Jivin J’s Life Links 1-26-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- At the Philly Post, Morgan Zalot (who describes herself as being “100% pro-choice”) examines Kermit Gosnell’s abortion business and asks “What About the Mothers?”:
Infant Safe Haven laws, or “Baby Moses laws,” date back to 1999, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. The laws allow parents (in some states, just the mother) to surrender their newborns at a designated site without consequence if they are unable to keep the baby. In PA, parents can surrender an infant to a hospital or health care facility up to 1 month after birth, and all they’re asked to provide is some medical history information.
Women who knowingly procured the murders of their babies – the ones carried almost to term, delivered, then brutally killed with scissors – at Gosnell’s “clinic,” then, have no real excuse for doing what they did. In those cases where mothers went willingly, knowing what would happen at Gosnell’s practice, the babies are the victims. The women aren’t.
- The Philadelphia Daily News notes the most common problems at the 14 other PA abortion clinics who were ordered to make corrections:The most common recent deficiencies at the other abortion clinics, according to records obtained by the Associated Press, were failures to properly report medical conditions that qualify as “serious events” and not keeping resuscitation equipment readily available.
- On Monday, NJ Gov. Chris Christie spoke at a pro-life rally in NJ:
“What I encourage all of you to do is what I will continue to do, which is to speak calmly and clearly and forthrightly for the idea that this is an issue whose time has come,” Christie said.
Christie told the crowd that he has not always been anti-abortion. It wasn’t until his wife Mary Pat Christie became pregnant with their daughter Sarah, who is 14, that he changed his position.
“It was at that moment that it became clear to me that being on the sidelines on that issue was not something that I could live with,” Christie said. “That child is a life which deserves protection.”
This led the Star-Ledger editorial board to wet their collective pants.
- At the FRC Blog, Rob Schwarzwalder points out the contradictions in President Obama’s statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
On the other hand, Mr. Obama says he remains “committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”
My question: Why? If abortion is a morally neutral and even beneficial choice (gotta fulfill those dreams, right?), why promote alternatives to it? The rhetorical landscape of the President’s statement is replete with the presupposition that personal choice is the supreme good, meaning that abortion and adoption are merely achromatic options on the palette of ethical choices.
Additionally, if choice is the summum bonum, why be “committed” to alternatives to one of those choices whose exercise involves an activity – the destruction of a life – fundamentally contrary to all the others? The self-contradiction is transparent, startlingly so.
[Christie photo via nj.com; Obama image via yidwithlid.blogspot.com]
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.
President Barrak Hussein Obama’s remarks commemorating the 38th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision which ‘decrimimalized’ elective abortion and effectively declared the pre-natal child a non-human/non-person:
“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
=========================================================
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Killing 40 million people? Now, that’s green!
Genghis Khan hailed as environmentalist for ‘scrubbing’ humanity’s carbon footprint
Posted: January 25, 2011
7:08 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255473#ixzz1C9HTGt1B
“Who knew that killing 40 million people could be hailed as having a “positive” effect on global warming?” [Robert Berger would tell us, ‘It’s a good start.]
“The research on Khan’s net effect on the environment was first published in the climate-change journal The Holocene, prompting [enviro-journalist Bryan] Nelson to pen his article titled “Was Genghis Khan History’s Greenest Conqueror?”
“So how exactly did Genghis Khan, one of history’s cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card?” Nelson writes. “The reality may be a bit difficult for today’s environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire – with a high body count.”
“Julia Pongratz of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology was lead author of the study into Khan’s environmental impact.”
“The research has already been reported widely, not only on Mother Nature News, but also in newspapers around the world and on conservationist websites like Mongabay and Planetsave, the latter of which hailed Khan as “an environmentalist.”
“Columnists and commentators aside, the researchers behind the study claim their research is relevant to today’s climate controversies, but left specific application of their findings somewhat vague.”
==============================================================
The ‘specific application of their findings’ is NOT vague to any one with average intelligence who is paying attention.
Depopulation has long been a tactic of ‘choice’ for the humanists who perceive there could possibly be a problem which might be alleviated by the elimination of a few million people and they usually have particular class of people in mind.
I may have to rescind my apology to Genghis Khan for associating him with ‘Barak the Barbarian’.
There may be some basis for suggesting an equivalency between the two.
I posted this on Ms. Zalot’s message board.
I am confused why people who have no problem with a women choosing to terminate a pregnancy then push THEIR views on WHEN the pregnancy can no longer be terminated. If a fetus is not a life and the mother’s bodily autonomy trumps all as pro-choicers so often argue, then WHO CARES if the women were 8 months pregnant? Either the fetus is human life and should always be protected or the fetus is not human life and who gives a crap when the mother decides to abort. There is no magical moment during pregnancy where you can say “Aha! This fetus has suddenly transformed into a baby!” You pro-choicers talk about with the internet there is no excuse for ignorance. Take your own advice and learn biology. Please. You judge these moms when you are equally as callous and clueless. Talk about judgmental! Way to be “pro-woman”. You can’t have it both ways Ms. Zalot.
I am sure it will be deleted promptly in true tolerant pro-choice fashion.
If you are ”100% pro-choice”, why would you object to the crimes committed by Gosnell in Philadelphia?
“Pro-choice” means that you would allow all human beings to be killed in the first nine months of life and that you would allow us all to be deprived of every last minute of our human lifespans.
Having taken such a position, how can you have any objection to anything Gosnell did to those children, all of whom you would have allowed to be destroyed?
You cannot have it both ways. Either we have a right to live our lives or we do not. If not, and our lives are taken from us, so what?
Barrak the barbarian in his remarks commemorating/celebrating Roe v Wade;
” I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that…
1. support pregnant women and mothers,
2. encourage healthy relationships,
3. and promote adoption.”
While not all mothers are pregnant women, all pregnant women are mothers in the broad sense of the term, ‘mother’.
Why does the ‘babarian’ feel the need to make this distinction between pregnant women and mothers in the context of ‘family’ matters?
Where are the programs the ‘barbarian’ promotes that support pregnant women, except the women who are choosing to ‘CHOICE‘ their pre-natal child?
When Former democRAT senator and aspiring democRAT nominee John Edwards was pressuring his mistress to ‘CHOICE‘ their love child, what do you think that did for Edward’s relationship with his then cancer stricken wife?
What do think it did for Edward’s relationship with his mistress.
And what effect do you think it will have on the relationship between Edwards love child and himself when the love child inevitably discovers his/her sire wanted to have him/her killed?
Please explain to us how using federal funds to subsidize elective abortion/’CHOICE‘ promotes adoption.
Please demonstrate one tangible example of how your administration has done anything to promote adoptions.
===========================================================
The Newark Star-Ledger’s editorial was the usual empty abortionist drivel and doublespeak.
Unhappily, the media have always been completely clueless when it comes to unborn human rights.
Folks, here is a column by Karen Heller, who writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer. She is staunchly PC, so I am pleasantly surprised by her call for stricter regulation of abortion clinics, and her admission that the Gosnell case is not that unusual. Of course, I disagree that abortion is like any other surgery, but at least she is honest.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/karen_heller/20110126_Karen_Heller__Politics_clouded_the_safeguards_against_practices_like_Gosnell_s.html
Wow! Phillymiss thanks for the article link. Is anyone going to go after all the public health, regulatory, medical and political officials who knew about Gosnell and the “House of Horrors” and never lifted a finger to do anything? God help us. This is what abortion-on-demand breeds, a culture of lies, greed, deception, coverups, irresponsibility and death. “Don’t blow the whistle because we might jeopadize the right to slaughter the unborn.” And they call us pro-lifers “fetus lovers”, “anti-abortion zealots”, I’ll take their name-calling any day over what they condone, promote, embrace and justify.
“Don’t blow the whistle because we might jeopardize the right to slaughter the unborn.”
Isn’t that just the truth, though? The ‘logic’ is so utterly mind-boggling! ‘We need these safe services more than we need them to be…well, safe.’ Huh?
Obama’s words are so sad — so we have to have the “right” to kill our own flesh and blood in order to be equal to men?
As for Gosnell, this article is all the more eye-opening because as I mentioned, the author is about as PC as they come. One thing she didn’t mention — I wonder if his clinic would have been allowed to operate in wealthy neighborhoods like Chestnut Hill or Center City. I don’t think so!
phillymiss, he wouldn’t have bothered, anyway. He was too busy preying on the vulnerability of financially unstable mothers. :(
But you’re right on in that he wouldn’t have lasted in a wealthy neighborhood. Money talks. :-(
In her article, Morgan Zalot at the Philly Post suggests that Save Haven Laws could have saved babies in PA. That’s a great point. It seems that many people aren’t aware of them until a related story hits the news. If the Save Haven laws were discussed in sex-ed classes and better advertised, for example by putting posters in schools, health clubs, doctors’ offices, etc., the number of abortions could be reduced. Perhaps this is already being done, but I’ve never seen this type of advertising where I live. I wonder if Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics are required by law to tell pregnant women about this option before they abort their child… If not, why not?
A Good Catholic Joke
The Pope and Obama are on the same stage in Yankee Stadium in front of a
huge crowd.
The Pope leans towards Mr. Obama and said, “Do you know that with one
little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild
with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep
into their hearts and they’ll forever speak of this day and rejoice!”
Obama replied, “I seriously doubt that ~ with one little wave of your
hand? Show me!”
So the Pope backhanded him and knocked him off the stage!
AND THE CROWD ROARED & CHEERED WILDLY!
The first comment for the Star-Ledger editorial started out so clumsily I thought she was pro-life. Then she said what I believe is behind the pro-choice movement: this is all about sex, and we should just get over it!
Following comments were good. Maybe there’s hope for New Jersey yet! Christie in 2016 (if the worst happens in 2012) !
Why? If abortion is a morally neutral and even beneficial choice (gotta fulfill those dreams, right?), why promote alternatives to it?
Obviously (to me, anyway) preventing an unwanted pregnancy is preferable to ending one via abortion, so I’m all for better use of contraception and better access to it, if that’s lacking.
____
Women who knowingly procured the murders of their babies – the ones carried almost to term, delivered, then brutally killed with scissors – at Gosnell’s “clinic,” then, have no real excuse for doing what they did.
Other than what I concede would be quite rare circumstances, I agree with that. If it really was “almost to term,” why in the world would somebody wait that long to have an abortion?
Doug, why would a woman be pregnant so long before seeking an abortion? Because she is probably experiencing a crisis. A crisis that will probably pass, a crisis for which the death of her child is no solution. Husband or boyfriend walked out? Parents found out and threatened pregnant mother with eviction if she gave birth? Panic plain and simple? It could be any of these things. What women need is compassion and help. What they don’t need? Dead babies.
And sometimes, young women/girls are so scared to face the truth, that they’re in denial until they’re that far along.
True, Pamela, and again I’m wondering how far along the women really were. Was it 22 week, 24 weeks, 26…? Or was it really “almost to term”? That’s what I find hard to believe. Given that it can vary a lot from woman to woman, i.e. some few show at a month, most are showing at 3 to 4 months, some not until 6 months or so, but there indeed has to be some serious denial going on to let it go later.
Ninek, yeah, that sure sounds right – some sort of crisis. What a horrible feeling that must be. Again, I question the “almost to term” deal. I remember CDC/Guttmacher Institute figures showing that late enough in gestation, and it’s safer for the woman to give birth than have an abortion, so even regardless of the abortion debate I don’t see it being indicated then.
I’ve known more than one woman who tried to hide a pregnancy. But if a woman had a medical crisis, with how well we can care for premies in hospitals today, there’s no reason to go to someone like Kermit the Fraud for “care.” He’s a serial killer with a shingle. I read an article on abc or msn that the DA’s office in Philly said their phone is ‘ringing off the hook’ with women coming forward with their own stories about him.
Sometimes women just straight up don’t know they are pregnant. There are women who honestly didn’t realize – no tell-tale symptoms, no baby bump – until very late in the pregnancy. Sometimes, they just feel severe, horrendous pain, and they reach down and feel a baby’s head!
I’m surprised pro-aborts haven’t pushed to legalize infanticide in these instances, since the mothers didn’t get to “choose” earlier.