by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Some thoughts on Gosnell from Ramesh Ponnuru:

    The question that should haunt us now is not how many victims Gosnell killed, which we will never know, but how many more Gosnells there are in our country.

  • And from Robert George, who I hope is correct:

    Late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell has been convicted of first degree murder for killing babies after delivering them alive….But Dr. Gosnell is only the front man; and the real trial has only just begun. The defendant is the abortion license in America.


Instead, you would be left with the false idea that Gosnell was some lone wolf provider who preyed on women (the same women NAF clinics sent to him), that Pennsylvania’s unenforced abortion restriction led to Gosnell, that no level of restrictions would have stopped Gosnell (umm… how about regular inspections?), that the NAF’s application process is rigorous (so rigorous that a NAF clinic hired Gosnell), and that “women can be assured of receiving high-quality care at NAF member facilities” (except for that just-closed NAF clinic in North Carolina).


  • You wouldn’t know it from their press release about abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s conviction and “justice being served,” but NARAL opposes a law Gosnell was convicted of breaking 21 times. That’s right. NARAL opposes Pennsylvania’s late-term abortion ban:

    NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortion so long as they contain adequate exceptions to protect the woman’s life and health. NARAL Pro-Choice America opposes Pennsylvania’s post-viability restriction because the health exception is dangerously narrow. NARAL Pro-Choice America also opposes this law because it is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortion by defining viability at 24 weeks.

Something tells me president Ilyse Hogue (pictured, above right) isn’t going to be noting NARAL’s opposition to Pennsylvania’s post-viability ban on MSNBC anytime soon.

  • At LifeSiteNews, Michael New discusses the latest Gallup polling may hold good news for pro-lifers:

    Respondents were more likely to describe themselves as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice” by a 48 to 45 percent margin. Prior to May 2009, the “pro-choice” position was always more popular in Gallup surveys. However, this most recent survey marks the sixth time in the last nine Gallup surveys where respondents were more likely to describe themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.” Overall, this survey contributes to a nice body of evidence that pro-lifers have indeed made long-term gains in the court of public opinion.


[Photos via;]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...