In a November 26 Washington Post essay, political scientists John McTague and Melissa Deckman reported news of epic proportions to pro-lifers while dissecting why the “war on women” meme bombed in the 2014 Midterms:

NARAL has posted this interesting graphic:

The 5th rule in Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, which is the playbook of the Left (even taught by President Barack Obama when he was a law professor), is:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

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

• ProLifeBlogs shares a post from After Abortion detailing the death of an Italian woman from RU-486, which was administered in a hospital. This is the first known death in Italy due to the chemical abortion pill.

Leslie at The Passionate Prolifer Turned Abolitionist took exception this week to KNUS talk show host Krista Kafer, also a fellow at Colorado Christian University, who said, according to Leslie, “she wouldn’t have a problem voting for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate since abortion is just one of a number of issues women care about.”

People are such lemmings. Now that Planned Parenthood has decided the abortion movement’s most prized obfuscation, “pro-choice,” is uncool, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon.

Suddenly, ‘”[p]ro-choice sounds stark, institutional and impersonal,” proclaimed ad agency exec Shireen Jiwan of Sleuth in the AdWeek post, “How 6 ad women would rebrand pro-choice.”

Womankind’s Sandy Sabean added, “What needs to be made clearer is that what we are against is anti-choice.” Well, that really does clear things up. I’d think the correct phrase would then be “pro-choice,” but what do I know?

by Kelli

Comedian Andy Kline (pictured right) gained some attention from NARAL this week on Twitter for his 2012 joke about transvaginal ultrasound laws.

The female author of this Upworthy article, which includes Kline’s comedy routine transcript, says Kline “makes an excellent point,” but I can’t seem to find it:

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

• Wesley J. Smith says the bioethics community is finally beginning to criticize artificial reproduction techniques like IVF – but not for the reasons you might think:
  

  But now, in the ever more radical Journal of Medical Ethics, Cristina Richie, of Boston College’s Department of Theology, argues that these technologies should be regulated to limit the number of children – called “carbon legacies,” as a means of fighting climate change.

  Smith opines:
  

  I don’t know if Richie coined the term, but it is ridiculous. Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers…. No, grim is the exploitation of surrogates in biological colonialism and the eugenic impetus that has sunk its fangs deep into the heart of the industry. In the face of such human objectification, sorry, I can’t get upset about global warming.