Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Should hospitals have a choice?

La Shawn Barber has done a good job covering the events of the recently passed prolife provision in a recent bill passed in Congress here.

The bill will basically prevent any federal, state, or local agencies/governments from discriminating against hospitals who don't provide or refer abortions by saying they don't get funding if they discriminate.

Planned Parenthood tells us that this bill "tramples reproductive rights."

It seems, at least according to Planned Parenthood, that every prolife measure tramples/destroys/attacks/slashes "reproductive rights." Why then are "reproductive rights" (meaning abortion) still around if they've been trampled/destroyed/attacked/slashed so many times?

One thing I've noticed from reading Planned Parenthood's web site over the years is that they hardly, if ever, link to or provide the text of prolife legislation. It's almost like they don't want the people visiting their site to actually read the legislation they despise so much. It's much easier for PP to say the legislation does one thing without proof than to actual post the language of legislation and then prove how it "tramples" on "rights." National Right to Life has the full text of the legislation in question here

The New York Times is saying, "The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered."

That's interesting as a fairly small percentage of our nation's abortions are performed in hospitals. In Michigan, it's less than 1%. There are probably an even smaller percentage of abortions performed at hospitals that don't want to perform abortions. Boxer is clearly making things up as one of PP's most dutiful solidiers yet the Times takes the liberty to treat this statment almost as if it is a fact by not putting the statement in quotes and putting the statement before identifying the person making the statement. They could have easily done some research or asked National Right to Life's Legislative Director Douglas Johnson (who is also quoted) if the legislation will affect millions.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Big media display ignorance or arrogance again?

I love to read newspaper articles online about stem cell research because they show me exactly why so many people are completely confused about this issue. This article in the Houston Chronicle informs me that embryonic stem cells come from fertilized eggs.

That's news to me. I mean, a fertilized egg, aka zygote, is only one cell so how do they get all these stem cells (plural) from a fertilized egg (singular)?

Oh yeah, that's right. Human embryonic stem cells actually come from 5 to 7 day old human embryos and not from human zygotes aka "fertilized eggs" by individuals who like to dehumanize the unborn and confuse readers.

The article also is very brief with what type of stem cells the featured scientist, Ping Wu is working with. It tells us that she received a bunch of fetal stem cells from an aborted child in 2000 but never really tells us if she is still working with fetal stem cells or adult stem cells.

The abstract of Wu and Svendsen work is also not 100% specific. It says they used "Human neural progenitor cells (hNPCs)."

A brief Yahoo search seems to indicate that these cells can come from adults, embryos, fetuses, and even dead adults.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Embryology quote of the week #2

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Terminating pregnancy with a baseball bat

The Detroit Free Press has been featuring the last couple of days a story about two teens who attend Armada High (north of Detroit in Macomb County) who intentionally killed their unborn child by having the father hit his pregnant girlfried with a baseball bat over the span of several weeks. The girl eventually miscarried. The coroner report isn't done yet so they don't know how old the child was. They were supposedly good kids and didn't tell others about the pregnancy until after she miscarried and according to one of the father's friends the baseball bat was the mother's idea.

The article discusses how prosecutors may not be able to charge or at least prosecute the father under Michigan's prenatal protection law because the mother was a willing participant. Is beating someone with a baseball bat assault if that person wants to be beaten with a bat? Was the child a willing participant in the beatings that took his or her life?

Interestingly, the unborn child in this case without a name and unwanted by the parents is repeatedly called a "fetus" by the Free Press. In other articles here and here about the Laci/Conner Peterson case in the Free Press, the wanted (though probably unwanted by Scott) Conner is referred to as "unborn son," "the son," "baby," "her first child," and "a boy."

Planned Parenthood spokesperson Margy Long says this about the beating,

" "How terrible it would be to be 16 years old and feel so desperate. What did that girl go through to have someone beat on her until she miscarried? It's a tragedy that pregnancy was terminated."

Hmmmm..... Hey, Margy - would this pregnancy termination have been a tragedy if one of your abortionists used a vacuum instead of the father using a Louisville Slugger? Were the 227,375 abortions your organization performed in 2002 also tragedies? Is it a tragedy that your organization tries to usurp parental rights by judge shopping so that minors can easily obtain a waiver even if they don't really qualify.

Is it a tragedy that Planned Parenthood of Michigan's web site says this:

"Q. What happens if the judge denies me a judicial bypass?
A. Hopefully this won’t happen. It would be good to get in touch with someone at Planned Parenthood before you file your petition. They might be able to tell you which judge would be most likely to help you."

Both the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press are reporting that the child was approximately 6 months old when he was delivered. The boy (even though the Free Press labels the child an "it" twice in the first paragraph) was approximately 13 inches long and 25 to 26 weeks old. The print article in the Free Press surprisely contains drawings of unborn children and their development throughout pregnancy. The bat used was supposedly a mini/souvenir type bat.

A constitutional law professor, Robert Sedler, is quoted (in the Detroit News story)as saying that the father can be prosecuted but the mother can't be.

"It seems to me they can prosecute this guy," Sedler said. "I don't think she can be convicted as an accomplice. She still has to be treated as a victim."

He said the girl's consent to the beating is legally irrelevant. "(Consent) is not a defense to a criminal prosecution," Sedler said.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004


Watching the coverage of Scott Peterson trial on the Today Show as I'd iron my slacks in the morning throughout the last however many months I can't recall one time (even though I'm sure they might exist) that Conner was called a "fetus." "Unborn child," "unborn son," and "child" seemed to be the norm of how Conner was referred. The media love to attempt to dehumanize "unwanted" unborn children but when it comes to unborn children who aren't in line to be aborted, the media often portray them as human beings.

This morning I heard something interesting that caught my attention. Katie Couric was previewing her interview with Elizabeth Edwards regarding her breast cancer and talked about when Mrs. Edwards found out. Instead of saying, "On the day John Kerry and John Edwards conceded their election loss" or "on the day that George Bush announced his election victory" or any other phrase that would signify that Kerry-Edwards actually lost, Katie says something along the lines of "on the day that they gave up their fight for the presidency" (don't quote me). Maybe its me overreaching but it seemed to be another example of media bias where Katie had to add in there was some kind of controversy over who actually won the election.

Big news of no surprise to those in the prolife movement about the dangers of RU-486. So much for "Safe and Effective." Planned Parenthood is defending the drug with this lame statement from Vanessa Cullins, one of their large salaried V-Ps. She says,

"At Planned Parenthood, our number one priority is the health and safety of our patients and we support responsible safeguards for women's health.

Medication abortion is extremely safe and effective and was approved by the FDA after a rigorous scientific screening process. More than a million women worldwide have used medication abortion safely."

Yeah right. Support responsible safeguards? Rigorous screening process? You mean the fast-tracking baloney under Clinton that didn't include specific testing on minors even though minors were obviously going to be taking the drugs.

It's interesting that Planned Parenthood, where Holly Patterson got her abortion, wasn't following the FDA guidelines for the use of the drug cocktail. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups will fight tooth and nail to keep this drug on the market regardless of its safety. As abortion doctors age and less doctors are being trained to perform surgical abortions, they need RU-486 to convince non-abortion providers to become abortion providers without having to get them into the grisly practice of vacuuming the children out of the womb.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Strengthen cloning ban by legalizing cloning

That's what some pro-choicers in Michigan's state legislature are trying to do. Unfortunately, for Andy Meisner it's not going to happen because the majority of Michigan's state legislators are prolife. In a recent local comment in the Detroit Free Press, Meisner tries to garner support for his horrible legislation by misleading the reader in many ways.

The column shows the complete inability of some pro-choicers to come anywhere near a decent level of honesty regarding human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research.

He starts the column out by providing false hope and hype regarding embryonic stem cell research. He even mentions Alzheimer's which numerous stem cell researchers have said is not going to be cured by stem cells. One even called it a "fairy tale."

Then Meisner tries to confuse the reader about his legislation. He says that his legislation would "permit Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, and retain and strengthen the ban on human cloning." The problem is that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is cloning. It is the same cloning technique that created Dolly the cloned sheep. How can we strengthen Michigan's ban on human cloning by making human cloning (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) legal? It makes absolutely no sense. Meisner is either ignorant (he isn't) or he is clearly trying to fool people who don't know what Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is. To him, "stregthening the ban" means redefining "cloning" to only mean cloning whose goal is to bring a child to birth and adding 5 years of prison onto the current 10 year sentence.

The editorial also says, "We should study those embryos, and possibly cure disease." If Mr. Meisner's legislation passes, human embryos won't be studied. They will be killed for research purposes.

The editorial also claims that the "embryos used in this research are best utilized at the early moments after their cultivation, long before any signs of humanity, such as an organ or brain waves, exist." Mr. Meisner's legislation, House Bill 6354, edits the current state ban on human cloning and embryonic stem cell research to make research on any human embryo, regardless of age, legal. Human embryos become human fetuses at the end of the 8th week after conception. At this time, all major structures/organs of the human embryo's body have begun to form and the face of the human embryo clearly looks human according to embryologist Keith Moore in his embryology textbook, The Developing Human.

Meisner concludes his illogical tirade by saying, "Now is the time for government to get out of the way of good science, for Michigan to compete for these needed jobs, and for our state to go on record in support of medical technology that could save and improve the lives of millions of Americans."

I love how embryonic stem cell supporters want government out of science but then they also want government(aka: Taxpayers) to have their hands in science enough to pay for this hyped research and all the researchers who'll be doing this destructive research.

As usual, no mention of all the diseases that have been cured or treated with stem cells from adults or umbilical cords. Surprise, surprise.

Abortion in Movies and TV

Over the weekend there was some talk about how abortion is featured in movies and tv - an article by Meghan Gurdon in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Jonah Goldberg and Katherine Lopez comment in the Corner - with Goldberg saying,

"But at the end of the day -- or often at the end of sweeps week -- the woman always says "it's my choice, I'm keeping the baby." Or, they'll have a scene where the woman gets a sonogram and she realizes she loves the baby and again she'll say "it's my choice. I'm having this baby."

And, the moment the women decide to have the baby, the fetus is automatically discussed as if it were a complete person worth talking to, reading to, singing to etc. The implication here, of course, is that if Rachel or whoever had simply chosen not to have the baby, that choice and that choice alone would have been enough of an abracadabra to metaphysically transform the fetus into nothing more than a lump of cells or the inconvenient consequence of a one-night-stand not worth reading to at all.

But -- and here's the funny part -- they never choose the abortion. It's so unbelievably predictable in show after show. Unless there's a miscarriage, the woman always "chooses" to have the baby and that choice makes the fetus into a baby. The ontological status of the baby itself has nothing to do with it."

He notes Friends, Murphy Brown, Boston Public, and Judging Amy. Other shows that I can think of off the top of my head include the O.C. (where Teresa is pregnant, leaves California with Ryan and ends up having a miscarriage, Beverly Hills 90210 (various episodes if I remember correctly), and Law and Order SVU. On Law and Order SVU, the pregnant girl who has Down Syndrome and has been raped is forced to abort by her mother but the cops want to get the remains of the child so that they can test to see if the dead child's DNA matches up with the suspects.

As Gurdon notes, the woman and/or man usually struggles with the decision but not because of what the child is and how killing an unborn child is something people don't want to do but with struggling with the two future paths of their life (parenthood vs. freedom).

Instapundit comments on Jonah's comments at 1:28 on November 14th (keep scrolling - it's towards the bottom. He writes,

"At common law -- and still, pretty much, the law generally -- there's no duty to rescue. The classic example, in fact, involves a man walking down the sidewalk and observing a baby drowning in a half-inch of water. Even if the man could rescue the baby with no risk and minimal inconvenience to himself, he's under no duty to take any action at all, and can simply keep walking without facing any penalty beyond moral condemnation.

But if he decides to help, and takes action, then he becomes obligated to follow through and must exert all reasonable effort (short of risking death or serious bodily harm; inconvenience doesn't generally count) to save the baby's life and leave it in a position of reasonable safety. The analogy should be obvious here.

Now I've thought of this argument in a different context, as an explanation for why you could both support abortion rights (as, of course, I do) and also support holding pregnant women liable for engaging in behavior -- like drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, etc. -- that might endanger the fetus. But I think it provides at least a partial answer to Jonah's question."

Dr. Reynolds, an abortion "rights" supporter, shows us a flaw in many pro-choice arguments like the Violinist by Judith Jarvis Thompson. He equates the stranger-child relationshiop with the mother-child relationship. Parents/guardians have more responsibilities towards their children than do strangers yet Dr. Reynolds would have us look at the relationship between a woman and the child she is carrying as nothing more than a stranger walking by child on the sidewalk.

Dr. Reynolds provides no answer to Jonah's question. Instead he shows us how pro-choicers think (or don't for that matter). Reynolds understands that the fetus is alive yet he still thinks women should be allowed to kill this living human being and bases it on analogy that is obviously flawed in numerous ways.

He seems to be troubled at putting together the dots with 1.) Intentionally killing innocent human being is wrong and should be illegal. 2.) Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being 3. Therefore, abortion is wrong and should be illegal.

He and numberless other pro-choicers can't seem to understand that what the unborn are (living human beings) isn't predicated on how others (their mother) feel about them - which seems to be the point of Jonah's post. The unborn don't suddenly turn into valuable human beings because their mother decides that she wants to have a baby but the unborn are valuable human beings regardless of how the mother views them. Just as whether the mother's decision to abort doesn't turn the unborn child into a worthless "lump of cells" just because that's how their mother views them anymore than Susan Smith decision to drown own her children did.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Embryology quote of the week

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)

It's just too bad that according to numerous pro-choicers "no one knows when life begins."

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Ms. Magazine

Imago Dei posts his critique of an alarmingly article in Ms. Magazine. The article by Martha Mendoza describes her personal story of having a stillborn child removed.

As Imago Dei says, Mendoza's logic is extremely twisted. Her basic position is that partial-birth abortion (the intentional killing of partially-born innocent human beings) should be legal so that when women have a stillborn child, doctors will be trained to remove that already dead child in the way that the woman most prefers. Wouldn't it be just easier to train doctors in a variety of techniques to remove stillborn children? Why should an intentional act of killing be legalized so more doctors will be able to remove a dead child in the exact way that Mendoza prefers? Shouldn't doctors be allowed to decide which method they prefer and think is safest for their clients?

Plus doctors haven't been trained to do D and E's for years - so the federal ban that Bush signed is not the reason for it. She says, "restrictive state laws and the violence targeting physicians have reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to do dilations and evacuations." Wrong. What law restricts doctors from being trained to do D and E abortions if they want? I'm not aware of any. The reality is that doctors don't want to perform abortions - most of them decided to become doctors because they wanted to save lives not end them.

She also seems to be wholly misleading on what type of procedure she received. This could be either ignorance (not understanding what the different abortion procedures are) or deception. She says she had a "D and E" and that her dead son "slipped out" and she could see the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. In D and E (dilatation and evacuation) procedures the child doesn't slip out. The child is dismembered and the skull is sometimes crushed because it has often been hardened to bone. She didn't have a D and E if her son slipped out.

Maybe she had a PBA also known as D and X (dilation and extraction) or intact D and E. Mendoza throughout her piece does a poor job of differentiating between D and E's and D and X's. She wants a D and E because they are supposedly safer but then seems to be actually trying to get a D and X In this procedure, her child would be delivered feet first except for the head and then scissors would be jammed into her dead son's head and his brains would be suctioned out so his skull could collapse and be delivered. Her experience doesn't sound like this type of abortion either because the skull of the child would be collapsed. It sounds like the child was delivered.

Its unfortunate that Ms. Magazine is either too lazy to actually research this issue or that they are too pro-abortion to stop any article supplying erronous information to their readers as long as it is favor of abortion.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Still a Michigan Fan?

I never thought that someone could temporarily take away my pride of being a fan of Michigan football but I stand corrected.
The fact the Michael Moore acts like a Michigan football fan made me reconsider, though just for a second, my allegiance to the greatest college football program in the United States.

In a recent Mike's Message, Moore encourages his readers not to commit suicide because of Bush's win for 17 reasons one of which is:

"7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan."

For one I don't know why that's a reason but regardless. Second, too bad for the Doofus of State - Michigan doesn't play Ohio State until November 20th. Maybe he was referring to Michigan State who lost to the Buckeyes on November 6. His obvious ignorance of when Michigan plays the dreaded rival (every true-blue Michigan fan knows it is the last game of season) is evidence enough for me to believe that Moore isn't on actual "real" fan.

Another reason from Moore "10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't."

Our candidates? Which candidates is he referring to? Overweight, ultra-liberal, rude, incredibly rich yet still masquerading as average guys, deceptive, white candidates? He seems to be drawing a line between black candidates and "our" candidates.

I've been debating with myself for a while, and I've still yet to come to a conclusion, about whether Michael Moore is a very smart deceptive man who says and does things to intentionally mislead Americans and enjoys pandering to the small percentage of Americans too ignorant or lazy to understand and investigate his ridiculous claims or if he is a complete idiot who actually believes what he says. His writings are often so horribly bad and stupid it is hard to believe that some one who is a deceptive genius would right this garbage but then again it's the kind of writing the Michael Moore-Howard Dean-BushLiedTroopsDied-WarForOil part of the country loves.

Check out Dave Kopel's Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9-11 and his review of Moore's Bowling for Columbine to help you decide.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Bloggers to blame?

Bloggers are now being blamed for the bad exit polls here

Instead of focusing on why the exit polls were off (bad polling practices, violence and intimidation by lefties, the idea often fostered by the media that people who would vote for Bush are dumb) or maybe think about scraping the practice of trying to predict who will win based on them and just focusing on the reasons for voting, etc., main stream media is now blaming bloggers for sharing the information about the exit polls. This is ridiculous as major television stations on election night were also talking about the exit polls. Remember Susan Estrich. Sounds more like envy to me. Sounds like they're mad because the bloggers are more flexible, quicker, and smarter and can get news out to their readers faster than MSM can.

Would the bloggers be blamed if the exit polls were right? This is an obvious attempt to kill the messenger instead of focusing on the real problem with the exit polls.

The Pennsylvania Problem

The sad and dangerous thing regarding the future of Bush's judicial nominees is that the probable Senate Judiciary Chairman, Arlen Specter, will be more pro-choice than the probable Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid. If only Toomey had won. Tim Carney has a great piece about that subject in the National Review here

Maybe if Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania's Governor, loses in 2 years, Bush can give Specter a cushy appointment like being the ambassador to Aruba and not lose a Republican seat in the Senate. I'd probably even prefer a low-profile Dem instead of a high profile, pro-abortion Republican.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Miller's prophetic book

Michelle Malkin provides prophetic text from Zell Miller's book:

National Democratic leaders know nothing about the modern South. They still see it as a land of magnolias and mint juleps, with the pointy-headed KKK lurking in the background, waiting to burn a cross or lynch blacks and Jews.

They are like Shreve McCannon, the Canadian in William Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom!" who asks the Southerner Quentin Compson: "Tell me about the South. What's it like there? What do they do there? Why do they live there? Why do they live at all?"

The modern South and rural America are as foreign to our Democratic leaders as some place in Asia or Africa. In fact, more so. I'm sure each could explain the culture and economy of Pakistan, Taiwan or Kenya better than that of the American South.

The longer the Dems ignore the morals of the South the longer and worse it will get for them. They don't understand how strongly Christian people in the South and around the country care about issues like abortion and the sanctity of marriage.

Bush wins!

November 2, 2004, will go down in history as a great day for conservative politics. President Bush has a solid popular vote and electoral college win (looking like 286), being the first President since his father to carry the majority of the popular vote with the highest turnout in the history of American elections. The GOP gains 4 seats in the Senate, including getting obstructionist leader Tom Daschle out of Senate and also gaining seats in the House. Filibustering prolife judicial nominees will be much harder for the Dems when there are 55 Republicans and one prolife Dem (Nelson). Amendments to define marriage into the constitutions of various states passed in all 11 states by fairly wide margins (even in Oregon). In Florida, voters put a parental consent law for abortion into the Constitution.

Not all good though. Its sad that the people of California weren't able to understand that spending 3 billion dollars of their money over 10 years on embryonic stem cell research was a bad idea. Scientists and ignorant political pundits will no longer be able say that embryonic stem cell research isn't getting its funding. With an average of $295 million a year from California (more than the federal government spent on adult and embryonic stem cell research combined last year) for 10 years, commentators will have no leg to stand on when their hyped cures don't happen.

CNN.com was great for election coverage. You could click on states for every race and get result of precincts reporting by county and know as much as all the commentators on TV. I was looking at the Florida information that had Bush up 5% with like 96% of precincts reporting and I'm wondering how the heck has Florida not been called for Bush when they're calling other states for Kerry that had similar % numbers but less precincts in.

It was great to watch scratchy-voiced Susan Estrich, former campaign manager for Dukakis, on Fox News last night. She was so cocky when all she had was the ridiculous exit polling results. Then when actual votes were in and Florida was for Bush and Ohio was leaning Bush she comes on still confident yet even more shrill and predicts that Cuyahoga county in Ohio will basically erase Bush's then 150,000 vote lead. Too bad it didn't happen Suz. I loved watching how higher % of Cuyahoga precincts were coming in but Bush was still up 100,00+ votes. Brit Humes kindness to her was so forced. Confidence is one thing but even most partisans are careful when making predictions.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Osama tape translation

is now available here at Al Jazeera.

Most of it is a wandering incoherent rant that just seems to try to insult our President. Some interesting quotes below - many sound like Michael Moore could be Osama's speechwriter.

"So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty."

"it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you."

"But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations."

"So I say to you, over 15,000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business."

Monday, November 01, 2004

Wisconsin Dems reach new level of scumbagdom

In a recent column on National Review, Leonard Leo allows the reader to see a piece from the "Wisconsin Catholics for Kerry" that is paid for by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. This piece says that "John Kerry will promote the common good:" and in the last bullet says, "Work, across our differences, to make abortion as rare as possible (their italics)."

Really. That's why he said in 1994 on the Senate floor that "The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure.... [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice."

Not to mention calling the prolife Catholics he's now courting "forces of intolerance" at a NARAL dinner. What will this campaign not say to have John Kerry elected? Is anything beyond the reach of their deception?

The piece also contains the misleading bullet (previously debunked here) that "New state statistics suggest that abortion rates have increased under President Bush's watch after reaching a 25-year low in 2000."

The Wisconsin Dems show their opinion of the importance of the abortion in the minds of Wisconsin's Catholic voters by putting both of these bullets at bottom of their respective columns.

One of the co-signers is also Daniel C. Maguire. For those unfamiliar with Dr. Daniel C. Maguire he is a complete abortion proponent. He isn't personally opposed to abortion at all. Nor is he what must people would consider a practicing Catholic. He's written a book, Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religions, that attempts to show how abortion is really a "right" in various religions. He also has numerous other pro-choice books and a pro-choice website

Mad Max vs. The Terminator

Mel Gibson has come out against California's Prop 71, a disaster of proposition whose campaign has been financed by big biotech companies so they don't have to invest as much of their own cash into the embryonic stem cell research that has yet to cure a single human being of a single disease. The Governator is in favor of this proposition even though its going to cost $6 billion dollars over 10 years. So much for fiscal conservatism.

A good ole' column by Wesley Smith shows how the broad language of the proposition allows for a right to human cloning.

Shame on you Arnold.