Sunday, April 07, 2013

Ruling: Plan B Must Be Available OTC

There was an important court ruling this week about Plan B, the medicine that a woman can take to prevent pregnancy after intercourse. The LA Times had the story:
A federal court judge has ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lift controversial restrictions on the so-called morning-after pill, saying females of all ages should have unimpeded access to emergency birth control.

In a ruling released Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman directed the FDA to make levonorgestrel-based contraceptives available over the counter, and without a prescription. The ruling overturns a 2011 decision by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requiring that girls under age 17 obtain a prescription for the Plan B One-Step contraceptive or its equivalents.

In his strongly worded ruling, Korman called Sebelius' decision “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and contrary to agency precedent.” No serious health risks have been associated with the drug’s use among adults and children, Korman wrote, and even the FDA acknowledged that the drug’s “safety and efficacy in the pediatric population have been established.” Plan B must be available to all without a prescription, judge rules
The government has been making Plan B hard to get by dragging its feet. The medicine meets all the standards for unrestricted over-the-counter sales, but politically motivated leaders in the Bush and Obama administrations have ignored the science, preferring to moralize about it.

The presumptuousness of it is mind-boggling. There is no rationale for restricting access to this medicine that is not ugly. If something has happened to make a woman believe that she could become unintentionally pregnant, and all she has to do is take a pill to prevent it, it is unbelievable that anyone thinks the government should tell her she can't take that pill.

It doesn't matter if she's fifteen, or if she's married, she doesn't need to explain whether she was raped or a condom tore or what the circumstances are, it's not your-and-my business how she got into the situation, a woman should not be forced to bring a child into this world as punishment.

There is nothing dangerous about Plan B, and if you're afraid teenagers are going to misunderstand what it's for, the solution is better sex education.

In Southern Maryland yesterday I saw a church with a sign out front that said, "If the government makes sin legal, that doesn't make it right." And I thought, that is a church that is on the right track. Let the preacher preach that the world out there is full of people making bad choices, and let him lead his people to do things right, however he defines that. If his flock disagrees with him, they are free to choose a different church. The church sign, and I suppose the sermon he is delivering as I type this, support the fundamental concept of separation of church and state. That is a good thing.

There may be people who feel that a woman's sexual purity is so important that someone should be born, an entire human life should be lived, as punishment for her moral failure. If you feel that way, then you should band together with others who agree, and you can start a church and apply social pressure to one another. You can have any rules you want, you can oppose all sex that does not result in procreation, for instance, you can make alcohol a sin, playing cards, women's ankles can be deemed too provocative to display in public. America lets you make up any crazy rules for living that you want, call it a "religion," and nobody will interfere with your right to impose whatever restrictions on your members' lives that you like.

But the deal is, your restrictions only apply to your group. You can punish your members however you want, but your church has absolutely no authority over anybody else. If women walk in public with their ankles showing, it is up to your members not to look, you do not get to pass a law to force women to conceal their ankles.

In the same way, if you think women should be punished for being raped, you are free under the US Constitution to form a religion and share your beliefs with like-minded citizens. You can call contraception a sin and make sure your church members do not use any form of it, and the rest of us won't try to stop you. We might joke about you, like when people say "Q: Why don't Baptists have sex standing up? A: Because they're afraid somebody will think they're dancing." But nobody is going to try to convince somebody that dancing is actually kind of fun and harmless, if their religion forbids it.

Religious people vote, and of course they tend to vote for people who believe as they do, and in some parts of the country certain religious groups are a majority or close to it. So politicians say and do things to win their votes. That leads to the theocratic situation where government expresses a particular religious temperament, instead of protecting the freedom of all.

Luckily the people who formed the United States government were smart enough to put in some checks and balances, so that politicians' stupid campaign promises would not become law for the rest of us. And now a judge has ruled that pregnancy will not be a form of punishment for women, including young women, who do not guard their chastity sufficiently. Good.

85 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And now a judge has ruled that pregnancy will not be a form of punishment for women, including young women, who do not guard their chastity sufficiently. Good."

thank heavens

now, if they will only rule that motherhood will not be a form of punishment for women, including young women, who do not guard their chastity sufficiently, women like Casey Anthony will also be free to kill their kids without harassmment

then, Jim can write a post and say

Good.

April 08, 2013 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Isn't the objection to Plan B that it causes a conceptus not to implant? If one believes that life begins at conception, one could see Plan B as an abortifacient.

April 09, 2013 6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, yes, Robert, the problem is that abortion kills someone so an abortifacient is immoral

the creepy thing about Jim's post is that he keeps referring to someone's life as a "punishment" to their mother

creepier still, if you accept this logic, it could also extend to fathers or to children already born

try to insert those scenarios into his statements and yor vision may improve

April 09, 2013 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Americans are free to choose our own religious beliefs as well as our own beliefs about when life begins.

April 09, 2013 10:30 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "well, yes, Robert, the problem is that abortion kills someone so an abortifacient is immoral".

Its an extreme stretch to say a zygote is "someone", or a "person" in other words. While one can make that claim on a technicality in practical terms what makes something a person is experience, memories, the capacity to think, love, hate, feel pleasure and pain, to interact with with each other and our environment. A zygote has none of that capacity and to call it a person, to call it "someone" is terribly dishonest and misleading at best. While its technically correct to call a zygote human it is also technically correct to call the fingernail I cut off this morning human. The fact is that neither is in any substantial way a person and one does not merit much more concern than the other.

The truth is that there is not a clear line between what is a person and what is a potential person. It is a continuum with the a fertilized egg initially bearing virtually no resemblance to a person and gradually becomming more like a person throughout a pregnancy. That is why abortion becomes less moral the longer a pregnancy goes on, with for me a practical dividing line between immoral and moral being the time in the fetus's development when it can feel pain. People don't want to admit the obvious truth, some life is more valuable than other life. For example, the comatose and unthinking Terry Schiavo's life had less value than bad anonymous's thinking, feeling, and interacting life. Killing him would be a crime while a life like Terry Schiavo's was is a life not worth living.

We don't waste time crying over how unjoined spermatozoa and ovums are the loss of a potential life and it doesn't make much more sense worrying about the loss of a zygote. A zygote is not in any substantial way a person and preventing its implantation is about as immoral as eating a nut instead of letting it grow into a tree or a man refraining from impregnating a woman he doesn't know he sees walking by him on the street.

Its just as Jim said, religious conservatives hate sex and cling to a technicality as an excuse to justify punishing a woman for having sex they don't consider a necessity.

April 09, 2013 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

really?

so if I decide your aren't truly alive, I can go ahead and kill you?

and when the great Bob Wills sang, "life ain't even begun, until you're forty-some", he should be free to shoot up an elementary school?

one legitimate function of government is to protect the innocent from monsters like you

April 09, 2013 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The truth is that there is not a clear line between what is a person and what is a potential person"

lazy Priya

the line is perfectly clear

when the egg and sperm join, a new DNA has been formed

wala!!

a new person

April 09, 2013 12:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

No, old DNA has been combined in a unique combination. The fingernail I cut off this morning has old DNA combined into a unique combination but that fingernal isn't any more a person than a zygote is.

A single strand of DNA alone does not make a person. What makes something a person is experience, memories, the capacity to think, love, hate, feel pleasure and pain, to interact with with each other and our environment. A single strand of DNA has none of that capacity and to call it a person, to call it "someone" is terribly dishonest and misleading at best.

Once again, you show you put very little thought into your responses and just post the first knee-jerk specious argument that pops into your head.

You're afraid of thinking deeply. You correctly sense it will challenge and destroy all your simplistic black and white views of the world that give you comfort in the face of your low self-esteem.

April 09, 2013 12:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A seed is not a flower, a nut is not a tree.

April 09, 2013 12:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A zygote is not a person.

April 09, 2013 12:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A person must have a brain and a body.

A cell, a strand of DNA, is no more a person than a blueprint on a computer is a car.

April 09, 2013 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya's all wrong here but since Priya is not calling anyone names, I'll leave it at that.

April 09, 2013 2:40 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Priya's all wrong here".

I sure learned something from that rhetorical smackdown - boy was I told!

April 09, 2013 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Teaching facts said...

Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does. Some abortion opponents said they remain unconvinced.

A.D.A.M., the firm that writes medical entries for the National Institutes of Health Web site, deleted passages suggesting emergency contraceptives could disrupt implantation. The Times, which uses A.D.A.M.’s content on its health Web page, updated its site. The medical editor in chief of the Web site for the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Roger W. Harms, said “we are champing at the bit” to revise the entry if the Food and Drug Administration changes labels or other agencies make official pronouncements.

“These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. “They don’t act after fertilization.”

April 09, 2013 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Arkansas Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood and effectively kills a comprehensive sex education program in the state's public high schools.

Arkansas Senate Bill 818, introduced by state Rep. Gary Stubblefield (R-Branch), would block all state funds from going to any entity that provides abortions or refers patients to other abortion providers. The bill would also prohibit any organization that contracts with an abortion provider or referrer, including power companies, water companies, health insurers or medical suppliers, from receiving any state money. Supporters of the bill argue that it prevents taxpayer money from indirectly paying for abortion and abortion referrals.

Planned Parenthood does not receive any family planning money from the state, but the bill will end a state-funded HIV and STI prevention program that Planned Parenthood administers in Arkansas public high schools. Darrell Seward, the assistant football coach and health education teacher at Little Rock Central High School, said the program is invaluable to his students.

"I would challenge any legislator or politician in the state of Arkansas or higher to set foot in my classroom and listen to the curriculum and walk out and say it's a bad program," he told The Huffington Post in a phone interview. "This program has been one of the most well-received programs that our students have ever been engaged in. I am a Republican, but this is one issue I feel very strongly about, because I see the benefit for our kids."

Arkansas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country, and 60 percent of the counties in the state do not have an OB-GYN. The Republican-controlled state legislature recently passed a ban on abortions after 12 weeks of gestation, the second-most extreme abortion ban in the U.S.

Seward's high school is the sixth largest public high school in Arkansas and also one of the most diverse. He said the focus of Planned Parenthood's sex education program is on abstinence and decisionmaking, but the students also learn about birth control, condoms, HIV and sexually transmitted infections. He said if Planned Parenthood does not continue to run the program, as it has for eight years, he does not know whether it will continue to exist in schools.

"My question would be, if it's not Planned Parenthood, why not?" he said. "Why shouldn't they deliver this content? I just really cannot understand why any politician would do what they're doing with this program when they've never actually seen it in play."

The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 19 to 11. It now moves to a vote in the state House of Representatives.

April 09, 2013 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Arkansas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country"

so, apparently, this wonderful program being pushed in the public schools by planned parenthood is not very effective

PP pays for the killing of unborn children around the globe

it's an evil organization

if the KKK was paying for a comprehensive sex ed program, would that be fine?

April 09, 2013 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Koch brothers prefer funding groups like ALEC to KKK because ALEC does not yet have the historical filth the KKK has acquired from lynching racial minorities and firebombing black churches, even with little black girls inside, dragging black men to their deaths behind pick-up trucks, etc.

The Church of the American Knights of the KKK consider themselves to be Christian, and consider white Anglo Saxons to be God's chosen people.

You'd love it if the KKK was allowed in the schools because they call themselves Christian. Fortunately, we have separation of church and state.

Religious Beliefs of the American Knights

"The American Knights of the KKK characterizes itself primarily as a religious organization. Their website prominently reads, “Jesus Christ is the light of the world," and founder Jeff Berry is a ordained Christian reverend. Although some Christian groups see the Klan as being anti-Christian, the Church of the American Knights, as well as many other Klan groups, justify their views with a passage from Genesis, in which God speaks to his chosen people:

“I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply: A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and Kings shall come out of thy loins” -Gen 35:11

The Klan contends that no race or group of people have proven themselves to be God’s chosen people but the white, Anglo race, because no other race has spread across the world in the way that Whites have. Therefore, the Klan believes that there is Biblical reason for their white supremacist views."


Obviously the diaspora is not featured on the KKK church's reading list.

In addition to calling yourself Christian, here's another view you share with the KKK: The white supremacists from John Birch, KKK Endorsed Willard Romney, the man you voted for.

April 10, 2013 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is a complete evasion of the issue

your contention that I want the KKK is public schools is offensive

my point is that Planned Parenthood is just as evil as the KKK

so, this idea that banning them is wrong because they run some program you like is obviously misguided

April 10, 2013 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Planned Parenthood's "program" provides medical care to women who can't get it elsewhere. Your Christian friends at the KKK use the Bible to justify violence against minorities and to spread messages of hate.

April 10, 2013 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't have any friends at KKK, you asshole. Much like Planned Parenthood and the drug kingpins in the 'hood, KKK tries to do community projects for PR purposes.

Wow! PP provide "medical care for women who can't get it elsewhere", which is nobody. Of course, if you're a women in your mother's womb, they think you're an imaginary character, less than human.

As I've said, PP is a morally malign organization on the level with the KKK, the Manson family, and your friends at NAMBLA.

April 10, 2013 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who's got his KKKnickers in a twist!

April 10, 2013 6:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Wow! PP provide "medical care for women who can't get it elsewhere", which is nobody.".

That of course is a typical bad anonymous lie. Planned parenthood provides medical services to low income women who couldn't otherwise afford it.

It helps low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for mammograms, such as through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania also has a Breast Health Care Fund, which helps patients obtain mammograms. Individual clinics also may occasionally sponsor no-cost mammogram events — for instance, on Oct. 19, Planned Parenthood of Nassau County, N.Y., plans to sponsor free mammograms at a mammography van at the health center. In south-central New York, a state program parks its mobile van outside two Planned Parenthood clinics.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, said that “Planned Parenthood does help women nationwide get access to mammograms,” as part of the health care services it provides to nearly 3 million persons each year. “Women rely on Planned Parenthood for referrals for and financial help with mammograms and specialized diagnostic follow-up tests (like ultrasounds and biopsies) when indicated by age, history and/or clinical breast exam.”

Nucatola said that “for many women,” Planned Parenthood is their only health care provider and “thus the only way they will get a referral for a mammogram.”

Planned Parenthood provides other services, too. The largest category is testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (38 percent). Cancer screening and prevention services — which would include breast exams — made up 14.5 percent of all medical services. Planned Parenthood says it served about 3 million people in 2010. That would mean about 25 percent of its clients received a breast exam or breast care, or about 1 in 4. Contraception services and STD testing and treatment totaled well over 3 million for each category. Planned Parenthood also provides blood pressure screening, immunization services, pelvic exams, and pap smears.

Services are offered on a sliding cost scale according to ability to pay and are sometimes free.

For many women Planned Parenthood provides the only way they can get access to health services they couldn't otherwise afford.

April 10, 2013 6:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Its a principle of law that goes back to before recorded history that a fetus isn't a person until birth. This is an important practical distinction. Its an extreme stretch to say a zygote is "someone", or a "person" in other words. While one can make that claim on a technicality in practical terms what makes something a person is experience, memories, the capacity to think, love, hate, feel pleasure and pain, to interact with with each other and our environment. A zygote has none of that capacity and to call it a person, to call it "someone" is terribly dishonest and misleading at best.

While its technically correct to call a zygote human it is also technically correct to call the fingernail I cut off this morning human. The fact is that neither is in any substantial way a person and one does not merit much more concern than the other.

Republicans would like to change a practical legal principle that pre-dates recorded history and claim a fertilized egg is a person by law thus making it murder to use some types of birth control, outlawing all abortion and making a pregnant woman liable to criminal prosecution if she miscarries.

Conservatives like to boogy-man planned parenthood by claiming it contributes greatly to abortion when the fact is abortion only makes up a minute 3% of all the services Planned Parenthood provides. Planned Parenthood is overwhelmingly a women's health service organization and low income women around the United States would be greatly harmed by its destruction and abortions would actually increase due to the lack of contraceptive care it now provides.

April 10, 2013 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the fact is abortion only makes up a minute 3% of all the services Planned Parenthood provides"

that's like saying concentration camps were only a minute part of the services Nazis provided

"Planned Parenthood is overwhelmingly a women's health service organization and low income women around the United States would be greatly harmed by its destruction"

why? we have Obamacare now

oh, that's right, Obamacare is worthless

"and abortions would actually increase due to the lack of contraceptive care it now provides"

well, if there's nothing wrong with abortion, what difference would it make?

April 10, 2013 8:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so Priya, given this statement "Its a principle of law that goes back to before recorded history that a fetus isn't a person until birth." you are with the Obama crowd that believes in withholding medical care from an infant that survives an abortion ?

and you are in favor of partial birth abortions, where both the fetus and the mother are healthy ?

April 10, 2013 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

since before recorded history, Eskimos have been putting the elderly out to float away on ice and I hate to tell you what the Vikings were doing withe their women

anyone else have any examples of paganism for Priya?

April 10, 2013 8:53 PM  
Anonymous Teaching more facts, listen up haters said...

"Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.

After a physician presented a paper at a conference of the National Abortion Federation describing the new procedure, the NRLC commissioned drawings to illustrate it and published them in booklet form, as well as placing them as paid advertisements in newspapers to build public opposition. In an interview with The New Republic magazine in 1996, the NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained that the term was thought up in hopes that "as the public learns what a 'partial-birth abortion' is, they might also learn something about other abortion methods, and that this would foster a growing opposition to abortion."..

Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?

There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.

In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.

Yet the procedure is performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.

Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.

Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman's cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb to ensure a safe delivery.

Indeed, many abortion opponents believe even severely deformed fetuses should be delivered regardless of their prospects for a healthy life.

"We don't believe that sick babies — babies with disabilities — should be pulled out by the legs and struck through the head," Right to Life's Johnson told The New Republic. "We believe they should live out their life — whether it's a few minutes or six hours." (no matter how much that poor thing suffers)

That's one choice.

April 10, 2013 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some people believe they have a responsibility to judge when another's life is not worth living

those who purport to bring us the "facts", rarely are aware how little we know

April 11, 2013 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Organizations such as the the Klan group described above demonstrate the dangers of religious exceptions to non-discrimination laws and policies. Religious exemptions are a get-out-of-jail free card for bigotry.

April 11, 2013 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're wrong about that, Robert

the only religious based exemptions are for discrimination laws based on behavior, such as homosexuality

in truth, everyone should be permitted to discriminate based on behavior, inclination and character

that lunatic fringe homosexual advocates have succeeded in convincing the public that preference is analagous to a physical characteristic is an anomaly of our time

100 years from now, people will wonder how we allowed ourselves to be so deceived

as for discrimination laws based on physical charcteristics, such as skin color, they should be avoided and only employed when absolutely necessary

now that we have an African-American in the highest office in the land, for example, the time for racial discrimination laws has come to an end

April 11, 2013 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Religious exemptions are a get-out-of-jail free card for bigotry"

Robert, Robert

I don't think there are any discrimination laws whose violation is punishable by prison

truth is, this would result in few free people, including the self-righteous you

not all bigotry is illegal anyway, only certain types

and they aren't felonies

Organizations such as the the Gay Pride parade group described above demonstrate the dangers of homosexual exceptions to anti-lewdness and public nudity laws. Homosexual exemptions are a get-out-of-jail free card for public lasciviousness.

April 11, 2013 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, ho ho!

rhetorical smackdown!!

April 11, 2013 10:44 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon blathered without thinking:

“in truth, everyone should be permitted to discriminate based on behavior, inclination and character”

To enable that, we would first have to eliminate all of the preferences, protections and anti-discrimination laws for religion. After all, religion is basically a set of beliefs and behaviors, and anyone can choose any one they want. They can choose to be a particularly devout Catholic, or a lapsed Mormon, an obnoxious Christian, or an ambivalent Zoroastrian, and behave accordingly. Yet no matter what they are, we can not legally discriminate against them in this country not matter how odd or objectionable we find their behavior.

“that lunatic fringe homosexual advocates have succeeded in convincing the public that preference is analagous (sic) to a physical characteristic is an anomaly of our time”

You keep willfully forgetting that our anti-discrimination laws also protect people for the political affiliation, pregnancy status, and their religion. None of these are hereditary physical characteristics, and are a matter of choice and behaviors.

Keep pushing that talking point though, I’m sure there are plenty of stupid people out there too lazy to look into the actual laws and figure out what happens in reality.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 11, 2013 10:47 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "the fact is abortion only makes up a minute 3% of all the services Planned Parenthood provides"

Bad anonymous said "that's like saying concentration camps were only a minute part of the services Nazis provided".

Everything the Nazis did was evil, even by your own judgment 97% of what planned parenthood does is a good thing - that's not an unimportant distinction as you'd have us falsely believe. The point is that Republicans routinely lie about how much of planned parenthood does abortions. Republicans live in a bubble where they are untouched by reality and fabricate their own version. Example: Jon Kyl Republican senator saying abortion is "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." and then later when confronted with the truth making the bizarre retraction that his statment "wasn't intended to be factual". Once again, given the contraceptive services Planned Parenthood provides if it were to be destroyed the number of abortions would rise. If Republicans really wanted to minimize abortions they'd be in favour of planned parenthood but of course reality doesn't matter to them, they've decided in spite of the facts planned parenthood is a bad thing and are committed to destroying it regardless of that resulting in outcomes they claim to oppose.

I said "and abortions would actually increase due to the lack of contraceptive care it now provides"

Bad anonymous said "well, if there's nothing wrong with abortion, what difference would it make?".

Straw man, I never said there was nothing wrong with abortion. You claim to want to minimize abortions. Your desire to destroy planned parenthood is at odds with your stated goal, you are either irrational or lying about your goals.

Bad anonymous said "so Priya, given this statement "Its a principle of law that goes back to before recorded history that a fetus isn't a person until birth." you are with the Obama crowd that believes in withholding medical care from an infant that survives an abortion ?".

That's a difficult question who's answer would depend on the situation. I'll leave it up to the people on the scene who are in the best position to judge what to do.

April 11, 2013 12:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "and you are in favor of partial birth abortions, where both the fetus and the mother are healthy ?".

I don't favour any abortions although its only the ones after the fetus has developed the ability to feel pain where I think there is any moral implications and the later in a pregnancy the more undesirable an abortion is. In such a situation its a choice between the lesser of two evils and ultimately no one or no thing has a right to use the body of another. If the mother doesn't want the fetus to use her body that is her right.

This of course is almost entirely a Repulican rhetorical tactic. Extremely few abortions are done late term and Republicans try to unjustly use the distaste for late term abortions to prejudice people against all abortions most of which are a great deal less problematic. Once again, its the Republican bubble where reality doesn't get in and Republicans fabricate whatever "truth" they think will help advance their anti-woman agenda.

Bad anonymous said "since before recorded history, Eskimos have been putting the elderly out to float away on ice and I hate to tell you what the Vikings were doing withe their women anyone else have any examples of paganism for Priya?".

Straw man, I never said I supported such things. It is a logical fallacy that because I support or oppose one tradition I must support or oppose all traditions but of course you rely on that fallacy regularly in your "smackdown rhetoric".

Bad anonymous said "the only religious based exemptions are for discrimination laws based on behavior, such as homosexuality".

Being same sex attracted is not a behavior, it is an immutable physical characteristic. While its true bigots often freak out over gay sex, gays and lesbians are commonly discriminated against solely because they are same sex attracted. And of course, even if gayness were a choice, or a behavior there is still no justification for discrimination against harmless choices or behavior. In an incredible example of hypocrisy religious people demand they be given special rights to discriminate that the rest of us don't have while fallaciously claiming it would give gays special rights to have the same right to marry that heteroesexuals do.


April 11, 2013 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's much harder to be a liberal than a conservative.

Why?

Because it's easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand.

April 11, 2013 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous:
You said "some people believe they have a responsibility to judge when another's life is not worth living" (or as your favorite reference, the Nazis put it in describing anyone they simply wanted to destroy) "life unworthy of life".)
We can therefore surmise from your reference that you are opposed to the state (government) imposing the death penalty or engaging in warfare! If so, welcome to the legions of supporters of Jesus Christ.

April 11, 2013 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Another attack in the war on women's reproductive health said...

Organic Eden Foods’ quiet right-wing agenda
A crunchy, natural food company marketed to liberals discreetly sues to stop covering employees' contraception


"The slogan for Eden Foods, which describes itself as the “oldest natural and organic food company in North America,” is “creation and maintenance of purity in food.” Its CEO and founder, Michael Potter, has been prominent in debates over labeling of organic food and GMOs. But the company has been quietly seeking in court another form of purity — to Catholic doctrine about sex being solely for procreation. That goes not just for Potter, but for all 128 of his employees.

That is, Eden Foods — an organic food company with no shortage of liberal customers — has quietly pursued a decidedly right-wing agenda, suing the Obama administration for exemption from the mandate to cover contraception for its employees under the Affordable Care Act. In court filings, Eden Foods, represented by the conservative Thomas More Law Center, alleges that its rights have been violated under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Eden Foods, which did not respond to a request for comment, says in its filing that the company believes of birth control that “these procedures almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices.” The complaint also says that “Plaintiffs believe that Plan B and ‘ella’ can cause the death of the embryo, which is a person.” (Studies show that neither Plan B nor Ella interfere with fertilization, which is the Catholic definition of the beginning of life, if not the medical one. In other words, not the death of an embryo. Also, at that stage, it’s a zygote, not an embryo — let alone a “person.”) The filing also said that “Plaintiff Eden Foods’ products, methods, and accomplishments are described by critics as: tasteful, nutritious, wholesome, principled, unrivaled, nurturing, pure.”

Until now, Eden Foods’ conservative advocacy litigation has remained mostly under the radar, even as their marketing seems designed to appeal to liberals, from the slogan ”Organic agriculture is society’s brightest hope for positive change” to the sixties imagery and the use of the word “revolution” in some of its print marketing. The company’s mission statement includes its goal to “contribute to peaceful evolution on earth,” “to maintain a healthy, respectful, challenging, and rewarding environment for employees,” and to “cultivate sound relationships with other organizations and individuals who are like minded and involved in like pursuits.”...

April 11, 2013 4:09 PM  
Anonymous Another attack in the war on women's reproductive health said...

...It’s not the first time a company with a nebulously progressive image has actually been led by someone whose politics would horrify many of its customers. John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, has publicly campaigned against the Affordable Care Act, including recently referring to it as “fascism.” And Lululemon’s executive adulation for Ayn Rand became famous when the yoga products company printed bags asking, “Who is John Galt?” But while those companies have been raked over the coals, Eden Foods’ efforts have largely gone unnoticed.

Eden Foods’ employees are covered under Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, but until recently, Potter was able to exclude what the insurance company deemed (hilariously) “Lifestyle Drugs.” (Some rare consistency: The exclusion also included Viagra.) But once Potter became aware that the company’s plan had begun to cover contraception in accordance with the Obamacare regulations, he teamed up with Thomas More Law Center to sue. The Center focuses on violations of “religious freedom,” including in connection with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. They also represented Pastor Terry Jones, who became famous for his plan to burn Korans on the anniversary of 9/11.

They filed suit on March 20, 2013, against Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and other government parties, demanding an exemption, despite the fact that Eden Foods is a for-profit company. Two days later, District Court Judge Denise Page Hood denied an emergency motion to be exempted, writing, “Courts have held that the Mandate in question applies only to the corporate entity, not to its officers or owners, and that as to the individual owners, any burden imposed on them individually by the contraception mandate is remote[.]” She added, “The purpose of the Women’s Preventive Healthcare Regulations is not to target religion, but instead to promote public health and gender equality.” A hearing has been set for May 10.

According to a scorecard compiled by the Becket Fund, another conservative legal outfit that has represented plaintiffs against the HHS mandate, there are 25 for-profit companies that have filed suit over the requirement to cover contraception in employee health plans. Seventeen of those have so far been granted temporary injunctions exempting them from the regulation. Separately, 30 non-profit organizations, including universities with religious affiliations, have been filed, but many are in limbo as the administration clarifies who will be exempt. This week, the public comment period on revising the regulations ended, and Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards said in a statement on the policy, “The idea that your employer could refuse to cover a prescription medication because they disagree with one of its uses—that’s unacceptable.”

Many customers of Eden Foods may feel the same way about a company marketing itself to a liberal clientele and then quietly harboring a right-wing, ideological agenda."

April 11, 2013 4:09 PM  
Anonymous Look who got it right, finally said...

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer blocked efforts by anti-choice activists to include an antiabortion provision in her proposal to expand the state’s Medicaid program.

In a comment to critics, Brewer explained that she already signed legislation to prevent funds from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System from being used to support Planned Parenthood-affiliated services, a move that was reversed in federal court for violating Medicaid law.

“We went down that route last year,” she said in remarks about the decision. “We lost.”

“It’s probably time that we just move on,” she added.

April 11, 2013 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we're actually winning more than we lose

most Americans now call themselves pro-life and oppose abortion

PP is being defunded across the country and abortion is becoming less and less available

in the foreseeable future, it will be a relic of an evil past, just like slavery

April 11, 2013 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Facts for bubblehead from the "Venerable" Gallup said...

Majority of Americans Still Support Roe v. Wade Decision

January 22, 2013

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty years after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roe v. Wade, significantly more Americans want the landmark abortion decision kept in place rather than overturned, 53% to 29%. Another 18% have no opinion, the highest level of uncertainty Gallup has recorded on this question in trends dating to 1989.

In the broadest sense, Americans' reaction to Roe v. Wade has been consistent for the past few decades. A majority have always opposed overturning the decision, while roughly a third favor doing so. However, in 2006, as the percentage of Americans with no opinion about the status of Roe v. Wade increased, the percentage opposed to overturning it dropped below 60%, and has since remained in that lower range. This year, with a record-high 18% unsure, the percentage wanting it overturned fell below 30% for only the third time since 1989.

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision, or were at least old enough to witness some of the major abortion debates during the 1980s and '90s, such as those involving President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 and reaction to the high court's Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision in 1992.

Americans Maintain Middle-of-the-Road Position on Legality

The same Dec. 27-30 poll also updated Gallup's longest-running trend on abortion attitudes. This asks Americans if abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," "legal only under certain circumstances," or "illegal in all circumstances." Currently, 52% favor the middle position, while 28% say it should always be legal and 18% never legal. Views on this have been fairly stable over the past four years.

These results conform to Gallup polling since 1975, which has consistently found a majority or plurality of Americans favoring the middle position.

Since 1995, Gallup has asked Americans to summarize their own position on abortion using the same "pro-choice" and "pro-life" terms that the advocacy groups lined up on each side of the abortion battle have traditionally used to describe themselves. Twice since 2009, Gallup has found "pro-life" Americans significantly outnumbering "pro-choice" Americans; however, for the most part, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the terms. That is also seen today, as 48% call themselves "pro-choice" and 44% "pro-life."

April 11, 2013 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh cool

a factual smackdown!

April 11, 2013 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This asks Americans if abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," "legal only under certain circumstances," or "illegal in all circumstances." Currently, 52% favor the middle position,"

actually, most pro-lifers hold this position- to save the life of the mother

outside of the necessity of that, destroying another life is evil


"for the most part, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the terms. That is also seen today, as 48% call themselves "pro-choice" and 44% "pro-life.""

sure...

you may remember how most Californians favored gay marriage and yet now we have lunatic fringe gay advocates arguing before the Supreme Court the verdict of California voters

ouch, you smacked me down with a wet noodle!!

April 11, 2013 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bubblehead lied: "most Americans now call themselves pro-life and oppose abortion"

The fact is: Gallup has found..." today...48% call themselves "pro-choice" and 44% "pro-life."

Four percent more Americans are PRO-CHOICE than opposed.

"you may remember how most Californians favored gay marriage"

Bubblehead, that vote was taken five years ago, in 2008. Many people have since evolved, while you remain stuck in the past and in your hatred for God's LGBT creations.

If the vote on Prop 8 were today, marriage equality would win by big margins. HuffPo reports: According to two surveys by organizations that have tracked opinions on the issue over the last 10 years, one by ABC News and the Washington Post and the other by the Pew Research Center, support for gay marriage has grown by leaps and bounds.

Even the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, who argued to keep Prop 8 on the books to the Supreme Court conceded gay marriage opponents are going to lose in the long term.

"During oral arguments, Charles J. Cooper referred twice to voters hitting the “pause button” to “await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing” before making a decision on same-sex marriage.

Cooper’s point seemed to be that although same-sex marriage may eventually become the law of the land, the Supreme Court shouldn’t speed up that process. He said it wouldn’t have been irrational for a California voter to support Proposition 8 in 2008 in order to observe how the gay marriage “experiment” worked out first in other states.


The only wet noodle here is the one you set your hat.

April 12, 2013 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Everybody but Bubblehead gets it said...

The National Hockey League announced on Thursday a partnership with gay rights group You Can Play Project and an awareness-building initiative on gay issues for its coaches and players.

As reported by The New York Times:

You Can Play will help run seminars for N.H.L. rookies to educate them on gay issues and make resources and personnel available to each team, as desired. The league and union will also work with You Can Play to integrate the project into their behavioral health program, enabling players to seek counseling regarding matters of sexual orientation confidentially. Burke said the joint venture would also step forward when players make homophobic remarks.

Patrick Burke, a scout for the Philadelphia Flyers and a founder of You Can Play, applauded the partnership, as he explained to the Times:

We have players from around the world, and a lot of those players are from countries that are seen as more progressive on LGBT issues. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable or strange to think that the N.H.L. and the N.H.L.P.A. are driving this, in part because our players tend to be more comfortable with this issue.

The announcement comes at a time when the National Football League has been dealing with allegations of anti-gay recruitment policies and league homophobia as rumors circulate that four of its players are preparing to come out.

Last week, former Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo remarked in an interview with the Baltimore Sun that he believes the culture of the league can change and that: “There are up to four players being talked to right now and they’re trying to be organized so they can come out on the same day together. It would make a major splash and take the pressure off one guy. It would be a monumental day if a handful or a few guys come out.”

Ayanbadejo added: “The NFL and organizations are already being proactive and open if a player does it and if something negative happens. We’ll see what happens.”

April 12, 2013 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Keep reading, Bubblehead, more facts ahead said...

Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage
Prop. 8 backlash has led the Latter Day Saints to soften their treatment of LGBT church members.


...Perhaps most significantly, the church has made a concerted effort to bring LGBT kids back into the fold. Mayne points out that gay Mormon kids have significantly higher suicide rates than gay non-Mormon ones —a problem that has been attributed to the church's long-time policy of forcing parents of gay kids to choose between their church and their children. It also has long been common practice for Mormon parents to kick LGBT adolescents out of their homes because of their sexual orientation. (When Matt Lawrence, the church pollster's son, broke with his family over Prop. 8, he told stories about his family's efforts to "straighten me out" by sending him to live with homophobic cousins in Utah.) Utah foster parents, too, generally won't take in LGBT children. That's one reason why heavily Mormon Utah has so many homeless LGBT kids on the streets. But even that is starting to change.

The church has worked with the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University to craft an educational booklet aimed specifically at helping Mormons parent their gay kids, to keep them safe at home and to prevent suicide. It's a remarkably humane document instructing church members on how to embrace their gay kids even when they're uncomfortable with their purple hair and transgendered friends. The pamphlet is now being used in lots of Mormon wards. Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City, where the church is headquartered, the church has teamed up with the LGBT community to open a shelter for young homeless people there, about 40 percent of whom are known to be LGBT. ...
"

April 12, 2013 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

note that the moron that made the last two "comments" is responding to my remarks earlier this week about gay "marriage" with news blurbs that have nothing to do with gay "marriage"

April 12, 2013 12:01 PM  
Anonymous he whose head bubbles with knowledge said...

"Bubblehead lied: "most Americans now call themselves pro-life and oppose abortion"

The fact is: Gallup has found..." today...48% call themselves "pro-choice" and 44% "pro-life."

Four percent more Americans are PRO-CHOICE than opposed."

there must be something wrong with the wording of the question

as a matter of fact, MSNBC has a poll out today that says that 52% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/13127%20APRIL%20NBC-WSJ%20Filled-in_1.pdf

in the old days, we called that pro-life





April 12, 2013 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess that guy calling people "bublehead" feels mighty stupid about now

but, I'm sure he's used to the feeling!!

April 12, 2013 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Q30 Which comes closest to your view on abortion--abortion should always be legal, should be legal most of the time, should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?

Always legal -- 26%
Legal most of the time -- 19%
Illegal, with exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother) -- 42%
Illegal without any exceptions -- 10%

Only 10% want it to be illegal all the time. That means NINETY PERCENT think abortion should be allowed at least in some cases.

That, my bubbleheaded friend, is pro-choice.

April 12, 2013 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, as I've explained, that is wrong

I'm pro-life and I believe it is necessary and appropriate when the mother's life is in danger

pro-choicers support the SC ruling from the spaced-out early seventies that the murder of unborn children by their mother is a constitutional right, without exception

April 12, 2013 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Crawley said...

Jolly good show.

We've the outer fringe on the run.

April 12, 2013 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

woooo, doggies!

them TTFers are shur lookin' stupid today!!!

April 12, 2013 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you think the mother's life should be saved by allowing her to end a high risk pregnancy, then you choose the mother's life.

That's a pro-choice position.

Ten percent of these poll respondents prefer to choose risking the life of the mother by not allowing her to end a high risk pregnancy to save her own life.

They call themselves pro-life.

April 12, 2013 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that the mother's life is important

obviously, "health" can be interpretted loosely

stress or inconvenience is not sufficient to end someone else's life

52% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal under normal circumstances

this is significant progress over the decades since Roe

the end of that progression is that innocent life will be valued by our society

pro-lifers are winning

April 12, 2013 6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Webster definition of pro-choice:

favoring the legalization of abortion

52% of Americans think abortion should be illegal under most circumstances

April 12, 2013 8:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, the fact is, the survey you cited found that 90 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some cases.

Do you agree that it should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and where the mother's life is in danger?

How about cases where the baby is horribly deformed and has no chance of survival? Do you think it is better for a family to have a baby and watch him or her suffer and die?

The question is, how far do you want to take this. Of course you don't believe in abortion for "welfare mothers who use abortion for birth control," black women, that is, but how much farther do you go into interfering with people's personal lives?

April 12, 2013 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, the fact is, the survey you cited found that 90 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some cases."

yes, and that is now news

obviously, those who value life also value the mother's

the fact is, five decades the Supreme Court has ruled abortion to be a constitutional right, the majority of Americans disagree and believe abortion should be illegal, absent extenuating circumstance

"Do you agree that it should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and where the mother's life is in danger?"

I think I've already stated what I believe here

while rape and incest are tragic, killing an innocent child doesn't erase these crimes

kill the rapist, if you will

at least he's guilty

and I'll bet you're opposed to that

"How about cases where the baby is horribly deformed and has no chance of survival? Do you think it is better for a family to have a baby and watch him or her suffer and die?"

let me ask you this: how about if this child is born? do you favor allowing the mother to kill it? how about if it's born OK but something happens a week later and it becomes deformed and suffers, can the mother kill it then?

"The question is, how far do you want to take this."

no, it's not the question

there are always tough calls in any sphere but the ordinary cases are for lawmakwers

extenuating circumstances are for a judge to decide

it's a common liberal tactic to argue from the most extreme circumstances

but your goal is to make birth control by murder legal regardless of the circumstance

right?

"Of course you don't believe in abortion for "welfare mothers who use abortion for birth control," black women,"

you can always tell liberals are losing an argument when the pull out what they think is their ace in the hole: racism

I'm color blind myself

few liberals are

"that is, but how much farther do you go into interfering with people's personal lives?"

I'd never do that

most Americans nowadays understand that when a child is murdered in their mother's womb, the child's personal life has been "interfered" with

April 13, 2013 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ever hear that one about how we need abortion to be legal so women don't go get them in dirty, unsanitary conditions?

maybe that's actually another reason to make abortions illegal:

"Do you know who Kermit Gosnell is?

The media has failed to adequately cover the trial of the Philadelphia doctor who is accused of causing the deaths of seven live babies and one woman while performing late-term abortions. He has pleaded not guilty.

Disturbing details have emerged from the trial in recent weeks. An unlicensed medical school graduate who worked at the clinic said he severed the spines of live babies with scissors in what he described as "beheadings." The man said at times "it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place."

The debate over coverage of the case heated up this week with a USA Today column by Kirsten Powers, who argued that the "horror" of the Gosnell case should be front page news.

"A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months," Powers writes. "The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony."

On Friday morning, the Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf admitted that despite consuming a ton of news, he hadn't even heard of the Gosnell case until this week. Friedersdorf went on to argue that the killing of babies who were born alive isn't the only aspect of the Gosnell case that should make the story front page material:

It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers."

April 13, 2013 8:34 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Since 1974, abortions have numbered roughly 1 million per year; often more, lately less. In 2011, there were less than 4 million babies born. Pretty scary ratio if you happen to be a fetus.

Given that heterosexual couples abort 20 to 25 percent of their offspring, you’d think they’d be more careful when they had sex. Interestingly, they can abort as many as they’d like, and still be able to get married. Conservatives claim gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they could cause some nebulous damage to children, and they wouldn’t be good parents. Yet somehow, killing off some of your unborn doesn’t factor into the “fit parent” equation, and whether or not you should be allowed to get marry that person of the opposite sex you created a life with.

If you look up abortion on Wikipedia, you find that promiscuous heterosexuals have been offing their offspring since at least 1500BCE, and possibly as far back as 5000BCE in China. Apparently there are a number of plant substances that are quite effective at the process, and have been known since before “biblical” times.

Given the more recent history of abortion in the modern world, there is no reason to believe that making abortion illegal in this state or country is going to make it go away. Rich women will travel to other states to have it done, and poor women will resort to “back alley” abortions, coat hangers, knitting needles, drug overdoses, and other means to get rid of their “unwanted” child. Others will simply toss them in the dumpster. All of this has happened before, and it will happen again. The harder it is for promiscuous heterosexuals to abort their “mistake,” the more horror stories we will hear about teenage girls dying from “home” abortions and dead babies found in garbage bags. When that happens, people will long for the “good old days” when Planned Parenthood could help these hapless heterosexuals out in a somewhat less tragic manner.

Certainly, not all of the irresponsible heterosexual couples will try their own “home brew abortion method” and will carry the child to term. We don’t have enough orphanages and foster homes to take care of all the “unwanted” children we have now. But I’m sure conservatives will step up to the plate and donate more money or even raise taxes to make sure these “unwanted” offspring from promiscuous heterosexuals have good homes, parents, and schools to go to.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 13, 2013 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FRIDAY, APR 12, 2013 12:18 PM EDT
There is no Gosnell coverup
By Irin Carmon

This week, the right wing has been working the refs, demanding to know why the press has been allegedly silent on the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor who allegedly committed horrific acts against his patients with impunity for years. Fox News’ Kristen Powers kicked it off with an Op-Ed in USA Today, claiming, “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” Michelle Malkin has helped spearhead a Twitter campaign. Breitbart.com calls it “a full-blown, coordinated blackout throughout the entire national media.”

And mostly, the campaign is working, generating a series of sheepish responses (and a near-instant BuzzFeed listicle). In an Atlantic piece headlined, “Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s trial should be a front page story,” Conor Friedersdorf admits, “Until Thursday, I wasn’t aware of this story … Had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would’ve been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet.” Slate’s Dave Weigel congratulated the tweeters for getting his attention and then filed a piece sympathetic to the coverup claim, lecturing pro-choice people that “You really should read that grand jury report,” and concluding, “Social conservatives are largely right about the Gosnell story.”

No, they aren’t right about the Gosnell story. If you’ve never heard of the Gosnell story, it’s not because of a coverup by the liberal mainstream media. It’s probably because you failed to pay attention to the copious coverage among pro-choice and feminist journalists, as well as the big news organizations, when the news first broke in 2011. There would be something rich, if it weren’t so infuriating, about these (almost uniformly male, as it happens) reporters and commentators scrambling to break open this shocking untold story. You know, the one that was written about here, here, and here, to name some disparate sources.

I can’t speak for big news organizations like CNN and the networks, but let’s think about this question another way: How often do such places devote their energies to covering the massive health disparities and poor outcomes that are wrought by our current system? How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention.
...

April 13, 2013 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...But since you’re here, guys — welcome. Here are some important things to know about the tragedies committed in Gosnell’s clinic, based on the sources you missed. This week, as Virginia-based pro-choice activist Michelle Kinsey Bruns noted on Twitter, “Fitting that the right is trying to whip folks into a frenzy over ‪#Gosnell‬ the same day VA is trying to put safe abortion care out of reach.” She’s referring to so-called TRAP laws, which are regulations aimed at abortion clinics that have nothing to do with safety — say, the size of parking lots — to seek to drive them out of business, and which are expected to go forward in a vote today. According to Tara Murtha, a Philadelphia-based reporter who has been covering the Gosnell case from the start, in the aftermath of Pennsylvania’s own TRAP laws, the state went from 22 free-standing clinics to 13. As Murtha puts it, “The bottom line is that politicizing abortion led to Gosnell. Their answer? Politicize it more.”

After all, the question is not just why the state failed to respond to the complaints of women and advocates who visited the clinic, although that matters hugely. It’s why women kept going there anyway: because they felt they had no alternative. Read this account from Jeff Deeney, a social worker from Philadelphia, who points out that the lack of public funding for abortion is a big factor leading desperate women to Gosnell: “It’s worth noting for outsiders that Health Center #4 which serves the same neighborhood is the best in town, providing quality care for the uninsured poor. But Health Centers don’t do abortions, and Medicaid, where a TANF mom’s insurance coverage would come from, if she had any at all, doesn’t pay for them. And for these women the cost of paying for an abortion out of pocket breaks the budget, leaving mom scrambling to make next month’s rent or possibly wind up on the street.” Cost is also how women often get past the legal gestational limit, as they struggle to save up enough money — and Gosnell’s willingness to break the law was what made him their last chance. To everyone who thinks his case was a reason for more abortion restrictions: What he did was already illegal.

A new abortion clinic opened up recently in Kansas, a rare event that itself directly pointed to why there are ever-fewer legitimate abortion providers. It’s housed in a clinic that once housed the practice of Dr. George Tiller, murdered by an antiabortion extremist. As RH Reality Check reported, the clinic’s new providers are already being threatened, and in a jailhouse conversation with Tiller’s murderer, another extremist said of the opening, “It is a reckless act. It is not the act of someone who values their own safety. It is a gauntlet thrown down, by someone who wants a fight.” How much have you heard about that?

By all means, be up in arms about Kermit Gosnell. But blame existing policies and public indifference to low-income communities.

Update, 5:30 p.m.: Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald picks up another key part of the story:
On Gosnell, "blackout," where were conservatives before this week?

April 13, 2013 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Since 1974, abortions have numbered roughly 1 million per year; often more, lately less."

yes, the inavailability is causing the numbers to decline

"In 2011, there were less than 4 million babies born. Pretty scary ratio if you happen to be a fetus."

got that right

"Given that heterosexual couples abort 20 to 25 percent of their offspring, you’d think they’d be more careful when they had sex."

a widespread return to the Ten Commmandments as a basis for public morality is more likely than everyone being "more careful"

and neither is likely

"Interestingly, they can abort as many as they’d like, and still be able to get married. Conservatives claim gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they could cause some nebulous damage to children, and they wouldn’t be good parents."

not me

I think they should be able to get married

only a relationship represented by both genders is a marriage, however

by definition

"Yet somehow, killing off some of your unborn doesn’t factor into the “fit parent” equation, and whether or not you should be allowed to get marry that person of the opposite sex you created a life with."

well, I agree

they belong in jail not a wedding chapel

"If you look up abortion on Wikipedia, you find that promiscuous heterosexuals have been offing their offspring since at least 1500BCE, and possibly as far back as 5000BCE in China."

yes, slavery been around since, like, whenever, too

so what?

should we make it safe for slave-owners?

"Apparently there are a number of plant substances that are quite effective at the process, and have been known since before “biblical” times."

so, you share lazy Priya's reverence for paganism

"Given the more recent history of abortion in the modern world, there is no reason to believe that making abortion illegal in this state or country is going to make it go away."

not "go away", but lives will saved

already, harassing and regulating these evil clinics is reducing the numbers

in just the last few weeks, six states have passed laws restricting and reducing the availability of abortion

we're just getting started

"Rich women will travel to other states to have it done, and poor women will resort to “back alley” abortions, coat hangers, knitting needles, drug overdoses, and other means to get rid of their “unwanted” child. Others will simply toss them in the dumpster. All of this has happened before, and it will happen again."

bank robberies will always happen even though it's illegal

and if we let crooks just walk in and take the money, fewer might get killed

but do you think that rationalizes making bank robberies illegal

"The harder it is for promiscuous heterosexuals to abort their “mistake,” the more horror stories we will hear about teenage girls dying from “home” abortions and dead babies found in garbage bags. When that happens, people will long for the “good old days” when Planned Parenthood could help these hapless heterosexuals out in a somewhat less tragic manner."

not the people who actually got to live because their mothers didn't kill them

"Certainly, not all of the irresponsible heterosexual couples will try their own “home brew abortion method” and will carry the child to term. We don’t have enough orphanages and foster homes to take care of all the “unwanted” children we have now."

so, why have so many gone to foreign countries to find kids to adopt?

"But I’m sure conservatives will step up to the plate and donate more money or even raise taxes to make sure these “unwanted” offspring from promiscuous heterosexuals have good homes, parents, and schools to go to."

most pro-life pregnancy clinics do this but they are under constant attack from TTF and Company

April 13, 2013 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no Gosnell coverup"

really?

how many heard about it before I brought it up?

April 13, 2013 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the BUBBLEHEAD who has to ask "how many heard about it before I brought it up?

The answer is plenty of people who do not opt to reside inside the BUBBLE, such as:

Tara Murtha at the Philadelphia Weekly

Carole Joffe at the University of California

Lori Adelman at theGrio.com

Katha Pollitt at The Nation

Caroline Black at CBS News and CBSnews.comCrimesider

Kathy Lohr at NPR

Plenty of reporters at media outlets outside the BUBBLE where you CHOOSE to park your head "heard about it before."

You guys even missed Shannon McDonald's 2011 report that the presiding Judge issues gag order in Gosnell case

BUBBLEHEAD is as uninformed as BUBBLEHEAD wants to be.

April 13, 2013 11:31 AM  
Anonymous The Voice of Reason said...

Anon summed up his position a few comments back:

there are always tough calls in any sphere but the ordinary cases are for lawmakwers
extenuating circumstances are for a judge to decide
it's a common liberal tactic to argue from the most extreme circumstances
but your goal is to make birth control by murder legal regardless of the circumstance
right?


Why would every "ordinary" personal decision require lawmakers? My spouse and I did not consult lawmakers when we wished to start a family, and we should not have to consult one if we make a decision about family planning. There is a belief system that includes the supposition that women should not be allowed contraception (the topic of this blog post), and further that women should not be allowed to choose whether abortion is appropriate for their circumstance or not, but should be told by the government what is appropriate for them.

Not all Americans subscribe to that belief system, which takes individual liberties and hands them over to the government.

The most extreme circumstances need to be handled without the rulings of government death squads who might decide to require births where the baby will live in suffering until it dies. Parents know best what is good for their unborn child, they know how to plan their own families.

The phrase "birth control by murder" carries a lot of propagandistic weight. It supposes, for instance, that anon opposes "punishment by murder," aka the death penalty, and "imperialism by murder," aka war. It further supposes that a fetus is a person, which is a belief not universally agreed to. Speaking of the extreme cases, most abortions involve a ball of cells, not one of those photogenic little near-term fetuses with little fingers and eyes that pluck at your heart-strings. Further, the phrase assumes that abortion is a kind of birth control, when it is more often an emergency measure having to do with the health of baby or mother, or the desirability of bringing an unwanted child into a world that cannot sustain it.

In any case, summing up all decisions to end a pregnancy as "birth control by murder" is simple-minded and disrespectful to those real families who have to make difficult decisions about their own lives.

Finally, as the survey cited above shows, many Americans, including liberals, feel there should be some legal oversight of abortion. Most voters would be all right with strong support for alternatives to abortion, for instance more thorough comprehensive sex education and wider access to free or affordable birth control pills. Most people do not like the idea of abortion as the first choice in birth control, and there is plenty of flex-room in the discussion, to come up with regulations that minimize capricious abortion-seeking. Counseling, sex-ed, Norplant, and other approaches could be very effective. Calling it "murder" simply shuts down the discussion; you are saying you are right and everyone else is morally degenerate, and in reality people who face the decision to abort have to deal with important moral questions that are obviously beyond your comprehension.

April 13, 2013 11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For the BUBBLEHEAD who has to ask "how many heard about it before I brought it up?

The answer is plenty of people"

actually, sieve-brain, I meant readers here, who I was addressing

this outrageous abortion clinic should be front page news and the scandal is little known

April 13, 2013 7:33 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

So a big abortion news story breaks about the same time as the GOP primary season gets rolling in 2011 and they don't pay attention to any of the news that comes out about it.

Now that they don't have Mitt, Newt, Michele, and the Pizza Guy to distract them, they now blame the nefarious "liberal media" for covering it up.

Classic.

Where was Fox news when all this was happening?

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

April 15, 2013 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why would every "ordinary" personal decision require lawmakers?"

they don't

the law needs to defend the right of the weak, namely an innocent child, whose life those who are strong find inconvenient

"My spouse and I did not consult lawmakers when we wished to start a family,"

glad you were able to share that Hallmark moment, but if whether to kill someone is part of that discussion, the law should protect the weak

"and we should not have to consult one if we make a decision about family planning"

how quaint!

but, once you become pregnant, the planning phase is over

"There is a belief system that includes the supposition that women should not be allowed contraception (the topic of this blog post),"

the question is whether morning-after pills are contraception or abortion

someone here presented some evidence they are the former, in which case I have no problem with them

"and further that women should not be allowed to choose whether abortion is appropriate for their circumstance or not,"

that's true

women have no license to kill

abortion kills

"but should be told by the government what is appropriate for them"

no more so than any other murderers

say, you aren't an anarchist, are you?

"Not all Americans subscribe to that belief system, which takes individual liberties and hands them over to the government"

I'm actually a libertarian, and pretty extreme one

but only an anarchist would think murder should be permissible

"The most extreme circumstances need to be handled without the rulings of government death squads who might decide to require births where the baby will live in suffering until it dies. Parents know best what is good for their unborn child, they know how to plan their own families."

the only decision to be made are medical ones

the doctors can handle it

"The phrase "birth control by murder" carries a lot of propagandistic weight."

so, you do consider abortion a legitimate means of birth control then?

most Americans disagree

April 15, 2013 10:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It supposes, for instance, that anon opposes "punishment by murder," aka the death penalty, and "imperialism by murder," aka war."

no, those are justified killings

unborn children are innocent

"It further supposes that a fetus is a person, which is a belief not universally agreed to."

there is no reason to believe an unborn child is not a "person"

it's a rationalization of evil

"In any case, summing up all decisions to end a pregnancy as "birth control by murder" is simple-minded and disrespectful to those real families who have to make difficult decisions about their own lives"

well, by all means, let's risk the sense of self-esteem amonf killers

"Finally, as the survey cited above shows, many Americans, including liberals, feel there should be some legal oversight of abortion"

some legal oversight?

they believe it should be a crime, absent extenuating circumstance

"Most voters would be all right with strong support for alternatives to abortion, for instance more thorough comprehensive sex education and wider access to free or affordable birth control pills"

abortion isn't an alternative to those

it is different in character

it is murder of the innocent

"Most people do not like the idea of abortion as the first choice in birth control,"

first choice?

stop the BS

most people don't think of abortion as birth control method any more than shooting pregnant women would be a birth control method

"and there is plenty of flex-room in the discussion, to come up with regulations that minimize capricious abortion-seeking. Counseling, sex-ed, Norplant, and other approaches could be very effective"

hey, let's do that with all murders

we'll make it legal to shoot tellers in bank robberies and then set up counseling centers to discuss alternatives with

that approach could be very effective, could it not?

"Calling it "murder" simply shuts down the discussion;"

yeah, that's what happens with genocide too

"you are saying you are right and everyone else is morally degenerate,"

everyone else?

most Americans agree with me

I actually think it's preferable to discuss acts not people so I would never call anyone "morally degenerate"

I'm not perfect myself

but it's perfectly acceptable to judge actions as right or wrong

to not do so would be morally degenerate


April 15, 2013 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The most extreme circumstances need to be handled without the rulings of government death squads who might decide to require births"

this is an example of Orwellianism gone mad

the fact that this type of thing is so common among liberals is an indication how weak their arguments are

to say that if a government protected life, it would be a death squad...

do these people think before they type?

btw, just want to point out that Cynthia is really stupid.

Have a nice day,

anon

April 16, 2013 8:17 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon desired:

“btw, just want to point out that Cynthia is really stupid.”

I’m sure you would Anon, but you’ve failed to consider that a statement denigrating my intelligence coming from someone who has yet to master capitalization, punctuation, (much less the paragraph form) just looks pathetically spiteful and funny. Thanks for the chuckle. You should have put this under the Jonathan Winters post – maybe it would have been funnier that way.

Congratulations on using my name rather than an epithet though! I think that just might be a first – I’ll mark it down in my calendar. There is a problem with that though… if you continue to use my name (rather than your limited collection of epithets), how am I going to be sure you’re one of the Christians?

Have a VERY nice day,

Cynthia

April 16, 2013 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is no reason to believe an unborn child is not a "person"

US law does not view pregnancies as "persons" because many pregnancies do not result in the birth of a living child.

No one gets to take an income tax exemption for a dependent that has not been born yet.

Pregnant prison inmates are not freed on the basis of the wrongful imprisonment of what is developing inside them and may be born as another human being.

April 16, 2013 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I’m sure you would Anon, but you’ve failed to consider that a statement from someone who has yet to master capitalization, punctuation, (much less the paragraph form) just looks pathetically spiteful.

Congratulations on using my name rather than an epithet though! I think that just might be a first – I’ll mark it down in my calendar."

now, Cynthia, don't you think you're over-reacting just a leeeetle bit?

I afraid we can only conclude that you are mentally unstable, bordering on postal, in addition to your inherent stupidity.

Have a nice day,

anon

"Have a VERY nice day,"

no, YOU have a VEDDY VERY nice day!!

"US law does not view pregnancies as "persons" because many pregnancies do not result in the birth of a living child."

what the deuce? don't let Uncle Sam be your Webster

that individual is a person

April 16, 2013 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Crawley said...

This Cynthia person is most incivil, I must say. The sarcasm is not a proper attitude, is it?

April 16, 2013 4:36 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Cedric complained:

“This Cynthia person is most incivil, I must say. The sarcasm is not a proper attitude, is it?”

Just after the post where Anon claimed that I was:

“mentally unstable, bordering on postal, in addition to your inherent stupidity.”

This is not an uncommon claim about me by Anon, yet that incivility doesn’t seem to bother you. How come?

If you wish to view my “more civil” posts, go back to the ones from 2008 through 2010, maybe even 2011. Back then I was far more patient with the Anons, operating under the assumption that their misanthropic behavior was mostly the result of ignorance and fear. I operated under the “Golden Rule,” and treated them how I wanted to be treated. After 3 or 4 years though, it became clear that this tactic was not very effective, and the rhetoric used against the LGBT community did not diminish in its vitriol.

So I had to reconsider my approach. After a while I realized that the Golden Rule I applied (“treat others like I’d like to be treated myself) was entirely too self-centric. Certainly, as good Christians, the folks on the other side of the debate must be applying the same Golden Rule themselves, and *they were treating me the way THEY wanted to be treated.*

While I couldn’t bring myself to stoop to the grade-school name calling that they do, I could certainly make it less enjoyable for them to denigrate LGBT people.

There are plenty of TTF folks that can engage in a civil conversation, including myself. But if someone is going to spend their days denigrating me, my kind, and the LGBT community in general, don’t be surprised if we stand up and defend ourselves.

I have been battling harassment and assaults from Christians since my earliest childhood memories. I know all their tactics. I know how to defend myself, and I will do so. And I will do it with less name calling, more style and skill, and more kindness than the Christians can muster.

Have a scrumpdillyisious rainbow unicorn day.

Cynthia

April 17, 2013 10:39 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Cynthia, Cedric is bad anonymous's sock puppet.

April 17, 2013 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya Lynn is stupid

have a nice day!

anon

April 17, 2013 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"scrumpdillyisious rainbow unicorn"

in addition to the stupidity and mental instability, we must now add lack of imagination

have a nice day!!

April 17, 2013 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In 1990, influential Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw tackled the issue of media bias on the abortion issue in a 5,000-word opus that began on Page One. It pulled no punches. Shaw noted that it is certainly possible for reporters and editors to put aside their personal beliefs and follow the obligation of their chosen professional to be fair and impartial. But, he said, that wasn’t happening on this issue.

“A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate confirms that this bias often exists,” Shaw wrote. “Careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play.”

In the years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and the publication of Shaw’s opus, “viability” -- i.e., the amount of time a fetus had to develop before being able to survive outside the womb -- had steadily been shrinking. For journalists who ridiculed conservatives’ supposed hostility to science, this should have been a huge warning flag. Cutting-edge science and traditional religion were in sync. In the press, we were mainly in sync with Democrats.

In 2008, at a joint appearance with John McCain at Saddleback, the sprawling Southern California mega-church founded by evangelical pastor Rick Warren, Barack Obama was asked, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

“Well,” Obama replied, “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”

This answer prompted widespread ridicule of Obama among social conservatives -- and of the mainstream press for accepting such a dodge. But the exchange between Warren and Obama succinctly illustrates how the sides in this debate talk past one another. Those opposed to abortion frame the question as being about the rights of the unborn. Those who defend it talk about abortion as being integral to a woman’s right to control her own body, a necessity that trumps theological teaching or scientific advancement.

Because it had long ago chosen sides in this debate, the media collaborated with the pro-choice side to sanitize this debate to the point where the details of the procedure abortion are almost never mentioned and the word “abortion” itself extraneous. Who is so sexist they can oppose “a woman’s right to choose”? How un-American to oppose “choice.”

April 17, 2013 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was where things stood until the arrest of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, and his indictment on multiple counts of murder. This was a case with a set of facts so grisly that it mocked the very concept of “choice.” Here is the opening paragraph of the 2011 grand jury report that heralded the legal proceedings against Gosnell:

“This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels -- and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.”

It is possible to read that entire grand jury report -- and to cover this man’s murder trial -- and still believe strongly in the need for women in our society to maintain control over their reproductive rights. But the elite media seem to have been unwilling to take that chance.




Gosnell’s actions pull back the curtain on this procedure and allow Americans to contemplate a disquieting prospect: that abortion itself is an inherently violent act, the grisly details of which remain hidden even from the patients in the operating room -- and that if those specifics were truly understood, public support for it would wane.

And so, the national news organizations essentially took a pass on covering the trial. Anticipating a media frenzy, court officials set aside rows of seats for the members of the press. Day after day those seats remained empty."

Have a nice day!!

April 17, 2013 11:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

April 18, 2013 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sure, lazy Priya

that's why the media is not reporting on the reality of the horrors of abortion at this clinic

after years of propagandizing that we need to keep the murder of unborn children legal because otherwise the mothers will just go get one in unsanitary conditions, we now learn what's going on at the legal clinics poor women go to

abortion is a violent process that destroys life

reality is actually an inconvenient truth for liberals

April 18, 2013 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

trial yesterday wrapped with a nurse testifying that she many times saw a baby delivered breathe and, then, immediately have its throat slashed

abortionists lose the value of life, and see no real difference between the moment before birth and the moment after

because there is no difference

aborted children are being killed because they are inconvenient, not for any other reason

its murder with a motive

April 19, 2013 7:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home