UDPATE, 1:09p: This is rich. NARAL has decided it had better speak up for Kagan, meaning the hoopla must be getting pretty serious, since pro-aborts detest talking anywhere near the subject of partial-birth abortion....Continue reading "Scandal: ACOG's collusion with the White House to rewrite objective medical opinion to fit subjective political script"
It was one year ago today that Barack Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event, uttering the now infamous line, "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."
You can view the entire 24-minute speech here or watch this clip:
Obama made his remark in response to a question from the audience...Continue reading "One year anniversary of Barack Obama's FOCA Fest"
Relevant magazine must certainly be enjoying its 15 minutes. The backlash continues re: statements Obama made in a July 1 interview with the liberal Christian publication. I've previously dissected his "mental distress" and "Born Alive" comments, but Obama touched on 2 other topics that has pro-aborts fuming: partial birth abortion and abstinence education. On pba he said:
I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.
Obama must have repeatedly said that only to the pandering pro-abort in the mirror, because stalwarts were taken aback. They considered Obama's comment a direct assault on partial birth abortion.
Former Planned Parenthood CEO Gloria Feldt published a piece July 9 and 10 in both the Huffington Post and RH Reality Check explaining why she dissed a July 9 NY funder for Obama and voided her $4,600 donation check...Continue reading "Gloria Feldt: "Why I didn't write a check for Obama last night""
Last year members of CO Right to Life openly challenged National Right to Life's support (among others) of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban by taking out newspaper ads and threatening a class action lawsuit.
The disagreement culminated in CRTL hosting a hostile hospitality suite at the 2007 NRLC convention and being ousted as an affiliate.
At the just held NRLC convention, ARTL surprised everyone by hosting a hospitality suite at the Crystal City Hyatt where NRLC was meeting. This info comes from ARTL, reporting about its 1st day, July 3. The controversy didn't make LifeNews.com. Also didn't see any MSM coverage, although MSM surely had no clue what was going on....
Scores of NRTL conventioneers are streaming into the ARTL suites to enjoy good food and drink, and to consider the moral argument for the personhood strategy toward ending "legalized" child killing....Continue reading "ARTL crashes NRLC's party"
The Hyatt told ARTL that we could place a poster advertisement for our hospitality suite on a tripod in their lobby inviting folks to our Regency Suite to celebrate the "personhood amendment on CO's November ballot!" Four things happened immediately after Hyatt personnel placed our poster in their lobby....
As we've been discussing the past couple days, Barack and Michelle Obama fully support partial birth abortion.
In fact, they've gone so far as to attempt to raise money by fear-mongering about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, calling it a "legitimate medical procedure."
Obama should be proud of his support of pba. Commenter Cranky Catholic photoshopped a perfect ad for his consideration. But then again, if he's ashamed even to wear an American flag lapel pin, I doubt he'll go for this.
Last April the US Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Liberty Council filed two amicus briefs on my behalf in support of the ban, and I was present in the courtroom for closing arguments.
Yesterday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down VA's pba ban for the 2nd time, basically sneering at the US Supreme Court, which had asked it to reexamine its 1st decision in light of the Supremes' decision.
I probably don't need to say more than the 2 4th Circuit judges voting to strike VA's pba ban down were Clinton appointees. The lone judge upholding it was a Bush I appointee.
They said the only difference between the 2 is the federal law describes a baby as partially in the womb when the pba is started and the VA bill describes the baby as partially out of the womb when the pba is started.
From that the Clinton appointees decided an abortionist could violate the VA pba ban if starting a different abortion procedure and accidentally stumbling into a pba.
So in theory, an abortionist could be attempting a dilatation and evacuation (D&E) abortion, where s/he draws and quarters the baby en utero before removing the pieces, and somehow deliver a live baby past the navel (in a head first delivery) or up to the head (in a breech delivery) and violate the ban if then killing the baby....Continue reading "The difference between the federal, MI, and VA partial birth abortion bans"
(UPDATE, 5-21, 2:30a: I've separated my Obama: "Lay off my wife" post into 2, so Michelle Obama's fundraising letter leeching off the partial birth abortion ban wouldn't get buried.)
In February 2004, Michelle Obama wrote a fundraising letter during her husband's 2004 US Senate campaign claiming the partial birth abortion ban "is clearly unconstitutional" and "a flawed law."
I'd like to ask Michelle to explain her legal opinion about this law the Supremes went on to declare constitutional. I'd like to ask Michelle how in the world she could in good conscience raise money from fear-mongering about this barbaric abortion procedure.
But Barack, bristling at a TN GOP ad taking Michelle to task for her "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" line, has issued a warning to "lay off my wife." As a commenter on another blog wrote, "'Free speech for me but not for thee'" - A typical leftwing position. Don't get in the ring if you don't intend to fight."
So it's fine to kill late-term babies, but we can't risk hurting Michelle's feelings about it. Click to enlarge:
(UPDATE, 5-21, 2:30a: I've separated this post into 2, spotlighting Michelle Obama's fear-mongering fundraising letter here that leeched off the partial birth abortion ban so it wouldn't get buried.)
Michelle Obama has been speaking on her husband's behalf for years, interjecting her own ideologies along the way. That's fine.
But it's not fine to suddenly declare her untouchable, as Barack Obama attempted yesterday on Good Morning America, when complaining about an ad the TN GOP is airing that repeats back Michelle's own anti-American words. Here's the GMA clip:
Michelle can say whatever she wants unchallenged? I thought Barack and Michelle were feminists? Does Barack not think Michelle equipped to debate issues she espouses? Where are the feminist groups decrying Obama as sexist for trying to shield his Harvard-educated attorney wife, as if she is too weak to defend herself?...Continue reading "Obama: "Lay off my wife"?"
Pro-lifers have had numerous heated exchanges on this blog and in print and radio about the Supreme Court's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban decision, lifting the lid on familial differences of opinion on how to win the war against abortion. Accusations by pro-lifers against the ban are still quite fierce. You can catch up on the conversation by scanning blog posts here.
As one of those called "duped" by the ban, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has weighed in with his thoughts on his blog, where you can read why he thinks the ban is good.
As for the in-fighting, Pavone noted some pro-lifers will always complain:
This important victory has also taught us how our movement handles victory. Some segments of our movement have been bitterly divided in the wake of this decision. Some groups have complained about how other groups have exaggerated the significance of the decision. Some leaders have warned that because no state can legitimize even a single abortion, it is quite wrong to be happy about a decision that still leaves abortion legal, with just the slightest modifications needed in a single procedure.
Of course, even when Roe vs. Wade is reversed and the legality of abortion is determined state by state, the same argument will be made. Abortion will still be legal in most places, and one will still have to say that no state can legitimize even a single abortion. But to fail to see at that moment that progress will have been made will be as much of a mistake as it is to fail to see the progress made now. In short, we should never exaggerate our progress, and neither should we fail to recognize it.
[Hat tip: Reader Carder]
Pro-lifers opposing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban say it will force abortionists to commit more torturous abortions, and this may be true.
Whereas the PBA Ban prohibits breech abortions of babies delivered past the navel and head-first abortions of babies delivered past the chin, some pro-lifers say abortionists will now simply deliver a baby's legs and rip them off before proceeding, or deliver the baby almost to the navel and disembowel the baby, etc..
However, the very pro-lifers making this argument oppose fetal pain legislation, so their argument is disengenuous. Stated Brian Rohrbaugh, president of Colorado Right to Life, in an interview
[O]ur position, as a board, is that we will never support any law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby." That includes every type of law that would regulate abortion. So anything that allows for the abortion after you meet these certain conditions is inherently evil. It goes against God's command of Thou Shalt Not Murder.
We took that position on the Informed [Fetal] Pain Consent... bill.... What was wrong with that bill is it's very good to warn women that their child is going to suffer intense pain. But its evil to offer a solution and then to allow the abortion to continue, so if that bill would of just said, "You must notify women if they have an abortion, their baby is going to be tormented and tortured to death," we would not have opposed the law.
But when you offer a solution you make abortion more humane, more palatable, you ease the conscience of society and of the mother and you undoubtedly will increase abortion by doing so.
I can only call it ruthless to purposefully withhold pain relief from someone you know is about to be tortured to death, which you can't stop.
Even the Roman soldiers killing Jesus demonstrated some semblance of compassion by offering Him wine vinegar.
And to say offering fetal pain relief would "undoubtedly... increase abortion" is 180 degrees wrong, IMO. Rather, how many mothers would stop their abortions if their abortionist were mandated to offer pain relief for the baby they were about to kill?
Bottom line: Don't complain about the torturous side effects of the PBA Ban if you don't support fetal pain legislation.
[Photo is of premature baby. Doctors now routinely provide pain relief to preemies born the same age as those aborted.]
I said two nights ago I would post how the Partial Birth Abortion Ban helped the pro-life cause.
I wrote in 2003 it helped by converting Americans to the culture of life. I realize this is just theory, but here are reputable national polls dating back to when PBA was first nationally discussed in 1995:
[Polls moved to page 2]
Although a couple specific conclusions differ, long-term polls clearly show an American opinion shift on abortion. Was it due to the PBA revelations? I think so, at least in part.
On to specifics....Continue reading "Gains from PBA ban"
I wrote on April 30 about dissent among pro-lifers whether the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is a good thing.
Pro-life hardliners believe to support legislation limiting abortion is to sanction the rest. Hardliners believe the solution to abortion is for all pro-lifers to work together to pass a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.
I heard Daniel McConchie, VP and Exec. Dir. of Americans United for Life, speak on this topic last week, and he gave me permission for me to post these points....Continue reading "Inside baseball: PBA, etc."
Pro-abort hardliners aren't all who oppose the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Some pro-life hardliners do as well.
From Alan Keyes, April 28:
... I cannot join in, or even understand, the approbation which others have expressed for this decision. It is in fact an abominable affirmation of the Court's unconstitutional decisions in Roe and Casey. With grotesquely meticulous care, the man whose pivotal vote preserved so-called abortion rights in the Casey decision (Justice Kennedy) carves out an exception intended to prove and strengthen the rules set forth in Roe and Casey....Continue reading "Pro-life dissension on PBA ban"
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wants to reassure those frightened about dwindling abortion options following the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. (I know pro-aborts hate that term, preferring it called the Dilatation and Extraction Abortion Ban or the Intact Dilatation and Evacuation Ban. Sorry.)
In fact, women can still render themselves unpregnant, in the vernacular of choice-speak, by several means. They can "disarticulate the fetus" and even "reduce" or "separate the fetal calvarium."
If the vocabulary is confusing, that's the point. Using Orwellian language to sanitize the issue, so to speak, is a time-honored tactic of the "pro-choice" arbiters. If we don't say what it is, we can pretend what it isn't.Continue reading "No more partial birth abortions? There's always disarticulation abortions."
Herewith, a brief translation:
Disarticulating a fetus, which sounds like suspending a pre-born's instant-messaging privileges, means to dismember it. Reducing a calvarium - a thoroughly desirable-sounding procedure, like lancing a boil - means to suck the brains from the baby's head. Separating the calvarium means to sever the head with scissors....