Governor Granholm to speak at pro-choice rally

Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Catholic who declared herself "personally opposed to abortion" during her run for Michigan's governorship, is on the lineup card to speak at an upcoming pro-choice rally at the state capitol on April 25.

What I find interesting is that Governor Granholm recently signed a prolife bill which allows women contemplating an abortion the option of seeing their ultrasound if the abortionist performs one even though the main sponsor of the pro-choice rally, MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan, was opposed to this legislation.

How the Pro-choice Movement Scared America

I think Jennifer Roback Morse nails the main strategy of the current pro-choice movement in the title of her recent column on Cristina Page.

If you don't recall, Cristina Page is the author of the book How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America and her main schtick is linking together abortion and birth control in an attempt to demonize prolifers.

Cristina will be coming to Michigan in May and for $50 you can hear her speak and get a copy of her book.

Vandalism: Taking the abortion debate to a higher level

The Kentucky Post weighs in on Sally Jacobsen's method of expressing her "freedom to destroy speak."

It's moot how you feel about abortion. This is about respect and intelligent discourse. You'd think a veteran university professor would have the capacity to debate issues intellectually. But then that's what this country has come to.

I wonder if Professor Jacobsen thinks that hypothetical students trashing the boots of an Eyes Wide Open display would equate with exercising their freedom of speech.

Probably not.

UPDATE:Kudos to Northern Kentucky. Jacobsen has been put on leave.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The Daily Mail has an editorial by Joan Blackwell, a pro-choice woman who is uncomfortable with the number of abortions in the United Kingdom. Back when abortion was legalized, Blackwell assumed that "more sex education, more contraception, and less inhibited social attitudes would mean no woman would become pregnant who didn't want to" and is disturbed by the fact that this hasn't become a reality and notes that abortions in the UK are on the rise. Blackwell attempts to find out why abortions are on the rise even though her utopian vision of more sex ed, more contraceptives, etc. has come to pass.

To accomplish this goal Blackwell shares the story of Polly, a teenager who had an abortion at 14, and shares some of Polly's thoughts including, "'I don't regret my decision, but I did feel very ashamed when I was with the doctors and nurse and it was a very frightening experience...'I often wonder how my mum and dad felt at my getting rid of their grandchild. That does haunt me — but it's something we don't talk about any more."

Blackwell concludes that the culture where sex after a date is assumed, binge drinking is prevalent and where women are objectified is reason behind the UK's high and rising abortion numbers. Blackwell says,

"What is brutal and exploitative is a culture of easy and cheap sex, callous regard for each other's feelings, and a glib assumption that, 'what the hell, when things go wrong, she can always get an abortion'.

It is this coarsening of how we treat each other that leads to misery and wretchedness."

I'm wondering if Blackwell ever thought that maybe the legalizing and widespread practice of abortion might have led to some of the factors she thinks leads to abortion. It's like, hello? Where do you think the glib assumption that "when things go she can always have an abortion" came from? Maybe the fact that abortion is legal and available and the National Health Services pays for a whopping 82% of abortions performed on women from England and Wales.

If the post-abortive girl you interview claims to have no regrets (yet at the same time claims she is haunted) about her decision to get rid of her parents' grandchild (and thus her own child) isn't that a sign of callous disregard for something? Is it possible her abortion might have played a role in this callous disregard?

Blackwell's piece also contains this jaw-dropping paragraph:

If all three fail them and they then fall pregnant, the law allows them to seek and have an abortion. They are not forced to bear a child they did not intend and do not want. No children will be born into unloving homes and indifferent parents.

She can't really believe this, can she? Does she honestly believe that abortion makes sure that no children are born into unloving homes and indifferent parents? I also absolutely can't stand it when pro-choicers assume that the homes of people who bear a child they didn't plan are unloving and the parents indifferent.

Defending Life 2006

Americans United for Life has created a "State-by-State Legal Guide to Abortion, Bioethics, and the End of Life" called Defending Life 2006 and posted it online (you'll have to fill out a quick form to get to the table of contents). The report is kind of the prolife version of NARAL's Who Decides? This should be a good resource for individuals who want to know which states have various laws regarding abortion and other life issues in place.

Michigan was ranked as the #1 state for defending life.

Thursday Cat Blogging

Since Rascal has gained some poundage and become less fleet of foot, she now seems to enjoy laying on her back and wrestling with my hand as I scratch her belly. She's also learning to accessorize.

Life Links 4/12/06

Jill Stanek on Cecelia Fire Thunder's promise of a Planned Parenthood on her tribe's land. Sounds like Ms. Fire Thunder has a nice little personal fund raising scam in the works.


Wesley Smith dissects this column by Froma Harrop on futile care.


Dawn Eden links to the blog of a physician's assistant named Mike who works at Planned Parenthood in California. Mike says,

"so i'm totally hating my job at planned parenthood. the philosophy behind the mission of planned parenthood is totally incongruent with the way medicine is actually practiced at the affliates i've worked for thus far. the way the clinics are run is totally not based on patient care. they seem more based upon volume of patients seen on a daily basis.

the expectation is to see 40 patients in an eight hour shift. meaning at most i can give a patient 10 minutes of my time. that truly is unreal. i've learned to do the bare minimum for my patients, practicing shortcuts and excluding some extra care i would normally like to give my patients. this is not the type of care i really want to give to my patients but it essentially is the type of care planned parenthood has molded me into giving;"

Matthew Eppinette calls out Ronald Bailey's fantasy world where science cures and saves all.

Robert Nagel in the Weekly Standard on the U.S. Supreme Court and precedents.

The Mystical World of Pro-Choice Atheism

In a response to a post by the Raving Atheist, biology professor PZ Myers says, "Picking an instant and calling that the moment when one is human is not scientific. This is an emotional, social, economic, and personal decision."

Here we have a biology professor claiming that whether an entity is human or not isn't based on science but on the pregnant woman's emotions, social situation and economics. I guess we don't need biology when we can look into a woman's saving account or lack thereof.

If a woman decides to have an abortion based on financial or social reasons, then I guess the unborn wasn't a human in PZ's mystical world. Somehow in this world of atheistic fantasy, what kind of organism the unborn are is based their mother's feelings. One wonders if this is the case for other organisms. Are unwanted dog fetuses not really dogs if their mothers decide they aren't? Are two poor chimpanzees capable of mating and creating an entity that isn't a chimpanzee if the female chimp feels the entity growing in her womb isn't a chimpanzee?

What about the fortunate early embryo whose mother decides to keep the child upon finding out that she's pregnant? If the woman judges her finances, social situation and emotions and makes the personal decision that her early embryo is a human, then is the early embryo a human at the instant of that decision?

What was the embryo before that decision? A giraffe embryo? A cat embryo? A cow embryo, perhaps? Or maybe some newly discovered type of organism without a genus and species to call home?

And what about women who think the unborn is a human, yet have abortions anyway? Or women who go back and forth in their decision? Does the humanness of the organism in her womb go back and forth with changing opinion? Or a woman who wins the lottery a day before her abortion is scheduled?

To assert that whether the unborn are human or not based on a woman's socially and economically based decision is mystical poppycock. It's unfortunate that an individual's preference for legal abortion can lead them so far from scientific truth that they are forced to rely on such obviously poor criteria in an attempt to magically dehumanize the unborn.

Ever wonder why the U.S. auto industry seems to always be cutting back and cutting jobs?

Here's one possible answer.

General Motors pays Lillian Winkel, a 83-year-old great-great grandmother, $74,000 a year to clean floors and empty wastebaskets.

"At nonunion plants, somebody cleaning offices couldn't dream of making the $74,000 that Winkel earned last year. Including the pension and Social Security she also gets, she received $114,000."

$114,000!?!?!?! To sweep floors and empty trash bins?!?!?!?!

Winkel notes that she always works on her birthday because, "I don't know anybody else who's going to give me three hundred and some-odd dollars for my birthday. Thank God for General Motors."

Abortion in El Salvador

On Sunday, the New York Times magazine had a long article about abortion in El Salvador called "Pro-life Nation." Abortion is illegal in El Salvador and the abortionist, the woman, and anyone that helps her obtain an abortion can be sent to jail. The article notes that if a woman cooperates with the authorities to find the abortionist it is unlikely that she will be sent to jail.

The article is written from the perspective of someone who is pro-choice and most of the information seems to come from abortion supporters but the article is worth the read and didn't come off as too biased. The article was missing the usual claims of deaths that I'm used to in an article about illegal abortion. Make sure you note the coercion that women who've had illegal abortions describe.

On page 1, D.C. says,

"I told the father. He said he didn't want another child. He didn't want to deal with problems like this. My mother told me she would kick me out if I ever got pregnant again."

On page 9, Carmen Climaco says,

"I never thought I could get pregnant because I had been sterilized. Suddenly I saw two doors shutting at the same time. There was nothing I could do. My mother said she'd toss me out of the house if I got pregnant."

Life Links 4/7/06

A pro-choice college student thinks 47 million U.S. abortion since Roe v. Wade is a "gross overestimation."


An Australian abortionist has been charged with the manslaughter of a fetus after he gave a woman some pills to take home for a late-term abortion.

"The woman allegedly gave birth in a toilet to a baby boy, who lived for four hours."

The Duluth News-Tribune via Knight Ridder has a long article on the Stacy Zallie Foundation, an organization whose mission is "to assist women who have made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding a caring, non-judgmental resourse to help restore their happiness and reconnect with their loved ones and their future."

Being honest about emergency contraception concerns

In a lame attempt to assert that those big, mean Republicans have the "ugly intent" to "regulate a woman's physiology against her will," PZ Myers explains how emergency contraception is supposed to work. In his rush to point fingers at those women-controlling bigots in Congress, he fails take the concerns of individuals who have questions about emergency contraception with any level of seriousness. Surprised? Yeah, me neither.

PZ discusses how the primary purpose of taking EC is too prevent ovulation. What PZ never attempts to do is talk about what might happen if a woman takes EC after she has ovulated. This, of course, shows that either PZ is either woefully ignorant about the stance of people who have questions/concerns about EC or he is being intentionally deceptive. Though it does make it easier for him to create strawmen, knock ‘em down and then make bold assertions about those opposed to EC.

Although, emergency contraception is also frequently referred to as the "morning-after-pill," Planned Parenthood notes that certain emergency contraceptive regimens have a five-day window of effectiveness even though the effectiveness decreases over time. When the FDA approved Plan B (probably the most popular form of EC) back in 1999, the the text on the carton of Plan B notes that the first tablet should be taken "as soon as possible within 72 hours of unprotected sex."

So the big questions PZ never addresses are: What does EC do if a couple has sex, the woman ovulates in the next day or so and then takes EC after she has ovulated yet within the 72-hour-after-sex-range? Would EC prevent a human embryo from implanting in a woman's uterus if EC is taken after ovulation?

One might ask: But Jivin, isn't it so much easier (and apparently more entertaining) to ignore the relevant and important questions and then proceed to paint your opponents as women-controlling "kooks?"

Yes, yes, it is. When a large number of a writer's audience and the writer himself think that prolifers are nuts who tap their fingers together like Monty Burns and cackle as they try to figure out which new plot they'll use to control women, then yes, it's much easier to not take their concerns honestly because taking the concerns of prolifers honestly might not go over with the your view and audience's view of prolifers.

Hopefully, PZ is aware that there are some serious scientists who have actually tried to figure out if emergency contraception prevents an embryo from implanting. Too bad he couldn't share that research with his readers.

PZ also fails to mention that the current controversy over EC doesn't have to do with whether it is should be legal or not. No one is "holding it up." It's already legal. The controversy is rather about whether EC should be sold over-the-counter instead of only by prescription. If Republicans are trying to "regulate a woman's physiology against her will" because they don't want a contraceptive drug sold over-the-counter then is anyone who is opposed to selling regular hormonal birth control pills over-the-counter also trying to "regulate a woman's physiology against her will?"

PZ writes, "Plan B doesn't help if one is already pregnant, and it doesn't affect any implanted zygotes."

How sad is it that a biology professor is using the term zygote to describe an entity that has implanted in a woman's uterus? PZ should be well aware that it would be impossible for a human zygote (one-celled entity) to implant in a woman's uterus.

Overheard

Cynthia McKinney on April 3: "Well, you know, that goes to the heart of the press conference that we had today. And I want to thank you for covering the other press conference that we had on Friday with Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte.

But today we had black elected officials from the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus at the time when Coretta Scott King's body lay in state at the Georgia State Capitol. The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus was not allowed into the building to perform a part of the procession. Why? They can't even answer the question except that the security at the Georgia Capitol did not recognize them as dually- elected members able to carry out the mandate of the people who sent them to the legislature.

And as a result of police action that was -- we can't even understand why the members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus were disrespected -- that's what they said today -- and forced to look at the body of Coretta Scott King from the third floor of the state Capitol.

The bottom line on this is that it doesn't matter if you're in the United States Capitol or the Georgia Capitol, the issue is racial profiling."

James Myart (attorney for Cynthia McKinney on April 3: "Well, let me put it to you this way.

The congresswoman acted and reacted, as far as I'm concerned, appropriately."

Cynthia McKinney on April 6: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident.... I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation, and I apologize."

Meanwhile, Matt Lowery has a column discussing the likelihood of Congresswoman McKinney not being re-elected in 2006.

Another loving abortion pushing boyfriend

Example here:

He just won't accept it. Today was the last day I could have an abortion. I told him NO at least 100 times. He is relentless in his persistance. It hurts and I am trying to remain strong. He has worn me down but I didn't give in and I feel good about that somewhere inside. I'm just so exhausted right now.

How many women get pushed like this and don't have Val's strength?

Life Links 4/5/06

Brent Bozell on the Washington Post's puff pieces on pro-choicer in its Style section.


Emily at After Abortion notes how shaming doesn't work.


Christina encourages a reporter to ask some more questions regarding the tragic death of Christin Gilbert after an abortion by George Tiller.


David Gelernter on getting back to federalism.

The debate over Eric Pianka

Eric Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas has gained a large amount of notoriety after a a review of one of his speeches in front of the Texas Academy of Sciences was put online and a story about the speech was published in the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise and then linked to by the Drudge Report.

According to the review by Forrest Mims, Pianka stated in his speech that humans were no better than bacteria, the only way to save the earth would be to reduce the human population to 10 percent of its present population, and that the most efficient way of killing 90% of humans would be via the ebola virus.

The article in the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise notes the reactions of Pianka's students and others who attended the speech.

Dr. Pianka says that his remarks were taken out of context and that "he believes the Earth would be better off if the human population were smaller" but "that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die."

The speech wasn't video taped so it's impossible to see the actual context of the speech but William Dembski is offering $1000 to anyone who might have recorded the speech. .

Individuals over at Panda's Thumb think the whole thing has been debunked because a Texas television station interviewed Pianka and Pianka said he would never advocate genocide and he says that Mims is a "crazy kook." Dembski says the interview has been doctored to removed a portion where Pianka says, "We need to plan our collapse rather than just let it happen to us."

Meanwhile, Telic Thoughts has compiled a "The blogger's Guide to Dr. Pianka" and provides links to what some of Pianka's students have said.

It's all about the patents, baby

As California's voters scratch their heads wondering where the cures to diseases and boatloads of financial returns that proponents of Prop. 71 promised are, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's (WARF) lawyers are telling California researchers that WARF "will demand a significant chunk of royalties from any of California's (embryonic stem cell) efforts."

Carl Gulbrandsen, executive director of WARF, told the Wisconsin State Journal last week that ``I'm not embarrassed at all to say that I hope the University of Wisconsin will make a whole lot of money from these patents.'' The journal Science reported that WARF typically charges as much as $125,000 for a commercial license with a $40,000 annual maintenance fee.

An article in the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal notes,

Under the policy approved by the board overseeing the institute, organizations that generate more than $500,000 from discoveries that result from research funded by the institute will have to pay a royalty of 25 percent beyond that threshold.

The Mercury News editorial (first link) is none too happy about this and claims that researchers "should have as much claim to patent embryonic stem cells as they do to laying claims on laws of nature. Namely, zero."

"I'm keeping it : D"

A teenage blogger named MLO from Michigan has decided to keep her child after her mom called and told MLO that she wouldn't let her get an abortion.

From previous posts, I'm guessing that MLO is in her second trimester based on the cost of the abortion she was quoted. After telling her parents about the pregnancy and finding them supportive, MLO seemed excited about keeping the child yet her concern for her boyfriend and not wanting "to ruin things for him" seemed to outweigh her desire to keep the child.

Anti-Choice Californians

Even though the National Abortion Rights Action League has given the great state of California an "A+" for their pro-choice laws and lack of anti-choice regulations, unbeknownst to many, the state's legislature passed a draconian measure in September of 2005 which was ardently anti-choice. So anti-choice is this measure, the usually Playstation 2/X-Box-focused students of the California's public schools have even started a ballot initiative and a website so that they can retain their choice.

Their choice to have an abortion free from parental involvement? No, of course not. It's perfectly legal for California's high school students to leave school for an abortion and if they do the school has no legal right to tell their parents.

But, the schools are legally required (or will be come so in July of 2007) to completely prevent them from buying Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, Faygo's Rock'n'Rye and a plethora of other varieties of pop (I'm from Michigan - it's pop, not soda) at school during school hours.

Make sure you check out Serge's take on the rules regulating California's schools and a hypothetical conversation at the LTI Blog.

Blogger's Best for Terri Schiavo: Part 3

is up at Wittenberg Gate.