by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• At First Things, J.D. Flynn pens a beautiful response to noted atheist Richard Dawkins’ controversial Tweet about the “immorality” of allowing children with Down syndrome to be born. As an adoptive father of two children with Down syndrome, Flynn’s post is a must read:
  

  You’ve often said that people who disagree with you should “go away, and learn how to think.” I’ve tried to learn to think, over the years, but perhaps I am naive in some ways. But one of things I’ve concluded is that ethical philosophy can’t be done in a sterile environment — that our humanity, our intuition, our empathy, in fact, must be recognized as a source of ethical insight if we want to think well. Perhaps you believe that your position on abortion and down syndrome is logically valid. But I wonder if you’re kept awake at night by the revulsion that comes with being the champion of killing.

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• Bound4Life writes about Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in which they are seeking to prevent the enforcement of legislation that would require them to prescribe the chemical abortion pill RU-486 according FDA safety guidelines. So much for caring about women’s safety.

If you didn’t know what was going on inside pro-abortion world, the Huffington Post piece Planned Parenthood Executive VP Dawn Laguens posted on July 30 in response to the July 28 New York Times article, “Advocates shun ‘pro-choice’ to expand message,” would seem out of left field.

As I explained in a blog last week, the NYT article simply elaborated on a decision Planned Parenthood made 18 months ago to abandon the term “pro-choice” as antiquated.

This is where Laguens seemed to go off on a tangent:

This past March a three-judge, all female panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a Texas statute requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

by Carder Since appealing to moral conscience doesn’t cut it, Bruening has a less novel idea: give poor mothers money to keep their children. Bruening calls it a “child allowance program.” I call it liberal policymaking disguised as a conservative solution to what Pope Francis decries as “throwaway culture.” Bruening claims that regular monthly payments […]

Pro-life politicos were pleasantly surprised yesterday when House Democrats failed to attach hostile amendments to two pro-life riders that were part of the Financial Services Appropriations bill, which passed 228-195.

During committee debate, House Pro-Choice Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Louise Slaughter expressed her disdain for both the Harris Amendment, which ensures Multi-State Plans under Obamacare do not cover elective abortions, and the DC Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for most abortions. So did the White House in a statement, and District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton squawked about DC Hyde during the Rule debate.

Even had they not publicly griped, Democrats as a matter of course add hostile amendments to these annual pro-life riders, even if it’s obvious they’ll lose. (The amendments, if passed, would gut the riders.) They like to showboat.

But yesterday the hostile amendments never materialized. Why?

by Kelli Both Democrats and Republicans use adverse Supreme Court rulings to rally their respective bases, but lawmakers have a responsibility not to succumb to overheated and inaccurate rhetoric…. The Fact Checker generally does not award Pinocchios for “misspeaking” or for statements of opinion. And we obviously take no position on the Supreme Court opinion. […]

AllahPundit at HotAir.com poses this as a political question: Should the GOP support over-the-counter sales of birth control pills?

I’d like to ask the same of pro-lifers. Be sure to take the poll at the bottom of this post.

To boil AllahPundit’s thoughts down, now that the Supreme Court has ruled closely held for-profit corporations do not have to pay for abortion-causing contraceptives, the Obama administration could force insurance companies to provide them “free” (spread the cost among all insurance payees) or force taxpayers to foot the bill (actually, more of the bill we already foot through so-called “family planning” funding).