Dr. in IA: Telemed abortions more proof that PP has two goals: dead babies and doesn't care about women

 Letter to the editor published in the Des Moines Register....in response to the publicity about PP introducing telemed abortions......


As a physician, I was horrified by the May 16 article, "Faraway Doctors Give Abortion Pills by Video."

It is a great regret that Iowa would be the state to promote this type of abortion.

What kind of a doctor is Tom Ross? How about Susan Haskell?

This is just more proof that Planned Parenthood has two goals: It wants dead babies and doesn't really care about women.
There are a lot of things a physician finds out with a personal visit. Just looking at a patient's coloring can reveal some problems. A lot can be told by examining the abdomen. Other things can be discovered by blood tests.

Dr. Randall O'Bannon, director of research and education for National Right to Life, warns that women having problems after an abortion usually go to their primary doctor or an emergency room, and may never mention the abortion.

I hope any woman receiving the RU486 pill, who has problems, will report them.

There are bound to be catastrophic consequences because of what is lacking in this method.

And the risks will undoubtedly happen with no follow up.
- Dr. Richard P. Bose, Estherville

Common Sense Commentary: No Truce On Abortion Debate

 Amazing, Daniels is not backing away from this statement but per Weekly Standard article is doubling down on it......Well let's see how far this gets him. We are all concerned about the economy but throwing  babies under the bus is not an option.




Scott Hennen  •  June 17, 2010
SayAnthingBlog.com

Let’s “agree to disagree”; that’s the request from Indiana Governor and possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitch Daniels,(pictured left) on perhaps the most contentious issue in contemporary American politics: life… and ending it through abortion. Citing economic concerns as the more important challenge, Daniels wants both sides of the aisle to call a “truce” on abortion, at least until we get our financial house in order. But how can you compromise on a fundamentally uncompromising issue?

Should conservatives declare a truce on abortion? That’s the question for today’s Common Sense Caucus. This, after Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggested it’s high time we stop defending innocent life and focus on bigger concerns…like the state of the US economy. In his own words,
“I really believe, that for the first time, the future of the American experiment is at risk… I picked the word ‘truce’ because no one has to change their point of view, no one has to surrender.”
In other words, you can still believe in the sanctity of life, but you shouldn’t decide to defend it. At least not in a manner that interferes with the spirit of bipartisanship needed to restore our economy.
So how are we to take Mr. Daniels message? This is no slip of the tongue; it’s a deliberate choice of words attempting to appeal to both sides of the debate. At its best? It’s a feeble plea for you to be silent. At its worst? It’s tantamount to cowardice.
After all, we’re not talking about some marginal issue. This isn’t campaign finance reform, or tax codes; this is a matter of life or death. This is a moral issue, and compromising morality for some misguided notion that leftists will stop the expansion of government because we punted on the most important social issue of our time is a recipe for disaster. As Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Even in this economy, where of course so much is at stake, conservatives will not forfeit their passion to defend innocent life.

$1+ billion federal funding given to abortion advocacy groups over 7 years by Jill Stanek

$1+ billion federal funding given to abortion advocacy groups over 7 years by Jill Stanek

Why the New Pro-Life Poll Numbers Are So Encouraging

Posted by Eric Scheidler (June 16, 2010 at 6:00 am)

Pro Life Action League

The most recent national poll by the Gallup polling company finds, for the second year running, that more Americans are calling themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice.” They’re even calling pro-life the “new normal.”
As you might expect, pro-lifers have greeted these results with enthusiasm, while the pro-choice side has looked for ways to discount them.
On the Abortion Gang, a blog for “unapologetic activists for reproductive justice,”  pro-choice blogger Reema criticizes pro-lifers—or “anti-choicers” as she calls them—for “going on and on” about the new poll numbers, despite the fact that many who call themselves pro-life are “exceptioneers,” who would not support an all-out ban on abortion.
In the post, entitled “A Question for Anti-Choicers,” she writes:

Exceptioneers make up the majority of the anti-choice movement, and I’m willing to bet that anti-choice leaders do not consider exceptioneers “pro-life” at all.
. . . so why are they flaunting around the Gallup polls? Why are they showing off the amount of Americans who are anti-choice, when they don’t even accept many of those anti-choice Americans into their cult?

An “Anti-Choice” Leader Responds

Reema ends her post by declaring, “I’d actually be interested in receiving an answer from anti-choicers (yes, the abortiongang does accept respectful comments from antis).”
So I offered my own thoughts on this, which were—true to Reema’s promise—published in the comments under her post. Here’s what I wrote:

Reema—
Thanks for the opportunity to offer a response to your question from the “anti-choice” side.
I think JivinJ is right that both sides of the Gallup poll include a sizable segment that have mixed feelings on abortion.
But my guess, based on my years of experience in the movement, is that there is more of this among those who self-identify as “pro-choice.”
Just about the only people I’ve come across who call themselves “pro-life” while opposing all or most legal restrictions on abortion are politicians trying to curry favor with pro-life voters.
But almost everyone I’ve encountered who self-describes as “pro-choice” favors at least some kind of abortion restriction (ban on late term abortions, parental notice, life/health, etc.).
I think that’s to be expected. The label “pro-choice” was coined specifically to allow people to separate their “personal view” from their political or legal view on abortion. It’s a term designed to “give cover” to people who are uncomfortable (even deeply so) with abortion, but don’t want to see it banned outright.
The term “pro-life” is different. The pro-life movement has never used this (or any other term) to cover people who are “personally opposed” but don’t want abortion restricted or banned. “Pro-life” has always been used, by the movement, to describe opposition to abortion as both a personal moral view and a matter of public policy. And I think the general public has understood the term this way.
So one of the reasons these poll numbers are so encouraging for us is that they suggest our side is even stronger than the nearly 50/50 split would suggest. If it takes more of a commitment to one’s views on abortion—less of a tendency to divide one’s private view from one’s public policy position—to self-describe as “pro-life,” then we’ve less of that “mushy middle” on our side.
But even if I’m wrong about the commitment behind these two terms, the poll numbers are still encouraging because they suggest that the “exceptioneers” are tipping towards identifying themselves as pro-life. The pro-life “brand” is attracting people who might go either way, as to what label to wear.
If it’s possible for the exact same position (personally opposed to abortion, wouldn’t get one, wouldn’t advise anyone to, don’t think it should be totally unrestricted, but don’t want it banned either) to fall under “pro-choice” or “pro-life” depending on how one understands those terms, then it looks like more of those folks are aligning themselves with the pro-life side, for whatever reason.
As for the reason, that’s anyone’s guess. But there seems to be something about identifying oneself as pro-life that appeals to a growing segment of the population, even if that trend doesn’t represent any actual change in views.
And that’s good news for the pro-life side—and bad news for the pro-choice side.
Thanks again for the opportunity to weigh in on this.
Eric Scheidler
Executive Director
Pro-Life Action League

Abortion Rate in America by State and Race

JPosted on 16. Jun, 2010 by Nathaniel Bacon in Health, Immigration, Israel & Jewish Issues, Race

Jews have been shown by Social Research to be much more likely to support Abortion than any other American Racial Group. Moreover, they have become legendary for having a disproportionate impact on politics and culture.
For these reasons I decided to do a study to test whether having a larger percentage of Jews in a State correlates with it having a higher Abortion Rate.
First I got the Fraction of Jews by US State from this website:
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html
From the Census I got the equivalent figures on the percentages Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
I got the Abortion Rate by State here:
www.isteve.com/BabyGap.htm
Finally, I ran Pearson Correlations on the Abortion Rate of a State and its Racial Composition, and found:
Correlation with AbortionPercent Jewish     +0.764
Percent White        -0.655
Percent Black        +0.537
Percent Hispanic   +0.317
Percent Asian        +0.268
One thing that stands out here is that every race except Non-Hispanic Whites will make a State’s abortion rate go up.
This is consistent with Whites, on average, having a greater ability to plan out for the future than other races do.
The other thing that stands out is, of course, the sheer strength of the positive correlation between Percentage Jewish and the Abortion Rate. A correlation that is remarkably high given that Jews only make up 2.1% of the American Population!
Clearly, it isn’t Jews aborting Jewish babies that is driving this result, there simply aren’t enough Jewish women for that to even be a possibility. Rather it seems more likely that Jews are using their Political and Cultural power in a State to promote Abortion, trying their best to make it as legal and acceptable as possible.
Also it could be that they promote Sexual Hedonism, and then after people fall for the trap of thinking its the “Cool” way to behave they’re left with unwanted pregnancies that end up terminated by abortion.
But here is the thing that is almost incomprehensible. Even though Blacks are widely known to have by far the highest Abortion Rate of any Group, and even though there are almost 5 Times as Many Blacks in America as there are Jews, the Percentage of Jews in a State has a stronger Correlation with the Abortion Rate than the Percentage of Blacks in the State does!
Let me give you a moment to let that sink in. (I think it’s one of the most intense effects relative to cause size discovered in the History of Demographic Research.)

Coming soon (already here?): Taxpayer funded telemed abortion systems by Jill Stanek

Coming soon (already here?): Taxpayer funded telemed abortion systems by Jill Stanek

(Prolifer)ations 6-15-10

June 15, 2010

From: Jill Stanek.com

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN

American Papist reminds us of the infamous 11th hour Executive Order promised to secure the votes of so called "pro-life" democrats on health care. Rep. John Boehner asks the White House, in essence, "What's happening with that?"

LaShawn Barber, guest blogging for Michelle Malkin, discusses how pro-aborts are actually devoted to a religious purpose and service of a god.

Big Blue Wave tells of an interesting admission from Britain's top pro-choicer.

Mark Crutcher writes an excellent article about the myth of overpopulation and asks the question, "when a society morally bankrupts itself by legalizing the sacrifice of a specific group of human beings in order to address social problems, is it then conditioned to solve the social problems created by an aging population in the same way?"

According to Disability Matters comments , the Final Exit Network is attempting an image makeover through dishonest guest opinion pieces.

Coming Home features the viral video of 2 college students attempting an on-the-street interview with NC Rep. Bob Etheridge (D). His response is over-the-top, harsh and abusive:

The Abortion Movement as Religion

From Secular Pro Life.com

Our polar opposite, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, has been around for a long time. But recently, I've noticed an uptick in abortion advocates using religious language in their propoganda. Take this bizarre little gem, from RH Reality Check:

Tiller finds good company among the ancient prophets who spoke truth to power, who kept on keeping-on with the faith that one day justice shall "roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."

Our moral center never died. And, with each abortion delivered in compassion and care, George Tiller . . . [is] resurrected.

"Reality Check" is the most inappopriate name I can think of for this blog of pro-abortion, pseudo-religious fantasies.

Then there's the recent dedication of the Houston abortion supercenter, which an official called "sacred and holy ground."

Abortion advocate Florynce Kennedy is perhaps best known for her quote "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Now it seems that a new faith is emerging in which abortion is the chief sacrament! Why the shift from painting pro-lifers as religious to painting themselves that way? My theory: their reputation as the "logical" or "scientific" side of the debate is falling apart, so they're grasping at straws. Alternatively, they might actually believe the nonsense they're spouting: a pretty terrifying thought, if you ask me.

 

Baby killers advise baby savers on proper parenting by Jill Stanek

Baby killers advise baby savers on proper parenting by Jill Stanek

Women's Conference in DC bans literature promoting motherhood!!

WASHINGTON, D.C, June 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Sessions at the Women Deliver conference may have frequently employed terms such as "life-affirming" and the "right to live" in describing the push for maternal health, but this didn’t stop conference staff from putting a stop to the efforts of pro-life activists who were seeking to inform attendees about the right to life of the unborn.
Volunteers with the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) spent about an hour on the sidewalk outside the Walter E. Washington Convention Center handing out pink “Celebrate Motherhood!” bags to conference participants. The bags included a small fetal model and some basic statistics comparing legal abortion and maternal mortality rates.
But pro-lifers learned that the bags were being confiscated by conference organizers inside the building.
One attendee who received a bag told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that she was interrogated in an intimidating manner by an organizer who said that "you need to throw away" any pink bag handed out by the "anti-woman" demonstrators, because "they're trying to ruin our conference."
However, one pro-life volunteer said that the aggressive approach taken by conference staff may have been for the better: when attendees, including UN delegates, asked about the confiscated material in clear plastic bags, they were told by pro-lifers that the materials could not be handed out because "they don't want you to have this information."
"It was great for what we're getting across," said the volunteer.
The pro-lifers were later able to collect the confiscated bags.
Jeanne Head, NRLC Vice President for International Affairs and UN Representative for National Right to Life, and a registered nurse, said she was frustrated at how the conference hijacked the issue of maternal mortality to push an agenda harmful to women.
"We've known how to save lives in the developing world for over 70 years, and women are still dying in the developing world," Head told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "It's aggravating to me that they're spending all this money and all this talk about how to save women's lives and it's very simple."
"Good health care, prenatal care, emergency obststetric care, antibiotics, clean blood, clean water, good nutrition. And they're talking about all this garbage instead of doing the job."
 
Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright, who was present at the conference, said the treatment of the pro-life materials illustrated the conference's hypocritical message.
"Here they are the whole conference saying: information, give women information and they'll have power," Wright told LSN, "and then they take that information away so that they'll be powerless to argue against the indoctrination they're getting."
Wright further noted that the conference revealed how the pro-abortion movement's "zeitgeist" is "all about power." "They think that we're driven by the same things that they're driven by. They're driven by rage and power. It's just the opposite for us - we're driven by love to serve others," she said.

Did students commit 'suicide by laptop'?

This is so sad....the internet can be used for good or evil.

by Chris Matyszczyk
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/8297/
Whatever happened, no one may ever truly understand. The facts, as reported by the Daily Mail, suggest that two students from Scotland checked into a hotel around 80 miles from Edinburgh University, where they were both studying. When staff were concerned that Robert Miller, 20, and James Robertson, 19, were still in their room after check-out time, they reportedly opened their door and discovered them both dead. Edinburgh University, where both men studied.

Police reportedly examined a laptop in the students' room and, after police said they were not treating the deaths as suspicious, there are reportedly fears in the students' home communities that the dead men may have been influenced by the ideas of Dr. Philip Nitschke, an Australian campaigner for legal euthanasia. In 1996, Nitschke created the Deliverance Machine, a device that involved a laptop that was connected to a syringe driver. With just one push of a key, the device, outlawed in 1997, delivers a lethal injection.

Edinburgh University is reportedly working with the authorities to try to find more evidence of what might have led to these students' deaths. These reports will inevitably lead to renewed debate about the Web offering more information, both "bad" or "good," being made immediately available to those who seek it, or even to those who merely happen to come across it by chance. Should information about assisted suicide, self-harm and other difficult societal aspects be freely available?

TN Dem attacks female Republicans: “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women.”

A good write up from Malkin....unless they think like us...they can't be women.

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 14, 2010 05:45 PM

When liberals can’t handle GOP women, they infantilize, sexualize, demonize, and dehumanize them. I diagnosed the Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse a few years ago. Here’s how I described the 4th Stage:
…the final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator?” Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body?”
We can now add Tennessee State Democrat legislator Janis Baird Son­tany of Nashville to the roster of abusers. Here’s what she said about her GOP opponents at a Democrat Party breakfast over the weekend:
State Republican Chairman Chris Devaney today denounced as “petty and insulting” a Democratic legislator’s statement about her Republican women colleagues.
“You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote,” said Rep. Janis Baird Sontany, D-Nashville.
The remark at a Saturday Democratic breakfast was initially reported by blogger Dru Smith Fuller. Sontany acknowledged the statement when asked and described it as “a glib, off-the-cuff remark” that “was inappropriate on my part.”
Sontany has issued the standard, non-apology apology “if I offended anyone.”
What will conservative women be subjected to next?

So much for “My body, my choice,” eh, libs?  Source: HERE