KS has one of the most restrictive laws regarding late-term abortions. Yet, it has become, in large part because of Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortion capital of the Midwest. How is this possible? It is possible because our current laws have not been enforced. Each time the KS Legislature has passed statutes in an effort to improve enforcement of late-term abortion restrictions, Governor Sebelius has vetoed these laws…..

The appointment of Governor Sebelius as the Secretary of HHS concerns me on many levels. With her history of support for legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research, it is troubling the important influence that she will have on shaping health care policies for our nation.

“In accordance with his pro-life views, Senator Casey voted recently to rescind Mexico City Policy, thus allowing U.S. funding of family planning services to international aid organizations,” Smar told CNSNews.com.

Except that the U.S. was already providing family planning funds to international aid organizations, just not ones who provide abortions. Smar also claimed:

“With the Helms Amendment prohibitions firmly in place, Senator Casey voted to support U.S. funding for overseas family planning precisely because it reduces the number of abortions.”

Except the only family planning he’s supporting with his vote is family planning provided by abortion promoters, and I doubt Casey or Smar has any evidence that giving family planning funds to abortion providers reduces abortions more than giving funds to organizations which don’t provide and promote abortion.

Intelligence alone will not make the world a better place, and if anyone’s career proves the point, it is Singer’s. Over the years, he has turned his skill to rationalizing bestiality, proposing a 28-day period during which newborns could be killed, and concluding that breeding children for spare parts is “not … something really wrong in itself.”
And why not? Once you’ve jettisoned the “old morality,” good and evil are just a matter of opinion. “Man without God is a beast,” wrote Whittaker Chambers, “never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness.”

Mary Ann Akers writes that Vitter’s amendment would “drastically cut funding for family planning programs.” This is untrue.
Vitter’s amendment wouldn’t cut contraceptive funding provided under Title X by one cent. It would merely keep money from going to PP, an organization that performs more than 250,000 abortions annually. Vitter simply doesn’t want taxpayer dollars lining the pockets of abortionists who also prescribe birth control.
If, say, some liberal senator wanted to prohibit funding for Blackwater, it wouldn’t be correct to say he was “slashing” the defense budget if those funds could be spent on the same services provided by a different company.