Here's the vote on Priscilla Owen's confirmation. I'm wondering why prolife Democrat Ben Nelson voted against Judge Owen?
Here's the NARAL press release in response which calls Owen a "serial judicial activist" (they wish) and restates the Alberto Gonzales baloney.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
But I thought they were going to thrown away?
Here's President Bush with some of those "spare embryos" that Dana Reeve told us, "that would not, once it was implanted, turn into a human being."
In a way, Dana is right. Implanting these children into their adoptive mother's womb didn't turn them into human beings. They were already human beings before they were implanted.
Here is the President's statement regarding embryo adoption. Here's an excerpt:
The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts. And I commend each of the families here today for accepting the gift of these children and offering them the gift of your love.
In a way, Dana is right. Implanting these children into their adoptive mother's womb didn't turn them into human beings. They were already human beings before they were implanted.
Here is the President's statement regarding embryo adoption. Here's an excerpt:
The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts. And I commend each of the families here today for accepting the gift of these children and offering them the gift of your love.
Michigan House Passes Ultrasound Bill
On May 24, the Michigan House of Representatives passed H.B. 4446 by the wide margin of 69 to 37. H.B. 4446 would require abortionists to allow women the opportunity to view a live ultrasound image of their unborn child and also allow them to have a picture of their unborn child. Women can refuse to see this image if they would like.
This bill puts Michigan's pro-choice governor, Jennifer Granholm, in a tricky spot. After continually spouting during the 2002 election that she was "personally prolife" and against abortion but politically pro-choice, Granholm has vetoed a bill to define legal birth when any portion of a child is outside the mother and vetoed a bill that would have prevented judge shopping on parental consent bypasses. Will she be able to keep this line up if she continues to veto mainstream prolife bills which don't make abortion illegal?
During the debate (scroll 2/3 to 3/4 of the way down) over this bill, pro-choice representative Alma Smith had this to say:
Current law mandates that a health care provider show a woman seeking an abortion 'a medically accurate depiction, illustration or photograph and description' of an embryo at the same gestational age as her own. This bill's ultrasound requirement introduces a compulsory, potentially risky procedure that results in an image which will add no new information. It is even more unreasonable when we understand that 62% of women seeking abortions have already carried at least one pregnancy to full term: they know what a baby is.
So women who've already given birth know that they are choosing to end the life of a baby when they have an abortion?
This bill puts Michigan's pro-choice governor, Jennifer Granholm, in a tricky spot. After continually spouting during the 2002 election that she was "personally prolife" and against abortion but politically pro-choice, Granholm has vetoed a bill to define legal birth when any portion of a child is outside the mother and vetoed a bill that would have prevented judge shopping on parental consent bypasses. Will she be able to keep this line up if she continues to veto mainstream prolife bills which don't make abortion illegal?
During the debate (scroll 2/3 to 3/4 of the way down) over this bill, pro-choice representative Alma Smith had this to say:
Current law mandates that a health care provider show a woman seeking an abortion 'a medically accurate depiction, illustration or photograph and description' of an embryo at the same gestational age as her own. This bill's ultrasound requirement introduces a compulsory, potentially risky procedure that results in an image which will add no new information. It is even more unreasonable when we understand that 62% of women seeking abortions have already carried at least one pregnancy to full term: they know what a baby is.
So women who've already given birth know that they are choosing to end the life of a baby when they have an abortion?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Bush promises veto on embryonic stem cell bill
The White House has released this statement on Mike Castle's embryonic stem cell bill.
It says that, "If H.R. 810 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."
On a side note, I wonder how Christopher Reeve's widow, Dana Reeve, (pictured next to Mike Castle at this web site) can support Castle's bill. According to Reeve, "That's where you get stem cells from. This is not a baby. It's not an embryo. It is pre-embryonic. This is something that would not, once it was implanted, turn into a human being." (Emphasis mine)
But Castle's legislation, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, states that embryonic stem cells would be eligible for funding if, "The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics....."
Hmmm......
HT: The Corner
It says that, "If H.R. 810 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."
On a side note, I wonder how Christopher Reeve's widow, Dana Reeve, (pictured next to Mike Castle at this web site) can support Castle's bill. According to Reeve, "That's where you get stem cells from. This is not a baby. It's not an embryo. It is pre-embryonic. This is something that would not, once it was implanted, turn into a human being." (Emphasis mine)
But Castle's legislation, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, states that embryonic stem cells would be eligible for funding if, "The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics....."
Hmmm......
HT: The Corner
Terri Revisited
The New York Review has a long essay on Terri Schiavo by Joan Didion that summarizes what happened to her.
HT: Galley Slaves
HT: Galley Slaves
The Deal
I guess I wouldn't be the blogger I pretend to be if I didn't comment on the compromise by 7 Republican Senators and 7 Democratic Senators regarding the filibustering of judicial nominations.
I'm not especially happy but I'm not especially outraged. I think a lot of the outrage is based on what people think will happen, basically that the Democratic Senators will use a broad brush when it comes to the term "extraordinary circumstances." And maybe that will happen. Maybe the "good faith" deal is a sham. Maybe they'll continue to use the filibuster regularly.
But maybe they won't. Maybe those 7 Democrats won't filibuster a nominee to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. If they're open to giving up or down votes to Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen (nominees whom pro-choice organizations despised) it seems to me that it would be extremely difficult for them to filibuster nominees with similar ideologies and judicial views.
I always try to find the silver lining and the main one for me besides the future confirmation of qualified prolife judges is: How embarrassing is this for Planned Parenthood, NARAL and all the other organizations that continuously called Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor "extreme?" NARAL even continues to call them the President's "absolute worst nominees." Those three seemed to be the main focus of the filibusters and now they're going to get up or down votes and be confirmed for lifetime appointments on the appeals court level. That's gotta burn.
NARAL's statement from Nancy Keenan thinly hides the angst she must be feeling knowing that in the near future that Bush's "absolute worst nominees" will be confirmed.
Even though they try to add a positive spin, Planned Parenthood is mostly negative in their assessment of the compromise. There are no party cakes at Planned Parenthood since "U.S. senators agreed to allow extremist judges one step closer to the federal courts."
They must feel that all those pro-choice Senators have turned their backs on them, allowing the most "extreme" nominees to receive votes.
I'm not especially happy but I'm not especially outraged. I think a lot of the outrage is based on what people think will happen, basically that the Democratic Senators will use a broad brush when it comes to the term "extraordinary circumstances." And maybe that will happen. Maybe the "good faith" deal is a sham. Maybe they'll continue to use the filibuster regularly.
But maybe they won't. Maybe those 7 Democrats won't filibuster a nominee to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. If they're open to giving up or down votes to Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen (nominees whom pro-choice organizations despised) it seems to me that it would be extremely difficult for them to filibuster nominees with similar ideologies and judicial views.
I always try to find the silver lining and the main one for me besides the future confirmation of qualified prolife judges is: How embarrassing is this for Planned Parenthood, NARAL and all the other organizations that continuously called Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor "extreme?" NARAL even continues to call them the President's "absolute worst nominees." Those three seemed to be the main focus of the filibusters and now they're going to get up or down votes and be confirmed for lifetime appointments on the appeals court level. That's gotta burn.
NARAL's statement from Nancy Keenan thinly hides the angst she must be feeling knowing that in the near future that Bush's "absolute worst nominees" will be confirmed.
Even though they try to add a positive spin, Planned Parenthood is mostly negative in their assessment of the compromise. There are no party cakes at Planned Parenthood since "U.S. senators agreed to allow extremist judges one step closer to the federal courts."
They must feel that all those pro-choice Senators have turned their backs on them, allowing the most "extreme" nominees to receive votes.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sunday Morning Heartburn
Watching the Sunday morning political television shows can be difficult for me. I love discussion of political issues but I can get way too annoyed watching Sunday morning TV. Mainly because politicians and journalists can make numerous claims and provide no evidence for these claims and the hosts never ask for their source. I also am annoyed by the formatting of these programs which usually doesn't help provide any actual dialogue or rational argumentation just quick sound bits. My wife and I usually leave for church around 9:20 (9:25 if she hits the snooze button more than once) but we went to the later service this Sunday so I was able to watch my "favorite" programs.
By switching back and forth and at commercials I was able to watch parts of Meet the Press, the Fox News Sunday and This Week (ABC's show).
First and foremost, I hate it, absolutely hate it when hosts, commentators, politicians, etc. equate embryonic stem cell research with stem cell research as if the only kind of stem cell research involves experimenting on the remains of destroyed embryos. It happened on Fox News and This Week, over and over again. Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, kept saying "stem cell research," never informing viewers that it is only embryonic stem cell research that people are concerned with.
This seems to be a trend in the media, where seemingly few if any people are aware that research with adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cord blood is helping people all over the globe.
Anne Graham Lotz briefly hinted that there are different types of stem cell research but I saw nothing else that would help an Average Joe or Jane who doesn't know much about stem cell research.
Second, Republicans who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research and using federal funds to pay for this research have no principled ground to stand on when they try to oppose human cloning. Both Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Senator George Allen from Virginia are in favor of embryonic stem cell research but opposed to human cloning, including human cloning for biomedical research.
Instead of being able to say, "we shouldn't be killing some human beings in the hopes of curing others," "every human being regardless of size or development is precious and irreplacable," or "intentionally killing innocent human beings for their body parts is wrong" they are left saying fuzzy statements like, "I think this is just going to far," or "this is a line we shouldn't cross" and have real difficulty explaining why we shouldn't cross this line when they are in favor of crossing the other line. It is unfortunate that many individuals who oppose legal abortion have allowed pseudo-science and the extravagant claims of big biotech to shade their thinking.
Fareed Zakaria is Ignorant about Embryonic Stem Cell Laws Around World
Throughout the round table discussion on embryonic stem cell research and cloning on This Week, Fareed Zakaria continously asserted that no other country was having this debate over embryonic stem cell research. Note that the debate in the United States is over when and how many federal funds should be used for this unethical research not whether it should be legal or not.
Fareed had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. Some countries even ban embryonic stem cell research. I found this paper which describes many countries and their positions on embryonic stem cell research and cloning. It says that embryonic stem cell research is banned in Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Ecuador, Austria, Ireland, Italy, and Norway. In some of these countries the law forbids research on embryos but doesn't specifically mention if it is allowable to experiment on embryonic stem cells if the cells were removed from an embryo in another country. It also doesn't mention many Islamic countries in the Middle East, many of whom I would guess would also be against this type of research.
Besides the facts not being on Fareed's side, he didn't have much of an argument either. It basically boiled down to "Look the rest of the world is doing it, why shouldn't we?"
Dana Reeve - Spewing Lies Left and Right
Here's what Dana Reeve, widow of Christopher Reeve, had to say on where embryonic stem cells come from during This Week:
"A lot of people will say, 'Well, you have no right to tamper with human life.' By 'tampering with human life,' I believe that they're talking about using an early cell that even if it were implanted, that it would not become a human being. That's where you get stem cells from. This is not a baby. It's not an embryo. It is pre-embryonic. This is something that would not, once it was implanted, turn into a human being."
So you get stem cells (plural) from an early cell (singular) that wouldn't become a human being even if that early cell was implanted and embryonic stem cells don't come from embryos? Thanks for the science lesson, Dana.
UPDATE: It appears I'm not the only victim of Sunday morning heartburn. Melinda Penner from STR takes on Boomer Esiason and Howard Dean.
By switching back and forth and at commercials I was able to watch parts of Meet the Press, the Fox News Sunday and This Week (ABC's show).
First and foremost, I hate it, absolutely hate it when hosts, commentators, politicians, etc. equate embryonic stem cell research with stem cell research as if the only kind of stem cell research involves experimenting on the remains of destroyed embryos. It happened on Fox News and This Week, over and over again. Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday, kept saying "stem cell research," never informing viewers that it is only embryonic stem cell research that people are concerned with.
This seems to be a trend in the media, where seemingly few if any people are aware that research with adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cord blood is helping people all over the globe.
Anne Graham Lotz briefly hinted that there are different types of stem cell research but I saw nothing else that would help an Average Joe or Jane who doesn't know much about stem cell research.
Second, Republicans who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research and using federal funds to pay for this research have no principled ground to stand on when they try to oppose human cloning. Both Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Senator George Allen from Virginia are in favor of embryonic stem cell research but opposed to human cloning, including human cloning for biomedical research.
Instead of being able to say, "we shouldn't be killing some human beings in the hopes of curing others," "every human being regardless of size or development is precious and irreplacable," or "intentionally killing innocent human beings for their body parts is wrong" they are left saying fuzzy statements like, "I think this is just going to far," or "this is a line we shouldn't cross" and have real difficulty explaining why we shouldn't cross this line when they are in favor of crossing the other line. It is unfortunate that many individuals who oppose legal abortion have allowed pseudo-science and the extravagant claims of big biotech to shade their thinking.
Fareed Zakaria is Ignorant about Embryonic Stem Cell Laws Around World
Throughout the round table discussion on embryonic stem cell research and cloning on This Week, Fareed Zakaria continously asserted that no other country was having this debate over embryonic stem cell research. Note that the debate in the United States is over when and how many federal funds should be used for this unethical research not whether it should be legal or not.
Fareed had absolutely no clue what he was talking about. Some countries even ban embryonic stem cell research. I found this paper which describes many countries and their positions on embryonic stem cell research and cloning. It says that embryonic stem cell research is banned in Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Ecuador, Austria, Ireland, Italy, and Norway. In some of these countries the law forbids research on embryos but doesn't specifically mention if it is allowable to experiment on embryonic stem cells if the cells were removed from an embryo in another country. It also doesn't mention many Islamic countries in the Middle East, many of whom I would guess would also be against this type of research.
Besides the facts not being on Fareed's side, he didn't have much of an argument either. It basically boiled down to "Look the rest of the world is doing it, why shouldn't we?"
Dana Reeve - Spewing Lies Left and Right
Here's what Dana Reeve, widow of Christopher Reeve, had to say on where embryonic stem cells come from during This Week:
"A lot of people will say, 'Well, you have no right to tamper with human life.' By 'tampering with human life,' I believe that they're talking about using an early cell that even if it were implanted, that it would not become a human being. That's where you get stem cells from. This is not a baby. It's not an embryo. It is pre-embryonic. This is something that would not, once it was implanted, turn into a human being."
So you get stem cells (plural) from an early cell (singular) that wouldn't become a human being even if that early cell was implanted and embryonic stem cells don't come from embryos? Thanks for the science lesson, Dana.
UPDATE: It appears I'm not the only victim of Sunday morning heartburn. Melinda Penner from STR takes on Boomer Esiason and Howard Dean.
President Bush's Speech at Calvin College
The text is here.
I watched it on television and there was nothing controversial as far as I could tell. Even a little bit of self-deprecating humor.
Thanks for having me. I was excited to come back to Calvin, and I was just telling Laura the other night about what fun it would be to come to Calvin College. I said, you know, Laura, I love being around so many young folks. You know, it gives me a chance to re-live my glory days in academia. (Laughter.) She said, George, that's not exactly how I would describe your college experience.....
And if any of you wonder how far a mastery of the English language can take you, just look what it did for me.
I watched it on television and there was nothing controversial as far as I could tell. Even a little bit of self-deprecating humor.
Thanks for having me. I was excited to come back to Calvin, and I was just telling Laura the other night about what fun it would be to come to Calvin College. I said, you know, Laura, I love being around so many young folks. You know, it gives me a chance to re-live my glory days in academia. (Laughter.) She said, George, that's not exactly how I would describe your college experience.....
And if any of you wonder how far a mastery of the English language can take you, just look what it did for me.
Howard Dean on Abortion
Here are some snippets from Howard Dean during Sunday's appearance on Meet the Press:
We have been forced into the idea of "We're going to defend abortion." I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world.
Too bad Tim Russert never asked Dean why nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing. Many pro-choice commentators will say over and over again that abortion isn't a good thing and that they aren't in favor of abortion, they're just in favor of "choice" but nobody asks them why abortion isn't a good thing or why they want to decrease abortions.
We'd like to make abortion rare. You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president?
Why should abortion be more rare? Is it because abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being? Why should intentionally killing an innocent human be legal?
25 percent? Dean is the head of the DNC and he goes on national television with this bogus claim. This is beyond embarrassing. Is he that ignorant or was he just hoping no one would check his claim? My guess is Dean is lying and hoping his cheap shot on national television will be heard by more people than the refutations to this obvious untruth. Dean probably has no source for his statistic because I haven't seen anyone else claim that abortions have gone up 25%. Even Glenn Stassen's bogus statistics didn't come close to saying abortions have gone up 25%. The Alan Guttmacher Institute even released a report last week which said abortions have gone down in 2001 and 2002. I've seen no estimates on abortion numbers from the CDC or the AGI for 2003 or 2004.
But let's ferret out what reality would be if Dean's absurd, unsourced claim was true. On the AGI's latest report they mention that according to their survey and research 1,313,000 abortions were performed in 2000. If abortions went up 25% since Bush took office in early 2001 that means that according to Dr. Dean there were 1,641,250 abortions in 2004.
Or we can look at the statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In their 2000 report, the CDC states "(a) total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas" (which doesn't include California, Alaska, and New Hampshire). If Dean's "25%" statistic is correct, then in 2004 there were 1,071,844 abortions performed in the same 49 reporting areas.
We need to reduce the number of abortions in this country. There is common ground between us and pro-life Democrats, and we ought to find that common ground.
Dean claims he wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country and maybe he's being truthful. However, you have to wonder why someone who wants to reduce abortions would be in favor of abortions that cost only $5. For more information, here's a good American Spectator article that discusses Dean's record on abortion in Vermont.
It is an incredibly difficult area. It is an area which is conflicted. I don't know anybody who ever had an abortion who feels, "Oh, boy, this is just great. I can't wait to have another one." That's not what this is about. This is a very difficult, horrible choice.
What's so horrible about abortion? Why don't women think abortion is great? Dean is right about one thing. The "choice" to have an abortion is difficult and horrible.
We have been forced into the idea of "We're going to defend abortion." I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world.
Too bad Tim Russert never asked Dean why nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing. Many pro-choice commentators will say over and over again that abortion isn't a good thing and that they aren't in favor of abortion, they're just in favor of "choice" but nobody asks them why abortion isn't a good thing or why they want to decrease abortions.
We'd like to make abortion rare. You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president?
Why should abortion be more rare? Is it because abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being? Why should intentionally killing an innocent human be legal?
25 percent? Dean is the head of the DNC and he goes on national television with this bogus claim. This is beyond embarrassing. Is he that ignorant or was he just hoping no one would check his claim? My guess is Dean is lying and hoping his cheap shot on national television will be heard by more people than the refutations to this obvious untruth. Dean probably has no source for his statistic because I haven't seen anyone else claim that abortions have gone up 25%. Even Glenn Stassen's bogus statistics didn't come close to saying abortions have gone up 25%. The Alan Guttmacher Institute even released a report last week which said abortions have gone down in 2001 and 2002. I've seen no estimates on abortion numbers from the CDC or the AGI for 2003 or 2004.
But let's ferret out what reality would be if Dean's absurd, unsourced claim was true. On the AGI's latest report they mention that according to their survey and research 1,313,000 abortions were performed in 2000. If abortions went up 25% since Bush took office in early 2001 that means that according to Dr. Dean there were 1,641,250 abortions in 2004.
Or we can look at the statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In their 2000 report, the CDC states "(a) total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas" (which doesn't include California, Alaska, and New Hampshire). If Dean's "25%" statistic is correct, then in 2004 there were 1,071,844 abortions performed in the same 49 reporting areas.
We need to reduce the number of abortions in this country. There is common ground between us and pro-life Democrats, and we ought to find that common ground.
Dean claims he wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country and maybe he's being truthful. However, you have to wonder why someone who wants to reduce abortions would be in favor of abortions that cost only $5. For more information, here's a good American Spectator article that discusses Dean's record on abortion in Vermont.
It is an incredibly difficult area. It is an area which is conflicted. I don't know anybody who ever had an abortion who feels, "Oh, boy, this is just great. I can't wait to have another one." That's not what this is about. This is a very difficult, horrible choice.
What's so horrible about abortion? Why don't women think abortion is great? Dean is right about one thing. The "choice" to have an abortion is difficult and horrible.
Friday, May 20, 2005
With Rhetoric Like That
The news grabbing open letter to President Bush from some Calvin College alumni, students, faculty, and friends has these two paragraphs in the middle:
By their deeds ye shall know them, says the Bible. Your deeds, Mr. President–neglecting the needy to coddle the right, desecrating the environment, and misleading the country into war–do not exemplify the faith we live by.
Moreover, many of your supporters are using religion as a weapon to divide our nation and advance a narrow partisan agenda. We are deeply disappointed in your failure to renounce their inflammatory rhetoric.
Kind of like the inflammatory rhetoric used in your above paragraph?
These have to be two of the most interesting paragraphs I've ever seen next to each other. In the first paragraph, the signers use the Bible and inflammatory rhetoric to criticize Bush, seemingly saying that his stances on economics, the environment, and the Iraq are unbiblical.
The next paragraph bemoans conservative Christians for using religion to divide (no instances given) even though in the previous paragraph they use religion to divide. They call on Bush to renounce the rhetoric of the right when they used the rhetoric of the left two sentences earlier. So mature.
I find it sad that all the graduates and teachers who signed on for this ad weren't able to see the blatant hypocrisy in this letter.
By their deeds ye shall know them, says the Bible. Your deeds, Mr. President–neglecting the needy to coddle the right, desecrating the environment, and misleading the country into war–do not exemplify the faith we live by.
Moreover, many of your supporters are using religion as a weapon to divide our nation and advance a narrow partisan agenda. We are deeply disappointed in your failure to renounce their inflammatory rhetoric.
Kind of like the inflammatory rhetoric used in your above paragraph?
These have to be two of the most interesting paragraphs I've ever seen next to each other. In the first paragraph, the signers use the Bible and inflammatory rhetoric to criticize Bush, seemingly saying that his stances on economics, the environment, and the Iraq are unbiblical.
The next paragraph bemoans conservative Christians for using religion to divide (no instances given) even though in the previous paragraph they use religion to divide. They call on Bush to renounce the rhetoric of the right when they used the rhetoric of the left two sentences earlier. So mature.
I find it sad that all the graduates and teachers who signed on for this ad weren't able to see the blatant hypocrisy in this letter.
Choice or Coercion
How many women who have abortions are in situations similar to this?
On Monday Joe quit his job, and for two days he sat around the house in dirty pajamas playing video games. Tuesday night (wee hours of the morning) he told me it was over. He was leaving me (or rather, making me leave, because I was at his place) and he doesn't want anything to do with me or his child....
I have no support in continuing this pregnancy. My mother is pushing really hard for an abortion. I haven't told my father yet, but my mom swears he is going to disown me for bringing this shame upon our family. My friends all think I'm nuts. Even my best friend, who is the most pro-life radical I have ever met, told me that I should have an abortion...
But... this time it just doesn't feel right. I didn't mean to, but from the moment I saw two lines this has been my "baby" to me, not just a teeny-tiny mass of cells.
I know I'm not completely ready to be a mother. But who ever is? I don't have a lot of money, I work two jobs and still live paycheck to paycheck. I am a full-time college student and I live alone, which makes it harder to pay all of my bills. I bought a new car last year that I can afford just fine now, but not with a baby. I am paying for college myself, no grants or finaid, no scholarships, and I know that if I have this child I can kiss my degree goodbye- at least for the next several years...
I am so torn, so brokenhearted. I already love this child that is growing inside me so much- I love her even though my breasts are about to fall off they hurt so bad, even though I had to give up my beloved cigarettes, even though I am so tired I can barely keep my eyes open as I type this. I am already so protective of her, already planning how I am going to protect her from all the bad things and people in this world. I have no idea where I will ever find the strength to have an abortion. Not this time. But, I honestly don't know if I am strong enough to bring a child into this world that no one loves but me. It just seems such a horrible fate.
Cloning and Judges
Wesley Smith reacts to the South Korean cloners.
Last night I saw on NBC News I saw Hwang try to say with a straight face that he was convinced he wasn't creating human beings. Nice try. I was, however, somewhat impressed by how NBC Nightly News covered this story. They didn't try to hide the truth like some news stories and even provided time for two people on opposing sides of this issue to discuss their views.
Blogicus informs me that the British scientists aren't too far behind in the dash to create cloned human beings.
Rich Lowry on the glass ceiling imposed on conservative female judges by liberal groups.
Here's an actual extreme nominee.
The latest to change his tune is Woo Suk Hwang. When he manufactured the first human cloned embryos, he admitted that the "products" of cloning were embryos and indeed, that "this technique [therapeutic cloning] can not be separated from reproductive people cloning..."
That was then. Now, having manufactured more human cloned embryos, he apparently has received his talking points: "I can say this result is not an embryo but a 'nuclear transfer construct'."
Last night I saw on NBC News I saw Hwang try to say with a straight face that he was convinced he wasn't creating human beings. Nice try. I was, however, somewhat impressed by how NBC Nightly News covered this story. They didn't try to hide the truth like some news stories and even provided time for two people on opposing sides of this issue to discuss their views.
Blogicus informs me that the British scientists aren't too far behind in the dash to create cloned human beings.
Rich Lowry on the glass ceiling imposed on conservative female judges by liberal groups.
The logic of the Democratic position entails a kind of inverse Leninism — better is worse. The more attractive a nominee's personal story, the more imperative it is to oppose him or (especially) her. Democrats might have filibustered California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown anyway, but her fate was surely and truly sealed by the fact that she is black, was raised by sharecroppers in segregationist Alabama, and worked her way through law school as a single mother after her first husband died. This background screams "attractive U.S. Supreme Court nominee." So for the left, Brown is "a dangerous black woman."
Here's an actual extreme nominee.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Customized or Cloned?
The AP story on the newest batch of cloned embryos created by South Korean scientists is the newest in a never ending batch of stories on cloning and embryonic stem cell research that hides what is actually happening until the middle or end of the story.
Notice the headline: "Scientists Create Customized Stem Cells"
Why isn't the headline "Scientists Create Cloned Human Beings and Killed Them by Removing Their Stem Cells" or merely "Scientists Create Cloned Embryos?"
Now the Seoul scientists have cloned patient-specific stem cells, important if doctors are to develop cell-based therapies that won't be rejected by the body's immune system.
You do not clone stem cells. You clone embryos which are then killed for their stem cells.
Not until more than half way thru the article do we learn that, "Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of whether that embryo was cloned or left over in a fertility clinic."
Notice the headline: "Scientists Create Customized Stem Cells"
Why isn't the headline "Scientists Create Cloned Human Beings and Killed Them by Removing Their Stem Cells" or merely "Scientists Create Cloned Embryos?"
Now the Seoul scientists have cloned patient-specific stem cells, important if doctors are to develop cell-based therapies that won't be rejected by the body's immune system.
You do not clone stem cells. You clone embryos which are then killed for their stem cells.
Not until more than half way thru the article do we learn that, "Culling stem cells destroys the days-old embryo harboring them, regardless of whether that embryo was cloned or left over in a fertility clinic."
AGI: U.S. Abortions have Decreased
I wonder what Glenn Stassen will have to say about this release from the Alan Guttmacher Institute which claims that abortions in the United States decreased in 2001 and 2002?
The Institute estimates that 1,303,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2001—0.8% fewer than the 1,313,000 in 2000. In 2002, the number of abortions declined again, to 1,293,000, or another 0.8%. The rate of abortion also declined, from 21.3 procedures per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 2000 to 21.1 in 2001 and 20.9 in 2002.
Will Hillary Clinton and Nicholas Kristof correct their faulty claims based on Stassen's faulty analysis?
The Institute estimates that 1,303,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2001—0.8% fewer than the 1,313,000 in 2000. In 2002, the number of abortions declined again, to 1,293,000, or another 0.8%. The rate of abortion also declined, from 21.3 procedures per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 2000 to 21.1 in 2001 and 20.9 in 2002.
Will Hillary Clinton and Nicholas Kristof correct their faulty claims based on Stassen's faulty analysis?
Jay Leno's Wife Takes Cheap Shot at the Unborn
During a recent fundraising luncheon for Planned Parenthood of Southeast Michigan, Mavis Leno, whose talk was focused on the women of Afghanistan, threw in this cheap shot:
"Our current conservative, religious government is obsessed with women on life support and with fetuses because they are imaginary people," as opposed to acknowledging the rights of everyday women, she said. "The way things are going in this country, there may come a day when we need the women of Afghanistan to speak for us."
Imaginary people? That's right, Mavis. Terri Schiavo and other people on life support don't really exist. They're figments of prolife imaginations. Those fetuses, well, they don't exist either. That movement women feel in their tummies, that must be an error of their sense of feeling. Who needs ultrasounds when we can just take the word of a famous comedian's wife?
But that's the method of many pro-choice people's madness. Just act like the unborn don't exist. It's much easier pretending the unborn are imaginary people than actually dealing with prolife arguments.
I also love how Mavis takes shots at the Bush administration when it was the Bush administration that removed the Taliban from power.
"Our current conservative, religious government is obsessed with women on life support and with fetuses because they are imaginary people," as opposed to acknowledging the rights of everyday women, she said. "The way things are going in this country, there may come a day when we need the women of Afghanistan to speak for us."
Imaginary people? That's right, Mavis. Terri Schiavo and other people on life support don't really exist. They're figments of prolife imaginations. Those fetuses, well, they don't exist either. That movement women feel in their tummies, that must be an error of their sense of feeling. Who needs ultrasounds when we can just take the word of a famous comedian's wife?
But that's the method of many pro-choice people's madness. Just act like the unborn don't exist. It's much easier pretending the unborn are imaginary people than actually dealing with prolife arguments.
I also love how Mavis takes shots at the Bush administration when it was the Bush administration that removed the Taliban from power.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Can we please end the lie about what Alberto Gonzales supposedly said about Priscilla Owen? Please?
Last night while watching NBC News I heard, I believe it was Brian Williams, repeat the Planned Parenthood talking point that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said one of Priscilla Owen's opinions was an "unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Here's what Gonzales had to say about the quote in question:
And here's what he says about Owen's nomination:
The fact that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Teddy Kennedy, and the other usual suspects are still using something that was denied more than a month ago shows how little they truly have on Owen. They never link to the actual opinion of Gonzales or provide context in which he wrote what he did. I wonder why? Well, here's Gonzales' concurring opinion.
In the opinion Gonzales writes, "Only in this, an appeal after remand of the first of four Jane Doe cases, has the Court granted a minor's application to bypass notifying her parents before she consents to an abortion. (1) Yet in each case, the Court has struggled to render the correct decision, and some members of the Court have strongly disagreed. The tenor of the opinions have been unmistakably contentious. It has been suggested that the Court's decisions are motivated by personal ideology. See ___ S.W.3d ___ (Hecht, J., dissenting). To the contrary, every member of this Court agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature. (2) This case is no different. The Court's decision is based on the language of the Parental Notification Act as written by the Legislature and on established rules of construction. Any suggestion that something else is going on is simply wrong."
Judge Hecht, another dissenter, basically claimed the Court's opinion was an act of activism and Gonzales is replying to that accusation by writing that his opinion was based on his intrepretation of the law not on his personal opinions.
Here's the sentence of the quote in question:
"Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Did Owen want to eliminate bypasses or create hurdles that weren't there? Absolutlely not. Priscilla Owen's opinion says nothing of the sort. She dissented "from the methods employed by the Court in rendering that judgment. The Court summarily reversed the lower courts, without an opinion and without the opportunity for considered, substantive deliberations."
Owen goes on to explain how this case was the girl's second trip to the Texas Supreme Court in order to get an abortion without notifying her parents. Owen explains, "On the first appeal, the Court did not find any error in the trial court's judgment denying her application or in the court of appeals' judgment affirming that denial. However, the Court remanded this matter to the trial court for further consideration in the interest of justice."
She continues, "After the case was remanded, the trial court held a second hearing and again denied the application. The court of appeals again affirmed. The transcript of the trial court's second hearing was received by this Court during the evening on Wednesday, March 8, and other parts of the record were received on Thursday, March 9. The Court, by a vote of five to four, saw fit to render judgment in this case on Friday, March 10, summarily reversing the decisions of the two lower courts."
She points out the Texas Supreme Court ruled very quickly to overturn the rulings of the lower courts without an opinion and without "considered, substantive deliberations."
I really can't see how anyone who has read Owen's dissent and Gonzales' concurring opinion could honestly think that his words were meant for her.
You can also read the dissenting opinions and the opinion of the court under June 22.
Even though I know how bad mainstream media is, I am still at times completely dumbfounded by how either lazy and/or unethical they are. It seems that it is just so much easier for them to repeat liberal talking points instead of actually do 15 minutes worth of research.
HT: The Corner
Here's what Gonzales had to say about the quote in question:
My comment about an act of judicial activism was not focused at Judge Owen or Judge Hecht; it was actually focused at me. What I was saying in that opinion was that, given my interpretation of what the legislature intended, by the way the words that they used in terms of having a minor not totally informed or well informed but sufficiently well informed and the structure of the act, it was in my judgment that the legislature did intend the judicial bypasses to be real. And given my conclusion about what the legislature intended, it would have been an act of judicial activism not to have granted the bypass in that particular case. If someone like Judge Owen in that case reached a different conclusion about what the legislature intended, it would have been perfectly reasonable for her to reach a different outcome. But as to the words that have been used as a sword against Judge Owen, let me just say that those words were related to me in terms of my interpretation of what the legislature intended, again, through the words of the statute and the way that the judicial bypass procedure would actually operate in practice.”
And here's what he says about Owen's nomination:
"I served with Judge Owen on the Texas Supreme Court. And I think she did a splendid job, a superb job as a judge. I think she would make a superb job on the Fifth Circuit, and that's why her name was recommended to the president."
The fact that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Teddy Kennedy, and the other usual suspects are still using something that was denied more than a month ago shows how little they truly have on Owen. They never link to the actual opinion of Gonzales or provide context in which he wrote what he did. I wonder why? Well, here's Gonzales' concurring opinion.
In the opinion Gonzales writes, "Only in this, an appeal after remand of the first of four Jane Doe cases, has the Court granted a minor's application to bypass notifying her parents before she consents to an abortion. (1) Yet in each case, the Court has struggled to render the correct decision, and some members of the Court have strongly disagreed. The tenor of the opinions have been unmistakably contentious. It has been suggested that the Court's decisions are motivated by personal ideology. See ___ S.W.3d ___ (Hecht, J., dissenting). To the contrary, every member of this Court agrees that the duty of a judge is to follow the law as written by the Legislature. (2) This case is no different. The Court's decision is based on the language of the Parental Notification Act as written by the Legislature and on established rules of construction. Any suggestion that something else is going on is simply wrong."
Judge Hecht, another dissenter, basically claimed the Court's opinion was an act of activism and Gonzales is replying to that accusation by writing that his opinion was based on his intrepretation of the law not on his personal opinions.
Here's the sentence of the quote in question:
"Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Did Owen want to eliminate bypasses or create hurdles that weren't there? Absolutlely not. Priscilla Owen's opinion says nothing of the sort. She dissented "from the methods employed by the Court in rendering that judgment. The Court summarily reversed the lower courts, without an opinion and without the opportunity for considered, substantive deliberations."
Owen goes on to explain how this case was the girl's second trip to the Texas Supreme Court in order to get an abortion without notifying her parents. Owen explains, "On the first appeal, the Court did not find any error in the trial court's judgment denying her application or in the court of appeals' judgment affirming that denial. However, the Court remanded this matter to the trial court for further consideration in the interest of justice."
She continues, "After the case was remanded, the trial court held a second hearing and again denied the application. The court of appeals again affirmed. The transcript of the trial court's second hearing was received by this Court during the evening on Wednesday, March 8, and other parts of the record were received on Thursday, March 9. The Court, by a vote of five to four, saw fit to render judgment in this case on Friday, March 10, summarily reversing the decisions of the two lower courts."
She points out the Texas Supreme Court ruled very quickly to overturn the rulings of the lower courts without an opinion and without "considered, substantive deliberations."
I really can't see how anyone who has read Owen's dissent and Gonzales' concurring opinion could honestly think that his words were meant for her.
You can also read the dissenting opinions and the opinion of the court under June 22.
Even though I know how bad mainstream media is, I am still at times completely dumbfounded by how either lazy and/or unethical they are. It seems that it is just so much easier for them to repeat liberal talking points instead of actually do 15 minutes worth of research.
HT: The Corner
Sometimes Apples Fall Really Far from Trees
If you want another reason to dislike Newsweek or wonder at how some of Reagan's children could have turned out how they did, read Patti Davis' attempt at a column on embryonic stem cell research.
She is either amazingly ignorant of something she attempts to write about or is so obsessed with the supposed "potential" of embryonic stem cell research that she is forced to lie in order to make her position seem morally superior.
Patti with her plethora of scientific knowledge informs us that in-vitro fertilization creates "clusters of cells" not embryos and that President Bush is wrong to call thesehuman embryos clusters of cells "human" because they will never "actually grow into little boys and girls." I wish I could be in where Patti tells that to women like Suzanne Murray, Sharon Tesdall, Kate Johnson, and Cara Vest.
He let? That implies that Bush allowed the legalization of this type of research when he actually allowed taxdollars to pay for this research which was already legal. 15 stem cell lines? You'd think someone would actually do some basic research before writing a column. Actually Patti, according to the National Institutes of Health there are 22 embryonic stem cell lines scientists can perform federally funded research on.
Here's another whopper.
They are able to do there work. Embryonic stem cell research isn't illegal in this country. Some embryonic stem cell research even receives federal funds. You have to wonder why, if this research is as promising as Patti claims, haven't private companies in the US stepped up to hire the best minds and pay them to find the cures?
HT: Dawn Eden
She is either amazingly ignorant of something she attempts to write about or is so obsessed with the supposed "potential" of embryonic stem cell research that she is forced to lie in order to make her position seem morally superior.
Patti with her plethora of scientific knowledge informs us that in-vitro fertilization creates "clusters of cells" not embryos and that President Bush is wrong to call these
"President Bush’s “compromise” in August 2001 has yielded nothing. He agreed to let the already existing stem cell lines be used for research--about 60 lines. But out of those only 15 turned out to be available and they are reportedly contaminated with non-human molecules, potentially rendering them useless."
He let? That implies that Bush allowed the legalization of this type of research when he actually allowed taxdollars to pay for this research which was already legal. 15 stem cell lines? You'd think someone would actually do some basic research before writing a column. Actually Patti, according to the National Institutes of Health there are 22 embryonic stem cell lines scientists can perform federally funded research on.
Here's another whopper.
"So, we are losing some of the best minds we have because they aren't able to do their work here."
They are able to do there work. Embryonic stem cell research isn't illegal in this country. Some embryonic stem cell research even receives federal funds. You have to wonder why, if this research is as promising as Patti claims, haven't private companies in the US stepped up to hire the best minds and pay them to find the cures?
HT: Dawn Eden
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
More Abortions are a Reason for Concern?
Yesterday, the Detroit Free Press issued an editorial on Democrats for Life's. Though the editorial is fairly positive towards the proposal, considering the Free Press' editorial board's wholehearted allegiance to abortion, there are a few things that deserve comments.
Michigan's abortion rate has crept up gradually since its low point in 1999. It's a trend that should concern everyone, pro-life and pro-choice, and it should boost some of the new coalitions working to ensure fewer women consider this difficult choice.
Why should it concern pro-choice people? If abortion doesn't intentionally end the life of an innocent human being, why should a larger number of abortions concern pro-choice individuals? If the unborn are only part of the woman or parasitic cells why should we be concerned about their demise?
Not every recommendation from Democrats for Life will pass pro-choice muster. They support a prohibition, which recently passed the U.S. House, against helping a minor cross state lines for an abortion without parental notification. This bad bill would make criminals out of friends, siblings, even grandparents, who may only be trying to help in a troubled situation.
Do you mean, "who may only be trying to usurp parental rights?"
Some women will choose abortion no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force them once again into back-alley procedures. Safe, legal abortion must remain an option.
Imagine someone arguing like this for other issues.
"Some husbands will choose spousal abuse no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force them into dangerous back-alley beatings. Safe, legal spousal abuse must remain an option."
"Some men will choose rape no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force rapists into dangerous back-alley rapes. Safe, legal rape must remain an option."
"Some people will choose drugs no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force them into dangerous back-alley drug use. Safe, legal drug use must remain an option."
All these arguments assume what they are trying to prove. They assume that abortion, rape, spousal abuse, and drug use are things that shouldn't be illegal in an argument that is trying to prove that they should be legal. It is horrible public policy to keep an act legal because people will commit the act even if it is illegal.
Michigan's abortion rate has crept up gradually since its low point in 1999. It's a trend that should concern everyone, pro-life and pro-choice, and it should boost some of the new coalitions working to ensure fewer women consider this difficult choice.
Why should it concern pro-choice people? If abortion doesn't intentionally end the life of an innocent human being, why should a larger number of abortions concern pro-choice individuals? If the unborn are only part of the woman or parasitic cells why should we be concerned about their demise?
Not every recommendation from Democrats for Life will pass pro-choice muster. They support a prohibition, which recently passed the U.S. House, against helping a minor cross state lines for an abortion without parental notification. This bad bill would make criminals out of friends, siblings, even grandparents, who may only be trying to help in a troubled situation.
Do you mean, "who may only be trying to usurp parental rights?"
Some women will choose abortion no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force them once again into back-alley procedures. Safe, legal abortion must remain an option.
Imagine someone arguing like this for other issues.
"Some husbands will choose spousal abuse no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force them into dangerous back-alley beatings. Safe, legal spousal abuse must remain an option."
"Some men will choose rape no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force rapists into dangerous back-alley rapes. Safe, legal rape must remain an option."
"Some people will choose drugs no matter what, and it will do this country no credit to force them into dangerous back-alley drug use. Safe, legal drug use must remain an option."
All these arguments assume what they are trying to prove. They assume that abortion, rape, spousal abuse, and drug use are things that shouldn't be illegal in an argument that is trying to prove that they should be legal. It is horrible public policy to keep an act legal because people will commit the act even if it is illegal.
Kwame's Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar
The Detroit Free Press has unveiled some more of Kwame Kilpatrick's frivolous spending habits with the City of Detroit's credit card.
The $850 steakhouse dinner.
The $836 charged to the city's credit card for his sister's stay in New Orleans.
The $3,837 he spent on chauffeured sedans over four days.
The $11,644 he dropped on Super Bowl hotel rooms.
It seems that the Mayor and his office withheld information on these charges in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The files given to the Free Press were edited with a black marker and pages were missing. The Free Press obtained the complete information from Detroit Auditor General Joseph Harris. The complete information shows, even more than the exorbitant meals in the first report, Kilpatrick's tendency to live it up while the city he "serves" eeks by.
Other charges on the Detroit city-issued credit card included charges of $474 and $472 at "Dream, a chic, multilevel nightclub in Washington, D.C." and "$52.55 for Pearl Moon swimwear and $265 at the Four Seasons Spa for him and bodyguard Mike Martin,"
The mayor, who said he will write the check today, already has reimbursed the city for some of the charges -- nearly three years after they were made and on the same day city lawyers agreed to provide financial records to the Free Press.
It's nice to know the Mayor is so willing to repay the city now after the public is aware of his lavish lifestyle.
Related:
Kwame Kilpatrick's Konundrum
How will Kwame dig his way out?
The $850 steakhouse dinner.
The $836 charged to the city's credit card for his sister's stay in New Orleans.
The $3,837 he spent on chauffeured sedans over four days.
The $11,644 he dropped on Super Bowl hotel rooms.
It seems that the Mayor and his office withheld information on these charges in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The files given to the Free Press were edited with a black marker and pages were missing. The Free Press obtained the complete information from Detroit Auditor General Joseph Harris. The complete information shows, even more than the exorbitant meals in the first report, Kilpatrick's tendency to live it up while the city he "serves" eeks by.
Other charges on the Detroit city-issued credit card included charges of $474 and $472 at "Dream, a chic, multilevel nightclub in Washington, D.C." and "$52.55 for Pearl Moon swimwear and $265 at the Four Seasons Spa for him and bodyguard Mike Martin,"
The mayor, who said he will write the check today, already has reimbursed the city for some of the charges -- nearly three years after they were made and on the same day city lawyers agreed to provide financial records to the Free Press.
It's nice to know the Mayor is so willing to repay the city now after the public is aware of his lavish lifestyle.
Related:
Kwame Kilpatrick's Konundrum
How will Kwame dig his way out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
