Paging Margaret Sanger

The NY Times has an interview in it's upcoming Sunday edition with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg that is generating a lot of buzz (HT Powerline). Most of the interview focused on Justice Ginsberg's feelings that the Supreme Court "needs" another woman. However, the quote that has everyone buzzing is this comment on Roe v Wade...

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Emphasis mine. Populations that we don't want too many of? A good reporter would have followed up with "and what populations ARE those Justice Ginsberg????" and yet the NYTimes reporter lets that pregnant comment slide right on by.

Justice Ginsberg's comments do give a hint back into the origination of Planned Parenthood. You see, Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood, like Adolph Hitler, was a firm believer in eugenics. Unlike Hitler, Sanger was more worried about the "b "black" and "yellow" peril." While Planned Parenthood has tried really hard to step away from that past but they can't step too far from it. A vast majority of their abortion clinics happen to be located in minority communities. The African American Community, which makes up roughly 15% of the US population, has over 30% of the abortions performed in America! It is not a pretty picture. In Planned Parenthood you have an agency who will gladly accept donations designated to go directly to "killing black babies". Are these the populations that you "don't want too many" of Justice Ginsberg?

Before we can have an HONEST debate on abortion in America, we have to wrestle with some very ugly, very real facts about the practice of abortion and the people behind it. Planned Parenthood needs to come clean about it's past, it's present and what it will do to change the illegal practices that it engages in (failure to report statutory rape for example) instead of suing those that expose the illegal and racist activities.

However, given that they have tried to hide these ugly facts for as long as they have, I am not holding my breath that this kind of change will ever happen.

All For Choice - Except When the "Choice" Is One I Disagree With!

My dear friend Ed Morrissey has a phenomenonal post up on the utter hypocrisy of the "pro-choice" movement. Today's episode comes courtesy of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

However, CPR also opposes gender-selective abortion, which is astoundingly hypocritical (emphases mine):

Our shadow letter underlined many areas of concern, including: harmful effects of the one-child policy such as forced abortion, coerced sterilization, and increased trafficking and abduction of women; limited access to infertility treatment; maternal mortality; sex-selective abortions; and deficiencies in sex education. The Committee, through its Concluding Observations, expressed concern over rights violations ensuing from these practices. It advised the Chinese government to investigate and prosecute instances of forced sterilization and abortion and to strengthen and enforce existing laws outlawing sex-selective abortion and female infanticide.

Ed then goes on to absolutely eviscerate the "logic" of this press release and turns the abortion industry's arguments against restriction back on the CRR.

First, why not just protest infanticide in general? Is it only a problem when female infants are killed through direct action or purposeful neglect? I understand that the problem in China is focused on female infants, but if infanticide’s the problem, then we shouldn’t have to get gender-specific about the objection. Their objection looks specifically outcome-based rather than principled...

And doesn’t this negate the knee-jerk argument against outlawing abortions in general? If women want to abort because they carry female babies, then won’t they get back-alley abortions if CRR succeeds in keeping gender-specific abortions illegal? Shall we round up and arrest the mothers? The doctors? And if we can justify doing that for gender-specific abortions, why not do it for all abortions and stop the wholesale slaughter of human life altogether?

I have long argued that the pro-choice movement is no longer about "choice". It is about forcing women to do what the movement wants. Every time you hear about someone like Sarah Palin carrying an imperfect child to term, the pro-abortion lobby tsk-tsks and asks how she could be "so cruel" to bring a disabled child into the world...don't you know it will hold you back? Everytime a young woman is dissuaded from having an abortion she is told that her baby will keep her from getting everything she wants in life - well what if that woman wanted the baby. Shouldn't that be her choice? Not according to the CRR and other pro-abortion groups. There is only one "choice" in their minds....the choice to kill a baby.

Single Digit Years Away!

That is how close Oprah's favorite MD, Dr. Mehmet Oz, said we are away from having a cure for Parkinson's Disease (among many others). I can't embed the video, but you have to follow the link to watch it as it is fascinating stuff. You could tell by the body language, that fellow guest (and Parkinson's sufferer and hEsc advocate) Michael J. Fox was fascinated with what Dr. Oz had to say (Oprah on the other hand I think was a little uncomfortable with a human brain sitting on the table in front of her). One of the things that Dr. Oz said that got everyone's attention was "I think, Oprah, that the stem cell debate is over". He then went on to explain (as I have mentioned here before) that embryonic stem cells are prone to turning into cancers and are thus unreliable for this kind of a cure and that the BEST option is adult stem cell research! He also said that this "fighting" over embryonic versus adult stem cell research has actually slowed down research!

To those of us that have been following (and advocating for) ethical stem cell cures, this is not "news". However, the fact that it has hit Oprah is a huge thing. It will hopefully bring more light to the issue.

THIS Is Moderate?

This is a prime example of why so many center right folks are so very concerned about the Obama Administration.

“Statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”

– Dawn Johnsen, in a Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Ms. Johnsen is President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Here are a few more gems of wisdom from Ms. Johnsen.....

“The woman is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions, ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’”

-Dawn Johnsen, in a Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

“The experience is no longer traumatic; the response of most women to the experience is relief.”

– Dawn Johnsen, in a Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

“The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality…and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.’”

- Dawn Johnsen, in a Supreme Court amicus brief she authored in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Pregnancy is equal to "involuntary servitude" who are "losers" who did not consent....excuse me ma'am but when you decide to have sex, you ALWAYS run the risk of becoming pregnant. NO FORM of contraception offers 100% protection. Even the birth control pill is only about 98% effective!

This is why there will never be any solution to the abortion issue. As long as pro-abortion radicals like Ms. Johnsen have positions of influence in government, there will never be dialog between the two sides.

Nice "post partisan" work Mr. President.

Choice?

My friend Ed Morrissey notes the irony of the hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-choice" movement.

Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama's hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes a long-sought victory.

Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting "Choose Life" specialty license plates.

The revenue from the specialty plates would go to crisis-pregnancy centers, which many abortion-rights backers believe proslyetize against abortion and encourage women to keep unwanted children.

From Ed.....

The license plate doesn’t say, “Stop abortion” or “Make women sick”. It says “Choose Life”, and shows a simple drawing of the faces of two children. How is that a “divisive political ideology”? Successful gestation is an ideology?

More to the point, why is the phrase “Choose Life” such a threat to NARAL and Planned Parenthood? At least for the latter, convincing fewer women to have abortions cuts into their revenue stream. They’re going to lose money if women “choose life” and they’ll get to kill fewer fetuses.

And isn’t more than a little ironic that NARAL/Pro-Choice America has such a heated reaction to the phrase “choose life“?

NARAL (and the womens "rights" movement) have never been about choice - they have always been about THEIR choice and if your choice does not match with THEIR choice, it is obviously not a real choice.

The Final Word

I was going to post one last post on the subject of abortion - a conclusion to everything I had posted so far. However, I found someone who has said it all just brilliantly




What she said.....

Do No Harm

HB 222 - the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act is probably the more "controversial" bill of the two pro-life bills in the Utah Legislature. I say that because there is just so much conflicting information on the subject. There has been an awful lot of study into the subject - going back 20-30 years. One of the leaders in the research has been Dr. K.J.S Anand of the University of Arkansas. While his is not the only research done on this side of the pond, his has been the most extensive. However, the results of these studies have been so mixed that the definitive US medical source, The Journal of the American Medical Association, has taken the position that the jury is still out. Their British counterpart (British Medical Association) came to a slightly different conclusion. Congress has even held hearings on the debate on whether a fetus feels pain.

All of that said, the bill basically states that if a doctor is going to provide an abortion (an invasive surgical procedure by the way) on a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, then the doctor must provide the woman with information on BOTH SIDES of the fetal pain argument. Now to me, I would think that the "pro-choice" people would be all about a woman making a choice based on all of the data necessary - but as with HB0090 that is not the case! They only want women to make one choice and only based on limited data.

Those are the facts of the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act. What is the history of the UCPPA? Utah's UCPPA is similar to the one that was passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2005. The MN UCPPA was a bi-partisan bill introduced by Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba (D-Long Prairie) and Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville). The bill received on committee hearing before being included in an omnibus Health Policy bill. The bill passed the Minnesota Legislature with bi-partisan support and was the first state to pass such legislation.

One of the arguments against the fetal pain bill is the argument that the fetus does not feel pain because they weren't "human". That argument holds about as much weight as the argument that slaves didn't feel pain because they were not human!

It seems to me a reasonable thing that a little information will not hurt. It also seems reasonable (and the British Medical Journal agrees) that if we are going to err on any side, we should err on the side of a little extra precaution and if that means a little fetal anesthesia...After all, wasn't it Hippocrates (the founder of modern medicine) who wrote "As to diseases, make a habit of two things - to help, or at least to do no harm"?

Common Sense - DOA?

Yesterday, I put up a post on my Turning Point in the abortion debate. Today I want to start discussion on two bills that are making their way through the Utah Legislature. The first, HB90 S1, makes performing an “illegal” abortion in Utah (an abortion performed after the 20^th week where the health of the mother was not at risk) a 2^nd degree felony. The second, HB222 (which is for another post) would require physiciansCommon performing abortions to inform women seeking abortions of anesthesia options for the fetus. To hear the “pro-choice” crowd tell it, the Utah House – by passing these bills – forced every woman in this state to permanent slavery – perpetually barefoot and pregnant or so they say…

Since when does the government have the right to make laws to what a person can do to their own body. Did Something happen to America?

The consequences of making abortion illegal affects more than just the mother or the fetus. It affects all of society. Society will have to take care of those unaborted babies. In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions. We don't live in one.

…wrote one commenter on the Salt Lake Tribune…

When are these abortion-obsessed politicians going to understand that countries that allow sex education and access to contraceptives have fewer abortions, fewer perverts and better mental health than the police states like the one they are trying to create in UT. Yes, abortion is a sad and upsetting moment in any woman's life, but nobody WANTS to have an abortion. Life's path is never certain, and a lack of options and direction cause many couples to end up in a situation where they have to face the terrible question of bringing a child into a world where they can't support it, or ending a life before it starts.
Education and privacy are the best solutions: not a scarlet letter and a back alley.

…wrote another. The problem is that what they are describing is simply not what either of the two bills are about. The legislature is not prohibiting ALL abortions – just those after the 20^th week of development – a time where babies can now survive outside of the womb! Women are still able to get abortions through the 20^th That is well through the second trimester giving the woman who wishes to get an abortion plenty of time to do so. week.

This is one of the problems of the “pro-choice” movement. As with all political people (and yes I do include myself in this), they pick and choose what facts to tell. The “pro-choice” movement loves to tell you that Roe v. Wade prohibits restrictions and that ANY common sense compromise on conditions (parental notifications to late term abortion bans) are expressly prohibited by Roe, but as I showed you yesterday, that is simply not the case! We have to get past the half truths and hyperbole of the debate so that we can get to a just and honest answers. One of those just and honest answers has to be the recognition that abortion, for what ever reason is the taking of a human life.

A Turning Point

There is one subject that I have yet to discuss in my 4 years of blogging. It is a subject that is THE political landmine topic….the one that is guaranteed to get people upset fastest…. And that subject is abortion.

Part of the reason why have I have not written on the subject is in large part because I was (until very recently) very torn on the subject. On one hand, the thought of killing an unborn child is absolutely abhorrent to me personally. On the other are the very realities of what happened when abortion was completely illegal. My mother, who is a registered nurse by training, did her Emergency Room residency at a southern Missouri Catholic Charity hospital that saw many a young life ended as the result of a botched illegal abortion. The stories that she told about what she experienced are enough to curl your hair. It made me very “libertarian” on the subject…a stand that was at odds, I knew in my heart, with my Christianity.

That changed a couple of weeks ago when our pastor gave a sermon on the subject. He laid out a lot of facts and figures that got me to thinking…and digging.

The first fact that he laid out was that Roe v. Wade allowed the states to regulate and restrict abortions in certain circumstances. Let me repeat that….the Roe decision gave the states the opportunity to restrict abortion as section 3 of the decision (below) states…

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

That is something that I never heard anyone talk about prior to that. That ability to restrict abortions was upheld by the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services Planned Parenthood v. Casey rulings and was restricted slightly by the Stenberg v. Carhardt decision.

Another stat that he brought out somewhat surprised me. According to Johnston’s Archives (which is apparently THE place to go for accurate abortion statistics), the number 1 reason forabortion is not health of the mother (3% of all abortions performed in the US), it is not rape or incest (1%) or even fetal health (another 3%) it is pure and simply convenience for the mother – or birth control - a reason that the pro-choice advocates ASSURED US was never, ever, EVER the case! Broken down into categories, the convenience/birth control abortions are done because the mother can’t afford it or is “unready” for the responsibility (21% each), the mother is concerned about how having a baby will change her life (16%), the mother wants to avoid single parenthood (12%) or too immature to have a child (11%). That means 81% of all abortions performed in the US are “convenience” abortions or birth control abortions!

Then we talked about the sheer number of abortions performed in the United States every year. Since Roe v. Wade was adjudicated in 1973 the United States averaged over 1 million abortions a year (until 2002 when the number dropped down to 839+thousand) and 81% of those abortions were abortions of “convenience”!

Those are the facts of abortion in the United States of America, but there is one more disturbing fact about abortion that I have not discussed and it is probably the most disturbing one. It is the fact that politicians who claim to be Christian support abortion. As a Christian, you can not support abortion in light of Biblical teaching – especially in the light of Psalms 139:13

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb.

Christian theology, which all Christians profess to follow, says that God knew each human in the womb – long before “viability”…which is why pro-choice Christianity is an oxymoron. Because the belief that a fetus is “not human” goes against everything taught in the Bible and if you believe the Bible as quoted above, then aborting a fetus in the womb is indeed murder. There is no middle ground.

And therein came the turning point, the point where I knew that I could no longer stay "silent" on this subject - quietly laboring in the background to win hearts and minds and by electing the "right" people. I knew that it was time for me to use the platform that I have in order to proclaim the truths that are out there for those who seek to find. I expect that I will hear from those who disagree with me on this and so be it. However, I intend to show, in subsequent posts, why this is more truth than that which the "pro-choice" movement professes.

Modern Day Nazis

When I saw this story on Newsbusters a couple of days ago, I was livid.

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others.

Emphasis mine. I am going to start this off committing the gravest of sins here. I am going to admit, as a Christian Conservative, that abortion is not my number one issue. As someone who had trouble conceiving a child I cherish every child born and unborn, but I recognize that Roe is the law of the land and until it is changed, there is not much we can do to fix the situation. However, this "gentleman" (and I use the term advisedly) has obviously never dealt with the reality of having a member of the family with Down's Syndrome where we have. My sainted mother in law gave birth to a Down's child almost 40 years ago. After a couple of years raising this wonderful child, she decided one was simply not enough so they adopted another. Our family knows what the realities are.

First off is the aspect that the parents who choose to keep a Down's child is burdening society with the "cost" of the childs life. While both of my brothers in law do get supplimental Social Security Income due to their "disability", there are many other disabled people who get the same SSI that people with Downs do. Does that mean that this person is ok with killing anyone who has a disability? Going even further, does this mean that ANY member of society who is a "burden" to society should be killed? Is he advocating that we should "euthanize" every person who becomes unable to financially contribute to society?

The column wraps itself in the mantle of defending a "woman's choice" but the not so underlying theme is it's a woman's choice until she makes the "wrong" (in his eyes) choice.

The comments were (not surprisingly) spirited, with a couple of the usual "if you disagree with me then you are a hater" comments, but one in particular caught my eye.

By George P. Burdell, on September 16, 2008 9:57 PM

Um, I am pretty sure that eliminating those that are not "economically viable" was an argument of Marx himself. Course, then that begs the question, who will decide what does and does not constitute being viable, or how much money do you have to have in order to keep a disabled child. Also, should we "dispose" of other citizens that are not "viable," say those on welfare and or those disabled in accidents? Actually, I guess, following your argument, they should just kill themselves, to save the rest of us. My head is hurting, going to go get some Koolaid!

While the commenter may be correct in the argument that eliminating the economically unproductive is Marxist, the Logical Husband likened it to another historical figure.

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's race-based social policies that placed the improvement of the race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as "life unworthy of life" (German Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious and weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed in the Action T4.^[1]

Following the link to "feeble minded" brings you to this definition.

The term feeble-minded was used from the late 19th century through the early 20th century as a loose description of a variety of mental deficiencies, including what would now be considered mental retardation in its various types and grades, and learning disabilities such as dyslexia

Emphasis mine. Going back to Lebensunwertes Leben lets compare the following paragraph with "life unworthy of life".

And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics. For example, in 2005, as he condemned those who opposed federal legislation that would have attempted to dissuade women carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe disabilities from having abortions, conservative pundit George Will wrote:

If it is not unobjectionable, let's identify the objectors, who probably favor the pernicious quest -- today's "respectable" eugenics -- for a disability-free society.

So in the anti-abortion advocate's eyes, a parent's desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality.

In order for the author to have any credible argument that this is not "eugenics" but a moral choice, then the author should also be advocating that ANYONE who is on welfare or other government assistance should have their children (or fetuses) killed so that he is no longer stranded with the "cost of their child's life". Somehow I don't think that this "reasonable" person is stupid enough to go down that particular road.

All protestations aside, this author has more in common with the monsters of Nazi Germany than he realizes. Why else would you spend this much bandwidth ruminating on one woman's choice on keeping a child that he deems to be a burden to society?

Defining Life

Over at Anti-Strib, I put up a post about how the Minneapolis Star Tribune quickly buried a story about how Barack Obama has mislead the voters of this country on his actions regarding the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act. I suppose I should give them some credit - the Salt Lake Tribune has yet to cover this story...I wonder why.

Painted during the Democratic primary as weak on abortion rights, Barack Obama is now being portrayed by opponents of abortion as an extremist who literally supports killing babies.

Both portraits are based on his handling of a related issue in the Illinois Senate, and Obama insists they distort his position.

The Democratic presidential candidate says he firmly supports a woman's right to choose but can accept some restrictions — including a requirement that medical care be provided for any fetus that survives an abortion.

When asked specifically about abortion in last Saturday's Saddleback Forum, Senator Obama assured Pastor Rick Warren that he supported "reasonable" restrictions on late term abortions. However, apparently providing medical care to an infant that survives an abortion was not "reasonable" in Senator Obama's eyes when he was still in the Illinois Senate.

Over the years, Obama repeatedly has said the Illinois measure was different from the federal version in a key way — it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the Illinois legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it.

Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a "neutrality clause." The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Obama chaired.

Emphasis mine. The Obama campaign has changed their story on this multiple times. When the issue was first brought up, the campaign accused the people that raised it of lying. Then they said well it conflicted with existing Illinois state law. Then he just said well yeah they're right....but I was for the bill before I was against it (I'm searching for the exact quote). Sound familiar?

Look - I understand that Roe IS the law of the land and until the day that it no longer is, abortions will be legal. However, a child that survives an abortion is legally a US citizen and is therefore endowed with a Constitutional Right to Life. We are talking about a fetus that has shown itself (by surviving the abortion process) to be viable. If a doctor had denied lifesaving care to any other human being he/she would have been charged with negligent homicide at a minimum.

A lot of voters out there are like me when it comes to abortion. We realize that it is legally protected and that there are some circumstances where it is necessary. We may not like it and it will never be an option for us but we realize for some people it is an option. We therefore are fine with common sense restrictions on the process.

Read David Freddoso's chronology of the bill and the vote and decide for yourself. He has included language from the bill for his readers to judge for themselves. I suspect that many Utah voters are like me and while OK with in limited circumstances they are NOT OK with the thought of with holding medical care from a baby that survives abortion. That is common sense and it is unfortunately not what Senator Obama has in mind as a "reasonable" restriction.

The truth is out!

AAA has a marvelous rant up today about a sad chapter in Minnesota history.

"I am one who thinks ending a pregnancy is not a right. I do think that under certain circumstances it is ok. BUT!!!!!!!!! I do not support the DFL’s S.O.P. of abortion as a form of birth control.
Here’s the fact that far too many people are unwilling to state.
Having sex leads to pregnancy.
I’m unwilling to let the DFL and liberal groups that support abortion try to play this off as a funding problem. No the problem is irresponsible human beings. Sure accidents happen, but don’t take that out on an innocent life form who just happens to have to damned luck to be conceived to a person who doesn’t want it.
I am sorry, but 14,065 humans were murdered last year right here in Minnesota, and it seems no one cares. The number of lives lost to abortion might be close, if not *the*, leading cause of death here in Minnesota. " (emphasis in the original)

We have long heard the proponents of abortion claim that the proceedure is not used for birth control. Yet the story that AAA quoted tells another story.

" The top reason given for abortions in the report was "does not want children at this time."

Here is a thought ladies - and I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but if you don't want to have children - DON'T HAVE SEX!!!! How basic a concept is that?

If life issues are important to you, go read Andy's post on the subject.