Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Ultrasounds all around

Looks like a number of states, including South Carolina, Idaho, Georgia, and South Dakota are trying to follow Michigan's lead in making sure women considering an abortion are given the chance to view an ultrasound image of their unborn child.

Another less-than-safe abortion clinic

A large abortion clinic called the Metropolitan Medical Associates Englewood Center for Women in New Jersey has been temporarily shut down by state health officials after they found violations posing "immediate and serious risk of harm to patients."

Problems included but were not limited to "infection control, instruments, equipment used for sterilization of patient care use items and the processing of equipment."

If only their clinic was as clean and inviting as their web site, huh?

The investigation which led to the temporary closing was initiated after emergency room staff treated a woman whom experienced complications from an abortion at the Englewood clinic.

The Metropolitan Medical Associates abortion clinic in Englewood may sound familiar to prolifers. They've been in the news before. This is the same clinic where abortionists admitted to performing 1,500 partial-birth abortions annually back in the mid-90's and one of the clinics that advertised in a Pennsylvania yellow page book trying to convince Pennsylvania teens to cross the border to avoid Pennsylvania's parental consent law.

The National Abortion Federation's web page for New Jersey lists "Metropolitan Surgical Associates" in Englewood, New Jersey with the same phone number as Metropolitan Medical Associates as one of their member clinics.

Did they really find Jesus Christ's tomb filled with his and his family's DNA?


Stand to Reason's blog has posted a response by Dr. Paul Maier.

Ben Witherington also has some comments.

Secular scholars are also dismissing the film's claims as false.

Dave Konig has a more comedic take.

Tags: , ,

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Life Links 2/27/07

The New York Times has a profile article on Frances Kissling. Kissling will be stepping down from her position at Catholics for a Free Choice tomorrow.

Another example of pro-choice intolerance.

Illinois appears to be the next state headed down the road of funding embryonic stem cell research and human cloning for research. Of course, you wouldn't know that S.B. 4 allows state money to be used for somatic cell nuclear transfer from reading this article in the News-Gazette. The legislation also has the typical deceptive definition of cloning.
For purposes of this Section, "clone or attempt to clone a human being" means to transfer to a uterus or attempt to transfer to a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus or the birth of a human being.
Is it me or does this leave the door open for implanting a cloned human embryo as long as the pregnancy couldn't result in a human fetus because the child would be aborted before that stage of development?

Monday, February 26, 2007

Don't allow alternatives to euthanasia

So says Mark Rutte, leader of the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD).
Rutte says the new government puts too much emphasis on palliative care in the stance it has now taken on euthanasia. He fears that the government will try to somehow make palliative care into an full-fledged alternative that will make euthanasia superfluous. Rutte thinks euthanasia should remain an "independent alternative" in situations of unbearable and untreatable suffering.

A full-fledged alternative to physicians ending the lives of their patients? Unbelievable. Don't those other parties know that euthanasia should be the only choice "independent alternative" for individuals who are suffering. Why try to treat the suffering when you can just kill those who are suffering?
Rutte also pointed out that the coalition wants to urge pregnant women to consider adoption as an alternative for abortion.

The nerve of these people. Not only do they want palliative care to be an alternative to euthanasia, they want adoption to be considered an alternative to abortion. Don't they understand that death always works best?

Life Links 2/26/07

An article in the UK's Scotsman includes one woman sharing what she felt after having a late-term abortion.
Four months later - around the time her baby might have been born - she went to pieces.

Stricken with grief and guilt, she turned to drink. "I knew I needed help badly, I was so messed up," she adds.

"I'd been given the scan picture of the baby - by mistake, I suppose. But I kept it and used to put it beside me on my pillow when I went to bed. I'd have nightmares. I could hear this child calling my name."

According to an Indian newspaper, a young man in India who has paralyzed from the waist down is now walking after a stem cell transplant.
Nearly 100 ml of his bone marrow was removed, harvested and isolated before the stem cells were injected near the injured spot in his spinal cord.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Our argument is we have no argument

The Des Moines Register Editorial Board came out today with a disastrous editorial on legislation to legalize human cloning for research in Iowa.

The title of the editorial asserts the "Stem-cell bill is NOT about human cloning" even though the editorial notes that "therapeutic cloning would be allowed" and an embryo is destroyed when its "human embryonic stem cells" (my emphasis) are extracted. It's amazing how scientists hope to get human embryonic stem cells out of embryos which are created through a cloning process that somehow isn't human cloning, isn't it?

The line that takes the cake though, is
There are some lawmakers who believe destroying a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is analogous to taking a human life. We have no argument to0 persuade the people who believe that.

They have no arguments to disprove that human embryos are living human beings. Exactly. Why not? Because it's true, perhaps? Because embryology clearly shows that human embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development? At least the editorial staff of the Des Moines Register can acknowledge they are entirely bereft of anything resembling an argument. What's amazing is their arrogance to continue to assert their completely untenable and unargued for position.

They continue,
We can only remind Iowans that what we're talking about here are microscopic masses of cells. Destroying them isn't the same as destroying a human life. Holding back this research, though, could prevent saving and improving lives.

They can only point out that human embryos are small and then assert that somehow because human embryos are small they are not human life.

The Des Moines Register is also one of the many papers which inaccurately labeled President Bush's policy on embryonic stem cells as a ban.

How many years will it be before the editorial staffs of newspapers eventually realize that the bevy of miraculous cures from cloning isn't coming. How long before the public actually starts to completely write this kind of propaganda off? 5 years? 10 years?

Richard Doerflinger sums it up when he writes,
Not a bad deal, really: Promote "hope and opportunity" while affecting a general support for "progress"; ignore the falsehoods, failures, and frauds that plague this agenda; and keep promising pie in the sky, by and by, until it's too late for the voters to do anything about it. Not too nice for those patients who needed cures, of course.

Addition is not the strong suit of the RH Reality Check Blog

Marcy Bloom in her second attempt to argue that the right to an abortion is a basic human right, writes,
With 68,000 women (mostly black and brown) dying from unsafe abortion in the developing world every year, including 34,000 women in Africa, 38,000 women in Asia, and 5,000 women in Latin America, this public health necessity has become a moral, legal, and political imperative.
Is there a typo here? Because 34,000 plus 38,000 plus 5,000 is 77,000 not 68,000. Looks like Bloom might have gotten some of her women dying from unsafe abortions estimates mixed up.

I also think this part is laughable.
Forcing a woman to undergo a clandestine abortion threatens her rights to life and survival, violating the most fundamental of human rights.
Hmm... Since when do laws which ban abortion force women into clandestine abortions? Oh wait, they don't anymore than laws against robbery force people to rob banks. Or laws against forcible sex force men to rape women.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

You wonder why people have really bad arguments

Well, sometimes it's because they never try to take the people they're arguing against seriously. If you view the people you disagree with as nothing more than sexophobic buffoons you're not likely to actually read what they write seriously and try to form good arguments against their arguments. Amanda Marcotte provides almost a perfect example of this in the comments thread of a post of hers at the TPMCafe.
Agreed. I have zero moral qualms about abortion or contraception. Most people feel abortion is immoral for the reason they feel that women sleeping around is immoral---they are products of a culture that has irrational sex phobia, especially towards women, and they've absorbed it.

Do you get that? Amanda thinks the majority people who think abortion is immoral do so because they have absorbed an irrational sex phobia towards women from our culture. It's not because they think ending the lives of developing, unborn humans is an actually wrong itself. It's because they don't think women should be having sex for fun. That's like a prolifer like me thinking everyone who is pro-choice is pro-choice because they like unborn children being killed. Imagine how that would skew my arguments.

When you see the majority of people who think abortion is immoral (by the way, according to a Pew Research poll, the majority of Americans think abortion is morally wrong) as being dolts controlled by a sex phobia you fail to see their actual motives and arguments and this makes it much more difficult to actually address their arguments.

In a recent post by Amanda at Pandagon, she tries to argue that abortion is a moral good and deciding to have an abortion is the "most moral choice" in "the vast majority of abortions." Yet nowhere in the post does she actually make anywhere near a decent argument for why abortion is a moral good. Never once. She tells pro-choicers they shouldn't say abortion is immoral because that "reinforces (an) anti-choice claim" (even though that has nothing to do with whether abortion is actually immoral or not). She says, "Having the notion that women are moral midgets and that abortion is an evil, even if you think it's one that should be tolerated, being reinforced by pro-choicers does the pro-choice argument no good. So I'd like to argue against it."

She'd like to argue against the idea that "abortion is evil" because it doesn't do the pro-choice argument any good not because the idea in itself is wrong.

She also writes later, "Also, saying that abortion is morally questionable, even if you're pro-choice, is a huge insult to the brave men and women who risk life and limb to perform them."

It's not that saying abortion is morally questionable is wrong in and of itself, it's wrong because it insults abortion providers. Get the picture.

Amanda's main attempt at an argument comes in a long paragraph that I will copy below with a few slight changes.

To see that infanticide is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value. When a woman chooses infanticide, she's not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal. She is probably thinking about her family's well-being and yes, her own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called "selfish" by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female. In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance. If I gave birth, I wouldn't even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that infanticide would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Infanticide, not just the right to infanticide but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who commit infanticide should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.

Now if you think replacing abortion with infanticide isn't fair then the question I have for you is "why isn't it fair?"

A pro-choicer's response would probably be something like, "Well, because born children are different than unborn children and therefore are worthy of legal protection."

So, in other words, Amanda's whole argument that abortion is moral assumes the unborn aren't worthy of legal protection while born children are without ever actually making that argument.

Debating cloning legislation in Iowa

Here's an article about the cloning legislation in Iowa. Human cloning is referred as a type of stem cell research (most likely because that's how the bill describes it) even though no one has actually been able to get stem cells from human clones. A child with a diabetes is convinced by his parents that God gave humans the ability to try to clone human embryo for a reason. Mark Hunt, a professor at the University of Iowa, lies about what researchers at the University of Iowa want to do. I'm thankful the article actually explains what somatic cell nuclear transfer is.
The process creates a cloned embryo by removing the nucleus of a human egg cell and fusing the "empty" egg with the nucleus of another human cell. The cell then divides, and embryonic stem cells can be extracted to be used for research. The embryo is destroyed.
How rare is it that a newspaper actually describes what somatic cell nuclear transfer is? Unfortunately, that paragraph is the second to last paragraph.

Another article from Radio Iowa contains a dodging-the-question answer from University of Iowa researcher Amy Sparks,
University of Iowa researcher Amy Sparks answered the critics who say there have been no cures found in stem cell research using cloned human embryos. "Why haven't we seen cures today? Well, we haven't had the opportunities. We know our colleagues abroad are starting to do some work in the United Kingdom. Some of the states in the United States are now starting to support this research," she says. "Here in Iowa we have a ban. We can't do any of it yet. Hopefully, when this bill passes, we will."
But why haven't they (in places where the research is allowed and paid for with millions of tax dollars) come up with any cures, Amy? Why was Hwang Woo-suk, who was formerly one of the most highly-regarded cloning scientists, not able to get a single embryonic stem cell line from a cloned human embryo (or even create a cloned human embryo for that matter) even though his government poured tens of millions of dollars into his research and he had over 2,000 eggs at his disposal? Why hasn't anyone been able to get stem cells from cloned embryos? Do you actually think the University of Iowa would have found a cure using stem cells from cloned embryos if Iowa hadn't banned human cloning?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Life Links 2/21/07

A thirteen-year-old girl in Italy was forced by a court to have an abortion because of her mother's wishes.
Since the abortion this month, Valentina has been recovering in a hospital psychiatric unit. La Stampa quoted her as saying: "You made me kill my baby now I'm going to kill myself."

Wesley Smith on the "anything goes" ethics of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.
There is also the usual discouragement of reproductive cloning. However, the Guidelines do not claim that creating a cloned human embryo for gestation and birth is morally wrong. Rather, they provide a strictly utilitarian analysis: "Given current scientific and medical safety concerns, attempts at human reproductive cloning should be prohibited." Of course, today's safety concerns may be overcome tomorrow. Indeed, the very research that the Guidelines encourage--e.g. creating cloned and natural embryos for experimentation--could provide information about early gene expression needed to eventually make reproductive cloning "safe."

James Bopp Jr. argues that social conservatives should support Mitt Romney.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Predictions come true

I know this is old news but I was gone for a week.

On February 6, I wrote,
Can anyone see a resignation in the near future? Maybe the "I don't want my blog to restrict the efforts of this campaign. This should be a campaign about the issues and how we can make America a better place. My hire by the Edwards' campaign has impeded the ability of John Edwards to share his message of hope with America. Therefore, I tendered my resignation so the campaign could focus on the important issues which face America." type of resignation?

On February 12, Amanda from Pandagon wrote ,
Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won't do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

Not right on but fairly close, huh? I did completely missed the blame-the-people-who-share-what-I-wrote strategy. How could I forget to blame the right wing noise machine and the patriarchy?

"Every time I coughed?" Do you mean every time you wrote something where you intentionally maligned people of faith?

My guess is that both of bloggers were forced out. I think they made a deal where they wouldn't be publicly fired in exchange for agreeing to resign in the near future and not maligning the Edwards campaign on their blogs.

Time's article on pregnancy centers

If you haven't read it already, here's a long article in Time about pregnancy centers. In terms of long articles about pregnancy centers, this article is probably one of the fairer ones.

I found this part interesting,
Courtney Barbour, an administrative assistant at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, arranged to pick up the urine of a pregnant woman on her way to Birthchoice, a CPC in nearby Raleigh, so she would test positive and see the reaction. Having heard horror stories from friends in college, she was braced for the worst. "But it really wasn't what I expected," Barbour says. "They acted like they really did want to help me." While one woman handled the pregnancy test, Barbour spoke to a counselor who was very sympathetic. "She didn't show me any disgusting movies--though she did show me these plastic models of the fetus at each stage of development--and told me that it has a heartbeat immediately, which I knew medically was not true."

Barbour seems to be completely ignorant about fetal development and worse Barbour's ignorance of fetal development is never corrected in the article and treated as if it were true or if Barbour had some kind of expertise in fetal development. How easy would it have been for the reporter to look up an embryology textbook or maybe even give an embryologist at the local university a call?

Another thing the reporter might have wanted to include is some more background on Ms. Barbour. A google search would have revealed that Ms. Barbour is not just an administrative assistant. In fact, she labels herself "a second-generation pro-choice activist" in an e-mail she wrote to Brian Williams and posted on her blog.

A "second-generation pro-choice activist" who doesn't know the first thing about when an unborn child's heart starts beating? I'm not surprised either.

Courtney is also the type of individual who uses the term "f***wads" when referring to prolifers (language warning). She also appears to think the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Here's another interesting quote from an abortion provider in North Carolina:
"If I didn't continue, the place would close. No one wants to go into abortion providing. But it's so important. I know that I'm providing a service to women that no one else will."
The unanswered question is: Why does no one want to go into abortion providing?

The size of a pen

A child named Amillia Sonja Taylor, who was born 21 weeks after being conceived, is being released from the hospital today after spending the last four months there. Amillia was 9 and ½ inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born. She isn't expected to experience any long term problems from the complications of her premature birth.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Life Links 2/9/07

Here are two news stories from January regarding rat stem cells and hearts that I missed. From the latter story,
They appear at this time to be the ideal cell to use for cardiac repair," Taylor said. "They do everything embryonic cardiac cells do, and they don't create teratomas, or tumors."

I think the statement from John Edwards' spokeswoman in this story is hilarious.
Asked whether the campaign had sufficiently screened the two women before they were hired, Ms. Palmieri said it was difficult to find and read every word a prolific blogger had written over a period of years.
You didn't need to find and read every word. You just needed to read a week's worth of posts and that should have been enough to make you wonder if the upside of hiring Marcotte (support from the leftwing blogosphere) was worth the down side (being associated with someone who's said the kinds of things Marcotte has).

A columnist at Michigan State discusses abortion and coolness and wonders if Sufjan Stevens can make the prolife position cool.

James Thomson appears to be trying to help reporters understand that embryonic stem cells aren't going to be curing anyone anytime soon.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Classic "I'm sorry if...." apologies from Edwards' bloggers

Both Amanda and Shakes have posted classic "I'm sorry if" apologies on the John Edwards blog. Edwards says he is personally offended by the tone and sentiment of some of their posts (did he read these posts before hiring them?). He has talked to them and believes "it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith." If he believes that Amanda never intended to malign anyone's faith for a millisecond, he's stupider than I thought.

Too bad this Washington Post story didn't include any quotes from Amanda's blog.

Here's the "You Might Be a Godbag If" post from Punkass Marc along with Amanda's approving comment of the list.

Among the list are:

"If openly argue that your god/s is/are the only true god/s and everyone else's gods are a bunch of phooey, you're a godbag."

So you're a godbag if you actually believe your religion is true and are willing to stand up for your beliefs.

"Similarly, if you collect money in the name of or try to make a living off of people's beliefs in god/s, you're baggin' it god-style."

So every pastor who makes a living by being a pastor is a godbag.

More commentary on the non-firing at Hot Air.

UPDATE: Dawn Eden nails it -
I guess it's nice to know that all those times her blog referred to Our Lord and Saviour as "Jeebus" — in 114 blog entries to date (the most recent last Sunday) — she was only kidding.

It's also interesting looking through the comments section of various blogs who are fans of Amanda and reading their reactions to Amanda's "apology" and Edwards reaction. Many are not happy with Edwards for scolding the bloggers and calling their language intolerant.

Life Links 2/8/07

Michelle Malkin has a Edwards/Marcotte update (language warning) and points to a Marcotte post on the death of William Rehnquist that shows just how ignorant Marcotte was about certain things. What state would have outlawed birth control? What politician supports outlawing birth control? I think my resignation prediction still has a chance since we're not sure yet if she has been fired.

Jason Mattera discusses how a Catholic school in Michigan has canceled a prolife speaker named Dan Flynn. Flynn was going to talk about Margaret Sanger. There was some controversy in the same school, Mercy High School, a couple of years ago when they had an auction and one of the items up for bid was a lunch with Michigan's pro-choice governor, Jennifer Granholm.

Michael Fumento on amniotic stem cells.
Given the growing number of state initiatives that fund embryonic stem cell, but not non-embryonic stem cell, research and given that overall National Institutes of Health funding increases are unlikely anytime soon, is it truly moral to take away funds from a technology that's been saving lives for half a century in favor of another technology that promises nothing but "promise"?

Governor Granholm on embryonic stem cell research

During Tuesday's 2007 State of the State Address, Governor Jennifer Granholm had a couple of things to say about embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.
We can also improve the quality of health care in Michigan and give our economy a boost by removing the barriers to embryonic stem cell research, which could help thousands of people afflicted with life threatening and debilitating diseases.

It will also energize our emerging life sciences industry in Michigan. Today, Michigan is at the back of the pack when it comes to allowing this important research.

It's time to act on the issue. I can assure you, if the Legislature does not allow this research, the people will be taking it to the ballot.

Improve the quality of health care? Give our economy a boost? All this just by allowing scientists to kill human embryos for research and clone and kill embryos for research? Amazing, huh? I wonder if proponents of embryonic stem cell research will still be making these kinds of outlandish claims in 5 years if they still are nowhere near treating people.

The supposed barriers Granholm is referring to are Michigan's ban on killing human embryos for research and Michigan's ban on human cloning. That's the research which is not being allowed but you wouldn't know that from Granholm's speech. Embryonic stem cell research is legal and going on right now at the University of Michigan.

Are these "barriers" really pushing Michigan to the back of the pack in life sciences? If so, then why did Governor Granholm claim less than a month ago that Michigan's "21st Century Jobs Fund are already at work positioning the state as a leader in life sciences" and note that there are 120 new life sciences companies in Michigan since 2000? Are we at the "back of the pack" or are we "a leader?" Can Governor Granholm give us a straight answer?

But what I'm really wondering about is how will research which is typically whining and moaning for public funding help boost our state's struggling economy and when will this supposed boosting begin? We've already seen proponents of embryonic stem cell research and cloning in California make a number of outlandish claims about financial returns to their state. What reasons do we have to believe that legalizing human cloning in Michigan will boost our economy?

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The undue burden of having the chance to view an ultrasound

The South Dakota House has passed a bill which would require the one abortion provider (Planned Parenthood) in South Dakota to give women considering an abortion the option of viewing an ultrasound image of their unborn child.

One opponent of this legislation called giving women the opportunity to view their ultrasound "an undue burden."

What's a wannabe President to do?

It seems like the rest of internet has picked up on the recent edition to the John Edwards campaign staff including Michelle Malkin, Kathryn Jean Lopez and Dean Barnett. I think this leaves the Edwards campaign in a bit of a predicament.

If they keep Amanda Marcotte on staff then they'll continue to have to deal with (or maybe just ignore) people posting and commenting on some of Marcotte's more venomous rants. Maybe that's okay with them or maybe they think it will blow over but when someone you hire is on record as saying the type of things Marcotte has, you're in for a long ride.

If they fire her, then they'll probably face an angry left-wing blogosphere. Plus, they'll have to justify why they hired her in the first place and why they fired her.

If you hired her because you thought she was a good blogger, then that means you read her blog, right? If you thought her blog was good then you'd have to think the regular use of profanity and the mocking of religious people (amongst other things) is okay, right?

If you fire her because you were unaware of her use of language and positions, then that makes you look wholly incompetent because then it seems like you didn't do any research on the person you hired to run your blog. If you're going to hire someone to run your blog, maybe you should at first look over what they've written on their blog and agree with the majority of it, right?

Can anyone see a resignation in the near future? Maybe the "I don't want my blog to restrict the efforts of this campaign. This should be a campaign about the issues and how we can make America a better place. My hire by the Edwards' campaign has impeded the ability of John Edwards to share his message of hope with America. Therefore, I tendered my resignation so the campaign could focus on the important issues which face America." type of resignation?

Life Links 2/6/07

Julie Makimaa and her mother Lee Ezell were featured in a story on ABC News. Julie was conceived in rape.

ProlifeBlogs has the video of Rudy Giuliani sharing his thoughts on abortion on Hannity and Colmes. The "personally opposed" strategy never seems to get old. Could some reporter or host please ask "Why do you hate abortion?"

Also of note, Giuliani didn't answer what he thought about Roe besides saying "it's precedent" unless you count the affirmation of "right to choose" as an affirmation of Roe. Giuliani also said he is in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion as long as there is a life of mother exception and is in favor parental notification as long as there is judicial bypass. Hannity should possibly have also asked what Giuliani's stand on tax-funded abortions would be.

Scientists in Spain have supposedly for the first time treated a patient's heart using stem cells culled from the patient's fat tissue.

There's a debate in Kansas over how to define certain terms used in when discussing stem cell research. I'm guessing those opposed to the definitions in H.B. 2098 would prefer it if human cloning were defined as something like "implanting the product of nuclear transfer (aka human clone) into a uterus."

Monday, February 05, 2007

The Circular Firing Squad turns the gun on themselves

American Life League's President Judie Brown has a blog post where she attacks a bill recently introduced in Colorado to ban abortion based on an article in the Rocky Mountain News. According to the article, the bill has an exception for the life of the mother.

Brown takes exception to this exception and says,
Thus it is not a ban, but it does enshrine abortion into the law. Hope it fails to pass. And undoubtedly it will.

When are pro-lifers going to realize that we have to be either against child killing or join the ranks of the pro-choice-to-kill some babies crowd?

Before posting Judy might have want to actually take a look at the Colorado bill before passing judgement. One would hope the leader of a large prolife organization would actually read a bill on abortion before saying that she's hope it fails to pass.

If Brown had read the bill before passing judgement she would have known that it has basically the same exact wording regarding dangers to the mother's life as the South Dakota bill which she favored so heavily.

The Colorado bill says,
(3)(a) A licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother shall not be guilty of violating this section if the physician makes reasonable medical efforts to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.
while the South Dakota bill said,
No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.
Open mouth, insert foot. It would really be nice if Brown did a little more than just insult the legislative efforts of other prolifers.

She's right about the bill not passing though. The bill won't pass. But not because of the language of its life of the mother exception but because the Colorado legislature has Democratic majorities in both chambers and has a pro-choice governor.

UPDATE:Judy Brown has responded to a comment I left at her blog. Her response - "Frst of all, I made no mention of the Colorado bill, but have read it and agree with you."

What??? You "made no mention" of the bill the entire second half of your post was about?

Friday, February 02, 2007

Thursday, February 01, 2007

The "threat" that wasn't

An Iowa book store canceled an appearance by Krista Jacobs who recently edited the book Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice. Some stories are claiming threats, including "intimidating e-mails and telephone calls," forced the cancellation of the event yet another story mentions the police say the store received "no direct threat of violence when store officials decided to close." The same story also says,
Iowa City police Sgt. Troy Kelsay said store employees called police and said an unidentified person had brought to the store's attention that the reading might spark protests. The threat may have come in the form of an e-mail, Kelsay said.

"The reason that we closed was because we just didn't want a physical confrontation in the store," said Paul Ingram, the Prairie Lights book buyer.....

"This is the first time we've been threatened," he said. "It wasn't a general threat. It was a threat directed at this particular reading. I don't think anyone's going to come in and bomb Prairie Lights."
Another story says,
Iowa City police Sgt. Bill Campbell said he didn't have enough information to comment but said he thought the word "threats" might be too strong to describe the incident.

So what's going on here? Did somebody say they were going to protest the event? Is that the intimidating threat? Oddly, the story which says there were "intimidating e-mails and telephone calls" also says a book store employee "did not indicate there was a specific threat of violence (to the police) and did not request extra police patrols in the area."

The Iowa Press Citizen story seems to mention where the information about the supposed threats came from:
Karen Kubby, director of the Iowa City Emma Goldman Clinic who had requested to speak after Jacob's reading, said a Prairie Lights staff member told her the bookstore received "some intimidating calls and an e-mail."

So in other words, the information about the supposed intimidating threat(s) is coming secondhand from an abortion clinic director.

It seems more like a store employee was warned by someone (maybe prolife, maybe pro-choice) maybe by e-mail that a talk by a pro-choice advocate could or would generate a protest and the employee decided to call the police and ask how the bookstore could handle such a protest (maybe questions like "can we prevent protestors from being on our property?" ). The employee then probably mentioned this to the store owner who might have not wanted a controversy in and around his store for business reasons.

Those vicious prolifers strike again, huh? But I can almost guarantee this situation will be used as evidence that prolifers are threatening to kill people. Oh wait, it already is,
Lauri Wollner, one of the book's contributing writers and a former antiabortion activist, agreed.

"It's scary that 'pro-life' people are threatening lives," she said.

Lazy fact checking at the RH Reality Check blog

Annie Newman from the RHReality Check blog really needs a lesson in not trusting citeless statistics from a newspaper editorial. She parrots the claim from a Hartford Courant's editorial that "Up to 8 percent of sexually assaulted women in the United States become pregnant with the assailant's child."

8%? Really? According to Planned Parenthood's website, "eight out of 100 women will become pregnant after having unprotected sex once during the second or third week of their cycles." Is that where the Hartford Courant's statistic came from? Not quite the same thing, huh?

It's also amazing how Newman also seemingly can't understand why Catholic hospitals would give an ovulation test to women who have been raped (it's not a "purity-test" as Newman claims) and won't give EC to women who have ovulated. It's because they think EC might prevent an embryo from implanting and if the woman has already ovulated then EC won't stop ovulation and the only theoretical way EC would then work is to prevent the implantation of a human embryo - which they oppose.

I think pro-choice organizations who want Catholic hospitals to distribute EC would be much better off if they pointed to studies which tend to show that EC doesn't have a post-ovulation effect instead of trying to demonize prolifers. But then this would probably also force pro-choice organizations to actually examine a wide range scientific studies relating to EC which would also point to how EC is much less effective than they claim.

Random thoughts

About the casting of 24: Why is Jack Bauer's dad like 7 feet tall (he's actually 6'7)? Jack is probably around 5'10 while his brother is probably like 5'7. I know there can be large height differences between children and their parents but it just seems odd to have the senior Bauer towering over his sons.

Also, why do you hire a woman (Marisol Nichols) of Mexican descent (according to IMDB) for the role of a woman (Nadia) who is supposed to be of Middle-Eastern descent?

If you're running for President, why would you appoint someone to be in charge of your blog who has a long history of swearing up a storm and has used the term "godbag" to describe Christians?

Rasheed Wallace is probably one of the most annoying professional basketball players. You're 6'11. Stop standing outside the 3-point line. Post up and get some rebounds.