.thegnomonworkshop.com/member.php?u=23457 >female viagra

MK, of those 1.5 million, how many had them performed post-viability? My bet is a VERY small percetage.

Ron Paul is the only candidate for a pro-lifer to vote for. He will demolish Roe v. Wade and return the abortion issue to the states, where it should be. And considering that the Constitution of the Federal Government of the US, as well as I believe EVERY state, gives the right to life, abortion will once again be recognized for what it is - MURDER - which is ILLEGAL already. The other candidates are either pro-abortion (Guiliani, Romney), or have no plan to do anything other than try to pass more insignificant legislation that will not come close to stopping the baby-killing machine. Vote Ron Paul!!!!

I'd never support Guliani just because he's slightly less pro-abortion. Both he and Hillary would be a disaster for the judiciary.

I like Huckabee, but I don't think he can win a general election. The best chance for a pro-life victory is to rally behind McCain. I realize that conservatives disagree with him on campaign finance reform and immigration policy, but these issues should be very low priorities, considering that the fate of the next generation of unborn babies likely hinges on the outcome of the next presidential election.