Men's apologist Mark Rudov wrote the following in an interesting July 19 Men News Daily column, "Obama's baby mamas," on the speech "misandrist" Barack Obama should have given on Mother's Day to balance his chastisement of absentee fathers on Father's Day:

Unmarried mothers must stop complaining that sperm owners aren't committed fathers. Here's a rule of thumb for every unmarried woman: if you have no wedding ring on your finger, assume the man with whom you're having sex will not hang around post-childbirth. Let that sink in the next time you roll the dice with an innocent child's future.

Women have 20 methods of birth control from which to choose, according to Planned Parenthood.

Women must stop passing the buck to men. Either men are equally responsible for pregnancy or they're not. If they are, give them an equal say in all decisions about abortion, adoption, and custody. Otherwise, all unwed mothers should be totally responsible - logistically and financially - for raising their children.

Agree or disagree?

CNN reported yesterday, "Teen pregnancies rose in the U.S. for the first time since 1991, the National Institutes of Health reported," adding a shocking statistic, "1/3 of girls in the U.S. got pregnant before age 20."

At the same time, CNN reported a "striking decrease" in the percentage of 8th graders smoking, down from 10% in 1996 to 3% in 2007.

While "[f]ederal health experts said they don't know why the teen pregnancy numbers went up," reported CNN, a CDC official knew why smoking abated:

He attributed the downward trend to efforts convincing kids and adults not to smoke, as well as policies that restrict smoking in public places and tax cigarettes.

Meanwhile, Rev. Sam Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee wrote a remarkable op ed, "Let my people go, AIDS profiteers," June 30 in The Washington Post that is well worth reading in its entirety (posted below). An excerpt...

In the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention. AIDS is no longer simply a disease; it has become a multibillion-dollar industry.

In the late 1980s, before international experts arrived to tell us we had it all "wrong," we in Uganda devised a practical campaign to prevent the spread of HIV. We recognized that population-wide AIDS epidemics in Africa were driven by people having sex with more than one regular partner. Therefore, we urged people to be faithful. Our campaign was called ABC (Abstain, or Be Faithful, or use Condoms), but our main message was: Stick to one partner. We promoted condoms only as a last resort....

The proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21% in 1991 to 6% in 2002. But international AIDS experts... said we were wrong to try to limit people's sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual-sex agendas upon us....

Repeatedly, our... committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan.... Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing....

As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda's HIV rates have begun to tick back up.

Western media have been told this renewed surge of HIV infection is because there are "not enough condoms in Uganda," even though we have many more condoms now than we did in the early 1990s, when our HIV rates began to decline....

Telling men and women to keep sex sacred - to save sex for marriage and then remain faithful - is telling them to love one another deeply with their whole hearts. Most HIV infections in Africa are spread by sex outside of marriage: casual sex and infidelity. The solution is faithful love.

So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS.

Do you think the U.S. teen pregnancy spike and the Ugandan AIDS spike are related? If so, how? The Ugandan writer cites 2 motives for promoting casual sex and condoms (contraceptives). Do you agree?

The Washington Post

Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers

by Sam L. Ruteikara
June 30, 2008; A11

KAMPALA, Uganda -- The President's Emergency Plan for HIV-AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been mired in the Senate for months. Last week finally brought signs that a vote, and passage, could be near. The program would cost $50 billion -- that's $165 from each American to fight AIDS, or $1.3 billion from New York City alone. But will the money allocated for AIDS stop the spread of the virus in sub-Saharan Africa, where 76 percent of the world's HIV-AIDS deaths occurred last year?

Not if the dark dealings I've witnessed in Africa continue unchecked. In the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention. AIDS is no longer simply a disease; it has become a multibillion-dollar industry.

In the late 1980s, before international experts arrived to tell us we had it all "wrong," we in Uganda devised a practical campaign to prevent the spread of HIV. We recognized that population-wide AIDS epidemics in Africa were driven by people having sex with more than one regular partner. Therefore, we urged people to be faithful. Our campaign was called ABC (Abstain, or Be Faithful, or use Condoms), but our main message was: Stick to one partner. We promoted condoms only as a last resort.

Because we knew what to do in our country, we succeeded. The proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002. But international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong to try to limit people's sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual-sex agendas upon us.

PEPFAR calls for Western experts to work as equal partners with African leaders on AIDS prevention. But as co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee, I have seen this process sabotaged. Repeatedly, our 25-member prevention committee put faithfulness and abstinence into the National Strategic Plan that guides how PEPFAR money for our country will be spent. Repeatedly, foreign advisers erased our recommendations. When the document draft was published, fidelity and abstinence were missing.

And somehow, a suspicious statistic attacking marriage appeared. The plan states that the HIV infection rate among married couples is 42 percent, twice as high as the rate among prostitutes. Our requests for the source of this statistic were repeatedly ignored. In fact, the 2004-05 Ugandan HIV/AIDS Sero-Behavioral Survey found that HIV prevalence among married couples is only 6.3 percent, far lower than infection rates among widowed (31.4 percent) or divorced (13.9 percent) Ugandans.

When Washington insiders were alerted to these scandals, the words "abstain" and "be faithful" were quietly reinserted into the plan -- on paper. But that doesn't guarantee these methods will be implemented or promoted. Meanwhile, the dubious marriage statistic remains.

As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda's HIV rates have begun to tick back up.

Western media have been told this renewed surge of HIV infection is because there are "not enough condoms in Uganda," even though we have many more condoms now than we did in the early 1990s, when our HIV rates began to decline. Condom promotions have failed in Africa, mostly because fewer than 5 percent of people use condoms consistently with regular partners. Indeed, the loudest HIV-prevention message in Africa is "universal access" to condoms, testing, anti-retroviral treatment, and assorted other drugs and devices. All these commodities must be transported, stored, distributed, advertised and resupplied endlessly.

Meanwhile, effective HIV prevention methods, such as urging Africans to stick to one partner, don't qualify for lucrative universal-access status.

Do not misunderstand me: Treatment is good. But for every African who gains access to HIV treatment, six become newly infected. To treat one AIDS patient with life-prolonging anti-retroviral drugs costs more than $1,000 a year. Our successful ABC campaign cost just 29 cents per person each year.

International suppliers make broad, oversimplified statements such as "You can't change Africans' sexual behavior." While it's true that you can't change everybody, you don't have to. If the share of men having three or more sexual partners in a year drops from 15 percent to 3 percent, as happened in Uganda between 1989 and 1995, HIV infection rates will plunge. It is that simple.

We, the poor of Africa, remain silenced in the global dialogue. Our wisdom about our own culture is ignored.

Telling men and women to keep sex sacred -- to save sex for marriage and then remain faithful -- is telling them to love one another deeply with their whole hearts. Most HIV infections in Africa are spread by sex outside of marriage: casual sex and infidelity. The solution is faithful love.

So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS.

The Rev. Sam L. Ruteikara is co-chair of Uganda's National AIDS-Prevention Committee.

The Los Angeles Times reported July 3:

The 1st Amendment rights of two anti-abortion activists were violated when they were ordered to stop circling a Rancho Palos Verdes [CA] middle school in a truck displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses, a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday....

[A] U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled that school officials and sheriff's deputies violated the men's free speech rights by ordering them to leave the school's neighborhood....

The 7-by-20-foot truck with photos of first-term fetuses on three sides appeared near Dodson Middle School around 7:30 a.m. March 24, 2003, as students arrived. Several stopped to stare at the photos, which showed fetuses with small hands and feet and the word "choice" in quotation marks and big block letters....

Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw several children who appeared to be angered by the images and that he had to discourage a group of boys from throwing rocks at the truck.

Roberts called deputies, who stopped and searched the truck and another vehicle, then ordered the activists to leave the area, according to court documents.

"It's the off-putting speech that needs protection, otherwise there is no need for the 1st Amendment," said Robert Muise, a lawyer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, who filed the suit....

Gregg Cunningham, the center's executive director, said... "Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."

Mary-Jane Wagle, chief executive of Planned Parenthood LA, said her group was concerned that young children may be exposed to graphic and jarring images without proper discussion in school or at home.

"Certainly we know they will be horrified, but will they understand what they see? We don't know," Wagle said. "We really believe that what's important is for families to talk about these issues at home, in a safe place."

CA children can abort without parental notification.

Several questions: Do you think children deemed old enough to get abortions on their own volition are old enough to see what they're getting? What about the photos made the middle school boys angry enough to throw stones? What do you think of the PP exec's response? What did she consider "graphic" and "jarring" about the images her organization creates? Why did she "know" children would be "horrified" by them? Why did she consider the family environment a "safe place" to discuss what abortion is but not a safe place to discuss obtaining one?

[Photos courtesy of CBR]

Reported TriCityHerald.com yesterday:

Planned Parenthood of Central Washington's [State] Teen Council spread the word about National HIV Testing Day today to about 250 people in Richland's Howard Amon Park, though the peer education group had to switch locations.

The teens had originally planned to distribute information at Richland's Wal-Mart about free HIV testing that will be at the Kennewick Planned Parenthood clinic Tuesday.

But after threats of a protest by a grass-roots Catholic anti-abortion organization, the American Life League, Wal-Mart requested Thursday that the PP-affiliated council not distribute information at the store....

In March, PPCW named Harrison Pride as its Youth Volunteer of the Year. Stated PP's press release:

His involvement in sexuality education began at age 14: his mom gave him a box of condoms and told him not to leave his room until he could put them on in the dark with one hand tied behind his back.

Since then, he's become quite comfortable talking about sexual and reproductive health. He is fondly known around Bend as Condom Man.

"To me, condoms are pretty freaking sweet," says Pride. "At school, I always had a bag of condoms with me. I once wore a suit with 200 condoms pinned on it."...

Whether writing articles for the school paper or providing condoms in the student lounge on World Aids day, he persistently looks for a way to help others, make change, and promote health.

What connection do you see, if any, between Planned Parenthood's promoting condoms and promoting HIV testing?

I am not Catholic, but since the Catholic Church has written the most extensively and perfectly on the pro-life issue, and since the Catholic Church wields a great deal of influence in this arena, I like to follow Catholic conversations.

On June 7, Doug Kmiec, chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and former dean and St. Thomas More professor at Catholic University of America, wrote a column on Catholic Online explaining his endorsement of Barack Obama for president....

Kmiec's premise: Because the Catholic Church "admon[ishes] that no Catholic can choose a candidate for the purpose of advancing a moral evil such as abortion or racism... [a] Catholic without that intent is free to support either Senator Obama or McCain or anyone."

First question, do you agree?

Kmiec then evened the playing field between the 2 candidates:

Senator Obama's position accepts the existing legal regime which leaves the abortion decision with the mother as a "constitutional right." Senator McCain's position would leave the decision with the individual states. Neither position is fully pro-life, both are pro-choice, with the former focused on the individual and the latter focused on the right of the states. Senator McCain's position is sometimes described as pro-life, but in truth, it is merely pro-federalism (states being free under the McCain position to decide to permit or disallow abortion as they see fit).

Second question, do you agree?

Kmiec concluded:

Since neither candidate presents a position fully compatible with Catholic teaching recognizing abortion for the intrinsic evil that it is, Catholic teaching asks us to work for the reduction of the incidence of abortion through the most prudent way possible....

My experience... suggest[s] that Senator Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility (conveying especially to young people the need to understand the maturity and commitment needed for sexual intimacy) is the course most likely to make a difference... [and] Senator Obama... is more dedicated toward reducing the partisanship of the past, has very responsibly and very consistently called upon our better natures, and has articulated... a genuine appreciation for the importance of faith in the public square.

Final question, do you agree with Kmiec's premises about Obama and his conclusion?

Today is Protest the Pill Day '08: The Pill Kills Babies. It marks the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's Griswold vs. Connecticut decision that freed Planned Parenthood exec Estelle Griswold to peddle birth control pills legally she had been peddling illegally. And the rest is history. We can certainly look back over the past 4 decades and see the number of "unwanted" children conceived has dropped, right?

Since that time the contraception/abortion industry has engaged in a cover-up to keep women ignorant about the fact the bc pill may abort 5- to 9-day old preborn children by making the uterus impermeable to their attachment.

Several supposedly feminist writers have taken offense to my WND column this week publicizing The Pill Kills Day....

Blogger phlebotnum showcased her "liberal lady brain[]" by writing:

Jill Stanek is really concerned about all the poor, misinformed women out there who use the pill.... Why? Because our liberal lady brains can't seem to understand that fertilization is equal to implantation in the womb. Except that it totally isn't the same thing at all. The Pill prevents pregnancy; it does not terminate it.

Chris at the People for the American Way blog displayed typical liberal understanding of capitalism by adding:

Apparently, this information has been suppressed, because "if women knew, some would feel morally obligated to refuse that contraceptive option. And that would mess up lucrative birth control pill sales, which nets pro-aborts hundreds of millions of dollars a year, as well as abortion sales from failed birth control pills." And they call us the ones with the conspiracy theories.

And closed Jill at Feministe, after joyfully jesting my column about informed consent:

Lesson learned: Even reading anti-choice columns will turn you into a moron.

The Capitol Fax blog even converted my column into a question of the day:

Will a protest like this alienate pro-life activists from the "center," or will it serve a useful purpose for their cause? Explain.

This is a good question, because fear of "alientat[ion]... from the 'center'" is I think part of the reason many pro-life organizations do not take this issue on.

So I'll ask the same question.

According to People magazine, May 30:

Angelina Jolie, who is expecting twins this summer, says being pregnant makes her feel womanly and sexy.

"It makes me feel that all the things about my body are suddenly there for a reason," she says in the July issue of Vanity Fair. "It makes you feel round and supple, and to have a little life inside you is amazing."

Plus, the actress says that her partner, Brad Pitt, "finds pregnancy very sexy. So that makes me feel very sexy."

The 32-year-old - already mom to Maddox, 6; Pax, 4; Zahara, 3; and Shiloh, 2, - also says she is awed by what the human body can do.

When giving birth to daughter Shiloh, "I had a C-section and I found it fascinating. I didn't find it a sacrifice and I didn't find it a painful experience," she tells the magazine.

"I found it a fascinating miracle of what a body can do."

Do you agree pregnancy makes a woman "womanly and sexy"?

[HT: proofreader Laura Loo]

A Cambodian named Kaing Guek Eav is scheduled to go on trial soon in his native homeland.

As a Khmer Rouge leader of a Phnom Penh torture center 30 years ago, Eav has admitted responsibility for the deaths of 12,000 to 14,000 people who were forced from there to their final resting place in mass graves in the Cambodian killing fields

"Some 1.7 million Cambodians, 1/4 of the population, died during the 4 years of Khmer Rouge rule," reported World magazine.

The government recently took Eav back to the scene of his crimes, including "a tree against which his underlings smashed babies' heads," according to World.

"Eav broke down in sobs," continued World, "But he did more than that. He knelt on the ground and prayed, because during the 1990s the torturer had made a professiona of faith in Christ."

Until caught Eav worked for a Christian children's relief organization, World Vision.

Eav has expressed profound regret and was apparently attempting to repay his debt to society in his own small way.

What do you think should be Eav's punishment, if found guilty?

Here is an off-topic but related question this weekend.

This week Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama was touring a Detroit auto plant when a female reporter tried to ask him a question...

Obama later apologized to the reporter for calling her "sweetie." Do you think he was displaying sexism in an un guarded moment, or are we all just hypersensitive to any "-isms" in these politically correct days?

So what do you think?

In his public message to Gov. Sebelius, KS Archbishop Joseph Naumann wrote, in part...

Anti-torture activist Dr. Steven Miles was scheduled to speak before Masses tomorrow at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church in Minneapolis until the Archdiocese there nixed him Wednesday because he is pro-abortion. In response Miles stated an interesting position, according to the Star Tribune:

Miles believes passionately that torture violates fundamental rights of life and dignity. And causes abortions.

"Torture causes women to abort at a horrendous rate," Miles says, "and people who have been tortured are much more likely to commit suicide. The point is that an anti-torture campaign is a pro-life campaign."

I find several holes and inconsistencies in that argument. Do you? Or perhaps you agree with Miles. If so, about what forms of torture do you think he is speaking?

David Bereit, founder of 40 Days for Life, reported this week that of 63 abortion mills pro-lifers conducted 40 days of continuous prayer this spring during Lent - many round-the-clock - 2 have stopped committing abortions and 1 has closed altogether.

Planned Parenthoods in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Council Bluffs, Iowa, have now stopped offering abortion, and Abortion Services, at 200 East Eckerson Road in New York City, closed altogether yesterday.

Several questions. Do you think 40 Days had anything to do with the abortion curtailment, or were these just coincidental incidents? Do you think sustained prayer vigils/pickets at abortion mills can ultimately shut them down by slowing business long enough? Do you think this form of protest is legitimate or harrassment? If you think the latter, do you also disagree with union strikes?

On Thursday we learned pro-abort US Senator Barbara Boxer blocked a Senate resolution welcoming Pope Benedict to America for its reference to "the value of each and every human life."

Boxer thought this referred to abortion.

After a 3-day impasse, the sponsor, Catholic US Senator Sam Brownback, relented and struck the disputed language, and the resolution passed unanimously. See the original here and amended version here.

The Crypt reported Brownback "did not want a high profile fight over the resolution."

Do you agree with Brownback's decision, or do you think he should have stood his ground?

About a nationwide poll it conducted April 7-9, the Associated Press reported:

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women - from 57% in February to 47% in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

Polls will come and go, but looking back over the past several weeks, why do you think Obama's support among women dropped so drastically?

An interesting aside: As bad as the poll was for Obama, it was still skewed in his favor: The AP interviewed 489 Democrat voters and only 369 Republicans.

This week Oprah and People magazine introduced the world to what most news organizations have mislabeled a pregnant "man."

In reality Thomas Beatie is a woman who had her breasts removed and injected herself with testosterone to take on male characteristics. She became pregnant by artificial insemination with the help of her female "wife."

On Friday, in a discussion of potential psychological ramifications for the baby, Good Morning America co-host Chris Cuomo said, "[B]iology aside, it is all about love of this child and as long as that's present, everything else is really going to be normal."

Do you agree that the traditional parental model - married man and woman - are inconsequential to a child's well-being as long as there is love?

HT GMA quote: NewsBusters]

Last week came the first noticeable hurdle to Barack Obama's race to the White House: his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

News organizations held their collective finger on the replay button showing sermon clips from "best of" videos Wright sells at his Trinity United Church of Christ bookshop.

In these Wright displays himself as an anti-American black racist who thinks the U.S. government secretly launched the AIDS epidemic to wipe out blacks; that Jesus was "a poor black man" killed in a country "controlled by rich white people" by "Italians"; that 9/11 was a terrorist turnabout, giving the U.S. back what it has given; that Israel's nuclear weapons are "ethnic bombs" designed in part to wipe out blacks, and much more.

Not news: I am an Obama cynic. I live 30 minutes from Obama's church. I have attended it. My take is Obama joined TUCC, the largest black UCC church in the U.S., to garner southside Chicago black church power to help elevate him in politics, which worked at the time. As a community organizer before garnering his IL senate seat, Obama had access to all the southside churches and picked Wright's for good reason.

This week, as reporters pored over old Wright sermons, speechs, and videos, more vileness came out, such as that Wright called Italians "garlic noses." We can expect more in weeks and months to come.

So here's a Gary Varvel comic inviting readers to write the caption as Barack and Michelle shake hands with Wright one fine Sunday morning.

Try your hand. What do you think Obama is saying?

UPDATE, 3/24, 9:00a: Daughter Daena remains in town this morning for the remainder of our Easter weekend, and I'll be traveling this afternoon to speak tomorrow at the TN Right to Life's Pro-Life Women's Day on the Hill tomorrow.

So I'm moving the Long Weekend Question up for one more day, and this will be my only post today.

In consideration of Easter, this weekend's question:

UPDATE, March 20: Reader Jess is our 3,000th commenter on this post! Congrats, Jess! How about your own copy of the book, On Message? Either that, or I have some t-shirts in my pro-life stash. Email me.

UPDATE, March 19: Yes, comments to this February 23 weekend question are still going strong, and I've been asked to bump it up again before comments close, which they do when a post has been up 2 weeks.

2827! Reader Bobby Bambino was our 1,000th commenter and received a copy of On Message as his major award, and moderator Bethany was our 2,000th. (Do you have Lime 5 yet, Bethany? I'm trying to think of a prize you haven't won already... :)

Will there be a 3,000th commenter to this post that will not end? I think so!...

UDPATE, March 4: Well, we have a new comment record: 674 and counting. The previous record was 615 on a post by HisMan while I was on vacation in April 2007.

This following post was a weekend question from February 23. I'm moving it up to give the conversation a chance to wind down. That said, this particular chat has evolved into a healthy one on Protestantism and Catholicism, which has actually been ongoing for 500+ years. So if this debate does conclude, history will be made.

Congrats on the record!

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

This weekend's question is theological, about post-natal life.

I Peter 1:18 states lives lived apart from faith and thanks to Jesus Christ for dying to free us from the eternal consequences of sin are "worthless... dead-end[ed}... empty-headed."

Those are strong words. Why do you agree or disagree?

"Worthless": God's Word Translation
"Dead-end, empty-headed": The Message Translation

Mental health break question this weekend...

Last night O'Reilly showed his pick for the top 5 movie scenes in history:

Mississippi Burning, close shave scene

So what is your all time favorite movie scene?

posted at 6:13 AM | Comments (79)

March 8, 2008
Weekend question

Last month the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune reported:

An unmarried fifth-grade teacher at the Catholic school in Wabasha is out of a job because she got pregnant.

Emily Prigge, 23... told her principal about her pregnancy....
[T]he principal and a priest asked her to resign... and she did. Her pregnancy is about 15 weeks along....

When [Prigge] took the job, she signed a Catholic Christian Witness Statement, where she agreed to set a good example as a Christian in her personal and academic life. Prigge, who is Catholic, says she was told that she didn't live up to the statement because she had premarital sex.

Do you think the school should have fired Prigge?

[HT: reader Hieronymous]

UPDATE on February 23 Weekend Question: The number of comments on this post has shattered the previous record of 615. Currently at 1,624, chatter is still going strong. Who was the 1,000th commenter? Our beloved Bobby Bambino! Bobby, email me your address. You've won a copy of either On Message or Lime 5, take your pick.

posted at 6:25 AM | Comments (359)

March 1, 2008
Weekend question

Barack Obama talks much of hope.

What is the real meaning of hope?

First correct answer gets one of my dvds.

posted at 5:36 AM | Comments (229)

February 16, 2008
Weekend question

Granny Grump at the Real Choice blog has listed "The Top Ten Signs Your Boyfriend is an Abortionist." Witty:

10. You've seen him run medical instruments through the dishwasher.

9. The top three numbers on his speed-dial are a lawyer, a bookie, and a bail bondsman....

8. His neighbors are always wondering who puts the red biohazard bags in the dumpster.

7. He deducts his [child] pornography collection from his income tax as an educational expense.

6. Every hooker in town knows him on a first-name basis.

5. He says he went to Harvard, but gets the alumni newsletter from the Autonomous University of Guadalajara Medical School.

4. He keeps a stock of blue exam pads in the back seat of his car.

3. He's always ducking out the back door to avoid process servers.

2. He gives you chocolate-covered Percocet for Valentine's Day.

And the number one sign your boyfriend is an abortionist:

1. He has sex with you first, then slips you a mickey.

Can you think of any other signs one's boyfriend is an abortionist?

[HT: reader Janet]

posted at 9:42 AM | Comments (198)

February 8, 2008
Weekend question: memorable posts

by Mary Kay Hastings and Bethany Kerr

It was just about a year ago this month that Bethany and I stumbled upon Jill Stanek's blog.

So much has happened since, with so many great posts.

Many of you are new and missed them, so we thought you might like to take a trip with us down memory lane.

Here are 6 of our favorite posts from the past year:

Baby Blessing

The post is, of course, Bethany's original post about her tiny baby, Blessing.

She shared the pain of her miscarriage and the awe she felt at the little life she held in her hand.




The 2nd anniversary of Terry Schiavo's death via dehydration and starvation

Next, we posted on the anniversary of Terry Schiavo's death. This one got a lot of hits and even Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler, dropped by to respond to some of the comments made there.

The day Partial Birth Abortion was banned

And who can forget the day we awoke to find partial birth abortions had been BANNED?!



House Episode

Another one that stirred up a lot of controversy was the House episode that mimicked the real life surgery of little Samuel.




But our all time favorite had to be the 99 Balloons video, featuring Baby Eliot.

If you haven't seen this one, be sure to get the Kleenex out!

So this leads to our weekend question:

What were some of your favorite posts from the last year?

Just scroll down the right hand side of the screen and you'll see all the months listed. If you can't find yours, let us know and we'll dig it up for you.

Update from Bethany, 2/9, 8a: Here are some posts you have requested:

Erin's favorites were the conversion stories, which she said helped her to better understand our reasonings behind our pro-life stance. You can view all of them here

I will post more as requested.

posted at 6:25 PM | Comments (66)

February 2, 2008
Weekend question

Just why did Rudy Giuliani lose in his bid to become the Republican presidential nominee? San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders suggested his equivocation on the abortion issue made him look weak:

I have to wonder if Giuliani's biggest mistake was not touting himself as the only supporter of abortion rights in the Republican primary....

It may seem counter-intuitive to take a stand that most party members do not embrace. According to recent AP poll, two-thirds of Democrats - but only one-third of Republicans - believe abortion should be legal.

Nonetheless, a year ago, when GOP voters knew Giuliani's pro-choice position, they liked him the most because they saw him as a strong leader. After a year of soft-pedaling his abortion position, he doesn't look so strong.

"Counter-intuitive" is putting that theory nicely. "Wildly imaginative pro-abort spin" is more like it. Why do you think Giuliani's star fell?

posted at 4:58 AM | Comments (99)

January 26, 2008
Weekend question

Since the very day the U.S. Supreme Court overturned every state abortion law by its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions on January 22, 1973, liberals and MSM accomplices have attempted to distort them by saying they only legalized abortion in the 1st three months of pregnancy.

Was there a time when you understood this falsehood to be true? (Perhaps you still believe it?) When did you learn the truth, that the U.S. has virtually no gestational restrictions on abortion?

See page 2 for Roe and Doe docket and page numbers.

Under Roe, the Supreme Court gave free reign for abortion in the first trimester, but seemed to rule that abortion could be restricted significantly or prohibited in the second and third trimesters. However, the court said that later regulations must allow for abortions needed to protect the woman's health. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton (issued on the same day as Roe) defined maternal "health" as: "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient." These factors are so vague and open-ended that almost any reason can be and is cited to allow abortion in the second and third trimesters.

(SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).

[JLS source: Focus on the Family]

posted at 8:33 AM | Comments (462)

January 19, 2008
Weekend question

On January 7 the Los Angeles Times attributed American Psychiatric Association president Nada Stotland as stating, "It may be... that women who have abortions are more emotionally unstable in the first place."

Do you agree?

posted at 7:29 AM | Comments (146)

January 12, 2008
Weekend question

CNN recently reported on a new industry: outsourcing pregnancies. It spotlighted an Indian clinic where closely monitored surrogate mothers grow the fertilized egg and sperm of parents from the U.S. and other countries for 9 months in a group home and present them with their newborn.

The positives are that this is a rather inexpensive way for infertile couples to obtain their own healthy biological children, and surrogates make more money for 9 months of labor (pardon the pun) than they would in 15 years.

The negatives are concerns of overall ethics about this way of producing children, whether this exploits poor women, the legalities of change of mind by any of the involved parties, that "wombs for rent" will next become a convenience for the rich who don't want the bother of pregnancy, and because this is an unregulated industry, its standards will fall.

What is your opinion?

[HT: reader Lyssie]

posted at 8:18 AM | Comments (119)

January 5, 2008
Weekend question

Abortion proponents often claim pro-lifers who support the death penalty are inconsistent (an admission that preborns are human, btw).

This January 4 opinion in the LA Times about GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was typical:

When analyzing Huckabee's platform more closely, however, a major contradiction arises. Huckabee claims to value the "sanctity of every and each human life." Yet, he also declares that capital punishment is needed within American society.

Accepting this premise for the sake of argument, does this mean that those who oppose the death penalty but support abortion are grossly inconsistent, considering the innocence and guilt of the parties involved?

posted at 1:48 PM | Comments (270)

December 23, 2007
Long weekend question

Families Against Planned Parenthood in Denver plans to picket the home of a company executive helping construct PP's new abortion mill on Christmas morning.

I think this is a proper and commendable idea.

Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

posted at 11:55 AM | Comments (279)

December 15, 2007
Weekend question

In the 1995 movie Dangerous Minds, Michelle Pfeiffer played a teacher in a rough school who fought an administrator for moving one of Pfeiffer's pregnant students to another school because she was "contagious."

Do you agree unmarried pregnant teens should be withdrawn from their home high school for fear of copycatting?

posted at 10:28 AM | Comments (53)

December 8, 2007
Weekend question

From SignOnSanDiego.com, December 6:

James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the NRLC [National Right to Life Committee], said efforts to get state laws banning abortion outright "divert our attention and resources into feudal strategies" that would languish in the courts for years.

"We don't think it is yet time to pursue efforts to prohibit abortion," said Bopp. "If a law prohibits abortion in any way, it's contrary to Roe v. Wade (and would be illegal) and if it doesn't prohibit abortion, then what's the point?"...

"Human life amendments have been bouncing around in one way or another since Roe v. Wade," said Susan Hill, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based National Women's Health Organization, which is the sole abortion provider in Mississippi. If passed, a human life amendment would "be ruled unconstitutional at this point because it has already been tested."

We have here a pro-life organization agreeing with a pro-abortion organization that a certain pro-life strategy is futile. Do you think that 1) both sides of the abortion issue can agree on strategy, or anything; and 2) both sides in this case could be right?

posted at 3:51 AM | Comments (214)

December 1, 2007
Weekend question

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire office was seiged and hostages taken by a man, Leeland Eisenberg, who turned out to have a history of mental illness and "severe alcohol and drug abuse," according to his former wife, as quoted by the New York Daily News.

Eisenberg said he wanted to speak to Clinton, according to Newsday, "about the shortage of mental health services in his state."

NYDN reported, "During the siege, [police] said he asked for cigarettes, alcohol and Pepsi."

Today in the papers I cannot find one article insinuating that all mentally ill people, alcoholics, smokers, or Pepsi drinkers are potentially violent.

Yet if this same man in the same condition had professed to be pro-life and wanted to speak with Hillary about her pro-abortion views, MSM, liberals, and the abortion industry would be all over that angle.

The pro-life movment is the most peaceful social justice movement in history.

People calling themselves pro-life have murdered seven abortion industry workers in the past 35 years, all between 1994-98, but as AbortionViolence.com reminds us, "[A]ccording to the U.S. government, more janitors, bartenders, secretaries, hairdressers and cosmetologists have been killed on the job than abortionists."

Meanwhile, Human Life International has documented more than 7000 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists, aside from the 50,000,000 babies they have killed.

There could be several reasons why the abortion industry, MSM, and liberals promote pro-lifers as violent. Why do you think they do?

posted at 7:47 AM | Comments (104)

November 17, 2007
Weekend question

How can someone who is pro-abortion argue against abortions of female fetuses based solely on their gender? Some countries such as China or India have made such abortions illegal. Would you support such a prohibition in the United States?

posted at 11:17 AM | Comments (255)

November 10, 2007
Weekend question

Let's take a topic break.

On average, how many hours of sleep do you get a night?

posted at 12:29 PM | Comments (49)

October 27, 2007
Weekend question

At least two questions arise from Planned Parenthood's contention that abortion accounts for only 3% of the women's "health care services" it offers. I'm sure you can think of others.

If PP would remove that 3% service, could it still survive?

[HT: moderator Bethany, who gleaned the idea from one of your comments]

posted at 11:51 AM | Comments (23)

October 13, 2007
Weekend question

German philosopher Oswald Spengler, a contemporary critic of Hitler and the Nazis, said, "Every act alters the soul of the doer."

How do you think abortion alters the soul of the doer, if at all?

posted at 4:23 AM | Comments (181)

October 6, 2007
Weekend question

Moderator Tim Russert posed the following to Sen. Hillary Clinton during the September 26 Democrat presidential debate:

RUSSERT: I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on "Meet the Press" made, and I want to read it, as follows: "Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?"

In actuality, this was a pro-life question, and a particularly deep one if the extent of torture allowed in this scenario could lead to death. So I'll likewise pose it to you.

(FYI, Clinton's response was, "As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period...." Then, in a classic journalist "gotcha" moment, Russert responded: "The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you." See video of entire exchange here.)

posted at 1:30 PM | Comments (56)

September 29, 2007
Weekend question

Veronica at the Planned Parenthood Aurora blog blames pro-lifers for the lack of participation by pro-aborts in the civil discourse, or perhaps it's noncivil discourse, because she says we scare them away:

I have heard from friends, read your comments & blogs. Why weren't there more pro-choice voices at recent City Council meetings? Why did supporters leave meetings early? It is my belief that the history of clinic violence keeps some silent. The fact that the anti-choice leaders picket clinic workers homes keeps us silent.

Do you agree with Veronica it is our fault pro-aborts are less likely to actively engage in the abortion debate?

posted at 10:35 AM | Comments (220)

September 22, 2007
Weekend question

Three questions to choose from on Planned Parenthood Aurora:

If PP is found guilty of defrauding the City of Aurora, what do you think should be the consequences, if any?

What do you think will be the actual outcome of this real life drama?

Who should play CEO Steve Trombley in the t.v. movie?

posted at 12:24 PM | Comments (77)

September 15, 2007
Weekend question

The largest abortion provider in the U.S., Planned Parenthood Federation, recently embarked on a national abortion building campaign.

If you are an abortion proponent who (inexplicably) believes, as the Clintons do, abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," do you support or oppose PP's expansion program, which will obviously result in more abortions. (As it is said, "If you build it, they will come.")

Why or why not?

posted at 6:00 AM | Comments (145)

September 8, 2007
Weekend question

Yesterday Amanda Marcotte lamented having to sit through a karaoke version of Brick by Ben Folds Five.

When her mom saw the face she made as the singer started and asked Marcotte why she didn't like it, she responded, "Because the point of the song is that his girlfriend sucks for getting an abortion because it was such a downer for him. Boo-f***ing-hoo. How dare you get pregnant on accident with my sperm."

She blogged, "In fact, the song may even be more self-centered and horrible than I put it to my mother. It's indescribably mean, with the lyrics about how his girlfriend turned into this albatross around his neck with this abortion, or actually a brick."

Was the song "indescribably mean"? Was its point as Marcotte described? Read lyrics here. Read backdrop on Wikipedia.

[HT: moderator Lauren]

posted at 12:31 PM | Comments (140)

September 3, 2007
(Long) weekend question

This question is for abortion proponents:

Would you mind if an abortion clinic located in your neighborhood?

posted at 7:52 AM | Comments (218)

August 25, 2007
Weekend question

Pro-abort trailer park feminist thought my WorldNetDaily column this week, "Liberal misogynitis," was "silly."

One of several points I made to demonstrate that in reality, pro-aborts, not pro-lifers, are the misogynists, was their promotion of abortion - of which way more than half aborted are female - had caused such a gender imbalance in Asian and Third World countries that a sex slave trade crisis has emerged.

To that trailer park feminist responded:

In other words, women who abort their female fetuses rather than bringing them in to an extremely hostile, sexist world are responsible for their own sexist oppression! How convenient!

What do you think tpf meant by that statement?

posted at 4:43 PM | Comments (8)

August 18, 2007
Weekend question

A new study suggests political persuasions may be partially genetic in origin.

If this proves true, would you support or oppose aborting babies with a liberal genetic marker?

[HT: Mark Crutcher]

posted at 9:00 AM | Comments (314)

August 11, 2007
Weekend question

At last week's YearlyKos Convention, Hillary Clinton stated, "I believe marriage should be left to the states."

Hillary and liberals say they want each state to decide whether marriage should be between one man and one woman, not the federal government.

Yet Hillary and liberals don't want the legality of abortion decided by the states, which is all the overturn of Roe v. Wade would do.

Why not? What's the difference?

posted at 9:12 PM | Comments (254)

August 4, 2007
Weekend question

USA Today reported August 2, "doctors are becoming more assertive in refusing to treat patients for religious reasons," expanding on refusing to commit abortion to refusing artificial insemination, refusing to prescribe the morning-after pill, refusing to administer chicken pox and measles vaccines that were developed with aborted fetal tissue, and refusing assisted suicide.

The State-Journal Register reported August 3 that a federal judge has ruled IL pharmacists can refuse to dispense the morning-after pill.

One of the problems, according to John Lynch, Washington Hospital Center medical director, as quoted by CNN, is, "Our technology is ahead of our morals. From an ethical point of view, we haven't learned when to use our technology."

In light of exploding technology and evolving morals, and bearing in mind there is a growing shortage of medical professionals in all fields, how do you think the question of health care ethics should be handled?

posted at 9:58 AM | Comments (92)

July 28, 2007
Weekend question

Pearl S. Buck said, "It is natural anywhere that people like their own kind, but it is not necessarily natural that their fondness for their own kind should lead them to the subjection of whole groups of other people not like them."

Do you think this statement applies to abortion?

posted at 7:57 AM | Comments (63)

July 21, 2007
Weekend question

Sorry, I've been out-of-pocket in DC again this week. I'll be home Monday. Thanks very much to moderators Bethany and MK for holding the fort in my absence.

Thursday night, MN Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was able to add an amendment to a bill that prevents any government from carrying out a death sentence on a woman while she is pregnant. Aside from arguments for and against the death penalty, why would pregnancy matter?

[Hat tip: Family Research Council]

posted at 7:34 AM | Comments (21)

July 14, 2007
Weekend question

Jennifer Roback Morse wrote on Townhall.com this week:

[U]sing Planned Parenthood's own data... two studies [here and here]...

A poor cohabiting teenager using the Pill has a failure rate of 48.4%. You read that correctly: nearly half of poor cohabiting teenagers get pregnant during their first year using the Pill. If she kicked her boyfriend out of the house, or if she married him, her probability of pregnancy drops to 12.9%. At the other extreme, a middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 3% chance of getting pregnant after a year on the Pill.

Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms, will be pregnant within a year. By contrast, the middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 6% chance of pregnancy after a year of condom use.

These figures cast new light on the debate over contraception education. The commonly quoted failure rates of 8% for the Pill and 15% for the condom are inflated by the highly successful use by middle-aged, middle-class married couples. Yet, the government promotes contraception most heavily among the young, the poor and the single

Bearing in mind comprehensive sex ed has been trialed in the U.S. for over 40 years, and contraceptives are now easily (and literally freely) available, what do you think should be done to lower the pregnancy rate of America's socioeconomically poor?

posted at 11:06 AM | Comments (30)

July 6, 2007
(Long) Weekend question

We decided to stay in DC a couple more days, so I'm posting the Weekend question early, since I now won't be back in the saddle until Monday.

According to ABC on July 3, "[t]he bill to make it a felony to kill a police dog sailed through the [North Carolina] legislature, and the bill to make it double murder to kill a pregnant mother is bottled up in a committee... [due to the] volatile debate over abortion."

Explained Democrat State Sen. A. B. Swindell, "All animals are parts of folk's family."

Swindell opposed the comparisons being made. "The police dog thing - I see that as something different as getting to debate on [the abortion] issue."

Intentional or not, Swindell made two assessments. First, he implied animals are family and preborn children are not. Second, he tied a Laci/Connor Peterson-type murder to abortion.

Do you agree or disagree on either/both points?

[Hat tip: Reader jasper]

posted at 7:31 AM | Comments (206)

July 1, 2007
Holiday question

What do you think the Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson and signed by 56 American leaders on July 4, 1776, means by the term, "created equal"?

In context, this rich statement reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

posted at 7:18 AM | Comments (259)

June 24, 2007
Weekend reads

Both of these columns are posted in full on page 2, in case you cannot access them.

New York Times op ed, "Why pro-choice Is a bad choice for Democrats," June 22

Wall Street Journal