Robert Novak discusses NARAL's "fishing expeditions" for judges.
He and Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, are partners in a California political consulting firm. Their May 5 petition requested financial information on 30 appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities. Varoga & Rice's client: NARAL Pro-Choice America.
I'm all with Hadley Arkes on this.
Catez Stevens has compiled a collection of posts on the tragedy occurring in Darfur.
"Biased," "unqualified," "most extreme," "the worst" "controversial," "extreme by just about any standard," "too radical," "not moderate or mainstream" and "unfit". All these words to describe two judges who don't believe that the Constitution grants the right to abortion. Planned Parenthood sure does love their adjectives especially since they have absolutely no argument. You'd think with their budget they could hire a public relations director that could come up with something more than adjective-filled rant.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Abortion and Premature Birth
Prolife Blogs is covering the study from France that finds "an induced abortion can increase the risk by premature birth in subsequent pregnancies by as much as 70 percent."
From The Daily Telegraph:
"Her study compared the medical histories of 2,219 women with babies born at less than 34 weeks with another 618 who had given birth at full term. Overall, women who had had an abortion were 40 per cent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks) than those without such a history. The risk of an extremely premature baby - one born at less than 28 weeks - was raised even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Abortion appeared to increase the risk of most major causes of premature birth, including premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the foetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labour. The only common cause of premature birth not linked to abortion was high blood pressure.
But this study isn't really news. There have been numerous studies (more than 40) which link abortion and premature birth. From the National Right to Life News in 2003:
"‘Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births' appears in the Summer 2003 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The study, authored by Brent Rooney and Byron Calhoun, M.D., points out that at least 49 studies conducted between 1966 and March 2003 have shown a statistically significant increase in premature births or "surrogates" such as low birth weights in women who have had prior induced abortions.
In 36 years of studies tracked by Rooney and Calhoun, only eight studies failed to show a statistically significant increase, and in many cases this was simply because the sample sizes were too small. There were no studies found in recognized medical journals during this period showing a decreased risk of subsequent prematurity following an abortion.
The report offered some astounding results. A 1993 Australian study of 121,305 total births found the risk of an extremely premature birth (20-27 weeks gegestational age) to be 60% higher for women with one previous abortion, 150% higher for those with two abortions, and 460% higher for women having three or more previous induced abortions - - compared to women with no previous pregnancies."
Dr. Barbara Luke, a professor at the University of Michigan and an expert in obstetrics and gynecology wrote, "(i)f you have had one or more induced abortions, your risk of prematurity with this pregnancy increases by about 30 percent" in her 1995 book, "Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth."
Too bad the March of Dimes, which started a multi-million dollar campaign to reduce premature births, doesn't acknowledge abortion as something that would put women at an increased risk.
From The Daily Telegraph:
"Her study compared the medical histories of 2,219 women with babies born at less than 34 weeks with another 618 who had given birth at full term. Overall, women who had had an abortion were 40 per cent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks) than those without such a history. The risk of an extremely premature baby - one born at less than 28 weeks - was raised even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Abortion appeared to increase the risk of most major causes of premature birth, including premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the foetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labour. The only common cause of premature birth not linked to abortion was high blood pressure.
But this study isn't really news. There have been numerous studies (more than 40) which link abortion and premature birth. From the National Right to Life News in 2003:
"‘Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births' appears in the Summer 2003 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The study, authored by Brent Rooney and Byron Calhoun, M.D., points out that at least 49 studies conducted between 1966 and March 2003 have shown a statistically significant increase in premature births or "surrogates" such as low birth weights in women who have had prior induced abortions.
In 36 years of studies tracked by Rooney and Calhoun, only eight studies failed to show a statistically significant increase, and in many cases this was simply because the sample sizes were too small. There were no studies found in recognized medical journals during this period showing a decreased risk of subsequent prematurity following an abortion.
The report offered some astounding results. A 1993 Australian study of 121,305 total births found the risk of an extremely premature birth (20-27 weeks gegestational age) to be 60% higher for women with one previous abortion, 150% higher for those with two abortions, and 460% higher for women having three or more previous induced abortions - - compared to women with no previous pregnancies."
Dr. Barbara Luke, a professor at the University of Michigan and an expert in obstetrics and gynecology wrote, "(i)f you have had one or more induced abortions, your risk of prematurity with this pregnancy increases by about 30 percent" in her 1995 book, "Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth."
Too bad the March of Dimes, which started a multi-million dollar campaign to reduce premature births, doesn't acknowledge abortion as something that would put women at an increased risk.
Pro-choice Ads Removed from Nickelodeon
The pro-choice ads that had been running on Nickelodeon and other networks in Grand Rapids area have been removed from stations aimed at children.
My contact, who sent a letter to Nickelodeon, received a phone call from Nickelodeon's main office in New York apologizing for the mishap. It seems that the fault lies with the cable provider, Comcast, who allowed the ads to be played locally on cable networks aimed at children.
Right now it isn't certain if the pro-choice group intentionally bought ads on Nickelodeon or if they purchased an ad buy that plays commercials on a wide variety of cable channels. From my limited knowledge of television ad buys, I am fairly certain that when you purchase an ad buy you receive a listing of which channels the ads will be on, how many times they will play over the course of your buy and approximately when they will play.
My contact, who sent a letter to Nickelodeon, received a phone call from Nickelodeon's main office in New York apologizing for the mishap. It seems that the fault lies with the cable provider, Comcast, who allowed the ads to be played locally on cable networks aimed at children.
Right now it isn't certain if the pro-choice group intentionally bought ads on Nickelodeon or if they purchased an ad buy that plays commercials on a wide variety of cable channels. From my limited knowledge of television ad buys, I am fairly certain that when you purchase an ad buy you receive a listing of which channels the ads will be on, how many times they will play over the course of your buy and approximately when they will play.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Links
A former justice on the Texas Supreme Court debunks the "activist" charge continously made against filibustered judge Priscilla Owen.
Christianity Today tries to get to the bottom of the story that church members got kicked out for voting for Kerry (HT: Between Two Worlds)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review calls Detroit's mayor Kwame Kilpatrick "the Motown version of McDonald's Hamburgler" for proposing to the city to adopt a 2 percent tax on fast food.
A slight resemblance? The smile is at least somewhat similar and both have good fashion sense.
Christianity Today tries to get to the bottom of the story that church members got kicked out for voting for Kerry (HT: Between Two Worlds)
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review calls Detroit's mayor Kwame Kilpatrick "the Motown version of McDonald's Hamburgler" for proposing to the city to adopt a 2 percent tax on fast food.
A slight resemblance? The smile is at least somewhat similar and both have good fashion sense.
Consent is not a defense for baseball bat abortion
The Detroit Free Press is reporting that a Macomb County judge has ruled that the teenage boy who beat his pregnant girlfriend with a souvenir baseball bat over the span of weeks to kill their unborn child will stand trial even though his girlfriend consented to the beatings.
Circuit Judge Matthew Switalski said Thursday that in light of a state law requiring minors to get approval from a parent or judge before having an abortion, the girl -- then 16 years old -- could not legally consent to the blows to her stomach that the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office says ended her pregnancy....
The girl, now 17, is not charged with a crime, but her boyfriend, a 17-year-old Richmond Township resident, was charged with intentional conduct against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth, a 15-year felony. If convicted, he could end up under the jurisdiction of the Macomb County Juvenile Court until he turns 21.
In October, police recovered a 26-week-old fetus from a field near the boy's home. The teens admitted that he struck her in hopes of ending the pregnancy.
Though I believe the boy should be charged, I'm not thrilled at this time with the reasoning behind the judge's decision. By his reasoning it seems that women who are 18 or older could have their boyfriends, husbands or whoever beat their unborn child to death and as long as the non-minor woman consented to the beating, then the beater would be exempt from punishment.
Related posts
Terminating pregnancy with a baseball bat
Souvenir bat wielding boyfriend is charged
Circuit Judge Matthew Switalski said Thursday that in light of a state law requiring minors to get approval from a parent or judge before having an abortion, the girl -- then 16 years old -- could not legally consent to the blows to her stomach that the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office says ended her pregnancy....
The girl, now 17, is not charged with a crime, but her boyfriend, a 17-year-old Richmond Township resident, was charged with intentional conduct against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth, a 15-year felony. If convicted, he could end up under the jurisdiction of the Macomb County Juvenile Court until he turns 21.
In October, police recovered a 26-week-old fetus from a field near the boy's home. The teens admitted that he struck her in hopes of ending the pregnancy.
Though I believe the boy should be charged, I'm not thrilled at this time with the reasoning behind the judge's decision. By his reasoning it seems that women who are 18 or older could have their boyfriends, husbands or whoever beat their unborn child to death and as long as the non-minor woman consented to the beating, then the beater would be exempt from punishment.
Related posts
Terminating pregnancy with a baseball bat
Souvenir bat wielding boyfriend is charged
Fromaing for Facts
Froma Harrop's most recent column shows how those in favor of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research will use myths, lies and strawmen to discard the arguments of those of us who are against human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research.
Everything's up to date in Kansas City -- except for some of the people. Each year, a suburban state senator presents a bill that would make creating cells for embryonic stem-cell research a felony in Missouri.
Those backwards Missourian luddites! They have a state senator who wants to ban human cloning! The audacity! The caveman that is sponsoring this legislation has 5 well-thought out and researched columns on cloning which shows that he has probably forgotten more about the subject of human cloning than Harrop has ever learned.
By "creating cells for embryonic stem-cell research," Harrop really means creating cloned human embryos and then killing those cloned human embryos for their stem cells.
Some "pro-life" activists oppose this work because it destroys embryos. We're talking about a few cells in a lab dish.
Actually, we're talking about a small living human being. Most proponents of embryonic stem cell research or research cloning can't even try to take the claims of those against these things seriously. It's much easier for them to say that human embryos are just cells or blobs of tissue than actually make a case for why it should be legal to intentionally kill some human beings with the vague hope of curing another.
Stowers President Bill Neaves vows not to put a spade in the ground until he gets a commitment: The state legislature must end the annual ritual of demonizing the research.
That means no more bills criminalizing therapeutic cloning, which provides the needed cells. Stowers prefers the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer." (Say "cloning," and some people think it's about reproducing human beings.)
Of course he prefers that term. Only a small percentage of people actually knows what it means. It's much easier to get people to go along with a certain kind of unethical research if they don't know what's actually going on.
As a matter of fact "therapeutic cloning" (I've still yet to hear about one human being who's received therapy from human cloning) is about reproducing human beings. A tiny cloned human being must be created for researchers to obtain their stem cells.
An extreme brand of abortion politics threatens to empty the heartland of advanced biotech research. And it's not just radical proposals, like making therapeutic cloning a felony. It's also the attitude -- laws singling out embryonic-stem-cell research as somehow morally suspect.
To Harrop, advanced biotech research = cloning for research and embryonic stem cell research. She is probably completely unaware of all the other advanced biotech research that doesn't necessitate the death of embryonic human beings or all the great scientists who are actually curing people with adult stem cells. I'm getting so tired of this absurd "brain drain" myth where all the top scientists in the U.S. will leave if our government doesn't provide billions of dollars to embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Harrop later on says "several" scientists have left and then names only one.
Notice the catch words "extreme" and "radical." Harrop makes no attempt to actually show how banning human cloning (something that the UN passed a non-binding resolution on and has been banned in those conservative countries of Germany, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and France) is "radical." It's much easier for her to use insulting words than to actually prove her case. Her only attempt to let her readers see the position of prolifers was in the brief two sentences where she admits this research destroys embryos but then undermines that view completely by call them a "few cells."
Also, notice how Harrop condemns prolifers for their attitude and how they try to influence government because they believe embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong while never noticing her attitude and how she and other proponents of embryonic stem cell research try to influence government because she has no moral qualms with killing human embryos for research. She's concluded that prolifers are morally wrong because they've made the conclusion that cloning and killing human embryos for research is morally wrong.
Froma concludes her ignorant rant with this:
The heartland majority needs to confront its anti-science militants. In this world, scientists can write their own tickets. If they write one for the coasts, leaders who indulged the radicals will have only themselves to blame.
That's right. Everybody against cloning human beings and then killing human beings for research is a radical anti-science militant. Wow! It seems that facts and logical arguments are burnt toast for those in favor of cloning human beings for research while name calling and pseudo-science is the soup du jour.
Everything's up to date in Kansas City -- except for some of the people. Each year, a suburban state senator presents a bill that would make creating cells for embryonic stem-cell research a felony in Missouri.
Those backwards Missourian luddites! They have a state senator who wants to ban human cloning! The audacity! The caveman that is sponsoring this legislation has 5 well-thought out and researched columns on cloning which shows that he has probably forgotten more about the subject of human cloning than Harrop has ever learned.
By "creating cells for embryonic stem-cell research," Harrop really means creating cloned human embryos and then killing those cloned human embryos for their stem cells.
Some "pro-life" activists oppose this work because it destroys embryos. We're talking about a few cells in a lab dish.
Actually, we're talking about a small living human being. Most proponents of embryonic stem cell research or research cloning can't even try to take the claims of those against these things seriously. It's much easier for them to say that human embryos are just cells or blobs of tissue than actually make a case for why it should be legal to intentionally kill some human beings with the vague hope of curing another.
Stowers President Bill Neaves vows not to put a spade in the ground until he gets a commitment: The state legislature must end the annual ritual of demonizing the research.
That means no more bills criminalizing therapeutic cloning, which provides the needed cells. Stowers prefers the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer." (Say "cloning," and some people think it's about reproducing human beings.)
Of course he prefers that term. Only a small percentage of people actually knows what it means. It's much easier to get people to go along with a certain kind of unethical research if they don't know what's actually going on.
As a matter of fact "therapeutic cloning" (I've still yet to hear about one human being who's received therapy from human cloning) is about reproducing human beings. A tiny cloned human being must be created for researchers to obtain their stem cells.
An extreme brand of abortion politics threatens to empty the heartland of advanced biotech research. And it's not just radical proposals, like making therapeutic cloning a felony. It's also the attitude -- laws singling out embryonic-stem-cell research as somehow morally suspect.
To Harrop, advanced biotech research = cloning for research and embryonic stem cell research. She is probably completely unaware of all the other advanced biotech research that doesn't necessitate the death of embryonic human beings or all the great scientists who are actually curing people with adult stem cells. I'm getting so tired of this absurd "brain drain" myth where all the top scientists in the U.S. will leave if our government doesn't provide billions of dollars to embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Harrop later on says "several" scientists have left and then names only one.
Notice the catch words "extreme" and "radical." Harrop makes no attempt to actually show how banning human cloning (something that the UN passed a non-binding resolution on and has been banned in those conservative countries of Germany, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and France) is "radical." It's much easier for her to use insulting words than to actually prove her case. Her only attempt to let her readers see the position of prolifers was in the brief two sentences where she admits this research destroys embryos but then undermines that view completely by call them a "few cells."
Also, notice how Harrop condemns prolifers for their attitude and how they try to influence government because they believe embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong while never noticing her attitude and how she and other proponents of embryonic stem cell research try to influence government because she has no moral qualms with killing human embryos for research. She's concluded that prolifers are morally wrong because they've made the conclusion that cloning and killing human embryos for research is morally wrong.
Froma concludes her ignorant rant with this:
The heartland majority needs to confront its anti-science militants. In this world, scientists can write their own tickets. If they write one for the coasts, leaders who indulged the radicals will have only themselves to blame.
That's right. Everybody against cloning human beings and then killing human beings for research is a radical anti-science militant. Wow! It seems that facts and logical arguments are burnt toast for those in favor of cloning human beings for research while name calling and pseudo-science is the soup du jour.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Planned Parenthood's Blogger is Having a Boy!
A guest blogger at Planned Parenthood's "Now What?" blog has announced that the regular blogger is going to have a baby boy.
It's not quite clear to me if the blogger herself is pregnant or if her partner (the not-so specific gender language makes me wonder if the the partner is a woman) is pregnant.
Remember the old days when you had to wait until a baby was born to know its sex? Those days are gone. Our regular blogger is off doing her job, so my guest blogger self gets to break the big news around the office: Now What?! is having a boy!!
Yes, our resident blogger and her partner will be the proud parents of a baby boy come ... let's see here...October? November? Something like that. And yes, they already have a name picked out.
What's the name? No, it's not Cletus the Fetus or Joe the Embryo. It's William. They can already tell that their child is a boy even though they're not likely to admit that it is a child. How surreal would it be to see the Planned Parenthood staff all surrounding the Now What? blogger, looking at her ultrasounds, and feeling her stomach?
You wonder if someone who over the next months will be seeing ultrasounds and feeling the kicks of her child will be as open to promoting abortion as she usually is.
Here's an old Dawn Eden post that thoroughly fisks the Now What! bloggers take on Focus on the Family helping CPCs get ultrasound machines.
It's not quite clear to me if the blogger herself is pregnant or if her partner (the not-so specific gender language makes me wonder if the the partner is a woman) is pregnant.
Remember the old days when you had to wait until a baby was born to know its sex? Those days are gone. Our regular blogger is off doing her job, so my guest blogger self gets to break the big news around the office: Now What?! is having a boy!!
Yes, our resident blogger and her partner will be the proud parents of a baby boy come ... let's see here...October? November? Something like that. And yes, they already have a name picked out.
What's the name? No, it's not Cletus the Fetus or Joe the Embryo. It's William. They can already tell that their child is a boy even though they're not likely to admit that it is a child. How surreal would it be to see the Planned Parenthood staff all surrounding the Now What? blogger, looking at her ultrasounds, and feeling her stomach?
You wonder if someone who over the next months will be seeing ultrasounds and feeling the kicks of her child will be as open to promoting abortion as she usually is.
Here's an old Dawn Eden post that thoroughly fisks the Now What! bloggers take on Focus on the Family helping CPCs get ultrasound machines.
Mind Your Business Prolifers!
I try to spend some time each day debating the abortion issue over the internet with individuals who are pro-choice. Some can argue the issue in a respectable manner. Some aren't nice and prefer to get snippy when their arguments don't work or they're faced with questions that they can't answer. In general, I'm surprised by the lack of factual evidence to back up what they say. When asked for evidence to back up an objective statement pro-choicers will often end the discussion or provide some general web site that doesn't specifically say what they say it says.
A tactic that I also see quite often is the "mind your own business" line which is often used to pro-choicers who are unable to logically argue their position.
Here's an example of what someone wrote to me a couple of days ago:
Your comments tell me that you are just simply obsessed with the unborn thing and being a prolifer, like those extremists that we dread. All you do is simply run around in circles, talking about the unborn and so on. It never ends. It's like an annoying broken record that just never stops, so repetitive, same (expletive), different smell. You go on and on about it, like some obsessed person who cannot let go. Abortion is legal, accept it and deal with it. Babies are being aborted by choice, by the woman who chose to do so for whatever reasons.
Later on she continues:
If a woman wants to have an abortion, let her have one, it's none of your damn business what she does or wants with her body and the "unborn". Why can't prolifers mind their own damn business instead of sticking their noses and beliefs into the lives of just about every person that is prochoice.
It's interesting how some pro-choicers seem to be wholly unable to see the abortion issue from the prolife perspective. They can't fathom why prolifers who believe the unborn are living human beings would want to protect these living human beings.
I asked this commenter to look at her comments if another issue was put in the place of abortion such as slavery or infanticide. Just imagine someone saying this:
Your comments tell me that you are just simply obsessed with the slavery thing and being an abolitionist, like those extremists that we dread. All you do is simply run around in circles, talking about the slaves and so on. It never ends. It's like an annoying broken record that just never stops, so repetitive, same (expletive), different smell. You go on and on about it, like some obsessed person who cannot let go. Slavery is legal, accept it and deal with it. Slaves are being owned by choice, by the slaveowner who chose to do so for whatever reasons.
If a woman wants to own a slave, let her have one, it's none of your damn business what she does or wants with her property and the "black human beings." Why can't abolitionists mind their own damn business instead of sticking their noses and beliefs into the lives of just about every person that is pro-slavery.
or this
Your comments tell me that you are just simply obsessed with the infant thing and being a against infanticide, like those extremists that we dread. All you do is simply run around in circles, talking about infants and so on. It never ends. It's like an annoying broken record that just never stops, so repetitive, same (expletive), different smell. You go on and on about it, like some obsessed person who cannot let go. Infanticide is legal, accept it and deal with it. Babies are being killed by choice, by the woman who chose to do so for whatever reasons.
If a woman wants to kill her infant, let her do it, it's none of your damn business what she does or wants with her body and the "born." Why can't prolifers mind their own damn business instead of sticking their noses and beliefs into the lives of just about every person that is prochoice.
The most interesting thing I think is that she uses the word "babies" to describe the unborn children who are aborted. They aren't clump of cells or bits of protoplasm but "babies." Like many pro-choicers she hasn't completely dehumanized them in her mind. They are still "babies." Yet she still thinks it should be legal to kill these "babies" for "whatever reasons." How scary and sad is that?
A tactic that I also see quite often is the "mind your own business" line which is often used to pro-choicers who are unable to logically argue their position.
Here's an example of what someone wrote to me a couple of days ago:
Your comments tell me that you are just simply obsessed with the unborn thing and being a prolifer, like those extremists that we dread. All you do is simply run around in circles, talking about the unborn and so on. It never ends. It's like an annoying broken record that just never stops, so repetitive, same (expletive), different smell. You go on and on about it, like some obsessed person who cannot let go. Abortion is legal, accept it and deal with it. Babies are being aborted by choice, by the woman who chose to do so for whatever reasons.
Later on she continues:
If a woman wants to have an abortion, let her have one, it's none of your damn business what she does or wants with her body and the "unborn". Why can't prolifers mind their own damn business instead of sticking their noses and beliefs into the lives of just about every person that is prochoice.
It's interesting how some pro-choicers seem to be wholly unable to see the abortion issue from the prolife perspective. They can't fathom why prolifers who believe the unborn are living human beings would want to protect these living human beings.
I asked this commenter to look at her comments if another issue was put in the place of abortion such as slavery or infanticide. Just imagine someone saying this:
Your comments tell me that you are just simply obsessed with the slavery thing and being an abolitionist, like those extremists that we dread. All you do is simply run around in circles, talking about the slaves and so on. It never ends. It's like an annoying broken record that just never stops, so repetitive, same (expletive), different smell. You go on and on about it, like some obsessed person who cannot let go. Slavery is legal, accept it and deal with it. Slaves are being owned by choice, by the slaveowner who chose to do so for whatever reasons.
If a woman wants to own a slave, let her have one, it's none of your damn business what she does or wants with her property and the "black human beings." Why can't abolitionists mind their own damn business instead of sticking their noses and beliefs into the lives of just about every person that is pro-slavery.
or this
Your comments tell me that you are just simply obsessed with the infant thing and being a against infanticide, like those extremists that we dread. All you do is simply run around in circles, talking about infants and so on. It never ends. It's like an annoying broken record that just never stops, so repetitive, same (expletive), different smell. You go on and on about it, like some obsessed person who cannot let go. Infanticide is legal, accept it and deal with it. Babies are being killed by choice, by the woman who chose to do so for whatever reasons.
If a woman wants to kill her infant, let her do it, it's none of your damn business what she does or wants with her body and the "born." Why can't prolifers mind their own damn business instead of sticking their noses and beliefs into the lives of just about every person that is prochoice.
The most interesting thing I think is that she uses the word "babies" to describe the unborn children who are aborted. They aren't clump of cells or bits of protoplasm but "babies." Like many pro-choicers she hasn't completely dehumanized them in her mind. They are still "babies." Yet she still thinks it should be legal to kill these "babies" for "whatever reasons." How scary and sad is that?
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Adult Stem Cells and Spinal Cord Injury
The Detroit Free Press continues their series of stories on a young woman from Michigan named Cortney Hoffman who received a transplant of adult stem cells to help with her spinal cord injury.
CBS Evening News is scheduled to do a story on Cortney tonight at 7 p.m.
Some excerpts from the Free Press story:
Cortney has surpassed her first goal -- standing unassisted -- since she went to Portugal in January for adult stem-cell surgery to repair her injured spinal cord.
Dr. Owen Perlman, a Superior Township rehabilitation medicine specialist and Cortney's primary physician, concluded on Cortney's last appointment April 21 that she has made gains he would not have expected if she had not had the surgery. He hadn't seen those gains in the aggressive rehabilitation she underwent for several months before the surgery.
Cortney's new goal is to walk in her braces. She's also learning to drive again, in a car operated by hand controls. Taking just a few steps with help last week thrilled her.
Hopefully CBS won't turn this story of the success of adult stem cells and hard work into a embryonic stem cell research support piece.
CBS Evening News is scheduled to do a story on Cortney tonight at 7 p.m.
Some excerpts from the Free Press story:
Cortney has surpassed her first goal -- standing unassisted -- since she went to Portugal in January for adult stem-cell surgery to repair her injured spinal cord.
Dr. Owen Perlman, a Superior Township rehabilitation medicine specialist and Cortney's primary physician, concluded on Cortney's last appointment April 21 that she has made gains he would not have expected if she had not had the surgery. He hadn't seen those gains in the aggressive rehabilitation she underwent for several months before the surgery.
Cortney's new goal is to walk in her braces. She's also learning to drive again, in a car operated by hand controls. Taking just a few steps with help last week thrilled her.
Hopefully CBS won't turn this story of the success of adult stem cells and hard work into a embryonic stem cell research support piece.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Could this lie be anymore obvious?
Joe Carter and Dawn Eden recently blogged about this absurd statement from Planned Parenthood's vice-president, Dr. Vanessa Cullins:
The really hot question is, "When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.
In honor of this amazing absurdity getting some coverage I thought I'd link to this old post of mine which discusses Dr. Cullins' statement.
The really hot question is, "When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.
In honor of this amazing absurdity getting some coverage I thought I'd link to this old post of mine which discusses Dr. Cullins' statement.
Stray dog saves abandoned child
Isn't it sad that a stray dog has more respect for human life than many humans do?
Friday, May 06, 2005
Pro-Choice Ads on Nickelodeon
In the culturally-conservative town of Grand Rapids pro-choice groups don't make the largest impression. West Michiganders aren't prone to buy the "no one knows when life begins" line or fall in love with the vague assertion "women have the right to choose." We're more likely to point to the scientific evidence regarding the beginning of human life and ask what exactly do woman have a right to "choose."
Much to my chagrin, I have been informed that Grand Rapids' patchwork pro-choice group has been reaching out to a new group of possible pro-choice advocates. They've been airing ads in the Grand Rapids television market for a couple of years - mostly on pro-choice friendly cable stations like Oxygen, E!, MTV, and VH1 - but now they've moved into marketing their message towards different viewers. Kids!! Friends of mine have seen their ads on Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network. I guess if you can't convince adults, start the mythmaking with the young.
Their ads feature a wall being broken down and a coathanger behind the wall. They also advertise their currently nonfunctioning web site, www.prochoiceadvocates.org.
But thanks to the magic of the Way Back Machine we can view portions of their web site here.
So if you live in Grand Rapids and your 5-year-old wants to know why she is shown a coathanger after watching SpongeBob you'll have some clue what she's referring to. Efforts are currently under way to encourage Comcast to remove the commercials from the networks aimed at children.
UPDATE:
This is a local advertisement buy by a local pro-choice organization. If you live outside of the Grand Rapids, Michigan area you won't see these commercials even if you watch Nickelodeon 24/7. Also, since it is a local ad, I sincerely doubt that the higher-ups at Nickelodeon have any idea that there are pro-choice ads on their station.
Much to my chagrin, I have been informed that Grand Rapids' patchwork pro-choice group has been reaching out to a new group of possible pro-choice advocates. They've been airing ads in the Grand Rapids television market for a couple of years - mostly on pro-choice friendly cable stations like Oxygen, E!, MTV, and VH1 - but now they've moved into marketing their message towards different viewers. Kids!! Friends of mine have seen their ads on Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network. I guess if you can't convince adults, start the mythmaking with the young.
Their ads feature a wall being broken down and a coathanger behind the wall. They also advertise their currently nonfunctioning web site, www.prochoiceadvocates.org.
But thanks to the magic of the Way Back Machine we can view portions of their web site here.
So if you live in Grand Rapids and your 5-year-old wants to know why she is shown a coathanger after watching SpongeBob you'll have some clue what she's referring to. Efforts are currently under way to encourage Comcast to remove the commercials from the networks aimed at children.
UPDATE:
This is a local advertisement buy by a local pro-choice organization. If you live outside of the Grand Rapids, Michigan area you won't see these commercials even if you watch Nickelodeon 24/7. Also, since it is a local ad, I sincerely doubt that the higher-ups at Nickelodeon have any idea that there are pro-choice ads on their station.
Genocide in Sudan
How sad is it that this kind of thing is happening and that children witnessed it or were taken to to be wives?
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Not so equal branches
Here's a cartoon by Jim Morin which shows the President along with two individuals (who appear to be Bill Frist and Tom Delay) cutting down a tree. Notice the level of the different governmental branches. Instead of the branches being the same height, the judicial branch is much higher. There is almost double the distance between the executive and judicial branches when compared to the distance between the executive and legislative branchs (though this doubling of distance could be for artistic reasons). This cartoon openly shows the bias that many people in our society have for the judicial branch of government. Instead of seeing 3 equal branches, many people think that somehow the judicial branch is deserving of greater respect and power, that somehow judges are endowed with some special knowledge not held by the "lower" branches. Judges are seen as higher in the food chain or higher up on the tree of knowledge or power.
I say cut away George. Bring the judicial branch back to its rightful position on a equal level with the other branches.
How will Kwame dig his way out?
To escape the poor light that he has been shown in, Detroit's mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is now trying to divert that light to Detroit's former mayor Dennis Archer.
After credit cards records showed that Kwame was "living la vida loca" at big city hotspots and drinking alcohol on Detroit taxpayers' tab, Kwame is having Detroit officials look for Archer's credit card records. Kind of the "look he did it too" approach.
I love this.
Kilpatrick has said he may reimburse the city for a bottle of Moet & Chandon Nectar Imperial champagne that was purchased at Justin's.
He may? How generous of him to consider repaying the city of Detroit for a bottle of champagne when his actions were a violation of city policy.
This is good too.
He has also said his use of the credit card was proper and helped bring billions of dollars in development and tens of millions in federal dollars to Detroit. Records obtained by the Free Press under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act contain many deletions and few details about what the mayor ate and with whom.
I wonder who Kwame was eating and drinking with at P. Diddy's place to help bring billions of dollars in development to Detroit. Why won't Kwame disclose the business purpose of these "meetings" or who he was chowing down with?
After credit cards records showed that Kwame was "living la vida loca" at big city hotspots and drinking alcohol on Detroit taxpayers' tab, Kwame is having Detroit officials look for Archer's credit card records. Kind of the "look he did it too" approach.
I love this.
Kilpatrick has said he may reimburse the city for a bottle of Moet & Chandon Nectar Imperial champagne that was purchased at Justin's.
He may? How generous of him to consider repaying the city of Detroit for a bottle of champagne when his actions were a violation of city policy.
This is good too.
He has also said his use of the credit card was proper and helped bring billions of dollars in development and tens of millions in federal dollars to Detroit. Records obtained by the Free Press under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act contain many deletions and few details about what the mayor ate and with whom.
I wonder who Kwame was eating and drinking with at P. Diddy's place to help bring billions of dollars in development to Detroit. Why won't Kwame disclose the business purpose of these "meetings" or who he was chowing down with?
Will they find the father?
Naaman is linking to this story in South Florida Sun-Sentinel about the possibility of polic filing charges against the father of the formerly pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida who is a ward of the state. L.G. (the initials given to the girl to give her anonymity) testified that she had sex with a "boy" but it now appears she may have not been completely honest.
L.G.'s mother, whose parental rights were terminated for abuse and neglect, said the girl told her she got pregnant by a man who was between 28 and 30 years old.
L.G. appeared to be living with the man in the Clearwater area after she ran away from her group home Jan. 29 for about a month, said her mother, who has a contentious history with the DCF and threatened to blow up their offices, according to a police report.
"I think they should put him in jail," said the mother, whose name is not being used to protect L.G.'s identity. "He's a child molester, simple as that."
I don't know if the mother is the best source for information but if she was living with a male I doubt that he would be considered a "boy."
Naaman points this out, "The cruel irony of this case is that Florida law recognizes that a 13-year-old girl is not sufficiently mature to decide whether or not to have sex. Yet Florida courts have somehow decided that she is sufficiently mature to kill any children that may result from the sex that Florida law says she shouldn't be having."
I'm wondering if the courts had the foresight to save any of the aborted child's remains so that a DNA test could prove who the father was. Probably not. If they were looking out for the best interests of the child wouldn't they want to at least have solid evidence to put the person who's having sex with a runaway 13-year-old girl behind bars?
L.G.'s mother, whose parental rights were terminated for abuse and neglect, said the girl told her she got pregnant by a man who was between 28 and 30 years old.
L.G. appeared to be living with the man in the Clearwater area after she ran away from her group home Jan. 29 for about a month, said her mother, who has a contentious history with the DCF and threatened to blow up their offices, according to a police report.
"I think they should put him in jail," said the mother, whose name is not being used to protect L.G.'s identity. "He's a child molester, simple as that."
I don't know if the mother is the best source for information but if she was living with a male I doubt that he would be considered a "boy."
Naaman points this out, "The cruel irony of this case is that Florida law recognizes that a 13-year-old girl is not sufficiently mature to decide whether or not to have sex. Yet Florida courts have somehow decided that she is sufficiently mature to kill any children that may result from the sex that Florida law says she shouldn't be having."
I'm wondering if the courts had the foresight to save any of the aborted child's remains so that a DNA test could prove who the father was. Probably not. If they were looking out for the best interests of the child wouldn't they want to at least have solid evidence to put the person who's having sex with a runaway 13-year-old girl behind bars?
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Third-Trimester Abortions
If a pro-choicer ever asks you to provide an example of an elective third-trimester abortion just remember the name Jose Higuera.
Jose Higuera was a Michigan abortionist who was charged with performing an illegal abortion at 28 weeks of gestation. He performed this abortion in 1994.
Higuera's crime, according to state prosecutor Mark Blumer, is that he did not have a clear medical or health reason to perform the late abortion.
"Had the mother's health been jeopardized by the pregnancy, there would not be a criminal prosecution. There's no doubt about that," Blumer said.
"What we've got is the classic gray area. A woman went in to the doctor's office and wanted an abortion for no good reason. And we have a doctor who was willing to give it. That's why this case is so different."
Higuera eventually avoided a trial by accepting a plea bargain where he would accept the charges of meddling the medical records (which forced him to give up his license even though he retired years earlier) as long as prosecutors didn't charge him with performing an illegal third-trimester abortion.
Higuera's avoidance of being charged also shows how abortionists really can't be punished for performing abortions in the third trimester. Doe v. Bolton's all-encompassing definition of "health" prevents prosecutors from prosecuting abortionists who perform third-trimester abortions.
Jose Higuera was a Michigan abortionist who was charged with performing an illegal abortion at 28 weeks of gestation. He performed this abortion in 1994.
Higuera's crime, according to state prosecutor Mark Blumer, is that he did not have a clear medical or health reason to perform the late abortion.
"Had the mother's health been jeopardized by the pregnancy, there would not be a criminal prosecution. There's no doubt about that," Blumer said.
"What we've got is the classic gray area. A woman went in to the doctor's office and wanted an abortion for no good reason. And we have a doctor who was willing to give it. That's why this case is so different."
Higuera eventually avoided a trial by accepting a plea bargain where he would accept the charges of meddling the medical records (which forced him to give up his license even though he retired years earlier) as long as prosecutors didn't charge him with performing an illegal third-trimester abortion.
Higuera's avoidance of being charged also shows how abortionists really can't be punished for performing abortions in the third trimester. Doe v. Bolton's all-encompassing definition of "health" prevents prosecutors from prosecuting abortionists who perform third-trimester abortions.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Democrats for Life's Plan
In late April, Democrats for Life released its plan to reduce abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.
The plan is broken into two parts: Empower Women and Protect Our Children.
Empower Women
* Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number Pregnancy Support/National Public Awareness Program
* Conduct a National Study on Why Women Choose Abortions & Update Abortion Data
* Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education
* Federal Funding for Abortion Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses
* Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests.
* Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent
* Ban Pregnancy as a "Pre-Existing Condition" in the Health Care Industry
* Require Adoption Referral Information
* Women's Right to Know
* Provide Ultrasound Equipment
* Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs
* Contraception Equity
Protect our Children
* Fully Fund Federal WIC Program
* Require Parental Notification for Abortions
* Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws
* Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes
* Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women
No legislation has been introduced as far as I can tell so many of the policy initiatives are a little vague but they should be mostly agreeable to those in the prolife community especially those initiatives that are already on the books in numerous states (parental consent and informed consent) and the initiatives that help crisis pregnancy centers and adoption. Requiring "insurance coverage of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration" would not be a favorite among some and the language of "provide grants to school districts that are in need of funds to administer effective, age-appropriate pregnancy prevention education" could invoke the suspicions of others but for the most part they are good initiatives designed to help women and protect children.
I don't think that if all enacted they would reduce abortion by 95% but they would definitely be helpful in limiting the demand for abortion and helping women who are in an unplanned pregnancy find the resources they need to choose life.
The plan is broken into two parts: Empower Women and Protect Our Children.
Empower Women
* Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number Pregnancy Support/National Public Awareness Program
* Conduct a National Study on Why Women Choose Abortions & Update Abortion Data
* Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education
* Federal Funding for Abortion Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses
* Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests.
* Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent
* Ban Pregnancy as a "Pre-Existing Condition" in the Health Care Industry
* Require Adoption Referral Information
* Women's Right to Know
* Provide Ultrasound Equipment
* Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs
* Contraception Equity
Protect our Children
* Fully Fund Federal WIC Program
* Require Parental Notification for Abortions
* Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws
* Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes
* Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women
No legislation has been introduced as far as I can tell so many of the policy initiatives are a little vague but they should be mostly agreeable to those in the prolife community especially those initiatives that are already on the books in numerous states (parental consent and informed consent) and the initiatives that help crisis pregnancy centers and adoption. Requiring "insurance coverage of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration" would not be a favorite among some and the language of "provide grants to school districts that are in need of funds to administer effective, age-appropriate pregnancy prevention education" could invoke the suspicions of others but for the most part they are good initiatives designed to help women and protect children.
I don't think that if all enacted they would reduce abortion by 95% but they would definitely be helpful in limiting the demand for abortion and helping women who are in an unplanned pregnancy find the resources they need to choose life.
Kwame Kilpatrick's Konundrum
Michelle Malkin is discussing the resigning of big cities mayors including the hopeful, though doubtful resignation of Detroit's Kwame Kilpatrick. The Detroit Free Press is reporting this morning that Kilpatrick "charged more that $210,000 to his city-issued credit card in less than three years on the job."
Many of the charges where at fancy eateries like "$319 at Ozio Restaurant & Lounge, a chic Art Deco cigar and martini bar that caters to celebrities" and "$292 at the Capital Grille, a swanky restaurant that boasts that it ‘isn't just the place to be seen, it's the place to be seen having a fabulous time.'"
The article also discusses instances where Kwame boozed it up on the city's dime.
"Two instances in which Kilpatrick provided such receipts for meals showed that alcohol had been charged to the city's credit card in an apparent violation of city policy."
"On March 31, 2002, records show a bottle of Moet & Chandon Nectar Imperial champagne, four Malibu Rum drinks and three shots of Chambord liqueur were charged to Kilpatrick's city credit card at Justin's Restaurant & Bar in Atlanta."
You'd think if someone made $176,176 a year, they'd be able to buy their own drinks. We'll see if this latest story along with the $57,000 Lincoln Navigator fiasco and the $230-million shortfall in Detroit's budget will hurt Kilpatrick come election time.
Related:
How will Kwame Dig His Way Out
Kwame's Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar
Many of the charges where at fancy eateries like "$319 at Ozio Restaurant & Lounge, a chic Art Deco cigar and martini bar that caters to celebrities" and "$292 at the Capital Grille, a swanky restaurant that boasts that it ‘isn't just the place to be seen, it's the place to be seen having a fabulous time.'"
The article also discusses instances where Kwame boozed it up on the city's dime.
"Two instances in which Kilpatrick provided such receipts for meals showed that alcohol had been charged to the city's credit card in an apparent violation of city policy."
"On March 31, 2002, records show a bottle of Moet & Chandon Nectar Imperial champagne, four Malibu Rum drinks and three shots of Chambord liqueur were charged to Kilpatrick's city credit card at Justin's Restaurant & Bar in Atlanta."
You'd think if someone made $176,176 a year, they'd be able to buy their own drinks. We'll see if this latest story along with the $57,000 Lincoln Navigator fiasco and the $230-million shortfall in Detroit's budget will hurt Kilpatrick come election time.
Related:
How will Kwame Dig His Way Out
Kwame's Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar
USA Today needs some fact checkers
USA Today has a story on "The Changing Politics of Abortion."
This paragraph struck me:
And both parties are poised to battle over a Supreme Court appointment. The court is split 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade. The 1973 decision recognized abortion rights and launched a fierce debate that has threaded through American politics for a generation since then.
5-4? Really. Name the four. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and mysterious fourth is who? Anthony Kennedy? Author of the "sweet mystery of life passage" ("At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life") in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is now against Roe and legal abortion? Since when? Since he dissented in Stenberg vs. Carhart? How does being against overturning Nebraska's law against partial-birth abortion mean that Kennedy is in favor of overturning Roe. I love how pro-choice organizations assert the court is 5-4 in favor of Roe and then journalists follow their lead with absolutely nothing to back them up.
"Recognized" also seems to be an interesting word when describing how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe as if the right to abortion was in the Constitution all along and was just not recognized by other courts. "Created," "imposed," or "magically discovered" might better fit how the court actually came up with it's decision.
This paragraph struck me:
And both parties are poised to battle over a Supreme Court appointment. The court is split 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade. The 1973 decision recognized abortion rights and launched a fierce debate that has threaded through American politics for a generation since then.
5-4? Really. Name the four. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and mysterious fourth is who? Anthony Kennedy? Author of the "sweet mystery of life passage" ("At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life") in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is now against Roe and legal abortion? Since when? Since he dissented in Stenberg vs. Carhart? How does being against overturning Nebraska's law against partial-birth abortion mean that Kennedy is in favor of overturning Roe. I love how pro-choice organizations assert the court is 5-4 in favor of Roe and then journalists follow their lead with absolutely nothing to back them up.
"Recognized" also seems to be an interesting word when describing how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe as if the right to abortion was in the Constitution all along and was just not recognized by other courts. "Created," "imposed," or "magically discovered" might better fit how the court actually came up with it's decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
