Sunday, June 26, 2011

Misplacing Responsibility For Sexual Satisfaction

Very often in the pro-choice pro-life debate, I see a tweet that screams "IT'S YOUR FAULT!". This is one of those tweets.  image

According to @pomegrenade, pro-lifers like @jenleaakins, and I suppose the rest of us, 'create abortions'.  I can tell you with 100% certainty, I've never had an abortion, therefore I have never created one. 

What @pomegrenade is probably saying is something like "people are going to have sex anyway" and "if you don't supply them with birth control, it's your fault if she gets pregnant.

So IF I choose not to supply, say Planned Parenthood, with condoms and birth control pills, I am creating abortions.  It doesn't matter that I wasn't in on someone's decision to have sex , but it's my fault if she gets pregnant.

Yes America, this is really the way pro-choice feminist liberals think.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Kansas Planned Parenthood to Comply With Regulations

imageAn inspection of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinic in Kansas by the state health department shows that it will comply with new regulations for abortion providers, the leader of the group's regional chapter said Friday.Read more here
Was their any doubt in your mind that Planned Parenthood would comply with state enforced regulations in Kansas?  Their wasn't in mine.  With the "mom & pop" abortion mills possibly not being able to comply, the financial gain for Planned Parenthood will far out-weigh the cost of attaining compliance.  Kansas is a small piece of the Planned Parenthood's pie.
In an article Michelle Malkin wrote in 2008, she said:
the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That’s a third of Planned Parenthood’s budget.
Clearly, there are big bucks in the abortion biz.  Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and they not only want to protect their financial interests, they want to increase them.
From LifeNews:
With approximately 1.2 million abortions done annually in the United States via surgical abortions or the mifepristone abortion drug, Planned Parenthood has increased its share of the abortion industry to 27.6 percent of all abortions done annually.
That number will increase as smaller outfits are forced to close down.  Although I think women will be safer at Planned Parenthood than at smaller abortion mills, it makes me question exactly who is behind the legislation, and what connection they have to Planned Parenthood.  I'll save that for another post.

***UPDATE*** The Aid for Women clinic has been denied a license to perform abortion, beginning July 1

I'll bet Planned Parenthood is making toasts right about now.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Do Abortion Advocates Really Care About Women's Safety?

An article on Think Progress blog leaves me wondering if abortion advocates really care about the safety of women.

Last month, Republican lawmakers successfully passed an anti-choice bill requiring the state’s only three abortion clinics to be inspected twice a year, including one unannounced review. Under the new licensing standards, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment will create new standards for exits, lighting, bathrooms, and equipment and would have “the power to fine clinics” or “got to court to shut them down.” The law specifically targets abortion clinics and left other surgical clinics untouched by the new requirements — a fact that moved state Senate Majority Leader Jay Emler (R) to note the hypocrisy and vote against his party. However, the law passed in May and demands compliance by July 1.

While I can understand (I do not agree) that pro-aborts are feeling singled out, I cannot understand why they wouldn't want abortion clinics to be regulated like every other outpatient surgery center should be regulated.  Adequate exits are not only necessary for fire safety, but in the case of any outpatient surgery clinic, the exit must be able to accommodate gurneys that may need to be brought in (and out) during emergencies.

If Kansas’ law succeeds in shutting down the state’s abortion clinics, that would be nothing less that a direct attack on the Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that states may enact some abortion regulations, but they may not “strike at the right itself” to terminate a pregnancy. A law specifically designed to make it impossible to operate abortion clinics is a direct attack on women’s constitutional right to choose.

The state and federal government's role is supposed to be to protect it's citizens.  If an abortion clinic is not operating in a manner that guarantees the safety of it's patients, then it should be shut down.  As long as the clinics comply with Kansas state regulations, the state can NOT shut them down. Simple enough?

the law is also going to cost Kansas taxpayers an “absurd” amount of money: $67,000 a year to do six inspections at three clinics.

Yes, that is an absurd amount of money. 18 inspections @ $3700+ each = BIG Government over spending. 

In the end, it seems that rather than force abortion clinics to update their facilities and equipment, abortion advocates are willing to risk women's lives by fighting to keep them substandard.  I thought they didn't want to go back to the 'back-alley' abortion days, but it seems they do.  Maybe it's nostalgia.


Saturday, June 18, 2011

ABC NEWS/Politics Shows Biased Abortion Promos

I don't why I was shocked, but I was.  I went to the ABC NEWS/Politics website to view an article about Mitt Romney and Herman Cain opting out of signing SBA's pro-life pledge.  As I was attempting to read the article, the video above it was on auto-play.  I actually found it quite annoying that it was playing while I was trying to read. I heard commercials play, such as Carrie Underwood for Olay, and another commercial for some type of cookie, Fruit Newtons? or something like that. 

Then I heard abortion stats. What?  I scrolled up and saw a Guttmacher abortion promo!  I was stunned, and quite annoyed.  A few minutes later I heard a voice I immediately recognized as Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.  She was defending Planned Parenthood against defunding.

You can see at the bottom right of both images below, "Auto Start On Off", obviously it was on.  Had it not been, I would never have known the videos were there.  I am saddened and sickened by ABC's bias on the issue of abortion.



Miscarriage is Spontaneous - Abortion is Intentional

Lately, and perhaps a lot longer than I'm aware of, pro-aborts are attempting to re-define the term abortion.  

When a pregnant woman loses her baby through no fault of her own, it is commonly thought of as a miscarriage, though the term 'spontaneous abortion' is medically accurate for this event. 

The term 'abortion' is commonly thought of as intentional, an 'induced abortion', but pro-choice feminists are trying to change that.  This is of course in an effort to make abortion 'normal and acceptable', unlike the intentional killing that it is.

When pro-choice feminists refer to someone who has had a miscarriage, they will no doubt include their knowledge that the woman had an 'abortion procedure'.  Get it?  If a D&C was performed because of a miscarriage, then according to pro-aborts, the woman had an abortion procedure.  The woman has lost her baby spontaneously, but the fems are linking that with induced abortion.  Anything for the cause, heh?  What of the millions of women that have/had D&C's that weren't pregnant?  I think I know the answer.

For the sake of understandable debate, let's leave the terms alone.  Miscarriage is spontaneous and unintentional, an act of nature.  Abortion is intentional and deliberate, an act by women and abortion providers to destroy the fetus.

I posted an article this morning about the blatant lies of pro-aborts, regarding Rick Santorum and his wife Karen.  The comments on that article, and the screenshots of various choicer's, validate my claims here.

As I stated in my last comment on that post(June 18, 2011 12:44 PM ), by pro-choice logic, a woman who gives birth to a full term baby, has had an abortion.  After all, the pregnancy was terminated wasn't it?

Abortion Advocates Lie About Rick & Karen Santorum

image Pro-Aborts can't get past the titles of these two posts,  "OUR ABORTION WAS DIFFERENT: WHEN THE ANTI-CHOICE CHOOSE" and Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different.  But the titles are supremely misleading, lies in fact, because Karen Santorum didn't have an abortion.

From Gabriel's Story:

at a routine sonogram, the 20 week old baby in my womb was diagnosed with a defect that is always fatal without surgery. Through our immense heartache came the most basic of parental emotions: We had to save our child. After many tests it was determined our son was eligible for the operation that could save his life. It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable. (emphasis is mine)

DailyKOS published Rick Santorum is against abortion for any reason, with one exception, and even used the following 'quote', directly from the second article linked in this post.


The blatant lies have gone viral, and pro-aborts continue to spread them.  A few tweets from Twitter clearly shows pro-aborts don't have a problem with spreading lies.






I even found one by @IAmDrTiller, aka the ring leader of Abortion Gang. 


Though she has been told the story was in fact a lie, she hasn't deleted the tweet at this point.


We'll see how the pro-choice community responds to what was obviously 'misinformation' (as they call it). 

There is also another element of this story that the choicer's are twisting.  From Father First, Senator Second

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.


What pro-life refers to as 'respecting the dead', choicer's refer to as 'sick'.  I suppose throwing him in the garbage like trash would have been preferable to them.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Understanding Both Sides of the Abortion Debate

For Psychology Today Blogs: The complexities of abortion - How becoming a mother made me a better thinker.


As a young teenager and through a lot of my college career, I identified as "pro-life"; that is, I believed that women should not have a right to abort a fetus they created as a result of voluntary sexual intercourse. After taking my undergraduate Bioethics class (and falling in love with the subject - indeed, it is the only Bioethics class I ever took even though it is now my main area of research), my professor helped me to see that there are pretty solid pro-choice arguments - the most convincing for me being Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument that no person is obligated to use their body to sustain the life of another person. Just as I cannot force you to give me even in milliliter of blood to sustain my life (even though I am a person with a right to life), a woman cannot be compelled to use her body to sustain the fetus (even if the fetus were considered a person). I carried that view with me for a long time, through my graduate training, and right up until July 2008, when I saw my daughter's image for the first time on the ultrasound screen. That first image was, to use Rudolf Otto's term, awe-ful. The ultrasound technician pressed the wand against my belly and the little fetus somersaulted in response. While the technician continued to speak to us, my little tenant continued frolicking in my womb. My husband and I drove home in silence afterwards. While stopped at a red light he commented, out of the blue, that after seeing our fetus, he could never bring himself to abort it. My response seemed so foreign given my beliefs: Neither could I.

There is a lot more to the article, and it is a must read.  Please take the time, read every word, it's that important. 

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Pro-Abortion Activist Pre-Planned Her Unborn Baby's Death

image New Jersey's abortion rate is approximately 50% higher than the national average.  So it's no surprise that this culture of fetal death led Jessica DelBalzo to an early decision.  In her recent RH Reality Check article, "My Happy Abortion: One Woman's Guilt-Free Story", Jessica admits:
I remember thinking and even saying aloud that I would abort if I got pregnant as a teenager.
Jessica went on to give birth to two children, good thing for them they were 'wanted'.
Then, as a young twenty-something, I became eager to have children – and I welcomed two very wanted, well-loved babies into the world.
And then:
Once things began to deteriorate between their father and I, I knew without a doubt that any future pregnancy we faced would be terminated
And so it happened.  Jessica got pregnant, and fulfilled her 'promise' to herself (and the pro-abort sisterhood).  She was finally granted the opportunity to experience abortion first hand.  What else is a pro-abortion activist supposed to do?  She tells of her decision not to have twilight sleep, only choosing a local anesthetic.  She wanted the full experience.  I suppose that makes her a heroin in pro-abort minds. 

Pre-planning your child's death, that's so pro-choice.

*Photo from RHRealityCheck profile

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Open Question for Pro-Choice

Scenario:  Abortion has been made illegal, and you found out you're pregnant.

Considering where you are in your life today, what would you do? Why?

Honest answers appreciated.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

The Peaceful Abortion Vigil

I'll never understand how a group of people praying, can be so intimidating to abortion advocates.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Abortion Advocates Recommend Dangerous Self-Abortion

From Serena at Feminists For Choice:
image "Women should absolutely be able to take control of their bodies into their own hands. Taking mifepristone and misoprostol outside of a health center should not be deemed illegal." (emphasis is mine)

So much for safe.  Pro-choice doesn't care about the safety of women.

Saturday, June 4, 2011


It's all over the web, "Abortion Foes Push To Redefine Personhood", this particular article is on NPR's web-site. (I thought they were supposed to be non-biased) 

Pro-Lifer's can't deny it, that's exactly what we're are trying to do.  Since the 1973 decision in Roe v Wade, unborn human beings have been denied their personhood.  We're working to get it back for them.

An article I just read, Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The social motivations behind new definitions, explains the semantics abortion advocates use to deny the unborn their human rights.

But what does “being pregnant” really mean? Some clever sleight of hand has been underway for years to allow “guilt-free” abortions by redefining the words involved.

The article goes on to explain:

The move to redefine conception actually started in 1959 when Dr. Bent Boving at a Planned Parenthood symposium pointed out “the social advantage of [implantation preventatives] being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists followed Boving’s advice in 1965 by adopting this definition: “conception is the implantation of an ovum.” Since fertilization cannot be detected until the time of implantation—when the physical connection to the mother’s body allows a hormone from the developing placenta to enter the mother’s bloodstream—the reasoning was that the beginning of pregnancy could be redefined to the time when we can medically detect it. This reasoning is tantamount to asking whether a man alone on a desert island really exists if no one knows he’s there. Such reasoning amounts to philosophical meandering, not science.

So this is how it plays out.  ACOG redefined when pregnancy begins to be at implantation.  Now, the term conception is being applied to mean at implantation.  Why?  Birth control pills and IUD's can act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.  Emergency Contraception, the morning after pill, supposedly prevents conception (implantation).  If fertilization is the same as conception (it is), then many birth control pills, IUD's, and the morning after pill would be considered possible abortifacients (they are).  After all, if you're not considered pregnant, then you're not considered to have had an abortion.  Make sense?

Had ACOG not changed the definition, pharmaceutical companies would have lost millions in sales.  Money drives big pharma, and big pharma's money drives politics.

PersonhoodUSA, other pro-life organizations, and mom and pop pro-lifer's like me, are working to give human rights back to the unborn, rights which never should have been taken in the first place.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Pro-Life Movie, Pro-Abort Nightmare

Pro-Aborts are going to have nightmares about this. 


Kenneth Del Vecchio, a Republican candidate for New Jersey state Senate and a producer of conservative-themed films, is premiering a psychological thriller this weekend with a pro-life twist: Three pregnant women, who intend to have abortions, are kidnapped and forced to carry their pregnancies to term.

From the Official Release

The controversial premise of THE LIFE ZONE: three women have been kidnapped from abortion clinics and are being held for seven months—until they all give birth. The film, which appears to cut right down the middle, examining the topic from both sides, offers a powerful, anti-abortion climactic twist.

Here's the official movie trailer:

Imagine locking pregnant women up, in order to prevent them from killing their babies. Will pro-aborts see this scenario as a real possibility?  Yes, they will. 


Thursday, June 2, 2011

Pro-Aborts say "Follow the Law", Unless it Involves Abortion

As the title of this post suggests, the pro-aborts think what this woman did should be overlooked. Robin Marty of Care2 writes the article Drop The "Unlawful Termination" Charges Against Jennie LMcCormack, a petition, and an attempt to sway the court’s decision in this case. Ms. McCormack aborted her 20+ wk fetus, only a few weeks from viability. From Robin:
McCormack doesn't need a jail sentence, she needs help recovering from a desperate situation. 
I agree Ms. McCormack needs help in her recovery, but I don’t agree that she shouldn’t be penalized for what she did. People make mistakes, and they must deal with the consequences.
For more information about 20 wk abortions, Christina Dunigan has an excellent article over at Real Choice.
A woman in Idaho, Jennie L. McCormack, took pills her sister ordered online, and successfully aborted her pregnancy of at least 20 weeks.  Idaho recently passed a law making abortion illegal at 20 weeks or greater.
From Idaho Press-Tribune
Law enforcement officer found the fetus inside a box that had been wrapped inside a black garbage bag, according to the police report. After the officers opened the bag, they smelled a "terrific odor" and said McCormack then pointed toward their findings and said: "My baby is in the box," the report said. (referring to the police report)
McCormack told police she had kept the baby's remains in a box in her bedroom for about a week and moved it outside because it had begun to smell.
Even the mother admitted there was a 'baby' in the box. 
The baby was found by police on Jan. 9, 2011, after a woman named Brenda Carnahan called police.  She learned of the horrific event from her brother, who was an apparent friend of Ms. McCormack.
Robin Marty of Care2 had this to say:
Unable to afford the doctors visits and medical bills associated with an actual medical abortion, Jennie L. McCormack of Idaho instead had her sister purchase drugs online to ingest in order to cause a miscarriage. (emphasis is mine)
Pro-aborts tend to get abortion and miscarriage confused.... intentionally.  Jennie McCormack fully intended to ABORT her pregnancy, thereby killing the baby... no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
A couple of comments on the Care2 post:
From Sarah K - No matter what your personal viewpoint that woman deserved to have proper medical care and support. Had she known how many weeks she was she may have made a different decision.
And where is the father in all of this?
Actually, Sarah is right.  Jennie did deserve to have proper medical care and support.  All women do.  Women deserve to be able to give birth to their babies, and still have peace of mind that they can afford to feed and clothe any other children they may have.  Jennie McCormack already had 3 children.
From Miranda Lyon - The woman who turned her in doubtless feels so self-satisfied with herself, congratulating herself for her moral and righteous act, but really has only done something judgmental, lacking in compassion, and mean-spirited.
Really Miranda?  Abortion at 20 weeks is ILLEGAL in Idaho.  Funny how pro-aborts defend abortion as a 'legal medical procedure', and then defend illegal abortions too. Hypocrites.  Judgmental? Yes, it's legal (and moral) to judge someone.  Lacking in compassion and mean-spirited?  Was it compassionate to end the life of her unborn baby?

If convicted, Ms. McCormack could be subject to a $5000 penalty, as well as up to five years in prison.  In my opinion, the fine of $5,000 should be dedicated to a pro-life charity, you know, the one's that help women, AND their babies. 

Ms. McCormack had choices, and one of those choices was to ask for help.  The only help she asked for, was help to kill her baby.