Has the world gone completely MAD?

I now have to thoroughly examine everything the NRLC says from this point on.

Interesting.

"Has the world gone completely MAD?"

Well, let's see here. We butcher our unborn in what should be the safest place in the world for anyone and refer to it as "choice." Sounds pretty mad to me.

Bobby,

I haven't heard that your little one has popped so I have to tell you some unsolicited, um, information.

My second baby was induced nine days after the due date which technically is not late I guess. Anyway, on part of the consent form, I had to state in my own words why I wanted induced labor. I just said that it was nine days after the due date. At first, I didn't get it. Later it occured to me that the induction wasn't necessary because had it been, the doctor should have written a medical reason. My doctor suggested induction, so I thought I needed it, but really it was elective. It is such a game.

Jill, as I've written, I believe that this is probably a reaction to the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani. They can't let that sit for too long without some kind of refutation.

*weeps*

Hey Hippie. So over the weekend I've learned that there actually is somewhat of a reason why they do want to do it a bit early. It's nothing too bad, but it seems to be more on the justified side of things.

Hi Nathan! I think this was in the works before the Robertson endorsement. Read my last update.

Ah, that does make sense. Gosh, I love NRLC, but maybe I'm becoming more about principle than strategy than I thought ;)

You didn't understand NRLC's response as you obviously don't understand quite a few things Jill.

Willard Romney is the most flagrant liar we've ever had the misfortune to see run for the office of the Presidency. Although Rudolph comes in a very close second in that race.

You and your little group here have not spent ten minutes in finding out what Federalism is but, you have no qualms about whining that you don't understand and put it on Fred as "incoherent". How mentally deficient of you.

This is not even on the lowest level of disingenousness, it's much lower than that.

Congratulations Chris: you have endeared Jill and her cronies even more toward Fred Thompson with your flagrant disrespect. Jill is not mentally deficient: she is bringing up excellent points worthy of discussion. You have the respect level of a pro-choicer.

I think if I were Mike Huckabee or Duncan Hunter - two life-long pro-choice activists - I'd be pissed.

Laura,

I don't think Hunter or Huckabee support legal abortion. Is that a typo?

I think if I were Mike Huckabee or Duncan Hunter - two life-long pro-choice activists - I'd be pissed.

Posted by: Laura at November 12, 2007 2:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I meant pro-life. The loverly dental painkillers are kicking in!

I just heard Benedict XVI will visit in April and say mass at Yankee Stadium. Could be a once in a lifetime thing. Road trip. Take the kids.

When John Paul II came some students said they would miss a math class so could the professor reschedule. The professor said no they would just miss out. Then the students asked what if they all went. So he said he would finish the book because he could go much faster without them there.

Don't forget Ron Paul. Some of you may disagree with his stance on federal legislation, but his advocacy for right-to-life issues is as strong (if not stronger, given his OB/GYN past) as Huckabee, Hunter or Thompson.

As an aside, endorsing Thompson is like endorsing myself. I am adamantly pro-life now. However, I used to be an escort for a local abortion clinic and I gave money to Planned Parenthood all the time from 2002-2005. In RTL's collective brain-fart of a mind, I would probably qualify for their endorsement as well.

If BXVI comes to Yankee Stadium, I'll miss my own math class that I'm teaching.

No flip floppers allowed-Romney should be out.

Everytime I look at H. Clinton, I think of "Ma" Ferguson. She was the first female governor of Texas. She ran for governor after her husband was impeached.

http://ourfamilyancestors.com/Historical/ma_ferguson.htm

Wasn't it Thompson who voted not to impeach W.J. Clinton?

Here we go again.. NRLC , and many of their STate affiliates (IL Especially) endorse the WRONG guy.

Jill, doesnt this spell R-E-P-E-A-T of The governor race when all of us rallied behind O'Malley and we were duped.. Oh and how could one forget the Senate race..

Maybe it's time to just discredit NRLC and some of their affiliates... they cant make up their own minds and will generally only look at the candidates "electability".

Blah blah blah..

Brian,

There's a great story there...will you share it?
What made you change?

This seems somewhat out of character for National Right to Life. It seems that they usually wait until the field is winnowed before selecting a nominee.

In 2000 NRLC endorsed George W. Bush when it became clear that the Republican Presidential nomination was a two man race between Bush and McCain. They endorsed Bob Dole in 1996, but I do not really remember details about the timing that year.

I am too young to really remember how NRLC handled their endorsement in either 1980 or 1988? Does anybody out there know?

I think the vague conspiracy charges against NRLC are somewhat overblown. Remember that Fred Thompson has an 100% Pro-Life voting record in Congress. Now, if NRLC had endorsed a pro-abort like Rudy I can see why you'd be upset. Frankly, elect-ability as in beating Rudy and then Hillary is VERY important in this election.

I also understand Huckabee supporters were hoping for the endorsement and therefore their noses are tweaked right now, but NRLC had to pick somebody. As Jill states, the goal is to get pro-lifers to coalesce around one candidate, else we split our vote and Rudy wins, which is a disaster for the movement.

That's exactly WHY we must get behind and vote for the only real pro-life candidate for president who bases his policies on Godly principles - ALAN KEYES

http://www.alankeyes.com

Romney is not pro-life!

Romney made explicitly pro-abort statements AFTER he claimed he had changed his mind on abortion from talking with that scientist about embryonic stem cell research (which that scientist claims NEVER OCCURED).

Hear what he said after that date HERE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Romney also claims that he is pro-choice state-by-state using the "let the individual states decide to legalize murdering babies or not" line of thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQbeBC_fOI

Hi PIP,

Continuing our discussion from another thread. While I have you here, you might want to google, "second hand smoke hoax". I suggested on the other thread that you do the same for "global warming hoax". Both offer you a cross section of expert opinions both for and against global warming and the effects of second hand smoke. It never hurts to get opposing opinions and better enables you to draw your own conclusions.

I'm not entirely clear on why the RTLs aren't coelescing around Ron Paul. He's as RTL as anyone, and more so than most.

* Ron Paul Would Let States Murder Children: Ron Paul is explicitly pro-choice state by state. (See his answer below, to a question asked by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul's principles and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder. Anecodtally, driving to a pro-life event with our general manager Will Duffy on Friday, October 12, we saw a Ron Paul bumper sticker on a car that had a hate bumper sticker, the one that mocks Christianity by usurping the Christian fish symbol to promote Darwinism.

Ron Paul's YouTube interview July 14, 2007:
Question Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute? [Since the constitution defends the right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]

Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights, has legal inheritance rights from the day of conception. I as a physician if I injure the fetus, I have liabilities; if you are in a car accident or someone commits a violent act, and kills fetus, they are liable and responsible. But all acts of violence under our constitution are dealt with at the local level, murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter; all these things and are done locally, and they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues. So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations, and punishments, for acts of violence. I believe strongly that this should be at the local level. Therefore, I would not support Roe vs. Wade, but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don't fight for the right to life; and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery, or in the third trimester, which is now legal, I as a physician could be paid for [aborting that child], at the same time, we have devised a system here today that if the baby is born, and the teenager or whomever throws the baby away, they're charged with murder. But if you are careless with this attitude, it's more than just a privacy issue; and [if you] say, well, the privacy of the mother is the only concern, but no, it's whether or not a living being is involved. If it were only the privacy issue, I believe our homes are our castles, and that government shouldn't have cameras there; they should never intrude. But I do not say that because our homes are our castles, that we have the right to murder our children. Nobody really endorses that. So, it's very hard intellectually, to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards. And I think it deserves a lot of attention, but I also recognize that it's difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. That's why we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level. Because if you depend on the federal level to decide these issues, you end up saying, well, it's in the courts, the Supreme Court should rule; and they legislated through that Roe vs. Wade incident, and they actually got very involved in details of the medical process of when and what abortions could be done. So, I think our system is, that you reject that notion, honor the commitment to the Constitution, and try to solve these difficult problems at the local level. And I am quite sure it will not be solved, and the solutions will not be perfect. We don't live in a perfect world, and we have to accept the political process that gives us the best answers. [End Ron Paul Excerpt]

Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it's 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.

And the above list is far more of a threat to America than is al Qaeda, for this platform is a prescription for how to destroy us from within. Yet Ron Paul does not understand these simple matters of right and wrong and governance.

Basicly, RON PAUL is NOT pro-life at all!!

Brian,
I agree with MK. Perhaps you could submit your conversion story to Jill and she'll post it as an article. We haven't had a conversion article in awhile, so yours would be a nice change of political pace.

Just a suggestion.

From the Ron Paul website:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."
Why do we praise men like Huckabee for saying that they favor "overturning" Roe v. Wade, and then condemn Ron Paul for having an actual plan to demolish Roe v. Wade?

Zeke, do you understand anything about Roe v. Wade?

Overturning Roe would automatically send the abortion issue back to the states because Roe does not make abortion legal, it trumps all state laws and makes it illegal to make abortion illegal. When Roe is finally taken down, our job does not end there. States would again be left to legislate abortion on their own. The pro-life movement will then have to protect babies state by state. In my not-so-humble-opinion, it will be that event that will really put the movement to the test. Right now, we're just waiting on other people to do the work. When Roe goes down, that's when our determination and dedication will truly be tested.

Abortion laws belong in the hands of the states. Making a constitutional amendment banning all abortions would just take us to the other end of an already broken spectrum.

I guess I could write up a conversion story for you guys. Fair warning: it's pretty intense and will likely end up being more of an emo whine-job than an actual story. :)

Of course, I would need the go-ahead from Jill to even consider doing this. Jill?

Brian, good comments, and you're exactly right about what would happen if Roe were struck down.

Some states would quickly ban most abortions. Some would not change from the current rules. And some are in doubt.

Doug

"Continuing our discussion from another thread. While I have you here, you might want to google, "second hand smoke hoax". I suggested on the other thread that you do the same for "global warming hoax". Both offer you a cross section of expert opinions both for and against global warming and the effects of second hand smoke. It never hurts to get opposing opinions and better enables you to draw your own conclusions."

Mary,
about the second hand smoke: I got a lot of blogs and complaints that they don't know anybody who has died from it. Health problems doesn't even count, here? But yeah, I saw some opposing views and they were a good read. But again, many of them start out with, "as a smoker, I..." which tips me off that they may not be a valid source of information.
Had to giggle about the "Reason and Revelation" site which had a lot to say about the subject. This guy said, " However, NOT ALL who smoke cigarette's die of causes related to it." No sh*t sherlock, nobody ever made that claim. But I can tell you I've seen those at work and in my family who have died. My grandpa smoked since he was 21, and he finally died at 84 after 2 previous strokes, respiratory and lung disease. It's not uncommon to see people who cohabitate with smokers developing health problems too. When I came to visit as a kid I had to hold my breath passing through the rooms or I'd get into a hacking cough.
I'll go with the scientific majority on this one, because that's where the evidence is at this point. If for some reason everything is proved wrong, then I'll be the first one to say "my bad."

about global warming:
There is globalwarminghoax.com. It tells us about the desperate attempts of that hoaxer anti-GW study.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on global warming but we gave gone through the greenhouse gases (etc) part of biology and to date I haven't seen any kind of alternative replacement. Again I err on the side of caution and those who have the credentials and evidence. While I did appreciate some of the opposing climatologists' ideas, the sites and ideas surrounding them were just outright ridiculous. the "hoaxers" just rant about how this is just another global liberal conspiracy to secretly control everybody's lives. Please. If they try to make it a less partisan issue then maybe I'd be more inclined to believe them.

Brian,

While I can't totally speak for Jill, I can tell you that I believe she would love it. Q and A would be awesome too. I'll get back to you.

Was just looking back through email exchange with NRLC board member. She sent me stuff against Romney, dating back to when he was pro-abortion, which I told her was unfair.

I disagree, Jill. I'm all for redemption, but we're talking about a politician's words here. Actions speak louder than words.

How do you think one of the greatest converts in Christianity, St. Paul, was greeted when he rode up to that first Christian community after his involvement in killing St. Stephen, and said: "I've found Jesus!"?

Do you think they all said: "We'll just put all that persecution stuff in the past. Come on in!"

Count me skeptical.

Gov. Romney has a long way to go to earn my trust, and I'd imagine a lot of people feel the same way.

I saw some opposing views and they were a good read. But again, many of them start out with, "as a smoker, I..." which tips me off that they may not be a valid source of information.

And people die of peanut allergies every day, shall we make peanuts illegal?

More carcinogens come out the tailpipes of buses each day than smokers produce in a month second hand. Shall we make buses illegal?

Full disclosure: I run http://www.cigardiary.com

tony-

I never said they should be illegal. People should smoke if they want to. I smoke an occaisonal cigar myself.

I guess you just walked right into conversation. I was saying that parents shouldn't smoke in front of their kids, especially young children. I think it's irresponsible, and most of my friends that smoke do it in their rooms (which they don't allow their kids into).

Some people say that there is no way this would be harmful. If they want to think that, sure, but when their kids develop health problems maybe they might sing a different tune. Or not. It's their kids health, whatever.

Go check out the wonderful new movie Bella, in theatres this weekend. It's an edifying story of the unmitigated value and dignity of human life.

Brian said:

"Abortion laws belong in the hands of the states. Making a constitutional amendment banning all abortions would just take us to the other end of an already broken spectrum."

Your thinking is GODLESS and COMPLETELY VILE Brian!!!!!!!!!!

NO LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO LEGALIZE THE MURDER OF INNOCENT BABIES!!

That you think that legalizing the murder of the innocent is something that "belongs in the hands of the states" demonstrates without any ambiguity that your view of government is GODLESS and that you give the US Constitution (or more accurately a certain philosophy of applying the US Constitution) more authority then you do the absolute command from God You shall not murder.

I believe abortion is illegal in every state, because every state's constitution forbids it. If Roe v. Wade is demolished, the abortion issue returns to the states, where it is, and always has been, illegal. Ron Paul's stand is that abortion is murder, it is illegal, but the states need to work out what their individual punishments are for abortion. Not whether or not it should be illegal. The main problem with getting rid of Roe v. Wade is that, at this point, so many states have put in new "laws" that say things like, "You need to notify the girl's parents, and then you can kill the baby." Or, "You must give the woman a 24 hour waiting period to think it over, and then you can kill the baby." All these "incremental" laws that we now have in so many states will only muddle the issue, which is that abortion is already, and always has been illegal. Life, liberty and property is protected by the constitution of every state, as far as I am aware. What we need is to get the Federal government out of it, and then make sure that each state enforces it's constitutional protection of innocent life.

Life, liberty and property is protected by the constitution of every state, as far as I am aware.

Vickie, that doesn't apply to the unborn. It doesn't apply when the life is inside the body of a person, at the very least, to a point in gestation if a given state sees it in its interest to protect the life after viability. If it does then after viability delivery can be induced, as well.

Doug

NO LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO LEGALIZE THE MURDER OF INNOCENT BABIES

Zeke, abortion isn't "murder" in the first place. I know you don't like the idea of it, but your opinion isn't what makes the law.