Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Life Links 8/27/14

Time has a piece by Laura Stampler attempting to promote abortion advocates and their lame Taco or Beer challenge.  The piece is entitled “New Viral Fundraiser” despite only having 127 posts (at this moment) on Tumblr. 

A newborn baby boy in Utah is in critical condition after his mother abandoned him in a trash can and was found by neighbors who thought they were hearing a kitten. 

Police say the 24-year-old mother later returned to the scene and told officers that she'd left the baby there about an hour before he was found.

A woman in Indiana has been charged with feticide after allegedly attempting to use RU-486 to abort her late-term pregnancy.  The child was apparently born alive and then left in a dumpster. 

A pathologist ruled the infant was born alive and took a breath, but Patel's lawyer, Jeff Sanford, told the judge the pathologist's tests don't prove that.  Sanford told WSBT he has big questions about tests the pathologist did and did not do to determine whether the infant was born alive. 

Dawn Laguens’ piece attempting to defend Planned Parenthood’s transition away from “pro-choice” terminology included this absurd assertion:

As evidence, he quotes Hillary Clinton saying abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," a message that peaked in the 1990s, when President Clinton first said it, and was probably last used around 2006. Nobody says that anymore.

2006?  Here’s a CNN article from 2010 where President Obama uses the “safe, legal and rare” message.

1 comment:

  1. "In a recent Washington Post blog post, well-known political strategist and a founding partner of the Glover Park Group Carter Eskew took the reproductive rights movement to task, and not a minute too soon by his watch. In his column, he explains that advocates for reproductive health are mired in "convoluted, poll-tested messaging" and "cannot win the debate as it is currently framed.""

    Note that even the COLUMN avoids using the evidently now defunct "prochoice" label. It's a "reproductive rights movement" run by "advocates for reproductive health."

    But the ONLY thing they're pushing for is abortion. They're not advocating for better prenatal care, for perinatal hospice, for a reversal of the appalling trend of preforming excessive c-sections, for the right to give birth in the least restrictive environment, etc.

    We REALLY need to nail them on this. We need to ask at every turn, "Why is it that when you talk about "reproductive health" it's always a buzzword for abortion?" Ask why they never bring up the need for more research into the causes of stillbirths. Why they never advocate for patient empowerment in making birth plans. Why they never advocate for unbiased counseling for parents facing a prenatal diagnosis. "Why," we need to ceaselessly ask, "do they ignore any health issues involving actual reproduction in their supposed campaign for 'reproductive health'"?