Lynda Williams “pulled the baby’s arm and the baby pulled back”

As Pundette summarizes “And then Lynda Williams cut the baby’s spinal cord.” Just a routine abortion at the Gosnell clinic. Nothing of note. See Pundette for the rest.

If the media were honest, Kermit Gosnell would be compared to Mengele, his minions like Lynda Williams to other Nazis who were able to partake in the horrific crimes against humanity because they had seen so much blood they had become desensitized.

But the media isn’t honest about what happened at Gosnell’s clinic in the name of “choice.” Because what happens in an abattoir abortion clinic stays in an abortion clinic, especially when run for profit. Don’t forget Gosnell made millions off what he did, even if he kept trophy baby feet of the infants he killed in waste containers tossed in a rat infested basement.

If the media were honest about what happened in Gosnell’s clinic, more people would see the reality of abortion rather than “products of conception” and other fuzzy liberal euphemisms  used to conceal the horror of snipping the spinal cords of viable babies born alive in the third trimester. But it’s legal to kill our progeny as long as they’re completely defenseless, so in our national shame we cower to the “rights” deemed appropriate to women who want to butcher their young.

I’ve been absent largely because of my expanded young family.  New baby slept, and then he didn’t. We still need food and clean laundry. And we’ve all been sick, etc. But in large part I’ve lost heart after a blowout of a fight over abortion after one of my best and dearest friends announced she, too, was votin’ with her vajay-jay or some such last fall.

It wouldn’t have mattered as much, I guess, if she weren’t Catholic, or if she weren’t the Godmother to my oldest. But she is. And to hear someone I held dear announce she was siding with the Sandra Flukes of the world devastated me. I know other people who believe in abortion rights. But her public proclamation of her deepest vagina thoughts which were threatened by evil Republicans who would take away her vaginal rights to kill her own tore at my soul. How could someone whose judgement I once trusted now rationalize such evil?  I guess that’s the power of media, of reading HuffPo, of watching Jon Stewart. It all chips away at the truth slowly. She claimed another friend had a problem pregnancy and would have been prevented live-saving medical treatment if those eeeevil Republicans were in power. But what she described–a molar pregnancy–isn’t a pregnancy at all, despite blood tests to the contrary. No one would prevent a D&C in such cases because there was no pregnancy. She was not convinced. And I remain heartbroken.

If the media were honest, every newspaper would headline Gosnell daily. So that people like my friend could see the reality of “choice.” But that’s why the media cowers in fear from Gosnell and his clinic: hearts and minds would change when confronted with big, viable babies “snipped” and thrown out like trash, their feet chopped off as macabre trophies for a demented man who made millions as a legal abortionist.

H/t to No One of Any Import for the nudge. Thanks.

Gosnell is our Mengele, and he, too, operated legally. Oremus. When people hear–if they ever do even with partial media coverage–of viable babies “snipped” or butchered in toilets, of his trophies kept in freezers, or in cat food jars, then maybe wecan have a serious discussion about what abortion really is. “Products of conception” is just a fuzzy liberal euphemism to make folks feel less horror when they realize they agree to let women butcher their own babies.


The Vagina Vote and Other Thoughts

Pardon my absence. In all honesty, I’ve retreated from the news because I can’t stand it right now. It’s pathetic, and I can’t wait for the election to be over.

(Can I leave the country for a month? I vote by absentee ballot anyway).

I’m not the only one. This cross-country move was the hardest we’ve faced. I feel like I’ve earned a little nesting time with my family, cooking, sewing, finding donations for my church sale and boxing already outgrown newborn clothes (far too soon!) for the crisis pregnancy center. Making matching skirts for my daughter and her baby doll. Cuddling my son. Avoiding the reality of the culture outside.

This from Althouse intrigues me. In a nutshell: a mom writes advice columnist to bemoan her daughter’s attitude. Said daughter lays the guilt on thick because she hates her state school and wanted to go private. Mom and dad foot the bill to the tune of $26,000 a year.

How entitled, no? To bitch about your paid college education because it wasn’t the one you wanted.

If you wanted something badly enough, you would work to make it happen, no?

But the entitlement mentality persists. We have the Sandra Flukes of the world, shelling out 50k a year for law school at Georgetown who can’t hop over to Target for a $9 prescription. Someone else should pay for what I want, not me. Keep the government out of my vagina they cry in one breath, but shill Uncle Sugar for the pill in the next so they can all do with their hootchies what they will. Keep out of my interests until I want something for free and not see the irony in the request. It depresses the hell out of me.

Pardon my French tonight.

Ryan’s “Catholic problem”?! What about Obama’s?

The Daily Beast sees fit to call Ryan’s budget a “problem” for those pesky Catholics. Bring it on:

Indeed, the choice between these two types of Catholic politicians could not be any more plain.

Biden is a “social justice” Catholic who claims to know how to connect with blue-collar Democratic Catholics, like those in his hometown of Scranton, Pa. During four of his last five years in the Senate, he received a 100 percent rating from NARAL. As vice president he supported federal funding for abortion, despite voicing opposition to it in 2008, and the Health and Human Services mandate requiring Catholic institutions serving the public to provide insurance coverage for contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization.

Oh, that. Let’s rephrase the headline: Paul Ryan exposes the hypocritical liberal Catholics who cling to their social justice bona fides while ignoring church teaching on life. You know, that it begins at conception. That abortion is not only murder, but a great moral evil. And now Catholics are forced to pay for that evil via Obama’s HHS mandate regardless of whether they disagree or not.

Yeah, that. Religious liberty and abortion. That’s a “Catholic problem, too.”


While the choice of Ryan will please the Tea Party as well as fiscal  and social conservatives, it creates an opening for the Catholic supporters of Obama: Paul Ryan’s 2012 GOP budget has already been the subject of official criticism by some Catholic bishops for failing to meet certain “moral criteria” and cutting programs that “serve poor and vulnerable people.” The media coverage failed to note that the four letters to Congress in April came from two bishops: Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, each speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their respective roles.


“Those [Catholic] principles are very, very important,” Ryan said. “And the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life; help people get out of poverty, out into a life of independence.”

Emphasis my own. We are the party of lifting folks out of poverty, not keeping them tethered to it for votes. What an inconvenient truth in the age of Obama, where millions more find themselves on food stamps.

Some point to Ryan’s flirtation with Ayn Rand, but neglect his ultimate rejection of her philosophy in favor of real Catholic teaching:

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told the National Review in April. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. …Don’t give me Ayn Rand.”

Enough said.

Read also Pundette, GOP: the Party of Math?

UPDATE: Many thanks to Pundette for the link!

From the comments, some, um, commentary

It never fails to impress me–the hatred engendered by liberal supporters of abortion for deviant thoughts. How terrible to protect the life of a child, no? From last week’s post on Chinese forced abortion, I received this:

Wait – let me insert the standard conservative response, found all over Yahoo news in the ‘comments’ section: “She knew the rules – it’s her OWN FAULT! Everyone knows the Chinese have a one child policy. She got what she deserved”. There. Typical response noted. Oh – wait – critical thinking skills?? Been forced to abort or bear your rapist’s child? Or your just keen on forcing your religion on others – kinda like the Chinese forcing this woman to have one child. See the correlation? Of course not you Dumb bitch, I mean, fellow citizen.

Mean, ain’t he? And not particularly bright, either. I am conservative, and I have never heard anyone use what he points to as the “standard conservative response” let alone think it myself. Yet somehow I’m lumped into a category he not-so-logically clumps with the ChiComs.

Go figure.

Real violence against women

Don’t tell Socialist lovers like Tom Friedman: the Chinese are brutal to their ladies.

Local authorities forced seven months pregnant Feng Jianmei into an abortion because she couldn’t pay the steep fee for those who already have a child. Seven months. The family couldn’t afford the fine because they were helping to pay for an in-law’s cancer treatment (but wait! I thought they had free medical!) The negative publicity garnered by circulating pictures on the internet of the aborted baby next to mama have caused a furor, forcing the government to admit the truth:

Chinese authorities confirmed Thursday that a woman was forced to abort seven months into her pregnancy, several days after her plight came to light when images of her baby’s corpse were posted online.

Rights groups have blamed authorities in north China’s Shaanxi province for forcing Feng Jianmei to abort her pregnancy because she failed to pay a hefty fine for exceeding China’s strict “one-child” population control policy.

The Shaanxi provincial government said in a statement that a preliminary probe had confirmed the case was “basically true”, and the investigators have recommended action be taken against the perpetrators.

“This is a serious violation of the National Population and Family Planning Commission’s policies, jeopardises the population control work and has caused uneasiness in society,” the provincial government said on its website.

What’s curious: the “federal” government denies the legality of an abortion at 28 weeeks, while the locals stick to their guns and say it’s fine.

No word yet from our Dear Leader of the Free World, who famously voted to protect the “intent” of the mother to kill her child even if the babe was born alive.

“This is about ethics, not science”

So argues Wesley J. Smith in response to a new, non-invasive fetal genome test:

The news that scientists can test a fetus’s genome through non-invasive means presents a crucial challenge to the moral integrity of society. Will these tests be used by parents and doctors to help prepare the family for a potentially special-needs child? Or instead, will this science accelerate the ongoing search and destroy mission to eugenically cleanse our progeny? In other words, will the fictional world of Gattacanow become fact?

Alas, based on current trends, it would seem so. We increasingly feel entitled not only to have a baby, but to have a baby of the kind and nature we want. Already, 90 percent of babies whose prenatal tests show that they will be born with genetic conditions such as dwarfism and Down syndrome, are prevented from being born. Pressure on expecting parents to abort the “defectives” was so clearly demonstrated that the late Senator Ted Kennedy and former Senator (now Kansas Governor) Sam Brownback co-sponsored the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act, requiring that genetic counselors be neutral with regard to the options of birth or abortion. IVF embryos are already being genetically screened before implantation, with unwanted nascent lives thrown out as medical waste — including those with a detected propensity to adult onset diseases. There is even advocacy published in prominent bioethics journals arguing on behalf of “post-birth abortion,” that is, permitted infanticide if the baby that is born does not suit the needs and desires of the parents. And let us not forget that sex-selective IVF and abortion already happen — the latter of which the president of the United States wishes to remain legal.
This particular well could have no bottom. Imagine if scientists discover a genetic component to homosexuality. At least some of our gay brothers and sisters would not be allowed to live. Not only that, but the screening could easily include testing for what are essentially cosmetic issues. Already we have seen IVF advertised as a means of determining hair and eye color.

TeachingmyTwo and I discussed this very scenario last week. If a genetic trait for homosexuality were discovered, can’t you see laws protecting the elimination of gays? It’s not illegal to abort a girl, because that’s choice, but it would be to abort a gay male, because that would be … discrimination. More:

Many neo-eugenicists assure us that these decisions will all be laissez faire, that is, based solely on “choice.” But that is a fantasy. There are already calls among the Medical intelligentsia to offer prenatal genetic testing to all expecting mothers, not just those who are “at risk,” with the clear intention that the eugenic abortion rate increase. One could easily envisage laws that restrict coverage for children with serious prenatal detectable health conditions. And the raw power of peer pressure could make it very difficult to permit genetically determined babies from being born with serious illnesses or disabilities.

The march of science cannot be stopped, we are told. But this is about ethics, not science. What we do with our technological prowess is what matters. The answer to the evil potentials of the coming genomic screening is to strengthen our commitment to human life and deepen our capacity to love.

Smith always has his finger on the pulse of the ethics of science, good bad and ugly. Ross Douthat at the NYT gave it a go this weekend as well:

 But given our society’s track record with prenatal testing for Down syndrome, we also have a pretty good idea of what individuals and couples will do with comprehensive information about their unborn child’s potential prospects. In 90 percent of cases, a positive test for Down syndrome leads to an abortion. It is hard to imagine that more expansive knowledge won’t lead to similar forms of prenatal selection on an ever-more-significant scale.

Is this sort of “liberal eugenics,” in which the agents of reproductive selection are parents rather than the state, entirely different from the eugenics of Fisher’s era, which forced sterilization on unwilling men and women? Like so many of our debates about reproductive ethics, that question hinges on what one thinks about the moral status of the fetus.

From a rigorously pro-choice perspective, the in utero phase is a space in human development where disease and disability can be eradicated, and our impulse toward perfection given ever-freer rein, without necessarily doing any violence to human dignity and human rights.

Disease and disability can be eradicated. Who, though, defines “disease and disability”? If 90% of Down Syndrome babies are discarded as waste with no afterthought, what will happen when gay, those with the genetic marker for addiction, depression or Alzheimer’s join them in the trash heap? Will there be no end? Will parents be able to choose not to have that transgendered kid or the one with supposed gender identity disorder? What about one too dark? Too fat? Too tall?

This will test those who champion “choice” above all else.

H/t: HA headlines

The limits of government

You won’t be able to buy a Biggie sugar soda in NYC because we need to “war against obsesity,” but by gosh by golly, you’ll still be able to abort that boy if you don’t want him solely because of gender because it’s a “war on women” to suggest otherwise.

Is it just me, or have we lost something along the way?


“pro-choice” label alienates, fewer self-identify

I wonder why.

Support for abortion rights dropped to a new low in the 18-year Gallup survey.Witness feminist teeth gnashing over this one:

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves “pro-life,” one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009?

Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for “pro-choice” — from 1998 through 2008 — to a close division between the two positions since 2009. However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.

Ed Morrissey notes the largest shift among demographics:

Independents now favor the pro-life position 47/41, a dramatic shift from last years’ 51/41 support for abortion, and the trend lines for independents roughly mirror the trends of the overall population.

You don’t say. Maybe The Lightbringer needs to call a press conference to say his former position–you know, not caring that infants born alive could survive the abortion procedure against the original intent of the mother–has now changed because he’s so Christian and that his thinking has evolved since public opinion means so much to him.




“My job is to take into account everybody, not just some.”

So argued Obama while shamelessly drawing comparisons between himself and Romney during a commencement speech in Joplin. Never let a crisis go to waste. Or a speech, apparently.

But this idea of “I govern everyone” isn’t how liberals govern, and especially not Obama. He surely isn’t the president of Catholics, of supporters of traditional marriage, of Gulf state oil workers sitting idly at home because of specific action taken by the Obama administration.

At least the Catholics aren’t taking this lightly. Alleluia.

Bring on the jokes (because abortion is just soooo funny)

The abortion jokes, that is. For some reason liberals happen to think it’s such a laughing matter. Pat Archibold at NCRegister writes:

Newt Gingrich’s campaign is so dead, Mitt Romney wants to baptize it and Rick Santorum wants to put it in a jar and show it to his kids.”

That’s the joke that Jimmy Kimmel was going to tell at The White House Correspondent’s Dinner. He didn’t, but only because an ABC News reporter told him that it could “cause the room to turn against him.”

Yup. Jimmy Kimmel thinks dead babies are funny. It’s a ghastly ghoulish joke in which I see no possibility of humor. None. But that’s why I wish he would’ve told it.

I can’t help but wonder if Jake Tapper were the voice of common sense and reason since Kimmel apparently has none. Like Archibold, I wish the joke had been told:

I don’t want this topic of the sacredness of life to be whispered about. I want to see and hear what people actually think about things like 50 million dead babies. I want to hear where pro-aborts find humor in that. I think the more punchlines people hear, the more people will see the truth. And the truth is that many people don’t have any problem whatsoever with the destruction of human beings.

Kimmel’s former girlfriend Sarah Silverman recently tweeted a picture of her stomach after she had a big meal and again later when it wasn’t sticking out so far – like a before and after pic. She tweeted that she had a “quicky aborsh” or something like that. many were reasonably outraged that anyone would make so light of that topic. But I say, keep those “aborsh” jokes coming because in humor there’s truth. And the truth is that many pro-abortion rights folks don’t really think ripping babies apart in the womb is that big of a deal. In fact, they laugh at folks who do.

You know all the creased brows and thoughtful looks that pro-abortion rights folks give when they say their cliched favorite lines like “safe, legal and rare” or “I’m personally pro-life?” That’s the real joke. And you’re the punchline.

When the second generation of bioethicists recently proposed after-birth abortions, it caused  a furor even though the suggestion has been proposed for decades a la Peter Singer. Logically, the young bioethicists had a point: if it is legal to commit infanticide in utero, then why not after birth? They argued an infant is no more capable of self-actualization or care than a fetus, therefore it, too, should be equally abortable. According to that logic, they’re correct. The more liberals expose the truth and humor of their core beliefs, the more likely we are to win the argument.

H/t: Creative Minority Report