Abortion

[DougMacG]

"A two part question:
a)  WHY do most of us include incest along with rape as a valid reason for abortion?
b) Is it not that incest leads to children with birth defects?
c) Therefore should we not be restating the standard as "rape and/or birth defects" to be logically consistent?"

Crafty, I disagree; I think that was a 3-part question.   

a) I don't know, but to me it has something to do with that with incest like rape the pregnancy resulted from an inappropriate relationship.
b) That may be true, but my guess is what I described above.  A kid born to parents who are brother/sister, mother/son etc. enters life with a host of problems beyond birth defects.
c) "Logically consistent" is what set up these pro-life candidates for the rape abortion political trap. I am not comfortable or informed enough to comment on abortion for birth defect reasons from a law-writing perspective.  We are all defective so that would be tricky line to write in law as more and more testing is possible. 

Your probing questions stand for others to address. 

My main point over time on this thread is about the moral question ahead of the legal question.  You don't ban abortions when 50% of the people think there is nothing wrong with killing an unborn no different than you or me at the same point in the womb.  From my point of view you first try to change hearts and minds.

My main point in yesterday's post was that rape is for certain one of the exceptions that will be included if we ever do write meaningful restrictions.  Unite on that point and unite on your point that it is a state right and move the most divisive of issues off of the front burner, so that we can build a better coalition on the other political issues.

[DougMacG]

Doug: "pro-life conservatism defeats 'unadulterated liberty' by about 50-1 in the electoral marketplace."
BBG: "I'm assuming the "50-1" is a typo as it certainly isn't reflected in any polling I've encountered."

Mitt Romney 59 million, Gary Johnson 1 million, for one example, or almost any race, any state, any year.  That's all I was saying there.

You didn't address my question, liberty for whom - meaning who protects the unborn, the most innocent among us.

Liberty to me is that freedom that runs wild through us - right up to the point where it starts to harm someone else. 

If one takes the extreme pro-choice view that the unborn is nothing, then defining liberty is simple, abortion kills nothing.  That is fine, but I doubt most Democrats or even Libertarians agree with that, much less Republicans. 

"Repubs tend to nominate folks the Dems can cast as right wing abortion zealots, and that ability costs elections."

Republicans could learn from these mistakes and nominate pro-lifers who merely declare that belief like Romney, Bush and Reagan did, show proper revulsion toward rape and all its consequences and go on to address other issues.

Similar to what I wrote about Aiken and Mourdock not advancing their own cause, only in the wildest dreams of the statists should the pro-liberty and the pro-life factions split up. 


"Isn't Planned Parenthood a private organization that receives public monies?"

Yes.  At least ACORN never killed anyone.

"The Dem. campaign seemed to purposely elevate PP to some sort of entitlement status; the Repubs had no effective response."

An axiom of this election is that a lie (or a really bad idea) not immediately refuted is scored as a debate point won.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Mitt Romney 59 million, Gary Johnson 1 million, for one example, or almost any race, any state, any year.  That's all I was saying there.

Meh, apples and oranges where statist and statist lite suck up most the oxygen. Call it 100 to 1 once both sorts of statist are combined. Seeing as the statist market is cornered, perhaps another approach is in order assuming a different outcome is preferred?

You didn't address my question, liberty for whom - meaning who protects the unborn, the most innocent among us.

While you had little in the way of response to the Judith Jarvis Thompson piece I posted quite some time back that spoke to many of these distinctions far more eloquently than I will.

Be that as it may, I am intentionally avoiding getting into a "most innocent among us" argument because doing so feeds into the current dynamic. I'm asking instead what can shatter the current paradigm and lead to less statist outcomes? I don't see a way of getting from here to there with the abortion issue as the primary grail.

[Crafty_Dog]

"I'm asking instead what can shatter the current paradigm and lead to less statist outcomes?"

A most excellent question-- and one that will probably be better explored on threads other than this one 

[DougMacG]

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/27/planned-parenthood-rushes-woman-to-hospital-after-botched-abortion/

Planned Parenthood Rushes Woman to Hospital After Botched Abortion

by Steven Ertelt | St. Louis, MO | 11/27/12 1:35 PM

Another Planned Parenthood abortion clinic has been documented rushing a patient to a local hospital following a botched abortion that may have injured her and potentially claimed her life.

A St. Louis Planned Parenthood patient was rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering serious abortion complications the day before Thanksgiving. Paramedics arrived at the abortion clinic at approximately 2:45 p.m. on November 21, 2012, and removed the patient from the building with her face covered with a cloth.
----------------

Was the woman (mother) told the procedure was safe, or if she was informed of similar previous disasters at the same clinic?  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/14/failed-abortion-injures-woman-at-missouri-planned-parenthood/

If the mother's life is in danger BEFORE the procedure, should she go to a Planned Parenthood clinic for a procedure or wouldn't she gostraight to the hospital in the first place??!


Safe, legal and rare was the elected, pro-choice mantra from 20 years ago.  Looks like we got one out of three.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/11588

[G M]

http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/11588

It takes a lot to shock me. Mission accomplished.

[bigdog]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions?page=0,0

[bigdog]

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/12/roersquos-pro-life-legacy

[DougMacG]

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/12/roersquos-pro-life-legacy

Some valid points in there, but the progress is pretty pathetic, and tragic.  The pro-life movement is not about having a movement, it is about changing outcomes.  40 million slaughtered isn't what anyone in the movement would point to as making progress.

I think the imaging processes and ability to detect heartbeats etc. make the biggest difference.  That information would get right to the people through science and mainstream professional journalism anyway, with or without a pro-life movement.  (Just kidding.)

Removing a divisive issue from the electorate may sound good but isn't that mostly what oppressive governments do?

We had a Chinese student with us for Christmas break.  People asked her about life back home near Shanghai, things like do you have brothers and sisters?  A little cultural ignorance was exposed there.  If siblings were conceived, their outcomes were "removed from the political process".

From the title I thought it was about the real Roe - Norma McCorvey - and her conversion and advocacy for  pro-life.

[DougMacG]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions?page=0,0

Powerful piece BD!  On the one hand, prosecuting mothers doesn't win anyone over to the movement.  On the other hand, she sure showed signs of knowing she was killing someone:

"Following the instructions, she took the first pill right away and the others some hours later. That night, she started having cramps. The next morning, Christmas Eve, she delivered a dead fetus alone in her bathroom, along with the placenta and a great deal of blood.

The fetus was much bigger than she had expected. It was about a foot long, clearly female, with identifiable features and hair. McCormack wrapped the remains in a bag with the placenta. Then she put it in a box and hid it under her bed. That evening, she attended Christmas Eve dinner at her father’s place and dropped her daughter off with her ex-husband for an overnight visit. She wrapped the children’s presents, including new clothes she’d bought on layaway for her fashion-conscious daughter, and put them under the tree. She told no one about the abortion apart from her sister.

After about a week, the box began to emit an odor. McCormack wrapped it up in more bags and put it out on the back porch, on the shelf of a covered barbecue. It didn’t feel right to her to throw it away."... "what she wants most is a proper burial. “Just because of the circumstances doesn’t mean I’m heartless”

A five year felony seems so extreme.  With facts just slightly different, born alive, killed, plotting trips, expenses, ordering supplies, across state lines, hiding the body etc, would look a lot like 1st degree murder.  This one wasn't born alive, but it was a live little girl before she killed it. Having 2 kids already, she knew what it was.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2013/01/06/

[DougMacG]

A Michigan abortion clinic has been shut down by the fire marshal over conditions the city described as potentially “dangerous to human life or the public welfare.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/graphic-the-conditions-at-this-mi-abortion-clinic-were-so-dangerous-disgusting-it-was-shut-down/

What next?  Cattle slaughterhouse dangerous to cattle?

[Crafty_Dog]

Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, according to new data from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turns 40 on Tuesday.

 
Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, the most since 1989, according to data from a WSJ/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turns 40 on Tuesday. WSJ's Louise Radnofsky reports. Photo: Getty Images.

That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans.

But the poll showed a consistent tension in Americans' attitudes toward the decision. Almost seven in 10 respondents say there are at least some circumstances in which they don't support abortion.


Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in circumstances of rape, incest and to save a woman's life.

Since those questions were first asked, a decade ago, more people generally support abortion rights. But the majority of voters whose views aren't absolute has forced activists on both sides of the issue to rethink their message.

Antiabortion campaigners who once sought a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision have instead pursued legislation in Congress and the states aimed at highlighting aspects of abortion that have the potential to make voters uneasy. Those include restricting abortions later in pregnancy or because of the sex of the fetus, both of which are rare but are seen as resonating with voters.

"You really need to start with the abortions that are most controversial and where you have the broadest consensus, even if they are not that common," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' abortion and euthanasia campaigns. "All or nothing has produced nothing."

A 2011 Gallup poll found that especially large percentages of respondents were in favor of informed consent for women seeking abortions (86% of abortion-rights adults and 87% who are antiabortion) and making abortion illegal in the third trimester (79% of abortion-rights backers and 94% of those who are antiabortion).

The Long War
Both sides agree: The campaign over abortion has become a long one.

View Interactive

..
Opponents of abortion rights won passage of a record 92 measures restricting the procedure in 24 states in 2011, and an additional 43 in 19 states last year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that favors abortion rights. Nine states have recently banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although courts have kept two of the laws from taking effect.

This year, Texas, Indiana, and Missouri are set to consider restrictions on chemically induced abortions in the coming legislative session, and lawmakers in Indiana and South Carolina have sponsored bills adding regulations to clinics.

The new moves come after several states have passed bills in the past two years requiring abortion clinics to maintain certain staffing levels or install equipment such as ventilation systems that are typically in hospitals. The states describe those efforts as seeking to protect women's health, while abortion-rights backers say the aim is to increase costs and obstacles for abortion providers.

"I don't need a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, an antiabortion law firm that works with state groups on local legislation. "Clinic regulations do actually challenge Roe."

Supporters of abortion rights said they scored some electoral wins last year after a few Republican candidates made high-profile misstatements about abortion in cases of rape.

Now, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that works for the election of women who oppose abortion, said she would be training candidates to make sure they had an answer if they were asked why they opposed making exceptions for rape.

Kirsten Moore, until recently executive director of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said her abortion-rights group consulted with focus groups and experts on language, psychology and polling about incorporating Americans' mixed feelings about abortion into its messaging.

She said she concluded: "If we are willing to acknowledge the complexity of the issue…then we think we can have a conversation with the people in the middle and help them resolve that conflict in a pro-choice direction."

Supporters of abortion rights increasingly emphasize women's privacy, instead of focusing on broader rights, and frame having an abortion as a "decision" rather than a "choice." Last week, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America released an online video signaling that new approach.

"For many people, it's not a black and white issue," the video says of abortion. "Pro-choice? Pro-life? The truth is these labels limit the conversation.…When it comes down to it, we just don't know a woman's specific situation. We're not in her shoes."

Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com and Ashby Jones at ashby.jones@wsj.com

[DougMacG]

Isn't that about where we are right now politically?  Separate from the merits and morals of slaughtering our young, wouldn't you say about 70% have no concept of states' rights and would prefer to have an assembled, benevolent politburo decide the toughest issues for us, as long as they get it right?

Pro-life groups should concede the politics of the moment and move the other direction - push legislation that gives the mom a reasonable time after birth to decide whether the child raising thing is really something she wants to tackle.  The fetus is still not viable.  Did she lose her right of privacy at childbirth?  No prosecution for the mother or the doctor for killing the baby in the first 30 days after birth.  In Illinois I believe they called something like that the Obama doctrine.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2013/01/06/

[DougMacG]

Mother sues Planned Parenthood over forced, botched abortion
    by Heidi Miller
    February 20, 2013
 
When Ayanna Byer scheduled an appointment at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains to take an abortion pill to end her pregnancy, there was no way for her to foresee the horrors ahead of her.  Earlier this month, Byer, through the assistance of the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom, brought a lawsuit to hold Planned Parenthood liable for the botched abortion that she did not consent to.

According to that complaint, when Byer arrived at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it was determined that her pregnancy was too far along to be terminated through the use of a pill, therefore a surgical abortion was recommended. Ms. Byer agreed upon the condition that she would receive IV anesthesia, for which she would be charged extra.  Although the employees could not get the IV started, the doctor came to start the procedure anyway.

The complaint states:

    At this time, Plaintiff immediately told the Planned Parenthood Doctor to stop and that she did not want to go through with the abortion procedure because she had not received any anesthetic.  Plaintiff also informed Planned Parenthood Doctor and agents or employees of Planned Parenthood Defendants that she believed this to be a sign she should not go through with the abortion.  The Planned Parenthood Doctor did not stop despite Plaintiff’s request, and assured Plaintiff the I.V. would be administered and the procedure would only take a few minutes.

    At this time, the Planned Parenthood Doctor turned on the vacuum machines and told Plaintiff it was too late to stop.

Seven minutes later, due to Ms. Byer crying from pain, the procedure finally stopped. She received an apology and a prescription for a painkiller and antibiotics and was sent on her way. Planned Parenthood never followed up with her.

About two days later, Ms. Byer went to the hospital due to pain and bleeding, where it was found that part of the aborted baby was still inside her, resulting in an infection. She had to have emergency surgery.

Sources: NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post.  Just kidding, maybe they will cover it tomorrow
http://liveactionnews.org/mother-sues-planned-parenthood-over-forced-botched-abortion/
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ByerComplaint.pdf

[G M]

Mother sues Planned Parenthood over forced, botched abortion
    by Heidi Miller
    February 20, 2013
 
When Ayanna Byer scheduled an appointment at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains to take an abortion pill to end her pregnancy, there was no way for her to foresee the horrors ahead of her.  Earlier this month, Byer, through the assistance of the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom, brought a lawsuit to hold Planned Parenthood liable for the botched abortion that she did not consent to.

According to that complaint, when Byer arrived at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it was determined that her pregnancy was too far along to be terminated through the use of a pill, therefore a surgical abortion was recommended. Ms. Byer agreed upon the condition that she would receive IV anesthesia, for which she would be charged extra.  Although the employees could not get the IV started, the doctor came to start the procedure anyway.

The complaint states:

    At this time, Plaintiff immediately told the Planned Parenthood Doctor to stop and that she did not want to go through with the abortion procedure because she had not received any anesthetic.  Plaintiff also informed Planned Parenthood Doctor and agents or employees of Planned Parenthood Defendants that she believed this to be a sign she should not go through with the abortion.  The Planned Parenthood Doctor did not stop despite Plaintiff’s request, and assured Plaintiff the I.V. would be administered and the procedure would only take a few minutes.

    At this time, the Planned Parenthood Doctor turned on the vacuum machines and told Plaintiff it was too late to stop.

Seven minutes later, due to Ms. Byer crying from pain, the procedure finally stopped. She received an apology and a prescription for a painkiller and antibiotics and was sent on her way. Planned Parenthood never followed up with her.

About two days later, Ms. Byer went to the hospital due to pain and bleeding, where it was found that part of the aborted baby was still inside her, resulting in an infection. She had to have emergency surgery.

Sources: NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post.  Just kidding, maybe they will cover it tomorrow
http://liveactionnews.org/mother-sues-planned-parenthood-over-forced-botched-abortion/
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ByerComplaint.pdf

The left's war on women (and children) continues. Feminist outrage in 3....2....never

[Crafty_Dog]

What a clusterfcuk.

BTW I see that Gov. Cuomo of NY is seeking to expand late-term abortions.  Anyone have details?

[DougMacG]

"The left's war on women (and children) continues."

And war on religion.  Also the left's war on science.  By the time you detect a separate heartbeat it is pretty hard to argue this is no living thing. 


"I see that Gov. Cuomo of NY is seeking to expand late-term abortions.  Anyone have details?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/20/cuomos-logical-but-risky-late-term-abortion-push/
Andrew Cuomo’s late-term abortion push
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/cuomo-bucks-tide-with-bill-to-lift-abortion-limits.html
guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

I haven't read New York law but there is ALWAYS an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger.  (Look for the iberals lie in the first sentence.)  What child is "viable" when the mother is stabbing it or holding a plastic bag over its head?

We need legal abortion because we know many unwanting mothers will kill the baby anyway in what they used to call back alley abortions.  Why not update the New York code for unwanted spouses.  We know that a good number of them will be killed anyway.  Why not facilitate that in a safer environment?

[G M]

Infanticide is practiced all over the globe as a method for family planning. Isn't it time it is taken out of the shadows and made safe, legal and rare?

If not, why not?

Isn't it just a mass of fetal tissue with a bit more time to develop?

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/5/judge-kills-age-restrictions-morning-after-pill/?page=all#pagebreak

[DougMacG]

Reserved Press seating at the Gosnell trial:


Dead babies. Exploited women. Racism. Governmental failures. This should be a front page story!  
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

Even the journalist who showed up (and took this picture) had his story pulled:

Philly.com
    What I saw at the Gosnell trial
    phillyBurbs.com (blog) ‎- 16 minutes ago
    By J.D. Mullane ... “Big enough to walk me home,” joked Gosnell when he saw the child's remains, testified Ashly Baldwin, a clinic employee.
    404 error  Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.

"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," it states. "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."
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/pic-empty-reserved-media-seating-section-at-trial-for-abortion-doctor-kermitt-gosnell
----
Hard to prosecute one flagrant killer when the whole aim is to kill.  Hardly newsworthy after reporting constantly on the killing of 40+ million in American alone since Roe-Wade, with or without this disgusting abuse.

[Crafty_Dog]

I lost the URL, but apparently AG Holder's sister is a partner in an abortion clinic run by a guy with a history of medicare fraud or something like that , , ,

[DougMacG]

    A young Philadelphia doctor “offered to perform abortions on 15 poor women who were bused to his clinic from Chicago on Mother’s Day 1972, in their second trimester of pregnancy.” The women didn’t know that the doctor “planned to use an experimental device called a ’super coil’ developed by a California man named Harvey Karman.

    A colleague of Karman’s Philadelphia collaborator described the contraption as “basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball. . . . They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman’s uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, . . . the gel would melt and these . . . things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus.”

    Nine of the 15 Chicago women suffered serious complications. One of them needed a hysterectomy. The following year, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. It would be 37 more years before the Philadelphia doctor who carried out the Mother’s Day Massacre would go out of business. His name is Kermit Gosnell.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578422883948238160.html

[DougMacG]

Media Issues, Abortion and Cognitive Dissonance of the Left all in one...

Is that the proper Latin plural?  And does 'little one' meaning 'little human' not really mean baby in the first place?

NYT runs a second story on Gosnell, on page A12.  Did he kill more people than the Boston Marathon bomber(s) or didn't he?

-----
Today's New York Times story [April 16, 2013], like the one last month, refers to the infants Gosnell is accused of murdering as "fetuses," although it also refers to them as "babies." This is another fascinating slip. Abortion proponents resolutely adhere to the convention of calling unborn children "fetuses" so as to conceal the similarity between (at least late-term) abortion and infanticide. By using the terms interchangeably, the Times unwittingly defeats this pro-abortion obscurantism, revealing what it means to conceal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578426892205886784.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Leftist slipups are not uncommon on abortion due to the perverted twisting of logic necessary to endorse it.  Noted previously in this thread is when Justice Breyer refers to the woman having an abortion as a mother.  A mother of WHAT?  Previous children??

[DougMacG]

Gosnell's abortion atrocities no 'aberration':
Kirsten Powers April 29, 2013  USA Today

Closing arguments leave questions about clinics elsewhere in America.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/29/gosnells-abortion-atrocities-no-aberration-column/2122235/
-----
Read it at the link.  The facts coming out of this trial are sickening and too gruesome for me to post. ("one of the severed feet found in jars at the clinic belonged to her aborted baby.") This creature of death and human carnage they call a doctor faces the death penalty for doing things that Illinois State Senator Barack Obama wanted to legalize.  The difference between prosecutable 1st degree murder happening in the operating room in at least 4 provable cases and what these so called doctors and clinics do legally for a living is slight.

How do so many people, voters, media, health inspectors, religious leaders, advocates for women, girls, for the poor and minorities, pretend to be unaware, morally neutral, or stay silent about this whole industry? 

[Crafty_Dog]

Doug:

You are on top of this issue.  May we ask you to save us from having to look up (probably in this thread somewhere  ) the specifics of the bills for which Obama voted while still in IL?

[DougMacG]

Specifics of the bills to protect the born alive that Obama voted down while still in IL:

The 2001 bill:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1093.html
The 2002 bill http://ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1662LV.html

... "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

His stated reason for opposing was that the bill would somehow jeopardize the whole Roe v Wade man-made right to abortion.  http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

Sen. Obama: "..it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

[We elected this guy President? Twice?!]

Fact checkers at the Washington Post were partially snowed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-obama-vote-to-deny-rights-to-infant-abortion-survivors/2012/09/07/9852895a-f87d-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

Still they write:  "we could have awarded Four Pinocchios to the former Illinois senator for his comments to the Christian Broadcasting Network (denying the bill said what it said), but that interview is several years old now, and it’s not the focus of this particular column."

The US Senate (pre-Obama) passed essentially the same bill the same year (2002) at the federal level by unanimous consent, proving the obvious, that Barack Obama was furthest to the Nazi-Stalinist Left in the Senate even before he even arrived.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347657/abortion%E2%80%99s-underside

[DougMacG]

The Atlantic, and everyone else in media it seems, is aghast that Jimmy Connors hinted that Chris Evert had an abortion during their engagement, in a year that both of them won Wimbledon.  The outrage seems to hint that people might think she did something wrong.  It is a book about his life, public and private.  It's not like she killed his first kid - without even discussing it with him.  Or is it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/05/jimmy-connors-shouldnt-be-talking-about-chris-everts-abortion/275809/

[Crafty_Dog]

Jumping back to the Gosnell case.

Some additional questions popped into mind for me:

If it is illegal to kill what comes out of the mother in the third trimester in PA because the law determines it to be a baby (and is that not the basis of this prosecution?) then why does the media refer to what happened here as babies that were born as a result of "botched abortions"? 

By the logic of the law, is it not murder to kill the baby inside the mother as well? 

And why are the mothers also not being prosecuted for their part in killing their babies as apparently "babies" are defined in PA law?

[DougMacG]

Mentioned in CCP's post today and in Sean Trende's RCP Virginia Governor's race column, the (African American) new Republican nominee for Lt. Gov. in Virginia has made some politically controversial statements in his past.  One example from both sources was Jackson declaring that Planned Parenthood had killed more African-Americans than the KKK.  (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/23/who_has_the_edge_in_the_va_governors_race_118528-2.html#ixzz2U8UOHVYx)

But is it true or is it false?  If it is true and if there is nothing wrong with it, what is wrong with pointing it out?