JivinJehoshaphat

In a dress



And hanging out with her best friend

Last night, Life Training Institute President Scott Klusendorf debated ACLU President Nadine Strossen at California Polytechnic State University (also known as Cal Poly). The only reason I know is because a student who attended the debate must have been searching for some other responses to the debate or previous debates and came across my post regarding the Klusendorf-Strossen debate at Grand Valley State and decided to leave a comment:

I saw Scott and Nadine last night at my school. I found your entry interesting.

Why should this human right be exercised rarely? Because it's an invasive, costly, and avoidable procedure done on the human body. Which is why contraceptives should be promoted and used--I wonder what Scott would think of contraceptives.

I agree that Scott was very persuasive. But in one situation, a student asked if abortion was excusable in situations of rape or incest. As he said he could sympathize for the woman, he said a woman should not have to "commit homicide" to "make herself feel better." Way to demean a woman's feelings and emotional state! So it's people like him who think that a woman's right to reclaim power over her body is belittled to nothing more than an inexcusable action done to "make herself feel better."

I also found it interesting that Scott said that if the life of the mother and fetus were at stake, he would rather save the mother than lose two. Than lose two. In no way did he explain that he would rather save the mother's life if only the mother or fetus would survive.

This, I ask you, what is a human being? Is what genetically defines is makes us a human being? Or is it our intellect, our thought, our consciousness, our actions that makes us human beings? Would you still consider a brain-dead person a human being or a mass murderer a human being? Who defines these terms but ourselves.

As the definition of 'human being' is a personal one, so should the intimate decision women make when they consider abortion. In other words, you may practice your pro-life beliefs if you let me practice mine.

My guess is Selina (the commenter) is a very intelligent young woman yet I wonder if she has actually thought through the last part of her comment. If "human being" should really be defined on a personal level then how could you speak out against any number of killings in which the perpetrator's personal definition of human being didn't happen to include his victims?

The new defense attorney strategy du jour would be: "My client didn't think his victims were human beings."

And knowing how Scott typically begins a presentation, I'm fairly certain he provided a good deal of evidence to show the unborn are human beings. Instead of trying to prove him wrong, Selina feels she can simply wipe away his evidence by claiming that what makes something a human being is personal or completely non-objective.

UPDATE:Here's the school newspaper's write-up of the event.

Michigan’s 2007 abortion statistics have been released and abortions decreased 3.7% in one year. Here’s Right to Life of Michigan’s press release.


Steve Wagner (author of Common Ground without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion) and Michaelene Fredenburg (author of Changed: Making Sense of Your Own or a Loved Ones Abortion Experience) are interviewed on the Point of View radio show.


Sarah Steelman, a Republican candidate for governor in Missouri is donating contributions made to her campaign by embryonic stem cell research proponents to the Missouri Baptist Children's Home.

From Reuters:

Five armed men burst into the small room and courtyard at dawn, just as 21-year-old, 22-week pregnant, Sunita was drying her face on a towel.

They punched and kicked her stomach as she called out for her sleeping boyfriend "Jassa", 22-year-old Jasbir Singh, witnesses said. When he woke, both were dragged into waiting cars, driven away and strangled.

Their bodies, half-stripped, were laid out on the dirt outside Sunita's father's house for all to see, a sign that the family's "honor" had been restored by her cold-blooded murder.

A week later, the village of Balla, just a couple of hours drive from India's capital New Delhi, stands united behind the act, proud, defiant almost to a man.

In the American Spectator, Joe Carter eviscerates Prime Minister Gordon Brown's attempt to defend the creation of human/animal hybrid clones.


None of the votes to lower the abortion limit in Britain passed. It appears the closest vote was 304 to 233. Blogger James Cary has some thoughts.


A three person panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled by a 2-1 vote that Virginia's ban on partial-birth abortion is unconstitutional. Backers of the law plan on challenging the ruling in front of the entire Fourth Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.


Abortion proponents and Ken Edelin still have trouble telling the whole story regarding why he was arrested and convicted. Here are some of the details which are always conveniently left out when he gets interviewed by pro-choice advocates.

“On October 2 the girl was twice subjected to [a] saline infusion abortion procedure. A third and similar attempt was made the following day.All proved unsuccessful. Later the second day Dr. Edelin performed a hysterotomy and surgically aborted the child. It was during the hysterotomy that Dr. Edelin was alleged to have detached the placenta from the uterine wall and then held the child inside its mother for at least three minutes...

According to NRL News, “The prosecution charged that the infant was viable at the time the abortion was performed and that it was the action of Dr. Edelin of holding the child inside its mother’s womb after detaching the placenta which caused it to suffocate. (One witness for the prosecution said that holding the baby inside the mother for three minutes "would be equivalent to cutting the air hose on a salvage diver.")

“‘Manslaughter is the issue, not abortion, criminal manslaughter,’ the prosecution said.”

JT at Between Two Worlds has posted a YouTube video of Barack Obama's speech at a Planned Parenthood event. He notes, "Every evangelical should watch the first 10 minutes or so of this speech by Barack Obama, delivered to Planned Parenthood in July 2007. It is an impassioned defense of partial-birth abortion."


The Washington Times has an editorial on Barack Obama's and John McCain's positions on abortion and claims that each man's rhetoric doesn't match his record.


Britain's Parliament has voted against a ban on creating cloned human/animal hybrid embryos.


Legislators in Massachusetts are using large portions of the $1 billion dollars the state planned to spend on life sciences (including embryonic stem cell research) for some pet projects earmarks.

The governor's initial proposal sought to empower a panel of industry specialists and academic leaders to decide how to spend $1 billion over 10 years in several targeted areas, much like a similar program in California. But lawmakers in the Senate and House decided how and where to dole out large portions of the $1 billion that would be spent in the bill, which could emerge from a conference committee as early as this week, earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for specific projects, even giving names to individual buildings and grants.....

In addition, legislators have designated $12.6 million for a highway interchange near Andover, and $12.9 million for a sewage treatment plant in Framingham, money designed, they said, to spur local development for life sciences companies.

The Telegraph is reporting members of parliament in the United Kingdom will likely vote in favor of limiting abortion to 22 weeks. The time limit in Britain is currently set at 24 weeks.


Maybe there was another reason for NARAL’s endorsement of Obama. From the American Spectator’s Washington Prowler:

One reason that the national board of NARAL, the pro-abortion lobbying organization, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, and encouraged its state membership to do the same, was a series of behind the scenes conversations between the Obama campaign and NARAL.

"The message was, get on board or risk losing influence," says an Obama strategist. "We needed one of these [feminist or pro-abortion] groups to step up and walk away from Hillary. NARAL did it, and to its credit under great danger to its credibility with its membership."

The Daily Breeze has a story about a high school softball player who became pregnant and decided to let her cousin (who recently discovered she couldn’t have children) adopt her child.

"In my mind, I was thinking about an abortion," Cuico said. "But I didn't want to because the baby was already moving in my stomach. I felt sad just thinking about an abortion. It was an emotional roller coaster for the next month...."

"I had a change of heart. If I had an abortion, I don't know how I would've lived with myself."

INCHRISTwithchrist posts the story of a post-abortive woman.

I had allowed the abortions to leave such a terrible mark on my life. I let it stand in between me and my God for years. I invited the memories to take permanent resident in my mind and heart and prevent me from receiving Gods acceptance and mercy.

The LA Times has an obituary on Harvey Karman, an illegal abortionist and the man who invented the cannula to help kill unborn children. Here’s parts I found noteworthy:

Karman also had many detractors, particularly because of his attempt to revolutionize second-trimester abortions with a device called the super coil, which was inserted into the uterus and expanded when exposed to moisture, causing a miscarriage. It caused serious complications, including hemorrhaging and infection, when it was used on about a dozen women in Philadelphia on Mother's Day in 1972.

"Harvey engaged in some very irresponsible experimentation on women's bodies," said Carol Downer, who co-founded feminist women's health clinics in Southern California in the 1970s.....

His ultimate goal, according to Darney, who met Karman in the early 1970s, was to "make it possible for women to safely do their own abortions using the simplest possible equipment......"

He said the team visited outlying villages (in Bangladesh) and taught midwives, village chiefs, young girls, "anybody who wanted to learn," how to use the cannula for an abortion. The method is still used widely there, although it is called menstrual extraction because abortion is banned.

Karman "is responsible for saving the lives of countless women throughout the world through this innovative technology," Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive of the National Abortion Federation, a professional association for abortion providers based in Washington, D.C., said in an interview last week.

The California Catholic Daily has more information on Harvey Karman:

Woo’s obituary did not mention that the illegal hotel-room abortion for which Karman was convicted occasioned another obituary more than 50 years ago – that of otherwise healthy Joyce Johnson, who died in April 1955 from sepsis following Karman’s abortion. She was 26. Karman was not then nor did he ever become a physician – but he continued to perform abortions.

Ken Epps on his bill to punish individuals who commit acts of violence against pregnant women and their unborn children:

There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called "right" to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman's right to have her wanted baby protected in law.....

So why do the opponents of C-484 resort to scare tactics and misrepresentations of the law to make their case? Why are they so afraid of a law that would punish a criminal for intentionally harming or killing an unborn baby who is wanted and loved by its mother?

The answer was revealed when an outspoken opponent of C-484 was quoted recently in the media: "If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion."
....

Even if people do start questioning abortion, it does not necessarily follow that they will change their minds about whether a woman should have the freedom to choose that option. What it means is that pro-choice advocates will be in a position of having to justify abortion without relying on the illusion that the fetus is absolutely worthless....

The irony is that for years pro-lifers have been accused of trying to impose their views on others. The opponents of C-484 are now attempting to impose on women who want to be pregnant and want to love and protect their babies the view that the child in her womb is unworthy of protection in criminal law, unworthy of any amount of respect at all to the extent that a criminal can brutally attack that mother's child with a fist or a boot or a gun or a knife or a sword and face no consequences for killing what is so dear to her.

Looks like Geron will have to put off their human embryonic stem cell clinical trial on spinal cord injuries at least another year. They apparently at least applied for a clinical trial this year as opposed to all the previous years where they promised to apply but never did.


The pro-choice claws are coming out after NARAL issued their endorsement of Obama. NOW-New York State president Marcia Pappas (of Ted-Kennedy-committed-“ultimate betrayal” by-endorsing-Obama fame), EMILY’s List President Ellen Malcolm and NARAL’s New York State affiliate aren’t on board.

On one hand, it’s like “Is it really that big of a deal to endorse the presumptive nominee now that he has basically wrapped the nomination up?” but then on the other hand, “Why not just wait until it’s completely over?” The only reason to give the endorsement now seems to be to convince Clinton to drop out sooner rather than later.


Arizona’s Board of Nursing has decided that nurse practitioners with special training can commit first-trimester abortions. The Arizona legislature is currently considering a bill to only allow physicians to perform abortions but I doubt Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano would sign it.

A woman who had a failed RU-486 chemical abortion at Planned Parenthood describes her experience:

“Ms. Wilkerson, I don’t know how to explain this any other way, but you are still pregnant.” He explained that since I had thrown up some of the medication, it most likely caused the procedure to not work as it should have. At this point, I was pretty much freaking out. I KNEW what the next step was, and that was surgery. ACTUAL surgery. The vacuum surgery. I asked him what the sound I heard coming from the ultra-sound was, and he said it was the heartbeat. I began to cry.

He went on to explain that although the child was still living, there was an extreme possibility of deformity, and that surgery was my best option.

Her child dies before the surgical abortion and immediately after the surgical abortion she has some negative emotional feelings (she googles “ways to commit suicide") but says she now doesn't think about it everyday or think about what may have been. She does keep an ultrasound photo of her child but hasn't looked at it in a while and doesn't plan to.

A woman in New York named Hua Zheng has been charged with child endangerment after leaving her newborn child at the doorstep of her pastor's home. According to the story, she had previously sought an abortion after her husband "told her they could not afford another child and ordered her to have an abortion.

After being told by two doctors it was too dangerous to get the procedure, Zheng, of Flushing, lied to her husband and hid her pregnancy, the sources said."


A little boy from Florida apparently has better vision after receiving treatments of umbilical cord stem cells in China. His vision has supposedly gone from 20/1200 to 20/200 in less than 3 months.


In Texas, a woman has been charged with abuse of a corpse after allegedly admitting to trying to flush her stillborn child down the toilet.


Like really, really stupid pro-choice pro-abortion rants? This is a classic one.

The Telegraph is reporting on a baby girl Ellie-Suzanne Fish who is leaving the hospital healthy after being born Britian abortion limit cut-off.

She weighed 1lb 4.7oz and was given just a 10 to 15 per cent chance of survival then had to endure three operations, including two on the brain.

But she is now nine months old and a healthy 14lbs, and has been allowed out of hospital for the first time.

A woman in Oregon is accusing a Republican congressional candidate Mike Erickson of paying for her abortion in 2000. Erickson denies being involved in the abortion. Erickson's primary opponent Kevin Mannix has used this charge in a campaign mailer.

The woman and her friend, Kristi Oetken, first attempted to draw attention to the issue in 2006 after receiving a campaign mailer from Erickson touting his endorsement by Oregon Right to Life during Erickson’s first run for Oregon’s 5th Congressional District. The woman and her friend said they considered Erickson’s anti-abortion stand hypocritical in light of his experience with the woman.

Researchers at Cornell created what is believed to be the first genetically altered human embryo by inserting a gene to make the embryo fluorescent.

The Cornell scientists put a gene for a fluorescent protein into the single-celled human embryo. The embryo had three sets of chromosomes instead of two.

After the embryo divided for three days, all the cells in the embryo glowed, Dr. Rosenwaks said. He said the goal of the work was to see if the fluorescent marker would carry into the daughter cells, allowing genetic changes to be traced as cells divided.

They justified their work by saying the abnormal embryo would have never become a baby.


Ryan Anderson chronicles a recent symposium at Princeton titled “Is It Wrong to End Early Human Life?” Participants included Robert George, Patrick Lee, and Peter Singer among others.

Taken as a whole, the discussions revealed several salient points. It was instructive to witness the ease with which various speakers could embrace infanticide or dehumanize unborn life—recall Harman’s argument that unborn children “really are a lot like plants.” But even more instructive was how unalarmed many in the Princeton audience seemed to be by any of this. I had forgotten that, for more than a few in the academic elite, this is just par for the course.

John Ronson has a long piece in the Guardian about his experiences following around assisted suicide facilitator George Exoo.

Once or twice a week," Humphry explained, "I get very strange people on the telephone who are anxious to commit suicide because of their depression or sad lives. When they get your number they want to talk and talk. And they call again and again. And they also call all the other right-to-die groups."

Humphry said that the mainstream right-to-die groups will tell them, "'We can't help you. It's not within our parameters because you aren't terminally ill.' But they pursue you. They call and call. And eventually someone will say, 'George Exoo will probably help you.' And that gets them off the phone and on to George."

HT: Wesley Smith for both the Ronson and Anderson pieces.

So much for the embryonic stem cell research head start. From an article in Nature on induced pluripotent stem cells:

The ten-year head start human ES cells got on human iPS cells has effectively shrunk to zero, says Thomson, because so much of the legacy of ES cells — reagents, culture media, hands-on expertise and experimental history — is transferable to iPS cells.

A man in St. Louis about to throw away his lawn clippings found a newborn boy in a dumpster and saved him.

“Falker says whoever left the child in the trash bin had a plan in mind.

“The baby was covered up so nobody could find it,” he said.

The child was recently released from the hospital to foster parents.


Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’ pro-choice position has begun to catch up with her.

The Roman Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas said Friday that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius should refrain from taking Communion until she publicly repudiates her support for abortion rights.

As a professed Catholic, you can only veto so many prolife bills before the church leadership has to do something more than issue a statement noting their disappointment. Archbishop Naumann isn’t fooling around. I wonder if something like this will ever happen to Governor Granholm in Michigan.


Three individuals in India have been sentenced to 10 years in prison after forcing a women to abort her child after a ultrasound test showed the child was a girl. After the abortion, it was discovered the test was wrong and the child was a boy.


Father Thomas Berg wonders if New York will follow California’s path of spending stem cell money on new, fancy real estate instead of the quickest way to treatments.

So, why was Lubin’s application shot down?

Lubin’s clinical data, in the opinion of his colleagues and independent observers, was solid. His request — in response to an RFA for facilities grants — was modest in comparison to the eight-figure grants the CIRM eventually approved. He just wanted to build new labs for the Children’s Hospital. And Lubin is no second-string researcher: His work is supported by the NIH, and he has served on many NIH peer-review committees. Lubin’s research, which focuses on adult stem cells derived from the placenta, could arguably translate almost immediately into therapeutic applications to the benefit of millions of black children who suffer atrociously from the effects of sickle cell anemia. About 1,000 babies a year are born with the genetic disease in the United States.

As it turns out, Lubin’s work was faulted among other things, according to a summary on the CIRM website, for showing “no evidence of current use or planned expansion into the use of human embryonic stem cells.”

At the RH Reality Check blog, Frances Kissling tries to answer the question, “What if your mother had aborted you?" and reveals some exceptionally poor responses.

In the beginning, my answer was fairly abstract, philosophical. I'd note that the "I" who stands before them is not the "I" that was once a fetus. The I of today is the result of a mother who continued a pregnancy and the process of becoming that made me who I am today.

What silliness! So that wasn’t you who was kicking in your mother’s womb? That must have been some other organism who later because the organism that you are?

Since her time in the womb, Frances Kissling has increased in size and abilities, developed physically and mentally but the entity which was outside Kissling’s mother after birth is the same entity which inside Kissling’s mother before birth. A journey down the birth canal doesn’t magically change that.

Kissling now has a different response:

I feel a need to turn that question around and to ask instead: What if your mother's life would have been significantly happier and healthier if she had not had you? If you as a fetus had the capacity to make decisions, would you have given your life for your mother's life, health and happiness?

The simple response to this question is that human beings don’t have the right to kill other innocent human beings even if killing other human beings makes them happier and healthier. Presumed future happiness is in no way proper justification for killing a human being.

Kissling’s answer gets even more ridiculous as she says her mother “never should have had children.” She then describes various hardships her mother went through until Kissling hired her mother to work as “the head of the telephone appointment staff” at Kissling’s abortion clinic. Kissling’s mother “flourished” at the position her daughter hired her for and eventually “moved to DC and was the practice manager for a busy orthopedic practice. Her pleasure and first time security was cut short by lung cancer and at the age of 58 she died.”

Kissling then notes,

As a fetus I would have gladly given up my chance to enter the world and become Frances Kissling to have given my mother a better chance at happiness.

Well, that’s something which is much easier to state when you know it can no longer happen. It’s much easier to claim, “I’d rather have been killed in the womb” when your born and enjoy the legal protections birth brings. The statement also erroneously assumes that as a fetus Kissling wasn’t in the world. She was in the world, she was just in the womb at the time. If Kissling’s non-existence would have helped her mother out so much and Kissling cared so much about how mother’s happiness, then would Kissling have been willing to have been killed once outside the womb? Probably not. She hasn’t made any argument for why it’s okay to abort for presumed future happiness but not okay to kill infants/toddlers/adolscents for presumed future happiness.

Kissling concludes:

If we are going to imagine, as some do, fetuses as part of the human community, we are going to have to accept that if they could make decisions, they might be as willing to sacrifice for others as we demand that women and only women be.

So if fetuses could make decisions, they might be willing to be intentionally killed for their mothers’ presumed future happiness? And as unlikely as that is, would that make killing them okay? Is it okay to kill someone for your future happiness if they’re willing to be killed for your future happiness?

Also notice Kissling’s play on the word “sacrifice.” It’s true that mothers often make tremendous sacrifices for their children. But they typically aren’t killed for their children or willing to die to raise their children’s level of presumed future happiness. Yet that’s the sacrifice Kissling is claiming hypothetical decision-making fetuses might be willing to make. Kissling is equating making sacrifices with being a sacrifice.

Her latest RH Reality Check blog post entitled “Outing the Pro-Teen Sex Agenda” claims that the most pro-choice states (states given an “A” by National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League rankings) have “a lot more to celebrate” regarding teen pregnancy prevention and claims that prolife states (states given an “F” by NARAL) are where high-schoolers are:

-more sexually active
- more likely to have had sex before the age of 13
- more likely to have four or more sexual partners.

First off, the criteria of the comparison is rather silly to start with because it assumes, without any evidence, that just because a state is ranked poorly by NARAL because they have prolife laws, they are therefore “prone to tell kids that abstinence is the only proven contraception, and discourage use of actual contraception, then wag their finger at the less ‘morally superior’ states.”

For example, Alan Guttmacher Institute ranks states on their “efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy” and South Carolina and Alabama (which NARAL gives “F’s” regarding abortion) are the 3rd and 4th highest ranked states by AGI with regards to contraception while some states (like New Jersey or Hawaii) ranked well by NARAL with regards to abortion do poorly on AGI’s contraception rankings.

In addition, statewide comparisons which assume one group of states is more prone to comply to one brand of sex education are especially poor considering most decisions regarding sex education are made at the local level.

Regardless, we’ll move on to see if Cristina is being accurate when she claims pro-choice states have more to celebrate with regards to teen pregnancy. When examining teen pregnancy, probably the basic item to look at is the teen pregnancy rate. For some reason, Page doesn't note which states did better with this most basic of categories.

NARAL gives 19 states an “F.” The average teen pregnancy rate of these states is 74.89. Some states are very low (like North Dakota with a 42) while other states are high (like Texas with a 103).

NARAL gives 8 states either an “A” or “A+” and gives 7 states an “A-.” I’m not certain if Cristina included “A-“ states so the average teen pregnancy rate of the “A” states without the “A-“ states is 75 and 78.47 with the “A-“ states. Again, some states were low (like Vermont with a 44) while others were high (like “A-“ Nevada with a 113).

After realizing prolife states (by Page’s criteria) had a slightly lower teen pregnancy rate than pro-choice states, you probably are no longer wondering why Page doesn’t mention the most basic indicator of success with regards to teen pregnancy in her analysis.

Instead, the first criteria Page uses is the proportion of high school students who had sexual intercourse in the previous three months or “sexually active” for short. One problem which springs immediately to mind is that many states (including 5 of the 8 “A” states, 1 “A-“ state and 6 “F” states don’t have recorded statistics for this category. I would expect most honest people to at least note that of the groups they're comparing, 5 of the 8 (or 6 of 15 if "A-" states are counted) states in one group and 6 of 19 in another group don’t have statistics to be compared. Does it really make sense to claim the most pro-choice states have more to celebrate than the most prolife states based on a category where the majority of the most pro-choice don't record data? Not to me, but then again, I'm not desperate to prove the pro-choice movement saved America.

The averages are 34.69% for the “F” states, 29.67% for the “A” only states and 31% for “A” and “A-“ states combined.

The second criteria Page notes pro-choice state success over prolife states is sex before the age of 13.

Again there is the problem of many states (including 4 “A” states, 1 “A-“ state and 6 “F” states) not having recorded statistics for this category. I also wonder if these statistics include children who have been forcibly raped because you can’t really blame children being forcibly raped on a state’s prolife laws. Anyway, let’s go to the statistics.

For the 13 recorded prolife states, the average is 6.62%. For pro-choice states, the “A” without “A-“ average (4 states) is 5.25% and 5.6% with “A-“ states (total of 10 states).

The third criteria Page uses is the proportion of high school students with four or more lifetime sexual partners.

We again have the same problem with numerous states not recording this information including 4 “A” states, one “A-“ state and 7 “F” states.

The averages are 15.09% for the “F” states, 11.50% for the “A” states without “A-“ states and 12.2% with the “A-“ states.

What all these statistics would have been if pro-choice states like California, Oregon and Washington were included along with prolife states like Pennsylvania and Utah is anyone’s guess.

When all the dust is settled you see that Page’s attack on prolife states and congratulations of pro-choice states is based on fairly small differences between two groups of states where many of the states’ information isn’t even recorded based on the silly, unproven assumption that prolife states "are prone to tell kids that abstinence is the only proven contraception, and discourage use of actual contraception, then wag their finger at the less ‘morally superior’ states.”"

If this is what the pro-choice movement and Cristina Page celebrate, then I feel sorry for them.

What’s obvious once you actually take a look at the teen pregnancy rates is the that teen pregnancy rates seem to be much more correlated with geography than with how prolife a state’s law may or may not be. The Northeast and Plains sections of our country typically have the lowest rates, the Midwest is in the middle, and the highest rates are in the South and Southwestern states.

Another Michigan abortion provider has been caught throwing aborted children into the dumpster (warning: graphic images). HT: Jill Stanek


Here’s another article on what California’s Proposition 71 will be funding.

The center will be a highly visible symbol of the region's commitment to stem cell research, and a place where the taxpayers footing the bill can see what progress their money has fueled, said Dr. Edward Holmes, the consortium's president and formerly head of UCSD's medical school.

If I was a California taxpayer, I’d be thinking: We were promised cures but all we got for our $6 billion dollars was a bunch of fancy buildings.


Canadian MP Ken Epps (sponsor of the Canadian Unborn Victims of Crime Act) absolutely destroys claims made by Joyce Arthur and Lynn Paltrow that Epps’ legislation could be used to police and punish pregnant women. He concludes by saying,

“The onus is on those who claim that C-484 can be used to “police” and “punish” pregnant women to prove how. Given they are unable to do this, then intellectual honesty and integrity demand that they put an immediate end to their campaign of fear.”

The prolife students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point have posted a YouTube video of student Roderick King pulling up the crosses of their prolife display. Another great example of pro-choice intolerance where King respects the prolifers’ right to freedom of speech as long it doesn’t upset him.


Here’s another sad infanticide story. This time the mother, Morgan Hite, gave birth in a bathtub, wrapped her son up in a towel, put him in a tote and left him in a closet. The child was discovered months later by Hite’s father and step-mother. The story says,

Hite told police she had tried to get an abortion in Anchorage but a women's health clinic would not perform the procedure because she was 15 1/2 weeks pregnant, the affidavit says. Alaska law limits abortions to the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Huh? Not according to Alaska's abortion statistics. Alaska even gets an "A-" from NARAL. I'm guessing the "women's health clinic" is Planned Parenthood which offers surgical abortion through the end of the 13th week.


The Washington Post is featuring an article about a “residential program for homeless adolescent mothers and their children” in Arlington developed by parishioners at a Catholic Church.

The Elizabeth House program is simple: It's for homeless adolescent girls from 16 to 20 who have decided to keep their babies -- and who want to set personal goals, particularly educational ambitions. The group usually takes in young women during their second trimesters, after they have decided to become parents. They can stay in the program two to three years.

But remember according to some pro-choicers, prolifers’ concern for life only extends to birth.