Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Abortion advocate calls on others to stop comparing ultrasounds to rape

Carol Joffe, who has a lot of credibility as an abortion advocate, basically destroys the ultrasound=rape meme:
But I have considerable concerns about what calling these ultrasounds "rape" and "unnecessary" will mean for abortion patients and providers. The reality is that most abortion patients do receive an ultrasound to date their pregnancies. Since most abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, many of these ultrasounds are performed with a transvaginal probe, the most effective method for viewing early-stage pregnancies. In the end, whether an ultrasound is performed, and which method is used, reflects either the practice of the abortion provider, the patient's medical history, or—for a relatively small number of women—an aversion to the transvaginal method. Most of the time, however, the transvaginal ultrasound is a useful and common tool that helps providers perform abortions safely and well.

"Objecting to infanticide is what's really wrong".....and other foolish ideas from Julian Savulescu

Julian Savulescu responds to criticism of an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics (Savulescu is the editor) which argued killing newborns (or "after-birth abortion," as they labeled it) should be legal. He believes that what's wrong with the world is not that some "ethicists" think it should be legal to kill newborn babies but that some people would be deeply opposed to killing newborns and think the idea of killing newborn is evil and scary.

Coming from Savulescu this is no surprise. He's a eugenicist who is more known for writing outlandish things like it's "morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or fetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy" than for producing anything that resembles a persuasive or thoughtful argument.

Unfortunately, thinking up new ways to argue in favor of killing certain humans gets you a professorship at the University of Oxford.

In the comments sections, a commenter named LiberalDemocratProgressive writes:
Savulescu is correct, our society gets overly hysterical and can't handle intellectual discussion on moral ethics. I long for a society where you could freely and calmly discuss genocide. Like, say, Germany 1933.

Abortion advocates reveal true positions/intentions on ultrasound bill

At least some abortion advocates are willing to admit the whole dust-up regarding Virginia's ultrasound bill didn't really have to do with transvaginal ultrasounds now that an amended bill is making its way through the legislature.
Elizabeth Nash, a Public Policy Associate for the Guttmacher Institute, told TPM that there’s “definitely concern” that “the huge outcry around vaginal ultrasound is masking other provisions in the bill that are just as terrible.”
So abdominal ultrasounds are just as terrible as transvaginal ultrasounds, which abortion advocates compared to rape?
Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion practitioners, agreed that ultimately people are “totally missing the big picture” when it comes to these ultrasound bills. “Really the abdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound issue is a distraction, one that has gotten a lot of publicity. But I think that the bill that was passed in Virginia is every bit as bad as what was being introduced there last week. I don’t think that the few changes they made make it any less burdensome for women seeking abortions.”
A distraction? Abdominal ultrasounds are "every bit as bad?" Not any less burdensome? Then why all the focus on transvaginal ultrasounds?
And Donna Crane, the Policy Director for NARAL, told TPM that they “remain as opposed to that bill as we were in from the beginning” because it mandates that a woman go through an unnecessary medical procedure. “We do not make a specific distinction as to what type of procedure is being forced on her,” she said.
So all that hullabaloo about transvaginal ultrasounds being "invasive" and "rape!" was just to get some media attention?

Again, leading abortion advocates show how deceptive and PR-savvy they are. They will use every trick in the book to try to derail prolife laws.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

New giant abortion clinic coming to NYC

The New York Daily News has an article on the opening of a $3 million abortion clinic in Queens run by Merle Hoffman.
More than 40 years later, the former aspiring concert pianist is opening an 18,000-square-foot outpatient surgery center at 147-32 Jamaica Ave.

"This is basically built to the specifications of a hospital," said Hoffman, who grew up in Kew Gardens and now lives on the upper East Side.

The clinic is expected to serve 40,000 clients and perform roughly 10,000 abortions a year.....

Hoffman said she chose Jamaica for the new site because 78% of her clients are from the area.

Abortion is an act of love?

In a Salon piece about how she would have aborted her son if she had known he would be born with Tay Sachs, Emily Rapp writes ths:
Prenatal testing provides information, a value-less act. I maintain that it is a woman's right to choose what to do with the information that attaches value and meaning, and that this choice is—and must be—directly related to that individual's experiences.

I wish pro-choice advocates felt the same way about ultrasounds and scientifically accurate information about prenatal development. However, most seem to feel that it's "extreme" to provide that kind of information and allow women to "attach value and meaning" to it. Isn't it strange of how information that could lead to the decision to have an abortion is so valued in the pro-choice community while information which could lead to a choice not to have an abortion is so despised?

Rapp also believes killing her child in the womb would have been an "act of love" because it would have stopped his suffering. I wonder if she thinks killing him now (he's nearly 2 and beautiful) would also be an act of love since it would also end his suffering?

But that's the sort of obvious question abortion advocates never really answer or even seem to consider, isn't it?

Monday, February 27, 2012

Life Links 2/27/12

Scientists have found stem cells in the ovaries of women which they used to create human ova (or at least cells that appeared to be human eggs).
"There's no confirmation that we have baby-making eggs yet, but every other indication is that these cells are the real deal — bona fide oocyte precursor cells," says Tilly. The next step, to test whether the human OSC-derived oocytes can be fertilized and form an early embryo, will require special considerations — namely, private funding to support the work in the United States (federal funding cannot by law be used for any research that will result in the destruction of a human embryo, whatever the source of the embryo) or a licence from the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to do the work with collaborators in the United Kingdom....

"That's a huge ‘if'," admits Tilly. But, he continues, it could mean an unlimited supply of eggs for women who have ovarian tissue that still hosts OSCs. This group could include cancer patients who have undergone sterilizing chemotherapy, women who have gone through premature menopause, or even those experiencing normal ageing. Tilly says that follow-up studies have confirmed that OSCs exist in the ovaries of women well into their 40s.

Nepal legalized abortion in 2002 and there are nearly 500 places where women can get legal abortion but illegal abortions still frequently occur in the country.
They found a place named Samrat Polyclinic while walking the streets of a busy neighborhood in the capital. The chemist said the procedure only takes 10 minutes to perform, which Rai says she was elated to hear. She bargained the price down from 2,500 rupees ($32) to 2,200 rupees ($28).

Rai recalls entering a small room and feeling scared. The procedure took 30 minutes - not the promised 10 - and Rai says she was in unbearable pain. The chemist then gave her medicine and told her the procedure was over.

But when she got home, the bleeding wouldn't stop. She thought this was normal until she started to periodically lose consciousness.

Overheard: Abortioneer describes her own clinic - doesn't sound that nice.
I think some clinics have entire abortion appointments that last about two hours. At our clinic, it usually takes four. I mean, of course, the abortion only takes a couple minutes, but women are usually waiting around FOREVER. I often think there's something wrong with how either we schedule people or how we organize the appointment flow since sometimes people are at our clinic for even more than five hours. Patients complain a lot about this and I can't blame them. It's not like our waiting room is super comfortable or welcoming (sadly, I find this is true in a lot of clinics).

Wesley Smith notes a recent Journal of Medical Ethics article in which the authors argue that infanticide should be legal and label killing newborns as "after-birth abortion."

Friday, February 24, 2012

Overheard: Pro-choicer uncomfortable with position

I thought this (in the comment section of a League of Ordinary Gentleman post) was incredibly self-aware:
Even now, I suspect that my own (moderate, along the same lines as yours) pro-choice position is informed by the fact that my peer group tends to be more pro-choice than not. It's also informed by the fact that pro-choice policies serve to advance what I perceive to be my own short term, arguably even selfish, interests. Therefore, I find being pro-choice, when its more than just a question of which public policy I prefer, to be very problematic and difficult for me.

Especially when you read something like this at the RH Reality Check blog from comedian Sara Benincasa. Notice how she comes to her pro-choice position based not on any kind of logical reasoning with regards to the unborn not deserving the right to life, etc. but is based solely on Planned Parenthood providing her with emergency contraception after a condom broke.
Planned Parenthood was, in the form of the woman who stayed at her job an hour later than necessary to talk a scared young woman through an incredibly safe medical experience. So I decided I'd throw in my lot with her and her tribe, maligned and hated though they might be.
I think this is why pro-choice arguments are often so weak. The individual comes to a pro-choice position based on a personal experience or feelings (as opposed to sound reasoning) and then has an immense amount of trouble coming up with sound arguments to support the position they hold.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

"Trans-abdominal ultrasounds are invasive too!"

Oh, those pro-aborts and their phony concerns. After all the hullabaloo about abortionists being required to perform procedures they already perform and constantly likening some of those procedures to rape, Virginia legislation to require ultrasounds before abortions was modified so transvaginal ultrasound wouldn't be required.

Does this new exemption placate the abortion advocates who were so traumatized by the possibility of women seeking abortions getting the exact same ultrasound procedures they get anyway?

Of course not! Here's Fiona Carbody at the RH Reality Check blog asserting that trans-abdominal ultrasounds are "invasive" too:
McDonnell officially changed the ultrasound bill requirements yesterday. The new requirements do not qualify as rape under Virginia state law, but a trans-abdominal ultrasound is nonetheless an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure to force women seeking abortions to undergo. As a petition with over 33,000 signatures and delivered to McDonnell on Wednesday reportedly stated, the bill "insert[s] the government into women's personal, private medical decisions."

More evidence NY Times' Andrew Rosenthal isn't a very smart man

Here's his take on Gingrich's debate statement on Obama's votes on Born-Alive legislation:
In 2001, 2002 and 2003, when Mr. Obama was a state senator, pro-lifers proposed bills that would have classified a fetus that survived an abortion as a person with full legal rights. The bill would never have survived judicial scrutiny, but in any case Illinois law already required doctors to try to save viable fetuses. It had no purpose other than the declaration of "personhood," so Mr. Obama opposed it. Far from getting a pass from the "elite media," many outlets reported on this tempest-in-a-teacup during the 2008 campaign.

Never survived judicial scrutiny?

Ummmm...... the Illinois bill ended up passing in 2005 and it's still on the books.

The federal legislation (which mirrors the Illinois legislation Obama voted against) passed in 2002 and has yet to face judicial scrutiny as far as I know.

Not to mention the numerous states besides Illinois which have unchallenged Born-Alive laws.

The laziness or bias of people like Rosenthal is mind-boggling. He can't even bring himself to look at a single source of information from prolifers. He can't even get an intern to do it.

Imagine the "thought" process or worldview of someone who thinks it's beyond question (so beyond question that he wouldn't do a shred of research) that the judiciary would rule against legislation to give children who survive abortions legal rights. Makes me shutter.

Saletan on Romney's position change on abortion

William Saletan has an extremely and thorough piece on Mitt Romney's change of position on abortion and other prolife issues in Slate.

I do have a few quibbles with some of Saletan's reasoning but for the most part it goes through Romney's conversion timeline and disputes some of what Romney has asserted himself and his stance.

Gingrich hits Obama, elite media on infanticide

Last night, during the Republican Presidential debate Newt Gingrich blasted the elite media for not questioning Barack Obama's votes against legislation to protect children who survive abortion after John King was about to ask a question on contraception.

Text from the transcript:
GINGRICH: But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here.


GINGRICH: If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.

Alexander Burns of Politico attempted to debunk Gingrich until readers pointed out he had no clue what he was talking about and he backpedaled.
A couple of conservative readers suggest that I may be wrong in razzing Gingrich on this, as his point likely referred to this legislation specifically, rather than late-term abortion in general. Obama may or may not have been asked about that during the 2008 race.

UK abortionists have no problem with providing illegal sex-selection abortions

An undercover investigation by the Daily Telegraph in the UK filmed abortionists agreeing to provide sex-selection abortions and falsify paperwork. Sex selection abortion is illegal in the UK.
Acting on specific information, undercover reporters accompanied pregnant women to nine clinics in different parts of the country. In three instances doctors were recorded offering to arrange terminations after being told the mother-to-be did not want to go ahead with the pregnancy because of the sex of the unborn child.

One consultant, Prabha Sivaraman, who works for both private clinics and NHS hospitals in Manchester, was filmed telling a pregnant woman who said she wanted to abort a female foetus: "I don't ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination".

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Life Links 2/22/12

Abortionist George Tiller's late-term abortion rubber stamper Ann Kristen Neuhaus has had her medical license revoked by a state administrative judge.
In an order that became public Tuesday, the judge said Dr. Ann Kristen Neuhaus failed to meet accepted standards of care in performing exams on 11 patients, ages 10 to 18, who had late-term abortions at Tiller's clinic in Wichita from July to November 2003. The judge said Neuhaus' records did not contain the information necessary to show she did thorough exams......

The administrative judge said that in some cases, the young patients were described as suicidal, but Neuhaus didn't recommend further treatment. The judge said Neuhaus simply "answered yes/no questions" using the computer program and assigned whatever diagnosis "the computer gave."

"The care and treatment of the 11 patients in question was seriously jeopardized by the Licensee's care," Gaschler wrote.

The retired Massachusetts judge who ordered a schizophrenic woman to have an abortion and be sterilized is defending her much maligned and overturned decision. Her decision also cost her a chance at another job.
"I viewed the interruption of Mary's full medical regimen as potentially life-threatening. If Mary understood this, which my observation of her behavior, demeanor, and responses indicated that she did not, I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy in order to protect her own well-being,'' Harms wrote in her letter to her former colleagues on the bench.

A Wisconsin teen who concealed her pregnancy, gave birth at 6 months in a bathtub and buried her child in her backyard will not face charges after a judge ruled there wasn't evidence that the child was born alive.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Life Links 2/21/12

William McGurn argues that Rick Santorum shouldn't drop his social issues campaigning.
Dropping the social issues is also not practical for another reason: The media won't let him. When Mr. Obama used a prayer breakfast earlier this month to suggest that the Gospel of Luke was a call for raising taxes on the wealthy, the press corps yawned. When Mr. Santorum complained about the "phony theology" behind the president's worldview, suddenly it landed on every front page and lead every news show.

So what's the answer? The answer is that when Mr. Santorum discusses these issues, he needs to fold them into his larger narrative about the free society. That narrative has to do with pointing out the dependency that comes with an expanding federal government, the importance of family, and the threat to freedom when, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or a Health and Human Services secretary can substitute their own opinions on these issues for the judgment of the American people.

Michael Stokes Paulsen compares President Obama's mandate and "accommodation" with a story from the Maccabees.
The notion that Obama's arrangement is any less a violation of religious liberty, that it is any less a deliberate cram-down, or that religious persons surely should not see this as a violation of their consciences, is insulting—and eerily reminiscent of the story of Eleazar. It looks an awful lot like the courtiers' offer of cooked meat instead of pork. It's worse than that actually: the violation of conscience for Eleazar would have been that of giving scandal and demoralizing others by his apparent obeisance. Obama's offer is actually to eat pork, but to pretend it is something else—an act both of complicity and scandal.

Clarke Forsythe and Mailee Smith discuss the link between abortion and suicide and a court to determine the fate of South Dakota's informed consent law.

In the UK, Councillor Ali Bakir claimed he knows of at least 4 illegal abortion clinics which perform abortions on Muslim teens.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Safe, legal and often

Ross Douthat writes on the illusion of "safe, legal and rare" and how liberal policies haven't quite reduced abortion.
At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect "blue" regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar "red" regions.

But that isn't what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. "Safe, legal and rare" is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don't always seem to deliver the "rare" part.
Douthat also hits on the fact that a lack of access to contraceptives is a relatively small factor in unintended pregnancies.
Liberals love to cite these numbers as proof that social conservatism is a flop. But the liberal narrative has glaring problems as well. To begin with, a lack of contraceptive access simply doesn’t seem to be a significant factor in unplanned pregnancy in the United States. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed more than 10,000 women who had procured abortions in 2000 and 2001, it found that only 12 percent cited problems obtaining birth control as a reason for their pregnancies. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of teenage mothers found similar results: Only 13 percent of the teens reported having had trouble getting contraception.
Those percentages are actually smaller portions of unintended pregnancies because they're from the subset of women and teens who were not taking contraceptives and got pregnant.
These are realities liberals should keep in mind when tempted to rail against conservatives for rejecting the intuitive-seeming promise of “more condoms, fewer abortions.” What’s intuitive isn’t always true, and if social conservatives haven’t figured out how to make all good things go together in post-sexual-revolution America, neither have social liberals.

At the very least, American conservatives are hardly crazy to reject a model for sex, marriage and family that seems to depend heavily on higher-than-average abortion rates. They’ve seen that future in places like liberal, cosmopolitan New York, where two in five pregnancies end in abortion. And it isn’t a pretty sight.
This reminds of when abortion advocate Cristina Page offered prolifers her advice on reducing abortions.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Overheard: Abortioneer thinks keg party for abortion "brilliant"

From About a Girl:
I think having a keg party to raise money for an abortion is one of the most brilliant ideas I've ever heard and I'm so going to tell all my patients who need money for their procedure about it! The thing is, though it's funny, the keg abortion fundraiser probably was a real event.
Apparently, brilliant ideas in the abortion industry are few and far between.

Life Links 2/16/12

On last Sunday's Meet the Press, President Obama's Chief of Staff Jack Lew said,
MR. LEW: Yeah, David, on Friday we had a broad range of groups endorse where the president's policy is. We had the Catholic Health Association, which understands health care extremely well and is true to Catholic beliefs. We had the Catholic Charities, we had Planned Parenthood. There's a broad consensus that this is the right approach. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it.

MR. GREGORY: So you can move forward without the church's hierarchy being on board.

MR. LEW: I think that we, you know, the fact that the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities support what the president announced on Friday reflects the fact that we hit that important balance between providing a woman the guarantee that she has access to the kinds of preventive health care that she needs and that we've respected the religious liberty of the institutions.

Yeah, that wasn't true. From the Catholic Charities web site:
In response to a great number of mischaracterizations in the media, Catholic Charities USA wants to make two things very clear:

1. We have not endorsed the accommodation to the HHS mandate that was announced by the Administration last Friday.

2. We unequivocally share the goal of the US Catholic bishops to uphold religious liberty and will continue to work with the USCCB towards that goal.

Any representation to the contrary is false.

In Pakistan, police believe someone is experimenting on aborted children.
Police have suspected that certain group or hospital is researching on aborted babies in Karachi as they had found bodies of five premature babies from garbage dumb in Akhter Colony area of the city earlier this week.

A woman in Alabama could be charged with murder after shooting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child.
Lt. Fred Forsythe said officers are now looking into whether the gunshot wound caused the miscarriage, something that would turn the case into the department's first homicide investigation of the year.

If that happens, Clifton's first-degree assault charge would likely be upgraded to murder, the lieutenant said.

Joyce Arthur is mad that not all Canadians agree with her on abortion. She complained about a survey and her arguments are smacked down by Mario Canseco.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Life Links 2/15/12

Debra Saunders hits on one of my pet peeves in a column on Obama's mandate:
For its part, the administration keeps stretching the English language to the brink. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services frames the issue as one of "access" to "preventive health-care services." "Access" no longer means being able to obtain something. "Access" now means being able to get something for free and making someone else - even someone who objects on moral grounds - pay for it.

Meanwhile, Ed Whelan and David Rifkin point out how Obama's mandate is both illegal and unconstitutional.
The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.....

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.

Both the Lufkin News and FOX's Houston affiliate are covering claims from former Planned Parenthood employee Karen Reynolds about the abortion giant's fraudulent billing practices. From the Lufkin News:
The suit alleges that, in addition to falsifying patient records, billing the government for unwarranted services and services not covered by Medicaid, Planned Parenthood tacked on services patient did not receive.

An example given in the suit is Medicaid being billed for birth control counseling. The suit states almost all Women's Health Program and Medicaid patients were handed a bag of at least two birth control devices despite the fact the items were not needed or requested by the patient.

"Pursuant to corporate policy and instructions from clinical directors, after merely handing the patient a bag of condoms and vaginal film on the way out the door, clinic employees then entered billing codes to be submitted to the government" at an average billed cost of $57.85.

An Oklahoma man has been charged with two counts of murder for killing his pregnant wife and their unborn child.
An Oklahoma man who allegedly beat and stabbed his pregnant wife so he could marry another woman has been formally charged with two counts of murder.

Justin Adams, 25, of Blanchard appeared in Oklahoma County District Court Monday, The Oklahoman reported. He was charged with first-degree murder.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Abortion Gang member fails Theology/Logic 101

KushielsMoon, a self-identified Christian and member of the Abortion Gang blog, attempts to argue that the Catholic Bishops don't trust God. Here's her reasoning:
The Catholic Bishop’s position on denying women access to birth control shows that they don’t trust God.

If you’re a Christian, you believe that God is all powerful. He is capable of anything, and He can change our world however He wants to. If the Bishops truly believed this, why would they be so worried about birth control?


If a woman does become pregnant, despite using birth control, the choice of whether or not to carry the pregnancy is then between her and her God — and again, we must trust that the all powerful, all loving God will lead her on the path that He has planned for her, having brought her to this point.

Knowing that God is all powerful, and His will can’t be stopped by using birth control pills, I have to wonder why the Bishops are so worried about including access to birth control. Do they not trust God? Do they not believe He is powerful enough to overcome birth control if He wants to? Do they believe God’s Will can so easily be avoided just by swallowing a daily pill?


If the Bishops believe in the power of God, they should allow women access to contraceptives, because God’s will is stronger than anything on Earth. However, if they do not believe in God’s power- if they cannot trust God to do what is right, then perhaps they should continue taking this issue into their own hands.
I'm guessing KushielsMoon hasn't thought about this position for an extended period of time because if she did then she would quickly realize that if her reasoning held, it would mean that anyone who favors any legislation doesn't trust God. For example:

"If you’re a Christian, you believe that God is all powerful. He is capable of anything, and He can change our world however He wants to. If Christian women who belong to mothers against drunk driving truly believed this, why would they be so worried about drunk driving?"


"Knowing that God is all powerful, and His will can’t be stopped by abortion protesters, I have to wonder why Christian pro-choicers are so worried about allowing abortion protesters to block abortion clinic entrances. Do they not trust God? Do they not believe He is powerful enough to allow women to have abortions if He wants to? Do they believe God’s Will can so easily be avoided by people just standing in the way of women who want abortions?

If the Christian pro-choicers believe in the power of God, they should allow anti-abortion protesters to block entrances to abortion clinics, because God’s will is stronger than anything on Earth. However, if they do not believe in God’s power- if they cannot trust God to do what is right, then perhaps they should continue taking this issue into their own hands."

Life Links 2/14/12

Paul Kengor writes about "Obama's Dupes."
If that statement wasn't amazing enough, Dahlkemper added this stunner: "I think we'll look back on this bill and we'll see a reduction in abortions in this country. It's the most pro-life piece of legislation ever passed by Congress in this country."

Yes, she was talking about Obamacare. You can't make this up.

One wonders what Dahlkemper is thinking right now, as the radically pro-abortion president she so admired and trusted mandates that Dahlkemper and her fellow Catholics and their Church provide abortion drugs, contraception, sterilization, and no doubt more to come. That mandate comes directly from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., "Obamacare") that Dahlkemper voted for.

A Maryland woman was sentenced to only six months of home detention after she purchased abortion pills online for a teen girls. The girl was 20 weeks pregnant. After taking the pills, she went into labor and delivered a child, who died. Original stories noted that Sandra Craine could have faced 5 years in jail.

Doctors have used adult stem cells to heal scars on the hearts of patients who experienced heart attacks.
For the study, researchers tested 25 patients, an average of 53 years old, who had experienced heart attacks that had left them with damaged heart muscle. Eight patients served as controls and were treated with conventional treatments including medication, and diet and exercise recommendations. The other 17 patients received stem cells, which researchers derived from raisin-sized pieces of patients' own heart tissue.

The researchers found that patients treated with stem cells experienced almost a 50 percent reduction of heart attack scars within 12 months of treatment, while the eight patients who received conventional treatment saw no reductions in damage.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Life Links 2/13/12

The New York Times has an article on Mitt Romney's "path to prolife position on abortion."
Mr. Romney's transformation on abortion is, in some respects, the story of a man who entered public life in a state whose politics did not match his own. People close to Mr. Romney say they have no doubt that he opposes terminating a pregnancy. Critics and even some supporters say there is also little question that he did what he had to do to get elected as governor.

Overheard: Abortion Gang member Not Guilty holds "I want to silence all the male voices in the abortion discussion" position.
And so, I want to silence the voices of all men. I am so tired of men giving their opinion about abortion. I am so tired of it that I am willing to sacrifice the voices of all the men who support women. I truly believe that if men were no longer allowed to speak on the topic of abortion, every country would be pro-choice. Anti-choice women get abortions too. Abortion crosses every religious, cultural, and political line. The only line it can't cross is biological sex, and that is where the problem lies.

Ross Douthat on Obama's supposed religious liberty "accommodation" (why do the media keep calling it a "compromise") and it's goal:
The revised regulation allows religious institutions to pretend that they aren't actually purchasing an insurance plan that covers services they find morally objectionable, because their insurance companies will be required to pretend that they're supplying these services free of charge. But fond illusions about "free" services aside, it's hard to see how a system in which Catholic hospitals and colleges are required to purchase health insurance for their employees from insurers that are required to cover birth control, sterilizations and the morning- and days-after pills is meaningfully different from the original Health and Human Services mandate.....

The new rule, though, is much more savvy: Because it speaks the language of compromise and conscience, it provides grounds for anyone who desperately wants to believe in it to believe in it, even as it leaves the underlying policy more or less unchanged.

At a Columbia Law School symposium, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the timing of Roe v. Wade.
"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast," Ginsburg told a symposium at Columbia Law School marking the 40th anniversary of her joining the faculty as its first tenure-track female professor......

"The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal," Ginsburg said. "We'll never know whether I'm right or wrong ... things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained."

Two Texas abortion clinics will have to pay fines for dumping the bodies of aborted children in a landfill.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ordered fines Wednesday of $22,980 and $17,430 for the Whole Woman's Health clinics in Austin and McAllen. The clinics already have begun paying their fines.

Stericycle, an Illinois-based international medical waste disposal company used by both clinics, was fined $42,612. A portion of all three fines was deferred.

David Gregory shouldn't be "moderating" anything

My son was sick this Sunday so I stayed home and watched Meet the Press for the first time in a couple of years. I always felt that David Gregory couldn't hide his obvious bias before he landed the Meet the Press gig but he was at his most biased during his interview with Rick Santorum.

I just couldn't believe David Gregory would ask these questions. Does he not have any shame? He's not even trying to hide his bias. What kind of fool actually asks if Santorum is going to allow married women to work in his administration if he's elected president. That's really how Gregory and all his elite media buddies see conservatives.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Cecile Richards lied, Komen got burned

According to former Susan G. Komen for the Cure veep Karen Handel, Komen president Liz Thompson and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards had a "ladies agreement" that neither side would go public with Komen's decision. Whoops.
This past December, the president of Komen, Liz Thompson, met with the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, to discuss the decision, according to Handel. “There was an open and candid conversation about the controversy and the effect on Komen. There was a gentle ladies’ agreement, if you will, that no one was going to go to the press about this,” Handel said. In the agreement, she said, Komen offered to continue funding current grants, but not future ones.

“We wanted a smooth transition,” she continued. “What happened is nothing short of a disgrace. Cecile Richards put this issue in the press. There was a coordinated effort to get sites like and involved. There was an orchestrated, premeditated attempt to put this issue in the press. Talk about betrayal by Planned Parenthood—against an organization that took up for it for years.”

The Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said the news was first reported by “anti-choice outlets.” After that, she said, Komen announced the decision to hundreds of Planned Parenthood and Komen leaders, sparking media interest.

Handel sees it differently. “Planned Parenthood launched a vicious attack on a nonprofit organization that fights breast cancer,” she said. “Komen gave out $93 million in community grants last year. Planned Parenthood got $680,000—less than 1 percent of the total granting portfolio. They unleashed Armageddon on an organization for $680,000.”

Also, according to Handel, the majority of e-mails to Komen were positive and their donations went up after the original decision.

Why did they cave? Who cares that a pro-choicers on Facebook and Twitter wrote messages?

Life Links 2/10/12

While some people are shocked at President Obama's HHS contraceptive mandate, Andrew McCarthy is not. He notes Obama's previous votes in favor of infanticide and argues that Obama is one pulling his base to the extremes, not the other way around.
Obama's abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I'll use his words here — "that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it" when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was "movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead." Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting "born alive" legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way......

Obama, by contrast, should no longer shock anyone. Obama is simply doing what he came to do; what he said he was going to do when he promised to "fundamentally transform the United States"; and what anyone with a shred of common sense would have predicted he'd do upon scrutinizing his record.

The Politicker shares some quotes from Rick Santorum's speech at a Students for Life rally at CPAC.
"We have 1.2 million of them every year in America," Mr. Santorum said. "When I hear the left and the pro-choice folks saying abortion should be rare. Oh, really, 1.2 million, almost 25 percent of all children conceived in America. That's not rare by any stretch of the imagination."

According to Mr. Santorum, pro-choice activists oppose anything that might decrease the number of abortions in the country.

"They don't want to do anything to try to make it, in fact, rare," Mr. Santorum said. "In fact, they fight every attempt to give women informed consent, to give women the opportunities to make the choices that, in any healthcare procedure, they would demand other than this one."

Kari Ann Rinker, executive director for the Kansas branch of NOW is drawing the anger of some legislators for claiming they rubber stamp every piece of abortion legislation.
Rep. Joe Seiwert, R-Pretty Prairie, said in four years in the Legislature he had never seen anyone "disrespect" a committee like Rinker had.

Rep. Amanda Grosserode, R-Lenexa, echoed those sentiments.

"You and I see this issue completely different," Grosserode told Rinker. "You see it as the right for women to make a choice. I see it as a right for a genetic being to exist. There is no reconciliation of those views. However, the method with which we communicate can always be with respect."

Rinker said she thought the committee disrespected one of her colleagues during abortion hearings last year when members asked her such questions as "When does life begin?" and "Have you ever watched anyone die?"
Notice how Rinker believes asking pertinent questions and asking someone to defend their position is considered disrespectful. This is the same kind of attitude I come across with some of my more liberal friends on Facebook. If they post some ridiculous pro-abortion assertion and I kindly question how they came to believe that or if they have evidence for that, it's like they think I'm calling them names.

In Ohio, the poster legislator for the pro-abortion movement is Rep. Nickie Antonio who recently claimed (my emphasis):
"Statistics bear out that any time a country, a state, makes more restrictive abortion laws — restricts women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care — fatalities go up and abortions actually increase," Antonio said.
PolitiFact Ohio checked the veracity of this absolutely absurd claim and found it to be "Mostly False." Antonio's sole source for this claim is the Lancet "study" by a Guttmacher Institute employee which estimate abortion numbers for countries and estimates abortion deaths. The PolitiFact investigator called Ohio Right to Life but didn't do enough research to find Michael New's various studies indicating how prolife laws often lower abortion rates.

Conscience "accommodation" on the way?

I would place a rather large bet that the planned "accommodation" to religious freedom and conscience will do very little to actually respect religious freedom and yet will still raise the ire of pro-choice organizations.

It's funny how just yesterday, Obama reinforced his commitment to his mandate.

Friday Kid Blogging

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Senators Lautenberg and Gillibrand completely thoughtless on conscience

ABC News has a piece noting President Obama reinforcing his stand on his administration's rule to force employers to cover contraception and sterilization. It includes a variety of quotes from Senate Democrats regarding the mandate. The quotes from Senator Frank Lautenberg and Kirsten Gillibrand are almost unbelievable. The shallowness of them is something you'd expect out a NOW spokeswoman.

"It's time to tell Republicans ‘mind your own business,'" said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "Ideology should never be used to block women from getting the care they need to lead healthier lives.
Mind their own business? Republicans are trying to protect the consciences and religious freedoms of their constituents. How is that not their business? Not insuring contraception does nothing to block women from getting it. They are free to buy it. Or get another job where the employer covers contraception.

"The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?"
And not forcing employer against their consciences to cover contraception does nothing to prevent women from using it. The employer isn't making medical decisions. They are merely deciding what they are willing to cover. Women are free to decide whether or not they want to buy and use contraceptives.

Life Links 2/9/12

Authorities in California have charged a man with killing his pregnant wife and their unborn child.
Los Angeles County prosecutors say 41-year-old Hongxin Liu was charged Wednesday with the murder of 39-year-old Chenan Bao and her fetus. The charges include special circumstance allegations of multiple murder but prosecutors haven't decided whether to seek the death penalty.

A woman has come forward in the Maryland case of a stillborn child who was thrown in a dumpster.
Investigators said they hope an autopsy may resolve questions. It may take a month for results.

"The woman is very cooperative and indicated the fetus was stillborn. To prove otherwise, that's why an autopsy exam is done," Matrangola said.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that murder charges should stand against a woman whose attempt at suicide eventually led to the death of her child after the suicide attempt.
Shuai apparently intended to commit suicide when she ingested rat poison Dec. 23, 2010, according to court documents. She also wrote in a suicide note that she was "taking this baby" with her, the documents said.

A friend learned Shuai had ingested rat poison and drove her to a hospital. The 33-week-old fetus, a girl, was delivered by cesarean section but died Jan. 3, 2011.

At Talking Points Memo, former Planned Parenthood presidents Faye Wattleton and Gloria Feldt discuss the Komen controversy. Wattleon notes the AT&T battle which she blames on them for going public with their defunding decision.
In reference to Komen, Feldt says, "Planned Parenthood has to play really hardball or else, I guarantee you, there will be no funding from Komen in a few years." Over the past week, Planned Parenthood has emerged strong. But as Feldt warns, "you may win a battle, but you can lose the war too."

Chelsea Handler talked about her abortion on Rosie O'Donnell's show. At one point, she talks about how her parents talked her into an abortion and then later saying,
"You should do whatever you want with your body and you shouldn't let anyone tell you what to do," she said."

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

LOL quote of the week

Goes to Sally Quinn at Washington Post's web site in an open letter to Nancy Brinker, CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Planned Parenthood is not exactly a left-wing group, Nancy.

Life Links 2/8/12

Richard Doerflinger writes in the National Review about legislation in Washington state which would force every health insurance plan in the state to cover abortions and points out the abject phoniness of "pro-choice" organizations who claim they want to reduce abortions.
Hailed in the Huffington Post as "groundbreaking" by "reproductive rights" advocate Laura Bassett, the bill is being promoted by the local affiliates of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America — the same groups that endorsed the birth-control mandate and claimed it would reduce abortions.

If mandating coverage of contraception is expected to increase use of contraception (in an effort to reduce abortions), presumably mandating coverage of abortion will increase the use of abortion. Supporting both mandates may seem inconsistent. The inconsistency disappears if we recognize that these organizations support both policies in order to reduce live births, on the assumption that this will mean a better America......

The Washington bill, in requiring insurance plans to treat childbirth and abortion identically, represents a pro-abortion ideology in its purest and most extreme form: It suggests a belief that abortion is the moral equivalent of childbirth, that killing is the same as healing. And that bizarre view must be imposed on everyone who offers, sponsors, or buys insurance — they must provide and pay for abortion on demand as though they believed it too.

In the UK, the mother of girl who was impregnated at 14 by an older man warned other mothers.
"It was bad enough to find out what had happened but even worse to find out she was pregnant. It was a nightmare to see my daughter go through the pain of an abortion, and she is still quite ill and has been suffering from depression.

Police are investigating the case of a stillborn child who was thrown in a dumpster in Maryland.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Life Links 2/7/11

Karen Handel, whom pro-choicers have widely accused of being the force behind the Planned Parenthood defunding decision, has resigned from Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Karen Handel, the charity's vice president for public policy, told Komen officials that she supported the move to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. She said the discussion started before she arrived at the organization and was approved at the highest levels of the charity.

"I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it," Handel said in her letter. "I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen's future and the women we serve."

The state of Texas can begin enforcing their ultrasound law but Judge Sam Sparks isn't happy about it.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said he was forced to follow the federal appellate court's ruling last month that ordered its immediate enforcement.

Sparks said his action on Monday came out of deference to the higher court. But he criticized the appellate court for "making puppets out of doctors" and stripping them of rights to freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Robert George and Carter Snead on Planned Parenthood's hostages:
It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.

While Planned Parenthood's target in the Komen case was new, its tactics are not. In the past two years, we have seen the abortion giant (and the politicians it funds) hold for ransom a diverse array of hostages.

Calgary police arrested a prolifer for not agreeing to take down signs showing images of aborted children. They also took the group's signs.

Monday, February 06, 2012

Life Links 2/6/12

Want to know why the NY Times editorials are consistently horribly reasoned and argued? Here's Andrew Rosenthal, the Times' editorial page editor, attempting to argue that abortions are rare in the United States. Seriously, abortions are rare because they are less common than blood transfusions and because there are more cancer-related surgeries? He also delusional thinks that if abortion was banned, the abortion rate would remain the same.

You gotta love this line though:
So was I right to call abortion "rare"? It's relative, but the numbers don't really matter.

Mark Steyn on Planned Parenthood and Komen.
By contrast, Komen's first donations to Big Abortion were made voluntarily. A prudent observer would conclude that the best way to avoid being crowbarred by Cecile Richards is never to get mixed up with her organization in the first place.

It's not like she needs the money. Komen's 2010 donation of $580,000 is less than Ms. Richards's salary and benefits. Planned Parenthood commandos hacked into the Komen website and changed its slogan from "Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer" to "Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank." But, if you're that eager to run over poor women on the way to the bank, I'd recommend a gig with Planned Parenthood: The average salary of the top eight executives is $270,000, which makes them officially part of what the Obama administration calls "the 1 percent."

Ross Douthat on the media's abortion blinders:
Three truths, in particular, should be obvious to everyone reporting on the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy. First, that the fight against breast cancer is unifying and completely uncontroversial, while the provision of abortion may be the most polarizing issue in the United States today. Second, that it's no more "political" to disassociate oneself from the nation's largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place. Third, that for every American who greeted Komen's shift with "anger and outrage" (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.

Friday, February 03, 2012

Komen's apology a PR gimmick?

Not all abortion advocates are excited about Komen's apology.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation released a statement moments ago that many are greeting as a reversal of their decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. On Twitter, the Breaking News feed called it a “pledge to continue funding Planned Parenthood,” while Glenn Greenwald called it “an amazing, Internet-driven victory.”

But it’s not.

The new statement does not pledge Komen to reverse its funding decision, and it does not promise Planned Parenthood any new funding....

Komen’s statement that Planned Parenthood will be “eligible” for new grants is a new development, but it commits Komen to nothing. There’s no reversal of the funding cutoff here, and no promise to reinstate Planned Parenthood funding.

This isn’t a victory. Not yet.

Maybe Komen still intends to choose other organizations (like ones that actually provide mammogram) for grants over Planned Parenthood and figures the individual denial of grants on an affiliate level will cause less of a media firestorm than the one they're currently in. Will local PP affiliates make a huge deal anytime they don't get an applied for Komen grant?

We'll wait and see, I guess.

Life Links 2/3/12

Mitt Romney writes on the Obama administration attack on religious liberty.
Liberals and conservatives have made common cause to defend the rights of religious minorities in the past. But somehow, today, when it comes to the agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic Party—those who brought us abortion on demand and who fight against the teaching of abstinence education in our children's schools—their devotion to religious freedom goes out the window. They would force Catholics and others who have beliefs rooted in their faith to sacrifice the teachings of their faith to the mandate of federal bureaucrats.

What else would you expect from the mayor of the abortion capital of the United States?
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pledging up to $250,000 to Planned Parenthood to offset funds that were cut by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation.

Mayoral spokeswoman Samantha Levine said Thursday the billionaire mayor has promised to match future donations to Planned Parenthood up to $250,000.

A couple is Missouri discovered the bodies of 2 children (one 20 weeks gestation, another 28 weeks) which were persevered in jars for around 70 years.

Breaking: Komen reverses self?

The Dallas Morning News has posted the following statement from Komen CEO Nancy Brinker and their Board of Directors:
We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone's politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public's understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.
Sadly, they've caved to bullies about the investigations but it appears from some of Brinker recent public statements that Komen wants to move away from funding mammogram middlemen like Planned Parenthood and provide the grants directly to outfits which actually perform mammograms.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Life Links Planned Parenthood/Komen edition

The Weekly Standard's John McCormack makes a good point.
But why does Planned Parenthood feel entitled to a private charity's donations, especially considering the fact that Planned Parenthood's president falsely claims on national television that the group provides mammograms? Isn't Komen free to give its money to organizations that do more than provide mammogram "referrals" and breast cancer screenings?

Who says prolife grassroots boycotts efforts don't work? Not people talking to the Atlantic's Jeffrey Golberg.
Hammarley explained that the Planned Parenthood issue had vexed Komen for some time. "About a year ago, a small group of people got together inside the organization to talk about what the options were, what would be the ramifications of staying the course, or of telling our affiliates they can't fund Planned Parenthood, or something in-between."
He called the controversy over Planned Parenthood funding "a burr in the saddle of Komen, but it withstood the issue for years and years."

Mollie Hemingway notes how the media finally noticed the connection between Planned Parenthood and Komen after Komen cuts off grants.
Turn itself into? Turn itself into? Help me out here. Funding a group that terminates 330,000 pregnancies a year is not controversial but deciding not to fund that same group is? In what world? It's important to note that Planned Parenthood doesn't just do abortions. But many of the other things they do — teaching kids about sex through a text-chat program, receiving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, spending high sums on fundraising and public policy to fight political opponents, selling or otherwise distributing contraception and abortifacients — are also controversial. Giving a woman a slip of paper to get a mammogram somewhere else is not controversial, unless by the standard that it's not sufficient work for scarce breast cancer dollars, but you have to put the controversy in context.

Planned Parenthood's Poor PR Strategy

Why are Planned Parenthood and the troops throwing such an enormous hissing fit over less than a $1 million dollars a year for an organization which rakes in $1 billion a year? That's less than 1/10 of 1% of Planned Parenthood's annual income and some pro-choice bloggers are acting like this is the end of the world.

I don't remember anywhere near this much wailing and gnashing of teeth over various state initiatives to defund Planned Parenthood which had much more money at stake. Planned Parenthood closed clinics in various states because it lost some of those funds. No clinic is going to close because of this. Yet this was the leading story at 11:00 p.m. last night for my local CBS affiliate despite Komen not providing any funds to Michigan Planned Parenthood affiliate in the last year.

Part of the strategy is obviously to raise money from the hardcore PP supporters. That's obvious. It's another fundraising appeal. They did the same thing when Indiana moved to defund them and PP acted like they needed donations to keep offices open. So they've had a short term increase in donations.

But the downside is that PP is again embroiling itself in controversy and alerting anyone who is listening that they are under a Congressional investigation. That's bad PR and flat-out stupid. Before this, only your dedicated prolifers knew and remembered Planned Parenthood was under Congressional investigation.

Also, why would any organization with a shred of common sense want to give money to Planned Parenthood in the future when they know that if they ever decide severe ties with them, PP will go nuts. Long term this is going to hurt Planned Parenthood's grant getting ability.

Their short term fundraising will never eclipse the future losses from acting this way towards an organization they used to have a friendly relationship with. If I was a Planned Parenthood board member I'd be looking to axe Ms. Richards and whoever came up with this "strategy."

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

National Right to Life: Republican presidential candidates are prolife

Carol Tobias, President of the National Right to Life Committee, has a blog post noting that the remaining Republican presidential candidates are prolife.
We are fortunate that all of the Republican candidates running for president are pro-life: former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

These candidates all support the reversal of Roe v. Wade; they all oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortion; they all oppose giving tax dollars to organizations (like Planned Parenthood) that perform abortions; and they all have stated emphatically that they would repeal “ObamaCare,” the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act that will provide for funding for health plans that pay for abortion on demand and will lead to the rationing of lifesaving medical treatments.

Overheard: Taking down Obama's dismissal of conscience rights for Catholic institutions

Michael Gerson:
Obama's decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism.

Megan McCardle simply eviscerates Kevin Drum's thoughtlessness.
I've seen several versions of Kevin's complaint on the interwebs, and everyone makes it seems to assume that we're doing the Catholic Church a big old favor by allowing them to provide health care and other social services to a needy public. Why, we're really coddling them, and it's about time they started acting a little grateful for everything we've done for them!

These people seem to be living in an alternate universe that I don't have access to, where there's a positive glut of secular organizations who are just dying to provide top-notch care for the sick, the poor, and the dispossessed.