Jivin J’s Life Links 8-3-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Indiana’s attorney general has asked a federal court to overturn the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Tonya Walton Pratt which has prevented IN from defunding Planned Parenthood:
“This dispute belongs between the state and the federal government that administers and funds the Medicaid program, not between a private contractor and the state,” [AG Greg] Zoeller said.
“The proper place to argue this dispute is the federal government’s own administrative hearing process, established for exactly this purpose. We hope the 7th Circuit will agree, reverse the U.S. District Court’s decision and allow the administrative review to run its course.”
- Looks like San Francisco will be the next city to try to pass pregnancy center legislation:
In a deceptive ploy to preach to pregnant women, anti-abortionists have set up “crisis clinics” in San Francisco claiming to offer non-judgmental abortion services, city officials say….
City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Supervisor Malia Cohen will discuss efforts to crack down on the faux clinics at a City Hall news conference Tuesday morning.
The New York Times has picked up this story and adds some more details.
- Planned Parenthood Mar Monte is still looking for the 9 parking spaces needed to open up a clinic in Redwood City. They are also trying to force Enterprise Rent-A-Car to keep an agreement to provide the spaces.
- NPR’s ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos responds to Ryan Bomberger’s charges of biased editing during his recent debate with Carlton Veazey. In the comments section you can tell Bomberger is unimpressed. Schumacher-Matos seems to not have listened to the unedited version because he provides no comparison information about the editing, nor does he seem to notice host Michel Martin’s clear bias.
LifeNews has an editorial by Bomberger on the ombudsman’s comments.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Pro-aborts’ obsession with CPCs is psychotic. What do they care? Why can’t they just let the CPCs do the work they won’t do? They’re not preaching to anyone, or lying, they’re not run by scary people. They help women. Period. So they don’t do abortions. If pro-aborts are so about “choice” then why don’t they back off? This is getting ludicrous. What a bunch of bullies.
And abortion clinics LIE TO WOMEN all the time. They lie and they lie and they lie, they kill and kill, and they make money off of it. Ugh. Sickening.
CPC’s are “faux” clinics? We do not preach. We tell biological TRUTH. The pro-aborts can’t handle truth. We ask the moms what they need in order to have their babies and WE GET IT FOR THEM! FREE OF CHARGE too. We’re not making any money off these moms unlike the abortion mills. We are there to give women a real choice. The abortion mills will always be there to offer abortion but where does a woman go if she doesn’t want to kill her baby but has no money? Thats right. CPC’s. You’ll never see Planned Parenthood giving her money for her bills and baby clothes, maternity clothes, a car seat etc… all the things we provide for our moms who come to us. You’ll never see Planned Parenthood throwing a baby shower for one of their clients who chooses not to abort. Sickening. So much for “choice”. They just prove over and over they are really just pro-ABORTION.
I know a woman who runs a few CPCs. She is an amazing, compassionate woman, and her staff is smart, and kind. When women are confused, they come to these clinics, and are offered support. It’s not a cult, it’s not filled with lies, it’s just women helping women who are scared. Most women don’t want to abort, they want HELP. And these CPCs offer them support. There have been countless women who have written emails to this woman (the one who runs the CPCs) saying she is angelic. She IS! They don’t pin women down and force them to have babies. The women are free to leave and abort if that is what they want to do; nobody is forcing women to do ANYTHING here. I am so, so tired of this pro-abortion b.s. I cannot understand what their problem is. I cannot understand why a CPC is such a threat to pro-aborts. I mean, I understand why (because the truth makes them so very angry), but this weird stalking and bullying says more about them than it does about CPCs.
Re: the CPC bullying – all one usually has to do is follow the money trail to learn why politicians want the CPCs pushed out. Follow the $$.
Pro-aborts want CPCs gone because of exactly what you said, Mary Lee: most women don’t want to abort. Abortion defenders and abortion clinics know this and see CPCs, which offer women the help they need to do what they are wanting to do, as a direct threat to their cash cow.
I agree, Mary Lee. Why this obsession? It’s totally bizarre. Have any women been maimed at a CPC? Killed at one? Can’t they just walk out if they feel they are not getting the services they expected?
I hope this one is taken to court and eventually thrown out.
“Pro-aborts’ obsession with CPCs is psychotic.” – pot, meet kettle.
“They’re not preaching to anyone, or lying” – that has been shown to be less than accurate.
“they don’t do abortions. If pro-aborts are so about “choice” then why don’t they back off?” – because CPC’s aren’t about choice.
“What a bunch of bullies.” – do we require another kitchen apparatus introduction?
Reality, you have no arguments, as I stated in my first post. You have no science, no logic, NOTHING. You are pro-abortion, and so is anyone else who uses the word “choice” as a euphemism.
And yeah, my CPC nearby is so “psychotic” and “pushy” that women constantly praise them for their patience and generosity. I am such a bully that I regularly volunteer to help the needy and poor. Ugh. Enough already. Just go to another board, you have NOTHING to contribute here.
Pro-Choice supporters dislike CPC’s because of the false advertizing they do and the medically incorrect information they give out.
At Planned Parenthood pregnant women are given ALL options not just the ones accepted by the church.
This may come as a surprise to you but Planned Parenthood offers ADOPTION referrals to all women considering abortion. I just called my local PP here in Portland OR and asked who they refer pregnant women looking for adoption services and they told me they refer them to Open Adoption here in town.
http://www.openadoptionfamilyservices.com
Do CPC’s refer pregnant women wanting an Abortion to another clinic to have the procedure done? I didn’t think so.
One persons Healthcare should be dictated by another person’s religion.
Biggz, please. Would a rehab clinic refer patients to the nearest meth lab? So they don’t offer abortion, so what? The women are free to leave and go to PP if they really, rilly rilly want to abort their babies. You guys aren’t for “choice,” you’re for abortion, period.
No Mary CPC’s are not telling women the whole truth or offering them every option that are protected by the federal government.
CPC’s are not abortion rehab centers and medical decisions should not be guided by someone else’s religious views. If we were for abortion period we would not offer adoption and social services referrals.
You see we walk the walk of reproductive CHOICE by offering all options and leaving the decision to the patient. There is no service a CPC’s offers that a PP cannot offer as well however the same cannot be said in reverse.
I would have no problem with CPC’s if they offered abortion referrals to women who ask for them.
Forget it, not worth it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Biggz, where is it written that abortion must be offered at CPC’s? What part of ABORTION ALTERNATIVES do you not understand? CPC’s do not offer or refer for abortions, and what is wrong with that? What is to stop women from leaving a CPC if she wants an abortion? We can’t force anyone to use our services. And if she wants an abortion — ever here of a little invention known as the telephone book?
Also, many CPC’s offer RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, places where women can stay during and after their pregnancies. I know, because I used to volunteer for one: http://blessedmargarethome.org/ Yes, it was run by the “dreaded” Catholics.
So anything CPC’s can do, PP can do better? If this is true, please name one residential facility run by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. where women who choose to carry their babies to term but have limited financial resources can stay, free of charge.
Well I just called PP back and they referred me to http://pregnancyhousing.com/ without hesitation. So far they have been able to offer me any service I inquire about…
In order to be a responsible healthcare provider you must offer your patient ALL legal options to address their problem and let them decide what is best for them and their family. CPC’s do not tell the whole truth and even tell lies about things like “Fetal Pain” which has never been proven to even exist.
I am not saying that CPC’s do not help some women, I am just saying they are not being truthful to their patients and that is wrong.
Biggz, according to PP’s own statistics, 97% of the services they offer to pregnant women consist of — abortion. Only about 3% are adoption referrals or pre-natal care. We have discussed these figures here many times before.
(Please don’t mix up services to pregnant women with total services to all women. The point is that a pregnant woman going to PP has a 97% chance of having an abortion).
No matter what they say when people ask on the phone as you did, statistics don’t lie. Sure, if a pregnant woman explicitly asks about adoption, they’ll have to give the referral, but their concern is pushing the abortion. It’s obvious that either most pregnant women who go to PP don’t ask about adoption or giving birth, or PP doesn’t bother to tell them.
It’s clear that PP isn’t fully informing women about all their options, or the percentage of abortions would be much lower.
Well Biggz might I suggest you make an appointment at PP as a scared, pregnant 14 year old girl and see what happens?? Tell them you don’t know what to do. Tell them you want to see the ultrasound and are considering keeping the baby.
You might just be the next Lila Rose!!
:)
I hate those organic co-op stores, they are so preachy and obsessed with their belief that organic food is better! Why, I went to one and asked for ramen noodles and was actually told* ‘we don’t carry anything with msg in it, would you like a flyer about the negative health aspects associated with msg?’ How dare they! I mean, I know they advertize as ‘local, organic food’ but, really! There are so many more choices out there! Don’t their care about the people that come through their doors? Why, it’s almost as if they don’t want me to buy processed foods. Shesh, I think all organic food stores should be forced to offer a referal to the local McDonalds if someone comes into their store hungry.
*no, not really, I made it up for humor, but I have been told ‘we don’t carry that’ when I didn’t realize I was in an organic only store and asked for something. And I have seen similiar flyers displaced at organic food stores.
“you have no arguments, as I stated in my first post. You have no science, no logic, NOTHING” – I didn’t see any in your comment Mary Lee.
The stats you cite aren’t meaningful Lori. Pregnant women go to PP for? If they aren’t seeking an abortion they usually stick with their family doctor or similar. So it’s hardly surprising that most pregnant women who attend PP’s are seeking abortions. Yet PP’s do indeed provide a wide array of services for men and women who aren’t pregnant. How many STD and contraceptive services do CPC’s provide compared to PP’s?
Reality, the burden of proof is on the pro-aborts, not pro-lifers. You haven’t a leg to stand on.
I’ve got no beef with CPC’s.
Thank you Hal! Seriously, you seem to be the only reasonable PCer here!
“the burden of proof is on the pro-aborts, not pro-lifers. You haven’t a leg to stand on.” – why? Do you consider yourself to be ‘in the right’ simply because you think you are? That’s sounds more like totschweigtaktik than an argument. You’ve made nothing but emotive comments.
We’ve all seen the alleged indiscretions of PP presented here, we’ve also seen alleged indiscretions by CPC’s. So I have as much of ‘a leg to stand on’ as you Mary Lee.
I 100% agree with Reality!
Lori – You stated yourself that at least 3% of women going to a PP for an abortion have second thoughts and ask to be referred to an adoption center. How many women do CPC’s refer to abortion clinics? Also every single woman who enters a PP for an abortion is asked if they would like to see the ultrasound “as they have to do one for the procedure anyway” and most decide not to view it of their own free will, but it is still offered. Stop watching internet videos edited to make a political point and just go into a PP near you and see for yourself.
Also Reality is right abortion is less than 5% of total services administered at PP. CPC’s do nothing else to help anyone else.
Planned Parenthood helps more people in one day than CPC’s can do in a whole year. Do you have any idea how many unwanted pregnancies PP prevents without abortion? Birth control, vasectomies, to keep unwanted pregnancies numbers down and STD screening, treatment, and prevention to insure babies are born disease free. Not to mention cervical, ovarian, and breast cancer screenings to keep parents healthy.
So how many services do CPC’s offer?
According to Guttmacher, 73% of women that get abortions say “can’t afford a baby now” is a contributing factor to their decision. I wonder if PP and other abortion clinics tell these women about the help available through CPC’s and other sources?
Also every single woman who enters a PP for an abortion is asked if they would like to see the ultrasound “as they have to do one for the procedure anyway” and most decide not to view it of their own free will,
If this were true, Biggz, why is PP, along with every other abortion organization in the country, furiously fighting against laws that would allow women at abortion clinics the chance to see their ultrasounds? Why fight against this if they’re already doing it 100% of the time? What fantasy land do you live in?
You just proved my point for me, Reality. PP’s main business with pregnant women is abortion. There is no more than a token effort at anything else.
There is a difference between offering a woman an ultrasound and mandating that she have one Lori. The laws wouldn’t ‘allow’ it, they would ‘force’ it.
Comparing CPC’s offered services with PP’s offered services is like comparing a burger with fries against a degustation menu. PP’s offer such a vast array of services compared with CPC’s that it’s not a valid comparison.
Oh, yeah, the injustice and horror of seeing your baby on the ultrasound and making an informed decision! *GASP!*
Pffft. Pro-aborts rely on obfuscation to make sure women abort. They don’t care about women, they most certainly don’t care about babies, and they cower at the technology that shows how flimsy their slogans and excuses are. It’s like watching vampires shield themselves from sunlight.
No injustice or horror at seeing an ultrasound Mary Lee. The injustice and horror is in being forced to do so if you don’t wish to. A pregnant woman knows what is inside her, it is her choice as to whether or not she wants to see an ultrasound of it. You know, like when Gerard said he and his wife refused a certain test during gestation, it was their choice and I applaud them.
@Mary Lee: Don’t forget Doug! I disagree with Doug on…just about everything ever, going off his posts, but he’s most definitely not a troll or an idiot.
The railing against the ultrasound by pro-aborts is telling. Obviously you don’t WANT to see the baby you will kill. Not the same thing as passing on a test that would result in one saying “whether or not my child has Down Syndrome, they have the right to live”……Not the same thing as deciding whether you want to find out your baby’s sex……No, pro-aborts don’t want women to see their babies, because then they are less likely to abort. True story.
Alice, yes! I forgot about Doug! My bad. Okay this post makes no sense because I can’t type on my phone!
Oh! And the whole “abortion is only 5%” argument is lame lame lame. Hey, I’m a se cular pro-lifer. I think the other work PP does is great. But abortion is so egregious, it can’t be ignored. Essentially this agrument is “the gruesome, brutal killing of babies is only 5% of this business.” What is that? “Cutting people up and incinerating their bodies is only 5% of what we do.” ….gross.
“A pregnant woman knows what is inside her…”
I’d like to believe that, but with the number of pro-choicers constantly going on about how the unborn are “just a mass of tissue”, for example, what’s the harm in making sure she really knows what is inside of her?
“A pregnant woman knows what is inside her”…..so, her child, her baby….who has no right to live apparently? Uh. Why be afraid to look at an ultrasound. People look at their tumors and fractures and cavities….but pro-aborts want to make sure women don’t see their babies. Why? Well, we know why.
By the by, Hal, you have a special place in my heart! I don’t know why, but you do seem like such a good-hearted person, even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything.
There is a difference between offering a woman an ultrasound and mandating that she have one Lori. The laws wouldn’t ‘allow’ it, they would ‘force’ it.
Wrong as usual, Reality. As Biggz stated, an ultrasound is a routine and in fact necessary procedure during an abortion. No law really needs to mandate it. What these laws do is to mandate that a woman be given a chance (not forced to) view the ultrasound if she desires. This is what PP and other abortionists do not want at all costs. Of course they’re going to lie. You have to look at the actual text of the bills.
No Lori, it is you who is wrong. The information speaks for itself. Show me the bill in say, Texas.
I’m sure that some CPCs try to act as impartially as possible, but their entire mission is to dissuade women from choosing abortion. How can a woman be sure that her test results and ultrasound are accurate? What recourse does a pregnant woman have if an unscrupulous CPC volunteer told her she was 6 weeks pregnant instead of 8? Obviously, this woman might have difficulty getting an abortion if she’s actually further along than she thinks. Or if she doesn’t get an abortion, she will have missed out on important prenatal care.
I don’t care if CPCs exist or not, or if they try to talk women out of getting abortions. I’m just uneasy about the possibility for misinformation to be given out. And before you jump all over me, I do think women getting abortions should be given the option of seeing an ultrasound. I just think it’s unethical for their eyes to be pried open and forced to watch the screen.
Funny, Megan, PP and other abortion providers have an invested interest in having women abort, but you don’t seem to have any concern about misinformation there — in spite of the multitude of documented evidence that abortion providers constantly lie to women about fetal development. There is abundant eyewitness testimony to that fact from all the post-abortive mothers here. And you’re worried about the mere possibility of misinformation with CPCs? Do you have a shred of evidence?
No Reality, you are the one making all the claims. Suppose you show ME the Texas bill.
“Gov. Rick Perry ceremonially signed House Bill 15, which requires a woman to have a sonogram before electing to have an abortion”
“Under this legislation, a physician is required to display the sonogram image, explain the image and make the fetal heartbeat audible.”
“A woman may opt out of the verbal explanation of the image only if she is pregnant as a result of rape or incest; she is a minor obtaining an abortion under judicial bypass; or the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality.”
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/16168/
Females getting abortions ought to know what they are doing. Seeing an ultrasound or being shown a picture of an embryo or fetus at the stage she is aborting should be mandatory. Blind females should be told what the embryo or fetus looks like at their stage of pregnancy.
There are many cases of females becoming extremely upset because they learned after having an abortion just what it looked like at their stage of pregnancy. They often become strongly in favor of criminalizing abortion. Mandatory information makes sense.
Hi Megan,
How are you? It has been awhile!!
You believe it is unethical for a woman eyes to be pried open and forced to watch the screen? Please tell me where in the world that happens!! How do you feel about forced abortions? Unethical too?
Denise Noe,
AMEN!! I got to see for myself just how fully developed a child is at 10 weeks when I miscarried my second child into my hand 5 years after my abortion. I was horrified and beside myself!! THEY LIED TO ME! Flat out told me it was just a bunch of cells! Showed me a cartoon of a bunch of red circles!! Assured me over and over and over again………and I BELIEVED them.
Wonder what the reaction would be if Planned Parenthood offered eye masks and an I-Pod with music prior to the mandatory sonogram!
The Texas type of sonogram law is that state (“Big Government!”) attempting to dissuade women from having an abortion. It’s just a new take on “you’re killing your baby.” One assumes that the doctor would describe the fetus as such – or are they mandated to say “baby?” When it comes to the anti-choice movement, nothing surprises me.
“multitude of documented evidence that abortion providers constantly lie to women about fetal development.”
Could you cite some “evidence” other than Lila Rose sting videos?
“There is abundant eyewitness testimony to that fact from all the post-abortive mothers here”
But commentary about deceptive practices by CPC’s is dismissed. The state of Maryland actually acted on testimony of such deceptive practices. At this point, there has been no, nada, bupkis legal action taken against Planned Parenthood as a result of Lila Rose’s “evidence.” No pending prosecutions, either.
Megan,
What recourse do I have that I was told I was 8 weeks at the mill when I was really closer to 10?
Hal has a special place in my heart as well. :)
5,000+ declarations from women and men for Operation Outcry. They are documented and used in prolife legislation across the country. They are filed in court as friend of the court briefs.
When an ultrasound bill comes up the declarations filed are ones that have to do with women NOT having an ultrasound at all, the screen turned away from them, when asked to see the screen being told NO etc.
http://www.operationoutcry.org
Oh and when a court case comes up men and women in the area are called to testify. While PP execs show up in their power suits and carrying their briefcases brave folks come and talk about their abortion stories. We have changed politicians minds on the spot. Pretty powerful when compared to what PP talks about. “This is between a woman and her doctor” and everything else they blather on about…..whatever they say rings pretty hollow.
http://www.operationoutcry.com/?Page=collecting
Hey Vacation from Reality, why is it you can’t read? You left out this important portion of the same story:
“The bill allows women to opt out of seeing the image and hearing the heartbeat, and requires that they sign a statement acknowledging so prior to receiving the sonogram.”
In other words, they are NOT forced to view the image, just as I said.
CC, I don’t know about the Maryland law, but I followed the New York law very closely. The so-called NARAL investigation did not turn up a single woman who could testify before the City Council about being “misled” by a CPC; in fact there has never been any complaint or lawsuit filed against a CPC in New York City for any of the violations NARAL tried to insist were happening. The report of their “undercover investigation” consisted solely of hearsay by NARAL, as I’ve pointed out to you before. No audio video or other evidence was produced. They could have taken a few tips from Lila Rose.
Naturally the bill passed anyway, because the great majority of the city Council was pro-abortion, as is the mayor. Who needs evidence in that case? Fortunately, a sensible judge has declared the law unconstitutional.
Carla says:
Denise Noe,
AMEN!! I got to see for myself just how fully developed a child is at 10 weeks when I miscarried my second child into my hand 5 years after my abortion. I was horrified and beside myself!! THEY LIED TO ME! Flat out told me it was just a bunch of cells! Showed me a cartoon of a bunch of red circles!! Assured me over and over and over again………and I BELIEVED them.
(Denise) Looks like we’ve got at least one major area of agreement, Carla. There is a lot of confusion and people might not be intimately familiar with all stages of fetal development. Making information about what the aborted embryo or fetus mandatory for females seeking abortion wouldn’t eliminate abortion but it is my belief that it would go a long way to making it actually “rare” even if legal and relatively “safe” for the aborting female (obviously not for the aborted embryo or fetus who is killed).
PP has been listed under BOTH Abortion Alternative and Abortion on the same page in the West Palm Beach, FL phone book. When I pointed this out to the phone company and said how this made the phone company look stupid, that practice stopped.
IMHO PP should be flushed down the toilet.
Denise Noe, YAY US! It is about time!
Why is it that women are perceived to be so FREAKING STUPID when going to a CPC but totally empowered when going to PP??
Um. When the payment arrangement,(Will that be Visa or Mastercard today?)metal table, stirrups, the vacuum and the man in the white coat are not forthcoming do you think women get a clue that they WON’T be getting an abortion? Or do they undress and wait all day?
Good grief.
The tapes that Lila Rose made have done MAJOR damage to the public opinion of PP.
PP is going down.
Down the toilet, Patty. :)
No form of manipulation or coercion is acceptable, Carla.
I found this line of yours kind of funny: “Pretty powerful when compared to what PP talks about. “This is between a woman and her doctor” and everything else they blather on about…..whatever they say rings pretty hollow”
So should we start the practice of making medical decisions before a jury? How about women who want to have babies–should they have to explain their rationale to the public??? This could get fun!
I didn’t say manipulation or coercion. I said FORCE.
What doctor?
The abortionist?? The man/woman in the white coat that spends less than 5 min. with women while he kills their child? Sorry but he is only there for that reason. Not to lend a listening ear and counsel her.
Obama once said, “Abortion is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her spouse and her pastor.”
Hmmmm. I didn’t have a doctor, a spouse or a pastor.
It’s just another slogan, Megs.
And back to the point. When PP comes to testify in court they blather on. All they have are slogans that ring hollow when women and men tell their abortion stories.
9-10 women testified for the WI No Coercion Bill. PP got up and walked out during their testimonies.
http://www.wrtl.org/pdf/CoercionLegisAnalysis052107.pdf
And you ignored this bit that I posted Lori –
“A woman may opt out of the verbal explanation of the image only if she is pregnant as a result of rape or incest; she is a minor obtaining an abortion under judicial bypass; or the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality.”
So even if she doesn’t want to view it she is forced to listen to a description except in the circumstances described.
I believe it’s Ohio which has a very similar law.
From the people who keep saying that government shouldn’t interfere in peoples’ lives – unless you don’t like what some people are doing, then you scream for government interference.
OK like I stated before… every single woman who enters a PP for an abortion is given the option to view her ultra sound. They don’t force her to look at it and they don’t hide it from her. That Rick Perry law FORCES women to look at an ultrasound they may not want to see. The last time I was at PP a woman came out of the health center having just had an abortion. Her mother who was waiting for her in the waiting room asked her if she looked at her ultrasound and she replied “Yes I did and it looked like a little blob”
Let me state this one more time…
EVERY SINGLE WOMAN WHO ENTERS INTO A PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOR AN ABORTION IS GIVEN THE OPTION TO VIEW HER ULTRASOUND BEFORE THE PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED!
So what is the need for the law unless you are trying to force women to do something against their will to make your own political point?
Also PP can be listed in the phonebook as an abortion provider and a abortion alternatives provider because PP offers ALL OPTIONS! Nationwide abortions at PP make up 5% of total services administered, but you guys call them an abortion business??? If McDonalds total sales shows that fish sandwiches make up 5% of the sandwiches they sell does that mean they are a seafood joint?
The other 95% of what PP does is Pregnancy test, birth control, cancer screenings, STD detection and treatment, vasectomies, and other sexual health advice. Now before you start talking about how much money PP makes from abortion vs. all their other services, it is important to note that most of the other services are covered by insurance and the federal government. Even the price for an abortion is subject to the patient’s financial situation and gaged on a sliding scale, which means they try to keep the cost as low as possible. Most of the price of an abortion goes to having the bio-waste incinerated. At my local PP the employees donate a percentage of their own PAYCHECKS to a fund for women who cannot afford their abortion services.
They donate their own money to help women who have none… Yep it’s all about making money at PP…..
Realty: “From the people who keep saying that government shouldn’t interfere in peoples’ lives – unless you don’t like what some people are doing, then you scream for government interference.”
Really? There’s a slew of people around me every day, and I don’t like what they’re doing. I don’t think laws ought to be passed on that account, though.
I just think the unborn ought to be protected in law and welcome in life.
Nothing hypocritical or weird about that. Yes, keep government TINY at the federal level. Let states do what they want.
There’s nothing inconsistent between that kind of political viewpoint and the idea that the unborn are entitled to protection in law. None whatsoever.
Do you understand that?
“There’s a slew of people around me every day, and I don’t like what they’re doing. I don’t think laws ought to be passed on that account, though.” – I agree rasqual, difficult though it is at times.
Yet – “I just think the unborn ought to be protected in law and welcome in life.”
So is it “I don’t think laws ought to be passed on that account, though.” or not?
“Yes, keep government TINY at the federal level. Let states do what they want.” – not as an outright disagreement with you at this point but, why specifically do you say that?
“There’s nothing inconsistent between that kind of political viewpoint and the idea that the unborn are entitled to protection in law.” – hm, I think I’ll mull that one over.
“Yet – ‘I just think the unborn ought to be protected in law and welcome in life.’ So is it ‘I don’t think laws ought to be passed on that account, though.’ or not?”
“On that account” = my mere irritation with other people’s behavior.
Pro-lifers aren’t advocates for the unborn because we’re irritated with those who get abortions, Reality. We believe in legal protections because we believe the unborn are suffering grave, terminal, irreparable injustice.
If you really think those who favor minimal government intrusion into people’s lives are hypocritical for favoring legal protections for the unborn, then you’d have to consider us hypocrites for favoring legal protections for even the born — because our grounds for both are that the persons deserve protection. You’d actually have to deem us hypocrites for favoring any law at all. But that’s stupid. Everyone believes in some number of laws; that someone believes in less than you doesn’t mean they’re obliged to believe in none, or fewer than they do — any more than someone who believes in somewhat more government regulation is obliged to advocate totalism. If you think small-goverment folks are hypocritical for wanting just one more law (protecting the unborn), then I could as easily claim that big government types are hypocrites for NOT wanting that very abortion law to be in place (“I thought you favored bigger government? Well, that’s bigger government. Hypocrite!”)
Either way is absurd.
Tiny federal government? Why do I advocate that? Because I believe the policies that most affect us should be put in play by people close to us, not huge bureaucracies distant from us both geographically and politically. Politicians whose work most affects us should be within marching distance of a pitchfork and torch mob of their constituents.
This applies to business, too. I think we’d be better off with more local businesses and fewer that are controlled by interests far away. Dittos for banks.
I’m more and more a distributist with each passing year.
Reality, my point was not about whether women by law must be given complete information about fetal development; so that’s why I didn’t say anything about that part of the article.
You, on the other hand, swore up and down that women were going to be forced by Texas law to view their ultrasounds. Then you went and looked at the article, saw that you were wrong, “edited” the article to remove the proof that I was right, and posted it. Then you have the nerve to claim that I’m the one who ignored part of the article, in order to to cover up your own deceit??
Typical of your childish stunts. I was merely trying to be kind when I suggested up there that you were illiterate. You are actually a liar. Did you really think I wasn’t going to look at the article?
By the way, do you think women should be given complete information about the development of the fetus or not? You believe in women making an informed decision, don’t you – or don’t you?
By the way Reality, where did I ever say here that government shouldn’t interfere with people’s lives? I have never made such s statement here or elsewhere. Instead of making sweeping generalizations about prolifers, why don’t you try actually thinking for a change?
“We believe in legal protections because we believe the unborn are suffering grave, terminal, irreparable injustice.” – I dig. I disagree, but I dig.
“If you really think those who favor minimal government intrusion into people’s lives are hypocritical for favoring legal protections for the unborn…” – No, probably not. Yet so many ‘pro-lifers’ also have other viewpoints which they would really, really like to see enacted in law. That would be where the hypocrisy takes place.
“a pitchfork and torch mob of their constituents.” – or you could vote. Or would you still storm the castle if you disagreed with the elected people enacting the policies they campaigned on?
“I think we’d be better off with more local businesses and fewer that are controlled by interests far away” – amen brother! (am I allowed to say that? I only mean it in the colloquial sense)
A distributist. A catholic communist eh? – only joking :-)
I call myself a contributive socialist. I’ll happily admit up front that it is a confused and confusing amalgam but the intent is benign. Not vastly different to your ethos except that I believe in high taxes and fully free health, education, etc. I fully understand a CEO earning 10, 20 or even 30 times what the janitor does, but 100? 1000?
Gee Lori, woe is me. So the images don’t get forcibly pasted to their eyeballs. The point is that women are still being forced to accept information that they may not want or need.
“edited” the article to remove the proof..’ – what, by providing the link for the full article for you to peruse? It would be a bit difficult for me to obfuscate the intent to the extent that you claim.
Again, I point out that one of the extracts I posted was “A woman may opt out of the verbal explanation of the image…’.
It was all there for you to see. All of it.
An informed decision would include the doctor saying that a sonogram will ensure that there is nothing preventing an abortion taking place in the normal manner. All the woman needs to know is the outcome of that check. If she wants more any other information, it is provided. But an informed decision is not the driver when it comes to forcing women to either view a sonogram or listen to a description of it. And that’s the point.
I don’t recall mentioning your name in regard to government not interfering in peoples’ lives. It was in regard to activist conservatives, tea party type folk and the likes of Rick Perry.
Reality: “‘a pitchfork and torch mob of their constituents.’ – or you could vote.”
The image is intended as a proxy for proximity and accessibility — a concern for human scale in government. “Close enough for a mob” implies close enough for a lot more. When the rascals are concentrated in Washington, we lack proximity and access and lobbyists have both.
“I believe in high taxes and fully free health, education, etc. ”
Then you are naive about the knowledge problem, during a period when the pace of change compounds that problem for bureaucracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
That’s just one or two dimensions of the problem.
It’s fascinating that many favor centralized control during a period where crowdsourcing has proven insanely productive and yields ridiculous benefits. Consider real-time crowdsourcing of speed data that affects google maps routing and nav in Androids; Google’s use of crowdsourcing will affect how tens of billions are spent on infrastructure because it changes how people drive. And yet leftists imagine that a small handful of commisars can do better, despite the immense inertia of such bureaucracies.
Obviously some things profit from economies of scale. But others don’t. Folks like me who advocate for smaller government believe in part that we’re just reacting to lunatics who don’t even know what the knowledge problem is, and who think Obama’s Keynesian adventures have spared us an even worse fate.
Implement your ambitious beliefs about “free” stuff (a naive term, “free”) in your state. If it works there, try to foist it on me in my state by making it a national issue if you wish.
50 labs, not 1.
Reality why do you regard this as “forcing” women, instead of fulling informing them?
Oh never mind. I know you will either not understand this question or not be able to provide an honest answer.
I’m done with you.
Why do so many women choose life after viewing the ultrasound of their growing child?
Ponder that.
Reality said, “Woe is me. So the images don’t get forcibly pasted to their eyeballs. The point is that women are still being forced to accept information that they may not want or need.”
Reality also said, “I believe in high taxes and fully free health, education, etc.”
Should children be forced to go to school? At school they are “being forced to accept information that they may not want or need.” And at what point does a child become a young woman?
Also, “forcibly pasting images onto eyeballs” is a strong metaphor to make your point. I can think of stronger imagery that’s not just a metaphor–and it has a point, too, even a literal one if it’s the D&C type. Don’t you see an irony, Reality? But go on constructing your own reality.
Reality,
ALL the woman needs to know is that she can see her baby for herself with her own eyes. She would be able to see and hear the heart beating and the rest of her fully formed human child.
Women who were NEVER shown the ultrasound and would have NEVER had an abortion if they had seen it have much to say about this!!! WHY? Because we have had subsequent children and were HORRIFIED that we weren’t given informed consent before our abortions!!
Yeah. The ultrasound is done for the abortionist. He wants to see it to guide the instruments that kill the child.
Lack of and/or misinformation on several points have been raised in this thread.
1) PP and the like are the ones against the CPCs. PP, etc. got the phone company to put these heading in their phone books. Someone was dumb and should not have listed themselves under both of the following headings:
Abortion Alternatives
Note: Organizations Listed At This Heading Assert That They Provide Assistance, Counseling And/Or Information On Abortion Alternatives And That They Do Not Provide Abortion Services Or Counseling Or Information On The Attainment of Abortion.
Abortion Services
Note: Businesses At This Heading Assert That They Perform Abortions Or Refer Clients To Businesses That Do.
2) Our government’s population control agenda signed on April 24, 1974 by and is known as the Kissinger Report – NSSM 200 http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/NSSM%20200%20Executive%20Summary.htm. Sounds like these ideas are now being focused on the the people of our own country.
Specific goals of the NSSM 200 were, amongst others:
•Securing [US] control over “mineral and fuel resources” in Africa and other developing regions.
•Maintaining political stability [for continued exploitation]
•Controlling population growth as a key measure to achieve the above goals
Specific recommendations of NSSM 200 included:
•“It is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970’s and 1980’s.”
•“This plan will require vigorous efforts by interested countries. US leadership is essential.”
•“Funding is available for countries considering long-term U.S. interests.”
The thoughtless say, “You are ‘anti-abortion’, but are for war which kills so many innocent people”.
They should google Henry Kissinger and see how he shaped the US war policy to be what it is. See for example http://www.bilderberg.org/kissing.htm This site has a poll asking, “Should Henry Kissinger stand trial for war crimes?” [4493 votes total] 90% voted yes.
Lori, you started this particular line of debate when you said “laws that would allow women at abortion clinics the chance to see their ultrasounds” – which is not quite an accurate representation of either the content or the intent of the legislation.
Let’s see –
“a physician is required to display the sonogram image, explain the image and make the fetal heartbeat audible.”
“allows women to opt out of seeing the image and hearing the heartbeat, and requires that they sign a statement acknowledging so prior to receiving the sonogram”
“A woman may opt out of the verbal explanation of the image only if she is pregnant as a result of rape or incest; she is a minor obtaining an abortion under judicial bypass; or the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality”
I think the intent is self-evident.
And as before, I will provide the link to the full text.
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/16168/
“The image is intended as a proxy for proximity and accessibility” – I know rasqual, I know. I was just messin’ with you. Not sure how far we are from some people doing so though.
“Then you are naive about the knowledge problem” – I do not believe that things such as health and education should be left to ‘the market’ to provide. In wealthy nations these things should be freely provided for all. I don’t have a problem with them being provided at a local level.
There are a number of nations which provide comprehensive health and education via the auspices of the state. Many of these nations present better statistical sets when it comes to levels of education, health, crime rates, teen pregnancy rates and numerous other social indices. Part of that is a smaller divide between rich and poor.
Patty wrote, “This site has a poll asking, ‘Should Henry Kissinger stand trial for war crimes?’ [4493 votes total] 90% voted yes. ”
There sure are a lot of thoughtless people, aren’t there? I have some respect for Henry Kissinger, though I don’t know much about him. I did read the first chapter of his new book ON CHINA. According to Hugh Hewitt, it acquaints the reader with the thousands of years of Chinese history which informed Mao’s revolution and then leads us through the details of the past 40 years of Sino-U.S. diplomacy.
“There are two slightly different purposes in writing the book,” Kissinger told Mr. Hewitt in a wide-ranging interview.
“One is to explain how Chinese think about international affairs to non-Chinese,” he continued. “Not to explain the Chinese point of view so much as to explain the way of thinking, the different concepts of time, and the different concepts of deterrence and defense that the Chinese have.”
The second purpose is aimed at the Chinese. “Now as far as the Chinese are concerned, what my book might do is show them how their actions are interpreted by other countries, and therefore, to the extent that they care about what other countries think, to enable them to conduct a policy that leads to cooperation
rather than confrontation, if that is the decision they have made.”