Your appraisal of Laura Bush before and after her trip to the Middle East is right on!

What is sad about Laura and which she will give an account of some day, is that while she and George W. owe much to Ronald Reagan, etc, she couldn't even get it right about the most important moral issue of our time which is abortion.

George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were both pro-choice about abortion at one time, but I believe that they did both legitimately change their hearts and minds about it.

George W. has made two very good appointments to the Supreme Court and has appointed outstanding federal judges as well.

George H. W. batted 500 concerning the Supreme Court. David Souter has turned into one of the worst Supreme Court justices ever and seems to have "no soul" or introspection qualities, but on the other hand, Clarence Thomas has been great.

Has Souter ever reflected that a liberal Democrat would have never put him on the Supreme Court? Yet, Democrats who were so concerned about Souter during the 1990 confirmation hearings could not have done any better than him.

Again on the bright side, however, there have been three great selections by both Bushes since the disastrous choice of Souter.

Mrs Bush traveled to an area where women are 100% pro-life and would do nothing to advance the cause or even educate herself about why they are pro-life? Muslims forbid abortion and I would assume that their minds would not be persuaded otherwise without turning their entire religion upside down!

Good point Jill, how many of us would marry a pro-abort? We surely wouldnt dream of it today because we are very involved in defending the rights of the unborn.

Going back to the days of dating, however, 20+ years for some of us,(lol), would it have been an active issue for us? I can say that I have always been pro-life, no exceptions, but never gave it a second thought at that age because I was not actively fighting the battle. Unlike thousands of teens today who are quite active!!

Abortion & Life? a platform for a first Lady? Would any of them even dare? Such a controversial issue? If they did, their husband would surely get my vote too...

Yvonne -

Muslims are 100% pro-life? Nope. They allow abortion in certain circumstances. They do not allow abortion for social reasons, but even then it is under debate if the abortion is before 120 days.

I googled "muslim abortion" and came up with many websites. Here is one from the BBC -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml

"All schools of Muslim law accept that abortion is permitted if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in real danger. This is the only reason accepted for abortion after 120 days of the pregnancy.

Different schools of Muslim law hold different views on whether any other reasons for abortion are permitted, and at what stage of pregnancy if so.

Some schools of Muslim law permit abortion in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, while others only permit it in the first 7 weeks.

However, even those scholars who would permit early abortion in certain cases still regard abortion as wrong, but do not regard it as a punishable wrong. The more advanced the pregnancy, the greater the wrong."

Abortion is up for debate in the middle east now. The UN is pushing countries who have predominately pro-life laws to change those laws.

As recently as 2005 Iran started to liberalize their laws on abortion.

I'm not posting this to critisize your post above, it is a good post. I just want to make sure everyone knows that laws are changing and there is a forcible push to make abortion legal for any reason throughout the world.

Sorry - I didn't italicize right.....

The article quote ends at ",the greater the wrong."

As an aside Dr. Ron Paul is pro-life and as an OB-GYN has delivered 4,000 babies. He believes that abortion violates the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the most basic level.

Why don't you give Mrs. Paul a call? I would imagine she is just as pro-life as her husband. If we, as Christians, are really seriously pro-life, why are we ignoring Dr. Paul???

Valerie..

Thanks for posting that.. Evidently they are just as split as many of the Christian denominations all over the world..

Now it can be truly said that the CAtholic Church is the only Denomination ( aside from some individual memebers) that is truly pro-life.

Interesting..

BTW.. did you see that Brownback is going to endorse McCain???

I wouldnt have guessed that for the LIFE of me. How disapointing.. that will hurt him if he does decide to run for Governor just as it did for Santorum when he backed Specter.. It just doesnt make ANY sense to me.. What a huge disappointment..

I'm not ignoring Ron Paul! He's finally getting some traction and I'm so excited. I know he has little chance of getting anywhere, but at least he's showing all the candidates that young American's are not onlydrawn to a pro-life libertarian candidate, but willing to put their money and votes on him.

Yvonne, Valerie,

I posted this before but it is relevant.

I think the salient point is the beginning of the child's rights is the commitment of his parents before he is conceived. I think many legal, religious and cultural traditions are in agreement on this point.

I also feel that this point goes to the point of reducing demand for abortion. Loving committed couples that understand and that sex causes people and embrace their responsibility to them are less likely to seek abortions.

http://www.un.org/ga/children/saudiE.htm

"A child's first right is to be born within a legitimate marriage. This is his pre-natal right guaranteed in Islam by forbidding and outlawing sexual relationships outside marriage. As Muslims, we believe that a family founded on a legitimate marriage is the first cell in the building of human society; it is the nucleus and pillar of society where a child is born, nurtured and fed the seeds of good and virtue or the seeds of evil and deviation. Clause to of the Basic Law of Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia states the following, " The state is determined to strengthen family bonds and to protect the Arabic and Islamic values of the Saudi family, to protect its members, and to provide suitable means for the development of their talents and abilities."

A child's right to be born, to survive, and to grow., as ascertained in the International Agreement on the Child's Rights, starts at the moment he is imbued with a soul in his mother's womb, according to Islamic Sharia Law. His life is God's gift and his right to live is God's prerogative that cannot be usurped by abortion. Abortion is premeditated murder, so it cannot be used as a means of birth control or family planning and should not be considered except when a mother's life is in danger."

Okay, I am an idiot.
I thought Laura was pro-life!!!!!!
Thank you for your article, I would not have known this otherwise!

Jill wrote, "It seems to me that if either wife of the two pro-life and otherwise highly qualified Republicans the presidential nomination is coming down to – Romney or Huckabee, in my book anyway – would say she will make the pro-life issue her platform if first lady, I would vote for her husband."

Jill! Those were words to get my mind churning! Huckabee in my book... depending on his wife's stance.

Keep us thinking!

Quote of the Day:
"The day has come when the corner pharmacist, whom we trust and expect to be moral, can lose his or her job and even go to jail for refusing to dispense a pill that can kill a baby."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excuse me?
I take one prescription medication, two over-the-counter medications and a number of supplements that could damage or end a pregnancy.
The morning-after pill contains the same active ingredient found in birth control pills, and you can buy Mifipristone (active ingredient in RU-486) on the internet to treat your ulcer.
Pharmacists who don't sell these prescriptions should do the morally correct thing and pull ALL potential fetus-harming drugs - like aspirin and athsma medicine - of their shelves.

BTW.. did you see that Brownback is going to endorse McCain???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why wouldn't a fiscally conservative pro-life hawk endorse another fiscally conservative pro-life hawk?
McCain is the only candidate on the Republican side that I'm afraid of, and the freakin' war horse has been coming on in a strong, steady manner over the last two months.

Excellent article!

Excellent article as usual Jill.

"Bush II doesn't talk about abortion much either. The White House would lecture me on that."

Really Jill? what was that all about? if I may ask?

I must say I’m a little confused. You say that both Bush and Bush Sr’s wives are pro-abortion. Yet you give no evidence, save that the first lady’s list of platforms does not have anything about being pro life on it. Do you have anything concrete or more direct for this accusation?

Mark, google "Laura Bush pro-choice" and "Barbara Bush pro-choice." Plenty of evidence. It's no secret.

Jasper, nothing more to it than I know the WH would give me examples of President Bush speaking on the pro-life issue, which I would dispute as being meek, mild, and way, way under the radar.

Bush II tried to make the Texas Republican Platform pro-abortion. He also appointed some pro-aborts to highly influential posts.

He's a closet pro-abort, but a politician. Politicians shaped their decisions around advantageous political positions, not morality or truth.

To vote for anyone else but Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, or one of the CP is to sit on a fence, which G-d said we cannot do, and those who do not realize both Rep and Dem are good for nothings best wake up.

How many yrs do we sit here and call ourselves believers in G-d and keep signing our name to abortion.

It cannot be done anymore, signing up behind globalists who have admited they think G-d is Allah.

We all know better and best change our ways before America trickles down to nothing.

I've known Laura Bush was pro abortion for years but no one would talk about it, and conservative Christians continued to push the Bush's down our throats.

I have lost faith in those I have associated with for so many years. Christians and conservatives alike will not deceive me again!

I copied the paragraph below from your column. I would hope you'd take the time to answer for me why you think Huckabee and Romney are any more qualified than Ron Paul. I would really appreciate a response.

I personally find more honesty and character in Ron Paul as well as a thinking man who is more qualified if for no other reason than his honesty and lack of flip flopping:

"It seems to me that if either wife of the two pro-life and otherwise highly qualified Republicans the presidential nomination is coming down to – Romney or Huckabee, in my book anyway"

Deborah, Ron Paul has what I consider a dangerous anti-Iraq War position. Wants to pull out immediately.

The American Cancer Society says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Antichoicers just cant tell the truth.

Texas Red, How do you really know that there isn't a breast cancer/ abortion link? The studies conflict. I'd say they're still pending.

Studies cited here by Laura and Somg from the NEJM and another conducted at Harvard concluded that the increased incidence of breast cancer in women who had abortions could be attributed to the fact that women who had abortions had fewer children and had them later in life which are established risk factors for breast cancer.

Full term pregnancies at early ages protect against breast cancer.

I refer to the following studies.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/2/81
posted by Somg

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814?lookupType=volpage&vol=167&fp=814&view=short
posted by Laura

I would be interested to know why Alan Keyes does not appear on your short list of true pro-life presidential candidates? Is his wife pro-abortion?

Kathy,

Alan Keyes ran for US Senate in my home state of IL. I saw him in action up close and personal. He may be good on the issues, but he is destructive otherwise. It's really too bad. He decided to come to IL and run against Barack Obama specificaly due to Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, an issue near and dear to my heart. But Dr. Keyes alienated everyone once he got here, friend and foe alike. He did a lot of damage.

Sorry, but WHAT link between abortion and breast cancer? Last I heard, that was completely made up.

Texas Red, How do you really know that there isn't a breast cancer/ abortion link? The studies conflict. I'd say they're still pending.

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 11:14 AM
***************************************
As I pointed out, the American Cancer Society says there is no link regardless of what *you* have to say about it.

Dana,

The studies are ongoing and the issue is not resolved. You can go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com and review the research and articles.
You can review all the evidence and draw your own conclusions, something I always urge people to do on any kind of health issue.

I find it hilarious that you are gibbering and drooling about how 'great' it is that Moslem nations are against abortion when WOMEN can be beaten to death, shot, stabbed, if some man decides they have "dishonored" their family. As long as the women give birth thats all that really matters! shooting a young girl for having a boyfriend is obviously pro life! the kind of LIFE women LIVE in these societies couldnt possible be of any less significance - just as long as they value mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure in the uterus of the woman -

Dana, you heard wrong.

Abortion and Breast Cancer: No Link
No Extra Breast Cancer Risk in Women Who Have Abortions
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Medical NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDApril 23, 2007 -- There is no link between abortion and breast cancer, a 10-year study shows.

Researchers base the findings on a study in which they followed 105,716 women for 10 years. They found no link between abortion and breast cancers that occur before menopause.

Earlier large-scale studies showed no link between abortion and breast cancers that occur after

menopause.

"The globality of evidence supports no link between induced abortion and breast cancer," Harvard researcher Karin Michels, ScD, PhD, tells WebMD.

The Michels study shows a longstanding "scientific consensus," says Michael Thun, MD, vice president for epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta. Thun was not involved in the Michels study.

"There is no evidence that having had an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer," Thun tells WebMD. "This is a subject that has received a lot of visibility; something that has been looked at repeatedly. There is strong scientific consensus this is the case."

Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk
At one time, researchers did suspect a link between abortion and breast cancer. Researchers who asked women about their abortion history found that women with breast cancer were more likely than healthy women to report having had abortions.

But this kind of study -- called a case/control study -- is not considered particularly reliable. A person with a medical condition is more likely to report an unusual or embarrassing event than is a healthy person. That's particularly true when the event is an abortion.

"Abortion is such a personal and sensitive piece of information," Michel says. "If just you just ask random people, you get much more underreporting then you do when you ask women with breast cancer, who are much more likely to reveal all sorts of information if you ask them."

Three studies that looked at women's records about abortion before breast cancer developed found no link to breast cancer. Three studies that asked postmenopausal women about their abortion history and then observed them for long periods of time also found no link to breast cancer.

In 2003, the National Cancer Institute convened an expert panel to analyze these studies. It concluded that abortion did not affect breast cancer risk. Michels was a member of that panel.

"No study should be interpreted on its own," Michels warns. “This current study really supports the consensus that we came up with in 2003. So now we can close the loop and say the lack of abortion risk seen for postmenopausal breast cancer applies to premenopausal breast cancer as well."

Despite the scientific consensus, four states have laws on the books that require doctors to warn women seeking abortion that the procedure may cause breast cancer. Those states are Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas. The law in Montana has been found unconstitutional and is not enforced.

This year, there were efforts to introduce similar laws in New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. All of these bills failed to pass into law.

Thirty-one states have laws that require "biased counseling and/or mandatory delays which may include providing information on breast cancer and abortion," a spokeswoman for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health tells WebMD.

The Michels study appears in the April 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

http://women.webmd.com/news/20070423/abortion-and-breast-cancer-no-link

Dana, you heard wrong.

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 11:53 AM
**************************
No, she didnt.

Women's Group Berates American Cancer Society
HOFFMAN ESTATES, Ill., Feb. 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- A women's group berated the American Cancer Society (ACS) today because women's cancer deaths rose by 409 cases in 2003, while men's cancer deaths declined by 778 cases. Last week, the ACS celebrated a small net decrease of 369 cases - allegedly the first decline in deaths from all cancers since the government began keeping national statistics 75 years ago.

The net decline was attributable to a decline in tobacco use, but deaths due to breast cancer (40,400 expected in 2005) are keeping the total number of cancer deaths elevated. Breast cancer is the second greatest cancer killer of women.

"The total number of deaths due to all cancers would have declined sooner if the government and the cancer establishment had been honest about the abortion-breast cancer link twenty years ago," declared Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "In a 1986 letter to the British journal Lancet, government scientists acknowledged that 'Induced abortion before first term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer.' Instead of informing women, the cancer establishment chose to cover it up by using seriously flawed research to discredit the link. Now women are paying with their lives."

Although the ACS refuses to implicate abortion in any way, it makes the following revealing admission on its website:

"Much of the long-term underlying increase in (breast cancer) incidence among women is due to historical changes in reproductive patterns, such as delayed childbearing and having fewer children."

Everyone knows what caused women to change their childbearing patterns - abortion and contraceptives.

For more information, see this article: "Women's Cancer Deaths Up, Men's Deaths Down / American Cancer Society Celebrates Net Decrease / Abortion-Breast Cancer Cover Up Responsible for Women's Deaths"

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
This press release can be viewed online at: http://www.abortionbreast cancer.com/press_releases/060216/index.htm

Posted by plb at February 16, 2006 12:45 PM

Jill: "Deborah, Ron Paul has what I consider a dangerous anti-Iraq War position. Wants to pull out immediately."

Your now an expert on building codes, zoning, abortion AND the Iraq War?

Texas Red, you heard wrong too.

"The more advanced the pregnancy, the greater the wrong."

Posted by: valerie at November 7, 2007 8:24 AM

I know this was a quote and not what Valerie said herself but am I the only one that thinks it's crazy? Wrong is wrong. There aren't "degrees" of wrong.

I must say I’m a little confused. You say that both Bush and Bush Sr’s wives are pro-abortion. Yet you give no evidence, save that the first lady’s list of platforms does not have anything about being pro life on it. Do you have anything concrete or more direct for this accusation?

Posted by: Mark F. at November 7, 2007 10:40 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901164.html

I understand your position on Huckabee, but Romney? What evidence do you have that he will place pro-life people in the Supreme Court,Janet? (or does anyone else have, for that matter.) What about the illegal aliens who come in and murder citizens, not to mention other crimes some commit.(not to say that all of them are guilty of violent crimes) Will this actually be stopped under Huckabee? Past Record is a far better indicator of how one will behave than a recent profession. I love your bold pro-life stand, but I hope you can clarify this for me.

Mark F. unfortunately Mrs. Bush has stated repeatedly that she is pro-abortion.

I received the following email from a Daniel Garrity I thought you'd enjoy....

If you really think that a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer wouldn't make a good marriage, then you are clearly too closed minded and set in your ways, but that's alright, I hope you're married and happily, because you sure as sh** wouldn't be able to be anymore, unless you came around here and picked up one of the many charming pro-life-pro-Jesus-pro-Republican redneck wife beating f**ksh**s who inhabit this great state of mine.

Furthermore, what the hell about Barbie Bush thinking that abortion was a solution for illiteracy? Do you have any kind of evidence to back that assertion up? Probably not, but it's okay, none of the morons who write for WND (excepting the gorgeous, sexy, intellectual bombshell and anti-Coulter Libertarian love goddess Ilana Mercer. meow.) have ever really been bothered with fact checking.

Admittedly, I do only read drivel like yours to get good and worked up at the status quo dorks, but you people really need to shut the hell up and count your g**d**n blessings.

You are the favored ones: white heterosexual Christians. Nobody is threatening you, and your martyr fantasies not-withstanding, there is no nobility in your mock suffering.

So instead of poisoning the already creaking and groaning internet with dull, pointless opinions of a dying culture, how about you go to a midnight screening of the Rocky Horror Picture Show and see how the REAL deviants live. Or not, you might actually have a f***ing BLAST and realize that there are a lot of different ways to be f***ed up and have a good life.

But I must say, you're own only-until-marriage-no-contraceptives fetish is one I found a little....creepy. But to each their own.

Well Jill, he's right about that last point. It is a bit "creepy."

Are we supposed to know who Daniel Garrity is, or was it just a random emailer?

Just a random emailer.

Jill, thanks for posting that. I needed a good laugh. I like how he assumes we are all white. Whose the close-minded one?

Well Carrie, maybe you aren't white, but i wasn't writing for you guys, i was writing to a specific person who I knew for a fact (as far as the internet deals in facts) to be a white heterosexual christian. Sos tick that in your "water pipe" (they get angry if you call it a bong at the smoke shop) and hit it.

Welcome, Daniel. Daniels on this site seem to be high spirited, so you're in good company.

Daniel has now sent me a few emails this afternoon, and he's an entertaining writer when he's not swearing, which he has agreed not to do from here on out.

As you were.

I'm also an entertaining writer when i do swear, which is profusely. (Partly for genuine philosophical reasons, partly because it's just how I is.) But, civil discourse and all that jazz.

I do that too :-P

Swear profusely, that is.

But I don't on here, 'cause it'd make MK mad >_>

Sometimes I have to backspace to get at the words I accidentally let slip.

Welcome to the site Daniel. I am not hitting that water pipe, but I will have a cup of regular coffee in your honor. I stepping it up a notch 'cause I usually drink decaf! You are a bad influence already.

Texas Red, you heard wrong too.

Posted by: heather at November 7, 2007 12:06 PM
*********
Gee - I wonder who would have more credibility under the circumstances - you or the American Cancer Society .....

Women's Group Berates American Cancer Society
******
I posted a study. You posted what amounts to an editorial.

Jill said: "Ron Paul has what I consider a dangerous anti-Iraq War position. Wants to pull out immediately."
Dr. Paul is against the unGodly, unconstitutional, undeclared war, that is true. We should not be entangled in the internal affairs of other nations. We should not be sending our men and women to die on foreign soils under these circumstances! Read your U.S. Constitution. I can't understand Christians who say they are pro-life and yet won't vote for the only truly pro-life candidate because he wants to end an unconstitutional "war". Are we pro-life, or not? According to God, and the the U.S. Constitution, which is based on God's Law, we are only to fight in self-defense. The primary purpose of government is to wield the sword to protect our God-given rights to LIFE, liberty and property. Not to give lip-service to the life issue and to engage in empire building or to be the police of the world. Let's get back to God's Word, people. If we can't get it right to defend the most basic God-given right - LIFE - what do we have left?

BTW, I'm curious, do you think our current President is pro-life? The answer to that will tell me a lot about this blog and its participants. Maybe then I'll understand better where you're all coming from.

Hey Vickle, how about instead of getting back to "God's" word, we get back to the real words of real human beings who actually DID exist. Like maybe the Constitution?

See, we'd probably agree on a few things, like the war, but when you start bringing "god's Word" into things then you basically give up your right to be involved in the American political system. Please help make our country better, and don't vote.

"Researchers base the findings on a study in which they followed 105,716 women for 10 years. They found no link between abortion and breast cancers that occur before menopause."

What's the average age a woman has an abortion?
What's the average age a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer?

10 years is not long enough.

"...but when you start bringing "god's Word" into things then you basically give up your right to be involved in the American political system."

Are you channeling Sam Harris or something?

Wendy,

I have to agree. One of the weaknesses of the study was that it followed them for an average of 10 years. Some women were included in the post abortion group even if the abortion was within the last few months of the study.

Heh. I am a secularist through and through. You can be as religious as you want, and sure it can even guide your morals, but when you want legal action you betta rekognize, "God" isn't a citizen, and his word isn't even evidence in high school debate class.

This country runs on the word of humanity, in the constitution, not the word of some ineffable power.

Studies cited here by Laura and Somg from the NEJM and another conducted at Harvard concluded that the increased incidence of breast cancer in women who had abortions could be attributed to the fact that women who had abortions had fewer children and had them later in life which are established risk factors for breast cancer.

Full term pregnancies at early ages protect against breast cancer.

Posted by: hippie at November 7, 2007 11:22 AM
............................

If men stay celibate until marriage and then sucessfully gestate every pregnancy they find themselves with, will they never get breast cancer? @@
The single leading cause of breast cancer is having breasts. Perhaps the vile things should be removed at birth.(?)