Where Liberty and Life collide . . .

While I don't think that Congressman Ron Paul is the best candidate for president (He is too prone to conspiracy theorizing, in my opinion), I appreciate that he hammered the issue of abortion during his remarks (on c-span.org) at the Ames Straw Poll. Likewise, I have little respect for Libertarians who--while priding themselves on their willingness to take unpopular but principled stands, ignore the innocent human life growing inside a woman's body when proclaiming themselves "pro-choice."

I believe this message was tailored to the rather conservative activists who vote in the Iowa GOP primaries (in fact, even Paul muddled the point a bit when straying off the script, stating: "The prime reason that government exists in a free society is to protect liberty, but also to protect life."), but in this digital age, any candidate who disingenuously made such remarks on such a stage would be more naive than disingenuous . . . so Paul deserves credit.

More vital services from PPFA . . . not

From the FRC newsletter . . .

Planned Parenthood's Mammosham

Before you sign up to race for the cure, maybe it's best to get up to speed on what, exactly, you're running for. A few years ago, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which raises millions of dollars a year for breast cancer research, admitted that it gives a portion of its proceeds to Planned Parenthood. When people grilled the Foundation on their partnership, Komen tried to tamp down the controversy by saying that Planned Parenthood "provides vital services." Considering the latest news, they might want to change that statement to "refers for vital services." Apparently, Planned Parenthood doesn't need our tax dollars for free mammograms--because they don't offer them! Pro-lifer Jill Stanek did some digging, and it turns out that one of the organization's biggest arguments for government funding is completely invalid. "If [the pro-life provisions in this budget] ever becomes law," Cecile Richards has warned, "millions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning--you know, mammograms, cancer screenings, cervical cancer."

That's interesting, Stanek says, because not one Planned Parenthood in America performs mammograms. Even the organization's website tells women to "ask your local health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood center about where you can get a mammogram in your area." Obviously, Richards and friends will stoop to any level of deceit to keep the government checks rolling in. Meanwhile, what business does Susan G. Komen have funneling money to an organization that a) does nothing to prevent breast cancer, and b) lies that it does? There are plenty of respectable health clinics out there (1,200, in fact) that would host the screenings without promoting abortion--a procedure that may have more to do with causing breast cancer than curing it.

In case you missed the expose on a NJ Planned Parenthood franchise . . .

More for the science-denying Left to ignore . . .

("Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead of Embryonic" - NYTimes.com):

For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

Informed consent by any other name . . .

"No exception for rape" blares the headline (("Oklahoma Abortion Law: No Exceptions, Even Rape")) regarding the passage of an informed consent law in Oklahoma. Why would there be an exception . . . if it is an innocent human life we're talking about?

And if you take the time to read the article, I'd be curious to know whether the young women who had suffered serial sexual abuse from her music teacher was encouraged to press charges against him? I doubt it. With proper counseling and full medical information maybe she would not have been into her 30s before she realized it "wasn't her fault" and she would feel zero regret, zero remorse for the abortion.

Sally Jenkins and various alternative acronyms for NOW

Sally Jenkins - "Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are" - washingtonpost.com:

I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the 'Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep,' otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

BTW: I think Jenkins incorrectly says that Tebow advertised Heb. 12:12 on his eye-black . . . it was Hebrews 12:1,2:

1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Kudos to Tebow for seeming to live out that verse pretty well.

Yep . . . "locked in" battle with the Left

Sorry, but I have to bring up I didn't notice or hear the phrase "locked in syndrome" the other day when reading about the guy who had been uncommunicative for 23 years. ("Paralyzed Belgium Man Was Awake for 23 Years" - ABC News).

A paralyzed Belgian man who spent the past 23 years incorrectly diagnosed as being in a vegetative state, was fully conscious and could hear everything around him the entire time.
. . . .
Finally, with a little help from a nurse who goaded the doctors, Chiappa was diagnosed as being "locked-in" rather than a vegetable. A massive stroke that hit the base of his brain had left him unable to move, but left his mind perfectly intact.

Neurologists say paralysis plays only one role in a complicated combination of impaired states that can trap a person in their body.

After seeing this story today, I googled "locked in" and "Schiavo" (as in Terry Schindler Schiavo--the relatively young woman at the center of the controversial case involving a loser husband wanting to put his estranged wife to death) and "locked in" and realized that the phrase only showed up in relation to the battle between Schiavo's loser husband and those--like her mother, who didn't think she should be deprived of oral nutrition and hydration. The little google exercise seemed to illustrate an epic clash of two world views.

Yep . . .

Way to go TNRtL

It is intriguing to read Tennessee's Left (and Squishy Right) decry the TNDP's (a) failure to appreciate that "the Man" is more important than the party ("Why didn't they recruit a better $?%&@# Candidate?!?!?) and (b) failure to choose a candidate who was strong on their (Democratic) Principles while simultaneously assailing Tennessee Right to Life for making a non-partisan, principled choice to endorse a candidate who was solid on their issues over someone cool/arguably indifferent on their issues.

I have to say that I pretty much agree with Adam Kleinheider's assessment of the race . . . below is some of the less-informed buzz about Pat Marsh's win over Ty Cobb in the special election for Tennessee House District 62:

AuntB

Southern Beale


Left-wing Cracker

And comments at Post Politics.

Iron[ies] of ironies

While reading about Ahmadinejad's Jewish heritage, I happened upon a photo album on the Telegraph's (UK) website. The album's introductory copy reads:

When Lennart Nilsson's pictures of developing embryos were published in Life magazine in 1965, they caused a sensation. Within days, the entire print run of eight million had sold out. More than 40 years later, the photographs have lost none of their power.

(emphasis added) I agree, and I encourage you to give 'em a look see. ("A Child is Born: Photographs of the foetus developing in the womb," by Lennart Nilsson)

But I had to comment on the irony of the caption beneath a stunning photo of a two-month old "embryo" (here):

Eight weeks. The rapidly-growing embryo is well protected in the foetal sac

Well, in light of Liberal American abortion policy, not really protected.

Which reminds me of the 40 Days for Life being conducted locally by Nashville Right to Life through Nov. 1st. I just read this account of a conversation between a crisis pregnancy counselor and a woman who changed her mind about getting an abortion:

She told me that she already had four children, was not financially sound, and had to work full time. She then added, "But that's not my baby's fault."

(40daysforlife.com)

A different kind of Kennedy

Ross Douthat writing in the NYTimes . . . "A Different Kind of Liberal":

Only 13 days separated the passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the founder of the Special Olympics, from the death of her brother Ted last week. But amid the wall-to-wall coverage and the stream of retrospectives for the senior senator from Massachusetts, it was easy to forget that he wasn’t the only famous Kennedy sibling to enter eternity this month.
. . . .
Along with her husband, Sargent Shriver, Eunice belonged to America’s dwindling population of outspoken pro-life liberals. Like her church, she saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life.

A couple things about George Tiller's murder

AC Kleinheider's has posted a statement from "all around religious rightist" Richard Land regarding this weekend's murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, M.D. (Richard Land Rebukes Abortion Provider Assassination). In response to various commenters to the post:

--The State has the authority to deprive someone of life within specific guidelines, despite what hippies may say. Tiller's killer was not acting on behalf of the State.

--Performing a partial-birth abortion is not, yet, a capital offense, so executing a partial-birth abortionist is not legal.

--It is rich to see someone quote the "golden rule" in arguing for intentionally ending the life of a child only months prior to birth.

Wow, "more info" equals "more pro-life"?

I've heard some speculation that recent polling trends (in favor of the pro-life position) were a reflection of push-back following the election of the most abortion-friendly president in American history, but this article suggests that the pro-life trend (which has been occurring over several years) may be the result of increased use and availability of ultra-sound.

Majority of Americans "pro-life"

Poll: Majority of Americans Are Pro-Life for the First Time

Fifty-one percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" and just 42 percent say they are "pro-choice," the first time a majority of the country has stated a personal objection to abortion since Gallup polls began tracking the data 15 years ago.

See Newsbusters for more info on the poll.

Hippocratic Oath v. "Conscience"

Interesting article about Rights of Conscience in the healthcare profession, First Things » Blog Archive » The Hippocratic Oath, Persona Non Grata. From the post:

To keep from so throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I suggest that we consider at least two crucial distinctions in determining what would be a protected refusal to provide a requested medical intervention; first, between elective and non-elective procedures, and second between treatments and patients. Thus, doctors should be permitted to refuse elective procedures—that is, interventions not immediately necessary to save the patient’s life or prevent serious physical harm—if their conscience so dictates, whether it be rhinoplasty, abortion, or assisted suicide. To prevent care refusals from being a mere cover for discriminatory attitudes, the requested procedure should generally be what violates the conscience, not bias against the patient. In this way, for example, an oncologist should not be able to refuse to treat a lung-cancer patient because the patient smoked or was a member of a racial minority.

Hat tip: ADF Alliance Alert

Abortion extremism

Who are the extremists on abortion?

A new Harris Poll finds a plurality of Americans want all or most abortions to be illegal and overwhelming majorities of Americans want more abortion limits in law. The nationwide poll showed just 9 percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy -- Barack Obama's position.

Will ideology continue trumping science?

Whaddya expect from Planned Parenthood?

The Left's hackneyed rhetoric about how crisis pregnancy centers abuse or don't care about young women, are agenda-driven, are void of ethics, blahblahblahblah is tiring. Well, now there's even more proof against another scofflaw Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. ("Planned Parenthood covers up under-age rape") From the article:

New footage has been released showing a staff member of Planned Parenthood deliberately ignoring the statutory rape of a 13-year-old during an undercover sting operation. "Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape - they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser," states [undercover journalist Lila] Rose.

Show your donkeys, Democrats

Wow.

A couple things regarding Bristol Palin's pregnancy. First, I hope--HOPE, that her decision to keep (as opposed to place for adoption--chopping up said human isn't an option) the child and marry the father has been made completely without regard to her mother's professional goals.

Second, it is disheartening to observe the Left's reaction to the report (in the comments).

Next, even people with morals fall short of their standards. That doesn't mean that we should do away with morals.

Lastly, teaching kids that self-control is inferior to birth control isn't the answer to out-of-wedlock births. And using a teenage daughter as a demagogic prop is wrong.

Above his pay grade, indeed*

Mark Rose links to Michelle Malkin on Barack Obama's radical abortion record.



*Here's a great write-up on Rick Warren's Saddleback Church Civil Forum.