Jill,

Can you post video of last nights debate on "Born Alive" on Hannity & Colmes? There were two segments and Ann Coulter (whether you like her or not) was just terrific!

It is definitely MUST SEE VIDEO!

Thank You.

Mike

i just listened to it on-line - it was very good. Ann was not her usual snarky self - rather, she sounded quite passionate and serious about it. I do have a feeling this is going to be the issue that turns a lot of people away from Obama because it's just so ABHORRENT! It crosses a line that most people don't want to cross.

Jill,
Just want you to know I am praying for you and am so glad you are standing strong for such a time as this!!
Thank you!!

Mike, thanks for the heads up. Will find and post. I took a break last night. Grandpa and I took grandsons to baseball game.

Carla, all: Thanks so much for prayers. I really appreciate them and feel a strong need for them.

Jill,
Kudos to you on all of your hard work to get the truth told!!! You are going to be AWESOME, I can't wait to tune in!!! YEAHHHHHH!!!!

Laura Ingraham is great. I saw her speak a couple years ago and went to her book signing.

Alan Colmes needs to see the documentation to shut him up.

Maria,

Too funny, and too true. How many times did everyone keep saying "IT'S THE SAME LAW!" only to have him say "He said he'd vote yes for the ammended one!"

I wanted to throw my shoe at the TV!

Jill (or anyone else) I read that Obama's first act upon coming into office will be to enshrine the right to abortion:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

I think this aspect of Obama's beliefs should be yelled to the high heavens. Is this what you American's want for your country?

I think this aspect of Obama's beliefs should be yelled to the high heavens. Is this what you American's want for your country?
Posted by: Patricia at August 19, 2008 11:14 AM

Oh yes, that's what I want. Me and many many others.

From Obama's speech to PP:
....
What kind of America will our daughters grow up in?

Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own version of happiness? I wonder because there’s a lot at stake in this country today. And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Within hours of the decision, an Alabama lawmaker introduced a measure to ban all abortions. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election. The only thing more disturbing than the decision was the rationale of the majority. Without any hard evidence, Justice Kennedy proclaimed, “It is self-evident that a woman would regret her choice.” He cited medical uncertainty about the need to protect the health of pregnant women. Even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found no such uncertainty. Justice Kennedy knows many things, my understanding is he does not know how to be a doctor.

[Laughter and Applause]

He dismissed as mere preferences the reasoned judgments of the nation’s doctors. We’ve seen time after time these last few years when the president says otherwise, when the science is inconvenient, when the facts don’t match up with the ideology, they are cast aside. Well, it’s time for us to change that. It is time for a different attitude in the White House. It is time for a different attitude in the Supreme Court. It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history.

Um, pardon, but isn't this what proaborts have done exceedingly well since the late 1960's!

And after the speech the following questions:

Dessa Cosma: Um, as you were talking about earlier, the recent Bush Supreme Court’s decision really took away critically important decisions from women and put them in the hands of politicians. And as a result of this, we’re expecting, and have already seen, so much anti-choice legislation at the state level. Um, what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?

Barack Obama: Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That’s the first thing that I’d do. Um, but the, okay, but, but your question about the federal courts is absolutely on target. I taught Constitutional Law for ten years and I have to say after reading this latest decision and the series of decisions that the Supreme Court has been putting forward that I find it baffling.

There's so much more:
taken from:
http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction

Abortion On Demand and W/O apology.

http://www.naral.org/

I think this aspect of Obama's beliefs should be yelled to the high heavens. Is this what you American's want for your country?
Posted by: Patricia at August 19, 2008 11:14 AM

Oh yes, that's what I want. Me and many many others.

Posted by: Hal at August 19, 2008 11:25 AM

Why am I NOT surprised by you having this view Hal? I'm sure you can tell Obama in person how wonderful it is to be the father of TWO aborted children. He's sure to be IMPRESSED.

Abortion On Demand and W/O apology.

http://www.naral.org/

Posted by: Ronnie at August 19, 2008 11:28 AM

yeah, we KNOW Ronnie, all about it.
no apologies for all the dead babies they are responsible for....:-P

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Posted by: Patricia at August 19, 2008 11:14 AM

Thank you for posting this! We don't hear enough about FOCA in the media. Would FOCA take away a physicians or nurse's right to refuse to participate in an abortion and a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense abortion pills?

Abortion On Demand and W/O apology!

Abortion On Demand and W/O apology!

Posted by: Hal at August 19, 2008 11:47 AM

you are truly sad, Hal. You can keep reiterating this but it doesn't change the fact of what you've done, Hal. :-(

we're not talking about me any more Patricia. Per Bethany's request.

I'm not talking about YOU Hal. I'm talking about abortion. Remember?

BTW, I noticed that Phil Collins son looks like one of the moderators and it's NOT you MK!

Hal: abortion = dead babies. All abortions kill babies.

Janet:FOCA would be the thin wedge to forcing EVERYONE to accept abortion, regardless of their moral position.
I just read that in Ontario Canada, the Medical Association is considering rewriting their policy that would force doctors to fill BC prescriptions etc. This would effectively mean, no doctor who was prolife could practice in the province of Ontario any more. As it stands now, a physician does not even have to refer to another doctor for BC pills or abortion.

Janet:FOCA would be the thin wedge to forcing EVERYONE to accept abortion, regardless of their moral position.

Not true. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

Janet:FOCA would be the thin wedge to forcing EVERYONE to accept abortion, regardless of their moral position.

Not true. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

Posted by: Hal at August 19, 2008 12:36 PM

Absolutely true. It would mean that many professions would be off limits to otherwise very qualified people who have a strong ethic to help people in a manner which respects their dignity. We've already seen how the medical profession is becoming much more coarsened (as are men and women who've had abortions) due to the ethic of killing so prevalent.

BTW: Hal I thought you were a "satisfied customer" of abortion. Why so sensitive if it doesn't bother you? :-D

Justice Kennedy knows many things, my understanding is he does not know how to be a doctor.

And Obama's "doctors" don't know how to be doctors!

Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own version of happiness?

Well, if this guy gets his way a lot of daughters won't even have the "opportunity" to begin their intended living outside the womb in this country.

I wonder because there’s a lot at stake in this country today. And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters.

This belies his so-called concern that men, especially when "talking down" to black men, grow up and take responsibility for raising those babies they make. So where are the men here? He's just another one who wants to find an easy way out and pretend he's being altruistic in doing so. What a wimp!

Hal: Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

Well, by the ones who survived, little babies in the womb "don't want" that abortion coming their way either. Your answer leaves out a whole lot of people and their "choices"...around 50,000,000 in this country alone. Somehow you just don't want to recognize the person you kill...can't quite look them in the eye as yet...eh? They're real...and the conscience knows it...why it can't settle its own decision so easily...as we witness here in these remarks.

Patricia said: Janet:FOCA would be the thin wedge to forcing EVERYONE to accept abortion, regardless of their moral position.

Hal said: Not true. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

May be you don't like the "thin wedge" analogy? How about a "dark cloud of death" over our country?

Hal, where is your concern for the doctors whose freedom to practice will be compromised, as Patricia mentioned?
Can you also say to these doctors, "If you don't like birth control, don't prescribe it"?

And Janet, It's not like a woman who wants BC or an abortion CAN"T find another doctor to prescribe/commit it. After all, if the proaborts are in the majority as Hal asserts, then their should be plenty'o Hal's around to meet their needs.

When Obama selects Joe Biden as his running mate, don't believe the drive-by media when they say he's a moderate.

NARAL - A [2006]
Planned Parenthood - A [2006]
National Right to Life Committee - 0% [2005-06]
National Taxpayers Union - F [2007]
Business-Industry Political Action Committee 8% [2007]
ACLU - 75% [2007]
NAACP - 100% [2005]
National Council of La Raza - 100% [2005]
Human Rights Campaign [gay rights] - 100% [2001-02]
American Conservative Union - 0% [2007]
National Education Association [teachers union] - A [2007]
Environment America - 100% [2008]
Family Research Council - 0% [2007]
Children's Defense Fund [a Hillary fave] - 100% [2006]
Gun Owners of America - F [2007]
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - 95% [1988-2003]
NRA - F [2002]
English First - 0% [2007]
American Immigration Lawyers Association - 100% [2006]
AFL-CIO - 100% [2007]
American Bar Association - 100% [2001-02]
National Journal-Composite Liberal Score - 94.2% [2007] [Note: third most liberal senator, trailing only Whitehouse of RI and #1 . . . Barack Obama]
NOW - 91% [2005-06]

BTW: Hal I thought you were a "satisfied customer" of abortion. Why so sensitive if it doesn't bother you? :-D

Hal didn't seem sensitive to me, but anyway, I think it's kind of rude to guilt Hal into agreeing not to talk about the abortions anymore -- because his lack of regret offends -- and then to bring them up. He has agreed not to talk about them at the request of people here, so I think it's crummy for people here to talk about them, when he would have to go back on an agreement in order to reply.

"you are truly sad, Hal. You can keep reiterating this but it doesn't change the fact of what you've done, Hal. :-("

Let me get this straight... Hal is no longer "allowed" to mention his wife's abortion because Bethany says so, but Patricia is still allowed to bring it up in an insulting and attacking manor.

Now THAT is some fair and logical moderation. *eyeroll*

Bethany, could you just clarify for the rest of us that the ACTUAL terms of your new rule is that its only okay to talk about Hals wife's abortions if you're opposed to them?

Amanda,
It would be one thing to honestly and fairly ask questions and sincerely want to learn anything here. You seem to be so pi**ed off ALL THE TIME.

You must hate coming here....no. wait. Love coming here? I dunno. I am totally confused by how bothered you are about this blog.

Bethany can clarify for you. "For the rest of us" is assuming everyone feels as you do.

I'm sure Bethany will respond, but as I understand it, it wasn't because Bethany *said so*. I believe she and Hal agreed that bringing up his wife's abortions was not particularly fair since his wife doesn't know that he posts the information on this blog. And Bethany apologized, even deleted a comment she herself had posted, because she and Hal felt it would be in the best interest for everyone involved to not bring it up again. That goes for Hal and everyone who feels the need to throw it in his face.

In short, they kissed and made up.

"because she and Hal felt it would be in the best interest for everyone involved to not bring it up again. That goes for Hal and everyone who feels the need to throw it in his face."

....everyone except Patricia apparently.

I was just being nice, or trying to. Bethany said it was difficult to hear some things I was saying. I agreed not to anymore. Everyone else, feel free. I'm not senstitive, but I was trying to BE sensitive.

Back to the issues of the day, I like Biden or Lugar for Obama's VP. And I like any pro-Abort for McCain.

I was just being nice, or trying to. Bethany said it was difficult to hear some things I was saying. I agreed not to anymore. Everyone else, feel free. I'm not senstitive, but I was trying to BE sensitive.

Back to the issues of the day, I like Biden or Lugar for Obama's VP. And I like any pro-Abort for McCain.

Posted by: Hal at August 19, 2008 5:26 PM
...............................

With Biden as VP I could get excited about this election. Biden is one of few legislaters around willing to address the plague of domestic violence.

Biden is very interesting. He was actually my first choice in the primaries.

Biden is very interesting. He was actually my first choice in the primaries.

Posted by: Hal at August 19, 2008 7:09 PM
............................

He was mine as well.

Well, Sally, let's keep our fingers crossed that Obama/Biden is the ticket. Have a good evening everyone.

http://www.theolympian.com/nationworld/story/551045-p2.html

So you make some good press spreading mis-representations and simpletons arguments Jill. It seems extremely low rent. He made a distinction of the wording in the law he in NO WAY is in favor of killing newborns. the fact that you claim it removes what little credibility you have, you are in good company with Santorum. Here is a clue don't like abortion, don't have one. To ban it will only mean women will die doing it at home and rich ladies will fly to Europe for the process. Education and birth control are the wiser measure, hopefully you endorse these things.
I don't believe anything McCain says, he will flip on anything to pander for votes and this issue is no different. Shame on you Jill!! Stick to the facts.

If Hal's wife's abortions are off limits then the moderators should tell me so.
I haven't been on the blog alot lately.
However, by Hal's own admissions, he IS a satisfied abortion customer. I am assuming his wife is as well. Therefore, they should have NO problem defending and explaining their position (which BTW is untenable).
If he didn't want it discussed, why bring it up on a public blog?
The fact is we have prolife people here with all kinds of backgrounds, people who have always been prolife, people who have had abortions and regretted them. We also have proaborts - people like Hal who are satisfied "customers" killing their children and other people who simply support the irrational proabort postion (well maybe not so simply - they may have lived the promiscuous lifestyle that goes hand in hand with abortion).

Just say Patricia people shouldn't have unordained sex?
What planet are you from, living in this dream world? People will have abortions they will just be more likely to DIE from them. I hope you are pro welfare too because someone is going to have to pay for all these "unwanteds or unaffordable" children.

Here is the discussion, Patricia:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/barack_obama_pr.html#comments

It is incorrect to assert that, because Hal has agreed not to discuss them anymore, he "has a problem" defending his actions or his opinions.

If Hal's wife's abortions are off limits then the moderators should tell me so.
I haven't been on the blog alot lately.
However, by Hal's own admissions, he IS a satisfied abortion customer. I am assuming his wife is as well. Therefore, they should have NO problem defending and explaining their position (which BTW is untenable).
If he didn't want it discussed, why bring it up on a public blog?
The fact is we have prolife people here with all kinds of backgrounds, people who have always been prolife, people who have had abortions and regretted them. We also have proaborts - people like Hal who are satisfied "customers" killing their children and other people who simply support the irrational proabort postion (well maybe not so simply - they may have lived the promiscuous lifestyle that goes hand in hand with abortion).

Posted by: Patricia at August 19, 2008 9:09 PM
..........................................

It is my opinion that Patricia is more anti-sex than pro anything. Patricia blames women willing to involve themselves in intimate relationships to be the cause for her failed marriage and inability to find a man interested in marrying her. Has it occured to you Patricia, that if all women held out for wedding rings, you still might not make it to the top of the 'women most desirable to marry list'?

Just say Patricia people shouldn't have unordained sex?
What planet are you from, living in this dream world? People will have abortions they will just be more likely to DIE from them. I hope you are pro welfare too because someone is going to have to pay for all these "unwanteds or unaffordable" children.

Posted by: Evan at August 19, 2008 9:26 PM
....................................

Patricia is Canadian. She's not likely to have to worry her head about such things.

Thank you Evan and Sally for your opinions. But I happen to believe that sex is sacred and beautiful AND belongs soley within marriage - you both of course remember that thingy where ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN commit to each other, EXCLUSIVELY, for life, through thick and thin.
Random hook-ups, serial monogamy, and serial sexual relationships which are all the norm today are damaging and physically and emotionally unhealthy.
Neither of you KNOW just what my personal life is like or whether I am currently in a relationship. Your points therefore are speculation!

And Evan the fact that you view children as unwanted and unaffordable children. The problem is not the children, the problem is the selfish use of sex for self-gratification and the separation of sex and children. At one time, children use to be considered a blessing. Apparently, you do not believe this to be the case Evan. Too bad for you.

BTW, aborting so called "unwanted and unaffordable" children is not the solution to economics. The problem is the inequitable distribution of wealth. This is highlited by the fact that there are many many couples willing to adopt babies - there are simply NO babies to adopt.
Again abortion is the fallback position for failed contraception. Both Sally and Evan know this. It's the western lifestyle currently in vogue.

Patricia, if a baby would be given up for adoption, then there really wouldn't be the worry about finances on the part of the birth mother.

Many women wouldn't give up kids for adoption, and/or just don't want to be pregnant, so for them abortion is a likely choice.

For most families, having kids/having more kids does have a large financial impact.