State AGs Oppose HHS Regulation

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that several state attorneys general have sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to ask it to reverse a proposed regulation that would protect health care workers from punishment for refusing to provide abortion services because of moral or religious beliefs.

The letter states:

“The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider’s right to claim a personal moral or religious belief.”

On Secretary Mike Leavitt’s blog, he posts his reaction to critics of the proposed regulation.

This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion. The courts have long ago identified that right and continue to define its limits. This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that. This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience. Does the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association believe we can protect by Constitution, statute and practice rights of free speech, race, religion, and abortion—but not conscience?

Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

Doctors Ordered to Perform Abortion on 12-yr old Girl

The Australian is reporting that the Queensland Supreme Court has ordered doctors to perform an abortion on a 12-year old girl who was raped.

In a landmark decision, Supreme Court judge Margaret Wilson ordered the termination after accepting medical advice that the continuation of the pregnancy posed serious dangers to the mental health and wellbeing of the girl, whose intellectual age was deemed by an obstetrician to be that of a six-year-old.

In Queensland, it is illegal for doctors to carry out an abortion unless it is performed to save a woman’s life. It is also believed to be the first time that a Queensland court has ordered the use of the drug misoprostol in a sanctioned abortion.

Someone tell me how performing this abortion saved the life of this girl. Since when does a threat to the mental health or well-being of someone constitute a threat to her life? If you carry this out to its logical conclusion, my life is being threatened any time I’m under some stress at work, so I would be justified in killing whoever is causing that stress. Self-defense, right?

Google to Allow Pro-Life Ads

Sorry for the almost-week-long delay in posting. I’ve recently joined Facebook and it can be quite addictive.

The TimesOnline is reporting that Google has decided to allow pro-life groups to advertise on its search engine.

Google had banned pro-life religious groups from buying adverts against search terms such as “abortion” and “abortion help” but was forced to abandon its policy after it was accused of breaching equalities legislation.

The challenge was brought by the Christian Institute, a cross-denominational pressure group, who said that Google’s change of heart was an acknowledgement of the rights of everybody to hold an opinion on the subject.

Mike Judge from the Christian Institute said: “Google were taking adverts from pro-abortion groups, and our view is that was a free speech issue. What we want to do is set out the acts in a pretty factual and pretty sensible way”.

A spokesman for Marie Stopes International, which runs abortion treatment clinics, said the organisation was supportive of Google’s decision because both sides in the abortion debate should “be given equal opportunity to set out their arguments” but worried about the possibility of distortion.

“Where we draw the line when people use dodgy research or dodgy arguments to further their case — for example where people show images of 24 week old aborted foetuses and say they are in fact 12 weeks old”.

Yeah, because it’s so much better to abort a 12-week old BABY than a 24-week old BABY. What a stupid example to use. So does it hurt a pro-lifer’s argument when they show pictures of a 12-week old aborted baby versus a 24-week old?

Canadian Doctors Worried More Moms Will Choose Life

So I was reading the transcript from Rush Limbaugh’s show today and noticed his mention of this article at Life Site News. Seems that Canadian doctors have their panties in a wad worrying about the popular reaction in the U.S. to Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s decision to not abort her baby, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), told the Globe and Mail yesterday, “Palin’s decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same.”

“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.

Under the facade of “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that “popular messages” about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, “could have detrimental effects on women and their families.”

“We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,” Lalonde said. “We’re coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions.”

It’s all about choice, isn’t it? As Rush says earlier in his transcript, for liberals, you’re only pro-choice if you choose abortion. If you choose life, they refuse to let you call yourself pro-choice. So really, as Rush says, pro-choice means pro-abortion.

As for Lalonde’s last statement, he’s not really saying anything, is he? “Moral decisions are personal decisions”? Of course they’re personal decisions. Anytime anyone makes a decision, they are personally making that decision–unless, of course, they’re shaking a magic 8-ball. Lalonde implies that a personal decision only impacts the person making that decision and that no one should limit that person’s options. So what about a person’s decision to shoot someone? That is a moral decision that someone personally makes. So why should the government be able to curb a person’s ability to shoot someone? Using Lalonde’s logic, it shouldn’t be able to.

Our society has to have a set of values that are universally accepted and enforced, no matter if some individuals might disagree with them. Without a standard, chaos will reign, and there will be no respect for anyone. This is what we’re starting to see. It has started with the killing of innocent babies still in the womb in the name of freedom of choice and convenience. Other countries have legalized “mercy-killing” of elderly and chronically ill people, and they’re now struggling with the definition being broadened to apply to more and more people. What makes us think this won’t happen in the United States?

South Dakota Holds Pro-Life Strategy Conference

World Net Daily has this story about a conference being held in South Dakota as a measure is voted on soon which would ban all abortions in the state.

Now the original abortion ban is being presented to voters again, modified slightly to include certain exceptions, and pro-life advocates are working to counteract the massive industry lobby once again being assembled to target South Dakota voters. They are holding a free teleconference and webcast tomorrow for a number of high-profile leaders to provide input and discuss how to give voters the truth about the state law and prevent the “lies and misinformation” from the abortion industry from influencing them.

“In just over 50 days, a simple majority of South Dakota voters will have the opportunity to decide the fate of the first law that has a very real chance of overturning the unjust Roe V. Wade Supreme Court decision that has resulted in the death of more than 50 million unborn American children,” said Leslee Unruh, a longtime pro-life advocate who has been involved in the pro-life campaigns in the state.

“South Dakota is on the very of becoming the first state in American to pass a ban on abortion … but there’s a big problem. In addition. to launching a massive multi-million-dollar media campaign – filled with lies and misinformation – Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have brought in hired-gun political consultants who are using every trick in the book to try and kill this lifesaving law,” she said.

Bishops Take Biden To Task

Fox News is reporting that two prominent Catholic bishops are taking Senator Joe Biden to task for comments he made this past weekend on “Meet the Press”.

Asked on the program about when life begins, Biden said: “Look, I know when it begins for me. It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I am prepared to accept the teachings in my church.”

He added that while he believes life begins “at the moment of conception,” it would inappropriate to impose that view on others in a pluralistic society.

The bishops said Biden was right to say human life begins at conception. But the church “does not teach this as matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact,” they said.

“Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice,” they added.

Pro-Abortion Vandals Attack Church Display

Life News is reporting that pro-abortion vandals have attacked a pro-life display in Sioux Falls, SD, which featured 748 crosses to memorialize the number of babies that were killed in abortions in South Dakota in 2006.

The display in this incident, sponsored by Lutherans for Life of South Dakota, was set up at Blessed Redeemer Lutheran Church on 705 Sioux Blvd. Reports indicated the pro-life display was vandalized sometime on Wednesday evening.

Then, vandals spray-painted the South Dakota State University (SDSU) Newman Center building along with a pro-life sign out front. Vandals sprayed a “female symbol” on the traveling pro-life sign and painted “No Iraq War” on the church exterior.

Father Rutten, director of the SDSU Newman Center, said crosses set up to memorialize the deaths of babies who had died from abortions, were vandalized earlier.

Before that, Leslee Unruh, the head of the group promoting the abortion ban [on the November ballot], said her house has been plastered with eggs and she’s been mailed coat hangers by those who claim women will die from illegal abortions.

Unruh has had threatening calls in the middle of the night, hate mail and her favorite coffee shop told her to stop coming in because of the problems.

It never ceases to amaze (and sadden) me at the lengths that these people go to in their hatred for anyone who threatens their precious choice to kill innocent babies. It’s kind of amusing that they mixed a little anti-war flavor into their “protest”.

Obama Regrets Answer at Saddleback

In yet another example of Barack Obama backtracking on something he’s said during this campaign, the senator is now saying he regrets how he answered a question posed by Pastor Rick Warren during a question and answer session a few weeks ago at Saddleback Church.

“At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Warren asked.

“I think that, whether you’re looking at it from the theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” Obama said — an answer that offended some people.

“Was that phrase too flip?” Stephanopoulos asked Obama today.

“Probably,” Obama said. “Yes. I mean, what I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into…”

“It goes back to Augustine,” Stephanopoulos interjected.

“It does,” Obama said. “It’s a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families struggle with all the time, and that in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.”

I have a problem with his latest response. So he’s saying that it’s a theological question about when life starts? He’s punting. So why wouldn’t anyone with any amount of human decency say, “Let’s err on the side of life and assume that life starts as early as conception so that we can prevent the taking of innocent human life”? Instead, he’s saying let’s not worry about when life starts. Let’s err on the side of convenience. By saying that it’s a theological question, he is attempting to take the responsibility off of us “normal” folks and say that since most of us are not theologians, we aren’t qualified to answer it. So anything goes.

So here’s a question that Stephanopoulos should have asked: okay, so if I find a Christian theologian that says that a baby should get human rights at conception, will you change your stance on abortion? I think we all know what his answer would be (although he’d find a slick way of avoiding saying “no”).

Why Rape Isn’t a Good Reason for Abortion

One of the stories coming out of the convention is that the GOP adopted a stance on abortion that was tougher than what John McCain has taken. Namely, the GOP platform does not believe that rape or incest is a valid reason (aka excuse) for abortion. Unfortunately, many pro-life advocates (and politicians) believe that any law limiting abortion should contain exceptions for rape or incest. Abort73.com presents the case against using rape as an excuse for abortion:

Let’s say the woman does carry her child to term and decides to raise her daughter herself. After five years, however, she decides that the little girl’s presence in her life is too much of a burden. Should that mother have the right to kill her five year-old daughter who was born to her as a result of sexual assault?

Obviously not. No matter what the circumstances are regarding the little girl’s conception, she is a human being with a right to life that cannot be taken away from her. But what about before she is born, does this change anything? No, it doesn’t. Abortion is an act of violence that kills a living human being. The circumstances surrounding the conception do not change this simple reality. Rape and abortion share this in common. They are both acts of violent assault against an innocent victim. Aborting a child conceived through rape simply extends this pattern of violence and victimhood. It does not “unrape” the woman, but it will almost certainly increase her regret and misery. Whereas rape is an act of violence for which she bears no responsibility, abortion is an act of violence for which she would be morally culpable. Consider the following email, received by Abort73 on January 19, 2007:

I just wanted to say that I am so pleased to read your stance on abortion in the case of rape. My mother was a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and she tried to have an abortion. The only reason I am alive today is because the doctor miscalculated her due date and thought she was too far in the pregnancy to have the abortion, when in reality he was a month off (this actually happened twice). It pains me every time I hear even die hard pro-lifers say “except in the case of rape”. I know it is traumatizing for a girl or woman that is raped to have to carry a child, but it is no more traumatizing than someone who gets shot during a violent attack and has to deal with those wounds. Counseling and therapy can help heal the trauma, but the trauma will be there whether she has the abortion or not, and the abortion could even make it worse. It has caused me so much anxiety over the years to think that many pro-lifers would have approved of my mother’s abortion. By the way, she gave me up for adoption, and my adoptive parents were never able to have children. Thank you so much for this wonderful view against abortion even in the case of rape.

Cindy McCain Differs from Hubby on Abortion

The Guardian is reporting that Cindy McCain doesn’t believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

When asked by CBS news last night whether she wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 supreme court ruling that permitted women to seek abortions in America, Cindy McCain responded: “No, no.” John McCain vowed last year that he does not support Roe v Wade and would work to overturn it if elected.

Not that I really care what she believes since we’re not electing her, although she will be providing advice to her husband, I’m sure, so okay, maybe I do care what she believes.