This is a non-graphic beautiful video showing the miracle of life. Please share! I don't know if Ramos David and his affiliates are officially pro-life (though it would certainly seem so), but promoting a culture of life is a way to stop abortion.
The Deadly Coat-hanger
The picture you see there is one of the symbols of the pro-abortion movement. Here is the basis of their claim:
1. Before abortion was legalized in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, thousands and thousands of women got unsafe, illegal abortions, approximately 200,000 to 1.2 million every year. (Thus the coat-hanger image. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.)
2. Because abortion was so dangerous, 5,000-10,000 women died from abortions every year.
3. When abortion was legalized, there was no need to go to money-grubbing back-alley butchers for abortions: women could now go to licensed medical professionals under safe, sanitary conditions.
4. Thus, thousands of women’s lives were/are saved (because they didn’t die from unsafe abortions).
5. If abortion were made illegal, women would begin dying off like flies again.
6. Conclusion: abortion must remain legal.
In reality, there is little basis for this claim. First, the numbers*:
Women perhaps got 1.2 million illegal abortions every year? Really? Then why, the first year after abortion was made legal, were there only 744,600 abortions performed? Legal abortion doesn’t make women decide to be much more careful about getting pregnant. It makes the opposite occur. And this caused the deaths of 5,000-10,000 women? Actually, in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, there were only 39 deaths from illegal abortions. (They were higher in earlier decades, in the hundreds, but the numbers declined dramatically after antibiotics became widely used.)
It’s disturbing how widespread these false figures are. Planned Parenthood uses them. So does NARAL Pro-Choice America. Prominent pro-abortion organizations. And these figures are false. And it’s likely that a good deal of these people know they are false.
‘“In NARAL (the acronym for the then-National Association for the Reform of Abortion Laws) we generally emphasize the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths each year'. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false...But in the `morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Said Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and once the director of the busiest abortion clinic in the Western world. (From Aborting
America, Doubleday, 1979.)’ [Quoted from here.]
Now that we have those fake figures out of the way, let’s do some math. This argument above shouldn’t affect pro-lifers at all. Did women die from unsafe abortions? Yes. (Women actually still die from abortions today.)It is terribly sad, but it isn’t the trump card. Pro-lifers care about life. For both the women and their children.
Assume that 10,000 women would die every year from unsafe abortions if abortion was made illegal again. Assume that the number of illegal abortions would be about the same as it was the first year abortion was legalized: 744,600.
Abortion Illegal: 10,000 + 744,600 = 754,600 deaths.
Abortion Legal: [unknown]** + 1,200,000 = >1,200,000 deaths.
I’ll take the former, please.
*Information gathered from several different websites, trusing that their sources were correct, as I can't look up everything first-hand myself.**This number is uncertain because usually death causes aren't listed as abortion itself, but the specific thing that killed the woman: the type of infection (that was caused by abortion, though abortion isn't mentioned), for example. I am working on another post that discusses deaths related to abortion.
Here is a short list of websites I gathered information from, since I couldn't link to just one when I had a fact.
WEBSITES:
Georgia Right to Life
Why Can't We Love Them Both?
Physicians For Life
Abort 73
Prominent pro-abortion websites that use the fake figures (I don't like to link to them, but here are easy Google searches that will probably make them come up on top):
Our Bodies Ourselves: The Impact of Illegal Abortion
Lessons From Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?
Before and After Roe National Organization for Women
Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet November 2009 Roe v. Wade Did Not Invent Abortion
Image found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
Drowning in a Sea of Statistics
I’ve been gathering information for a post. I fact-gathered yesterday, and thought that I’d get up early this morning, finish putting it together, and then have it all written up and laid out in easy-to-read format for you sometime today.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
I consistently underestimate how much time it takes to put together fact-filled posts. Not because the information is too hard to find, but because it’s much too easy to find way too much of it…and to have all the “facts” contradict each other, proving that most of them aren’t facts at all. I currently have twenty-six internet pages up relating to this upcoming post (Yes, it will get here. Eventually.) and many of them are contradictory. For one simple reason.
Some pages are pro-abortion.
Some pages are pro-life.
Both sides like to manipulate information in their favor. We both believe we’re right, so it can’t hurt to exaggerate the truth if it will help people see the light, right?
Wrong.
Abortion is an extremely complicated issue with about a thousand different angles. The premise is simple: children are being murdered. This should be obvious. Stop child-murder right? To most people, however, this isn’t obvious.
Most of my research is done through Google. I try to find sources that aren’t officially pro-life or pro-abortion, because then there is more pressure to be “neutral”, and therefore probably give the most accurate view. Just the facts, please, ma’am. But it’s impossible to find all of the facts I need from neutral, professional websites. When I look at an obviously biased view (I say obviously. We’re all biased.) I then try to look at what the person’s sources are…most of which aren’t online. Theoretically, I could get my hands on every single book and scientific paper referenced (with hopefully original research) and look at the exact page and sentence, then I truthfully say, “Yep, this is, without a doubt, true.” But I need not elaborate how time-consuming and complicated that would be. Eventually, you have to trust some source, somewhere.
I wish the universe had a reset button. No, not like Noah’s Flood. I mean a truth-and-lies reset button. Where every scrap of information would be erased and we could all start from scratch…or better yet, only the lies would be erased, and then everybody could see what the truth it. Again, unrealistic.
I start questioning why I’m even trying. Why start up yet another blog? It’s like there are two huge orchestras playing two extremely different songs, and then several other mini-orchestras playing variations of one of the two songs, and then there’s…me. With my little penny whistle. Or, more realistically, with my puckered-lips whistle. Which is pitiful. And most of the time doesn’t make any sound.
I’ve Googled my own name and blog, just curious to see what would come up.
I’ve gone twenty pages back in Google and it’s nowhere to be seen.
The only time it’s come up at all is when I Googled the web address itself.
So why am I even trying?
And then I close my eyes and remind myself what’s important. I know what the truth is.
Abortion is wrong.
Dead wrong.
And no statistic can change that.
Sexism Made Private, Quick, and Easy!
Yep, you heard it, folks. There’s an all-new at-home pregnancy test that not only tells you if you’re pregnant…it tells you if you have a girl or a boy as early as seven weeks.
Used just to satisfy your curiosity (some people want to know what they’re having, others would rather be surprised), there is nothing wrong with such tests. I’m not dissing science (I love it myself). But the negative consequences of such tests are unsettling.
 |
| Not exactly relevant, but it made me giggle. |
I consider myself a “mild” feminist, meaning that I’m all for equality for women, all for women having careers, all for motherhood, all against abortions, and I don’t believe right-wing men are trying to take over the world. But you don’t have to be a feminist—or even female--to be disgusted by sex-selective abortions.
(All following gender ratios and percentage estimates from here.)
Biologically, it is more likely to have a boy than a girl. The ratio is roughly, boys to girls, 105 boys for every 100. I have no problem with this. If nothing else, this means that if all girls wanted to get married, they could, while some boys would get left out. (Sorry, guys.) In other parts of the world however, the ratios are different, because boys are considered more desirable than girls, because when they are married, the girls go live with the boy’s family, while the boy will take care of his parents in their old age. The huge difference in the following ratios, boys to girls, is (disregarding the biological “inequality”) because of sex-selective abortions.
China: 120 to 100 (Some places 135 to 100)
India: 107.3 to 100 (Some places 120.7 to 100)
And here is a direct quote from that website, because they explain it better than I could:
“[Douglas] Almond and [Lena] Edlund examined the ratio of boys to girls among US children born to Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents. For the first children of these Asian-American families, the sex ratio was the normal 1.05-to-1. But when the first baby is a girl, the odds of the second being a boy rose to 1.17-to-1. After two sisters, the likelihood of the third being a son leaped to 1.51-to-1.”
I don’t have anything against Asian or Indian people. But needing a boy is kind of rooted in their culture. And therefore so is sex-selective abortion.
That was a long introduction leading up to one point. Abortions are much more common in the first trimester than they are later in the pregnancy. They decrease as the babies get older, because the procedures get more complicated and more expensive. So the women who would not be able to abort their child because they have to wait to find out the gender, and then by the time they find out it’s too late for them to get an abortion, will not be able to get abortions. (Of course, girl babies are no more precious than boy babies. And it’s possible to do sex-selective abortions on boys…just less common.)
These tests have created an interesting dilemma for pro-abortion feminists. Because the women should have the right to choose…to kill their baby girls until they get a boy. Because abortions are always right…unless…maybe…they’re intentionally killing just girls? But, according to them, abortion isn’t immoral, and the babies aren’t people yet. So why should they care?
Because of this awkward contradiction of their beliefs, most pro-abortioners (who are also mostly pro-feminist) have responded with…nothing.
I believe the word you’re looking for, Pro-Feminist-Pro-Abortion people, is, quite simply, “uh-oh”.
PS: I'm extending the days to vote in the polls to the right. Take heed: if I don't get any dissenting votes, I'll go ahead and post those posts. So if you don't want to see them, be sure to tell me. :)
All images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
Yay Government
 |
| Birth Control |
Perhaps some of you have heard the news the government is now forcing insurance companies to cover, among other things, birth control. Because we “deserve” it. And if you haven’t heard, well…you just did.
Planned Parenthood, no huge surprise here, is celebrating this “victory for women”. Now you can prevent pregnancies (or terminate very early ones with the “morning after” pill) all for free! Yay!
Except for, you know, all the problems with this new rule.
Moral convictions aside, regulations like this are the enemy of Capitalism and small government. Short Economics-In-The-Free-Market lesson: if free birth control was really widely wanted and demanded by The People, eventually one of the insurance companies would latch onto this profit-making idea. “Come to us!” their advertisements would say, “and get free birth control!” Then all the people who wanted free birth control would flock to them. The company would make money, and the people would get free birth control. And (here’s the key) everybody who didn’t want birth control wouldn’t go to that company, wouldn’t be morally compromised by being forced to pay for the others’ free birth control.
Because the insurance companies are greedy, right?
This is why the government made them cover birth control in the first place. Insurance companies want to make money. So if they want to make money, they would add free birth control as one of their benefits and make money.
But they didn’t do this on their own. So obviously free birth control isn’t in terribly high demand. Or they would do it without the government forcing them to.
But the government is also forcing The American People to pay for the free birth control. Because the birth control isn’t free. The insurance companies pay for the birth control. And The People pay the insurance companies. See the connection? The government is forcing The People to pay for something they do not want.
Sounds like the opposite of freedom to me. They're the government. We're The People. We tell them what to do, not the other way around.
Besides that, the federal government shouldn’t be messing around in health care at all. It’s not Constitutional. I thought we wanted our “right to privacy”? Simply put:
Dear Government,
Get out of our lives.
Love (or lack thereof),
PS: American People, I'd appreciate it if you could vote in my polls over there to the right. Thanks!
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
The Right to Health and Privacy
I recently watched a short video on why Planned Parenthood’s summer interns “stand with Planned Parenthood”. One of the recurring statements went along the lines of (and sometimes directly on the line of) “I stand with Planned Parenthood because reproductive health is a right, not a privilege.”
…it is?
I wonder how all of the millions of people who have read the US Constitution could have missed that bit. Or perhaps one of us has a misunderstanding of the difference between a “right” and a “privilege”.
(First, may I say, that if you don’t believe in God, rights don’t exist, because no right and wrong exists. Sorry.)
“Right” is defined as something you have a claim on. And, if you have been deprived of that something, somebody or something should give it to you. A privilege is something that is graciously given to you that you don’t have a claim on.
(There is a difference between a God-given right and a government-granted right. I believe that the rights we have in the US are mostly one and the same. So for the sake of simplicity and conciseness, I will be assuming that they are so.)
The US constitution defines what we have a right to. To name a few: the right to life. The right to own arms. The right to peacefully protest. The right to freedom of religion. The right to freedom of speech.
But the “right” to reproductive health? Or to any kind of health, for that matter? While all the rights I just listed above are confirmed in the US Constitution, the word “health” is never mentioned. Nor is the word “privacy”.
The US Constitution does not provide rights for “health”…or “privacy”. (See my blog post on babysitting government.)
Think about it. If somebody really did have a right to health, then it would logically follow that if you are not healthy, others, or the government are required to make you healthy. It gives you a free ticket to make yourself as unhealthy as you want, and then the government is required to give you all the care you need—or, more horrifically, the government is required to make sure you don’t become unhealthy in the first place. Not only is this unrealistic, if it was going on, that would be downright scary. Talk about unlimited government control! Here in the US, I am proud to say, we are free to be stupid if we want to.
The myth of the “Right to Privacy” originated from the third and fourth amendments in the US Constition. The third amendment states that soldiers cannot “quarter” (live) in a civilian’s house without the civilian’s consent. The fourth amendment states that the government can’t give “unreasonable search and seizures” and that “[search] Warrants shall not issue, but upon probable cause”.
But there is no “right to privacy”.
And this is a good thing. The keywords in the fourth amendment are “unreasonable” and “probable”. Think about it: if there really were a right to privacy, then the government wouldn’t be able to do anything at all to punish criminals, so long as they stayed on private property. The government would be unable to investigate the homes of suspected child abusers or wife-beaters or spouse-murderers or ANYTHING that took place on private property. This isn’t limited to just houses. This encompasses anything that is not owned by the government.
Talk about scary.
Normally, I’m all for less government intervention. But there are two times I will make an exception: protection of the citizens from outside forces (“outside forces” meaning anything other than the citizen themselves), and protection of the citizens’ property.
Of course, I'm not saying I want the government to be able to search our houses whenever they want, and it certainly would be nice if everyone was absolutely healthy. But these are not rights.
Besides…being murdered while snuggled up in your own mother’s womb. That’s the ultimate violation of the right to privacy and health. If anything gives the government a ticket to intervene, abortion does.
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
Polls, Lists, and the Ultimate Argument (please read!)
I wanted to give you this short post so you could know what it is I’m planning for future posts.
First of all, after the somewhat explosive Ames Presidential Debate last Thursday, I want to compile a GOP candidate list that would summarize what each candidate believes about the big issues of today. I’ll be compiling this list for my own benefit anyway—I won’t be old enough to actually vote in 2012, but I have a somewhat rabid obsession with knowing who is right and/or why I believe what I believe, and this list will help me get the pros and cons of each candidate down on paper—so if you would like me to post this list (or not), please vote in the poll. 
Also, I semi-recently ran across what I’ve been calling in my own mind “The Ultimate Pro-Abortion Argument”. I call it ultimate because the woman who wrote this essay accepted the pro-life argument premise that the fetus is a person…and still made an extremely convincing argument for abortion. Hard to believe? Well, yes. But take it from me, it’s downright scary how convincing she makes abortion. I read it once, was astonished, and then read parts of it again…and that’s when the hidden fallacies began to emerge. Once again, I’ll be dissecting this essay for my own benefit anyway, but I would like to post it, because if you can shoot down this lie for abortion, you can shoot down any lie. The only downside is that the essay is 8500 words long, so it would take multiple posts to get through it, since I would be adding my own “dissection” words to that. I won’t lie. It’ll take serious commitment (for you and me both!) to actually wade all the way through it. (Of course, you’d be free to stop reading it whenever you like.) (It wouldn’t be just this dissection as blog posts for weeks. I would still post “normal” posts, these will just be mixed in.)So basically, this is a post asking you to vote in the polls so I can see how I can best serve you as the blog-readers. (I like multi-tasking…if I can serve you while serving myself, so much the better.)
Thanks for reading and participating in the polls!
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
How Not to Protest
My last post was a review of Abby Johnson’s book Unplanned. There’s a reason I decided to do that review, besides just introducing you to a fabulous pro-life resource. The other reason is today’s post.
I actually have only been to one abortion clinic protest. I’ll say that right up front. I have wanted to go to them regularly ever since I started studying the abortion debate at the ripe old age of thirteen. The one protest I did attend was a Bound4Life prayer vigil, where I stood for one hour with other protestors, all lined up on the sidewalk beside an abortion clinic, praying, with the word “LIFE” written on red duct tape over our mouths. (I assure you, my attendance at such protests will rise drastically as soon as possible.)
What I’m about to say here then is, obviously, not taken from my own experience. Most of it is taken from the powerful experience of Abby Johnson—a Planned Parenthood director for eight years, turned pro-life advocate—and from other pro-life people, as well as current abortion advocates. I’m blogging about a subject I don’t have much first-hand experience on because I think it’s extremely important.
I posted about generalizing groups of people a few weeks ago. There is a reason that pro-lifers are often painted as reckless, harassing extremists (besides that opponents love to paint each other black). Because there really are reckless, harassing extremist pro-lifers.
 |
| Clinic Escorts |
Abortion clinics often have “escorts” that go out and walk clients into the clinic. They have these escorts because of the pro-life protestors that try to convince the woman to not go in.
Note those last seven words. “Convince the woman to not go in.” Ultimately, that’s what protestors outside abortion clinics are trying to do. In most, if not all, cases, the woman going in for the abortion is scared, hurt, and often alone. She may or may not be absolutely dedicated to getting the abortion, but she wants—or feels that she needs—to go in. Which do you think will convince her to stay out? Screaming people waving signs with pictures of aborted babies? That only encourages her to flee—inside, where it’s quiet and safe. Or will it be the peaceful, prayer for people, saying gently to her, “You don’t have to do this. We’re here to help. We can help you, for free. You don’t need to go through with this today.”
Are you going to convince her to stay out and talk to you when you’re screaming at her?
Of course, from what I’ve seen and read, pro-abortioners will label any type of protest as harassment. Just because they say its harassment doesn’t mean it is. Peaceful, gentle protests are effective.
From Unplanned:
"'Uh-oh. They got one,' my trainer said. 'I wish they'd leave these poor women alone. Do they have to harass them over such a personal decision?'...
"I watched as the pro-lifer handed our client some literature--she didn't look like she felt harassed to me. Clearly, she'd chosen to talk to the pro-lifer...If we are pro-choice, I thought, ...why do we feel we need to protect clients from conversatoiins about their choices?"
Strong, loud, violent opposition (abortionist shooters, I’m looking at you) only strengthens the other side. There’s nothing like opposition that solidifies the troops. (From Unplanned, after the murder of George Tiller, an infamous late-term abortionist: "Dr. Tiller's death...solidified our ause...rallied our sense of being the despised yet brave advocates for women's health and well being...")
Peaceful prayer and counseling, on the other hand, create quite a different feeling. (From Unplanned, about the 40 Days for Life campaign: "Forty days and forty nights--those are biblical proportions! That's a long time to be surrounded nonstop by a large group of people who disagree with you but are so persistently...well...nice about it. It created an atmosphere I couldn't quite articulate.")
I could go on with more quotes, but for sake of conciseness, I won’t.
Also, I’m not saying there’s never a time for pictures of abortion and chanting pro-life slogans. There are. I only became dedicated to the pro-life cause when I saw pictures of abortion. I already knew what abortion did, but the pictures “hit it home”, so to speak. As for chanting pro-life slogans…let’s save that for the Walk for Life or to counter a PP lobby day. Not when trying this exact time and place to save lives.Pro-abortioners claim that sidewalk counselors or other peaceful protestors change nothing, therefore we are useless, therefore go home and keep your mouth shut. Don’t listen to them. If I spent my whole life volunteering at sidewalk counseling or a crisis pregnancy center and only helped save one baby from abortion, it’d be worth it. It’s always worth it.
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
Pro-Life Book Review: "Unplanned", by Abby Johnson
I have referenced Abby Johnson in multiple blog posts before. In one sentence, she’s a Planned Parenthood director turned pro-life advocate.
Unplanned is about her journey through Planned Parenthood; starting with her volunteering as a college student, finishing with her, the director of a clinic, assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion on a thirteen-week-old fetus. Eight years working with Planned Parenthood. And then she walked out.
Actually, she ran out. Literally. Not during the abortion procedure, but later, shaken, wondering what to do, wondering if she could continue working with an organization that performed abortions, now that she had seen what abortion really did. She ran out of the building, in tears, got in her car, and drove to the Coalition for Life building: the peaceful pro-life protestors she had been fighting ever since coming to that Planned Parenthood as a volunteer.
Her story is powerful and valuable. She gives an insider’s look on what it’s really like working in an abortion clinic. A Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. She doesn’t sugar-coat her old workplace, but she doesn’t completely bash it either. And that makes it ten times more reliable. She tells the truth. She tells of the old, dear friendships she had with her coworkers. She tells how her bosses, while still saying to the public that Planned Parenthood’s goal is to reduce abortions, ordered her to make her clinic crank out more abortions to get the revenue up. And then, when she protested, how they told her to “get her priorities straight”.
Abortion advocates are afraid of Abby Johnson, and they’re afraid of her book. They pretend they aren’t. They call her the exception. They call her a nutcase. They call her a liar. They say that she was about to get fired because she mishandled confidential information, and that was the only reason she resigned.
A dedicated, compassionate eight-year-long volunteer, worker, director, 2008 “Employee of the Year” not only quits her job but goes to join the people she had been fighting for all of those eight years just because she was afraid of getting fired?
I don’t think so.
Getting down to the technicalities, Abby Johnson wrote this book “with” Cindy Lambert. I don’t know how much Cindy Lambert contributed, or if Cindy Lambert was really mostly the author. However, regardless if Abby wrote most of it or not, the story is still Abby’s, and it’s still powerful. Whoever really wrote it, she did it well. The book is very easy to read, very fascinating, very personal. Abby leaves nothing out. I find the style a little annoying in the first few chapters, where she tells you part of the story, and then at the ends of the chapters she hints at other things that she doesn’t tell you until you are further in. However, this annoying quirk doesn’t last long, and certainly doesn’t disqualify it as a worthwhile read. I’ll illustrate for you how much I liked it.
When I first heard Unplanned was coming out, I was very excited, but the line for it was very long at the library, and I’m the sort of person who doesn’t like to buy books unless she’s read them. (I have, as I like to say, spendaphobia.)
Well, after getting irritated with the wait, I found it at a homeschooler’s convention, flipped through it, and bought it spur of the moment. I started it in the car on the way home (don’t worry, I wasn’t driving) and I read it all the way through that evening, until two or three in the morning.
I put it down for a month or so, then picked it back up, thinking I’d like to flip through it again.
I read it straight through again.
I picked it up a few days ago and pretty much read it straight through once more…but not quite. It was spread out over two days, maybe three, I don’t remember.
I’d like to leave you with a quote from the book.
"Looking back now on that late September day of 2009, I realize how wise God is for not revealing our future to us. Had I known then the firestorm I was about to endure, I might not have had the courage to move forward. As it was, since I didn't know, I wasn't yet looking for courage. I was, however, looking to understand how I found myself in this place--living a lie, spreading a lie, and hurting the ery women I so wanted to help.
And I desperately need to know what to do next.
This is my story."
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
To Punish?
Something that has been on my mind lately is where the responsibility of the abortion lies. In the mother, for instigating it? In the abortionist for actually doing it? In the abortion advocates for deceiving the mother?
Pro-abortioners like to make fun of pro-lifers for enthusiastically saying that abortion should be illegal and then fumbling around with no real answer to the next question: should women who get abortions be punished?
Now, if abortion was made illegal tomorrow, should the women who had abortions today be punished? No, of course not. That’s not fair, and is actually unconstitutional. (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto [translates to “after the fact”] Law shall be passed.” Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3.) (This isn’t to say the woman isn’t guilty. She is. Just not in the eyes of the law.)
But in the hypothetical situation of abortion being illegal, the answer is yes. They should. Is the woman a victim of propaganda and lies and sometimes a victim of pressure and threats? Yes, she is. But the last decision is up to her, unless she’s being physically forced. Just because somebody was threatening to kick you out of the house unless you kill, say, your hateful brother, doesn’t make killing your brother okay. If abortion is made illegal (except in cases of the mother’s life being at stake, or perhaps severe (emphasis on “severe”) physical harm), then the woman obtaining the abortion would be fully knowledgeable that having an abortion is against the law, and against the law because an abortion is murder.
The abortionist is also guilty, obviously, sometimes maybe even more than the mother. The doctor doesn’t instigate abortions. However, he is willing to do it. Paid assassins don’t get off the hook by protesting, “but somebody else told me to do it!” What’s more, the abortionist knows exactly what they’re doing. They can’t hide behind “those pictures are faked” and “fetuses feeling pain at any less than 22 weeks is propaganda” because they’re living with it whenever they do an abortion. They can’t not know what a six-week-old baby looks like, unless they do abortions with their eyes closed. And let me assure you, an abortion doesn’t look like a blood clot.
What about abortion advocates? Yes, they’re guilty too. Obviously, in the hypothetical case of abortion being illegal, they’d be harder to catch and convict. Somebody referring somebody else to the drug dealer is harder to find than the drug dealer herself. Somebody helping plan the assassination is harder to find than the assassin himself.
In short, if abortion were illegal, it would have to be handled just like any other murder case. It doesn’t make any difference that the victim is a baby instead of a public official or rape victim. I’m not saying all women should get the exact same sentence. There’s a reason we have different classifications of murder: first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, manslaughter. They (meaning the woman, the abortionist, the nurses, the secretary, and anyone else involved) would have to be convicted separately of any other case and individually from each other, but they would still need to be convicted.
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.
And the Defunding Planned Parenthood Saga Continues...
Before I get into the topic of today’s post, I’d like to give a quick update on Steve Six’s nomination to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote has been delayed again because of a letter Kansas Senators Roberts and Moran sent, asking the Senate Judiciary to simply stop considering Six for the nomination. It is not extremely unlikely Six will be nominated. We can’t know for sure because the possibility of him being nominated won’t go away unless President Obama removes his nomination, which I my guess is that this won’t happen until President Obama feels it would be politically damaging not to. I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Moran for publically opposing Six’s nomination, despite complaints from pro-abortion folks. I would especially like to thank Senator Moran. He kept to his opposition even after an angry call from the White House itself. [End sidetrack.]
Now for the real topic of today’s post, which originally wasn’t going to be today’s post, but I just heard about this last night.
Remember the bill that made new requirements for programs to receive Title X funding? Namely, that the organizations should offer “full service”; meaning, they would need to do primary and preventative Family Planning care to receive funding. The bill passed. Well, Planned Parenthood (PP) promptly sued for discrimination, claiming that the bill was aimed at them so they would no longer be able to receive funding form Title X, since PP pretty much only does reproductive care. And U.S. Judge J. Thomas Marten ordered a temporary injunction. Which basically means that Kansas PP may not lose their funding. Naturally, we pro-lifers were ecstatic that PP would be defunded. Why wouldn’t we? PP performs 25% of all abortions nationwide. But the idea that it was aimed only at PP is preposterous. PP was never mentioned in the bill. PP isn’t the only organization that will be defunded by this bill. There are approximately eighty other health clinics in Kansas that the funding would shift to: clinics that give more well-rounded care, including things that PP claims women would lose if PP were defunded.
PP claims that this bill is about abortion. Well, sure, it partly is, in spirit, so to speak. I won’t deny that. But it’s also about giving funds from non-law-breaking and more worthy, more well-rounded health clinics. And actually, let me point something out to you: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO USE TITLE X FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT USE ABORTION AS PART OF FAMILY PLANNING.
Also, PP just contradicted itself: did anybody else catch that? PP claims that their funding doesn’t go towards abortions. Yet they’re saying that pro-lifers are rooting for this bill so that PP will be defunded because they perform abortions. But if defunding wouldn’t have an effect on abortions, why are they using this argument? Hmm.
Actually, let me give you a broader picture of PP. PP is about abortions. Period. That’s where the money is. If PP’s funding is taken away, they’ll be exposed as the abortion mill they are.
PP in New Hampshire was defunded recently, losing $1.8 million in funds. They promptly began to cut back on providing birth control pills and other contraceptives for all of their clinics, and “other services provided by Planned Parenthood, including pelvic exams, were also in peril”. But three out of the six New Hampshire’s PP clinics will still perform abortions. If PP is really about “preventative care”, and they claim birth control will prevent abortions (not true, but I can write a post on that later), then why do they cut back on birth control first?
So, in theory, perhaps the funding really isn’t used for abortion: they need the funding so they don’t have to dip into their own profits (Which was 63.4 million during 2008-2009) to keep up the appearance of simply being a reproductive health organization. But that’s virtually still the same thing. If they don’t keep up appearances, they’ll lose their funding, because without those appearances, they’re an abortion clinic with Title X funding (which, I repeat, is AGAINST THE LAW), not a family planning reproductive health clinic, and they would then lose their funding from Title X anyway. It’s a circle.
And I would just like to mention that PP is lying when they say poor women will lose affordable care. (look here, near the end, starting with "Kathy Ostrowski of Kansans for Life described to LifeNews how the budget provision works.") The point of this bill is that Title X money would go to fund more services than PP provides, meaning that poor women would actually have just as much access to more kinds of care. This bill doesn’t take money away from poor women. It just redistributes it to different, better places. I repeat, this is the point of this bill.
Here is a link to an excellent article by the Susan B. Anthony List. It lists all of the main reasons for defunding PP. I encourage you to read it; it’s fairly short.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)