Abortion

Today in one of my local papers, I spotted two letters.  No, not exactly the same, but using the same construction:

1. We have economic challenges here in NH!

2. Why are legislators going to spend time on monkeying with a woman’s reproductive rights!  We are a pro-choice state!

4. You need to work for all of us, and not just your own personal agendas!

Yeah, mark me impressed – one of them decided to mock those of the "faith community" by the use of the phrase "archaic belief systems".  Yeah, that’s gonna make me switch my views real quick, lady.

Here’s my response (the actual Letters are after the jump):

Dear Form Letter Ladies,

So nice to see that you could come up with an original idea between the pair of you!  While it is true that NH faces "economic challenges", we can lay much of that at the feet of your fellow Liberal Travellers that decided, without a shred of economic understanding among them, that they knew best just how businesses should be run, regulated, and taxed so as to produce "jobs".  We, thusly, find ourselves in the situation we currently now enjoy – shared misery instead of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

You know, I don’t remember seeing these same Letters as the Democrats put THEIR social agenda first during their time in power and control – where was your outrage over their lack of attending to economic issues then?  

I love the euphemisms in trying to hide YOUR agendas:

• legislate family communication – "parental rights and responsibilities are outweighed by some unknown social service clerk that hardly knows your 8th grade daughter.  And that 26 year old boyfriend?  Irrelevant!"

• womens’ rights – "in our world, every female is a full fledged woman, you patriarchial mysogynist!"

• archaic belief systems – you moralistic Bible-Thumpers are just getting in the way of our ‘enlightened" secularism!"

• slow us down even further – "we have to move society forward!" (ah!  the key phrase for Progressivism!  Which is nothing more than incremental socialism – yeah, that’s the ticket!  And where do we end up, dearies?)

• potentially cost taxpayers even more money – "you think abortion is expensive?  wait until you have to pay for 18 years of welfare!"

Look, there is no reason why Republicans (the unstated Party in their diatribes) shouldn’t revisit the Parental Notification law that codifies that the responsibility of a minor child resides, not with the State, but with her parents.  It also treats abortion as it truly is – a major medical procedure and should handled in the same manner as an aspirin from a school nurse.  Treating the two is mere hypocrisy in the fight over ideologies.

Heck, we should be treating the life of an unborn child with FAR most concern than a pill.

But that seems to be all that the anti-Parents crowd wants…after all, just like Michelle said:

"We just can’t leave it up to the parents."

Read more

Once again, the Monitor shows its willingness to have Government be a wedge between parents and a minor child over the issue of abortion, even as it makes the attempt to have it look otherwise.  From their editorial:

…The issue might seem like common sense if it’s framed only as an issue of parents’ rights. After all, advocates say, they must be told before their kids are given an aspirin by the school nurse – why shouldn’t they be told before their daughters receive something so momentous as an abortion? No one wants to imagine their 15-year-old in trouble and themselves out of the loop.

"only as an issue of parents’ rights"?  Really – only?  This is simply a "mind brushing" here a la Star Wars ("…there’s nothing to see here…", as if the Force is with them).  Frankly the major premise of the argument, Planned Parenthood pro-abort aficionados aside, IS parental rights and from the get-go, are trying to down play the importance of the issue with a "put-down" (er, shove-down?).  The only reason why the "framing" schtick only makes sense is if one is trying to "re-frame" the issue to something else.

Which, indeed, what the Monitor is trying to do.  As you read the whole piece, it seems that the Monitor has also gotten into the farming biz as they later throw up so many strawman arguments, they must really be farmers (good thing, given the current state of the print media biz – unless the loonies at the FCC get their way and start to subsidize the news-biz as heartily as they do agri-biz)

However, instead of stopping at the last sentence of the ‘graph (and which would have given them some semblance of sanity , they decide to play "Titanic-iceberg tag" with logic.

But we encourage legislators to think hard about the rights of vulnerable teenage girls whose fear of confiding in a parent or a judge – perhaps misguided, perhaps chillingly justified – would keep them from seeking help at all. It is their health and safety that must be paramount.

And that "right" that a minor child would have in this situation is…what?  The only one that can come to mind is that normally given to women who have achieved the age of majority – and sadly, that is the Right to kill an unborn child.  I keep listening and reading this blather of…

Read more

Ronald Reagan believed in the right to life.  Sean Mahoney, who makes the claim that he came to the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan (before he and his checkbook flirted with the democrat party) has this to say about life on his campaign site.

Sean Mahoney is pro-life and will work to protect the lives of the unborn when he is in Congress. In addition, Sean Mahoney will work to promote healthy, pro-life option to abortion, like adoption. Sean Mahoney believes every human life is sacred and that the federal government has a responsibility to protect those lives.

This seems like a solid enough statement, and Sean seems proud of this position but that’s all he has to say.  So can he back it up in principle?  Principle, if you remember was part of what he claims drove him to abandon his GOP committeeman position a few weeks before announcing his run for Senate–no wait, Governor–no that’s not it, I mean congress.  So can his pro-life claims be backed up on principle?

Read more

Guest Post by Karen Testerman…

After reading a recent article in World Magazine about the sentencing of a California abortionist for malpractice who "targeted Spanish-speaking women," the question to ponder…Is Planned Parenthood’s primary interest in the industry financial or is their goal more subversive?

According to Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League (ALL). "Their [Planned Parenthood] primary focus used to be the African-American community, but about 10 years ago they began writing in their publications about what they call ‘outreach to the Hispanic community.’

Consider a further fact from the article.  "The Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, reports that in 2004 there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 non-Hispanic white women ages 15 to 44, compared with 28 per 1,000 Hispanic women in the same age group."  Further the Guttmacher Institute reports that "thirty-seven percent of abortions occur to black women, 34% to non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races."

BlackGenocide.org states that "78% of their [Planned Parenthood] clinics are in minority communities."  And that "Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions."

Now consider that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger advocated the development of a superior race" by eliminating religious and ethnic minorities she referred to as "useless breeders." In one of her writings, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger refers to African-Americans, immigrants and poor people as "…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born."  

Read more