Reasons for the Hatin’ On Palin

26 10 2008

Kevin Burke at National Review writes an excellent article on why there is so much hate for Sarah Palin regarding her pro-life stance and her decision to carry through with her pregnancy with Trig.

Some of the very personal and often uncharitable criticism of vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her family may have a relationship to the collective grief, shame, and guilt from personal involvement in the abortion of an unborn child. Because abortion is usually a deeply repressed sensitive area of complicated grief, when a news story touches on abortion related issues, the common response is often one of the following:

– Avoidance.

– Reactive defensiveness, hyper sensitivity, and angry attacks to compensate for the emotional vulnerability this issue surfaces.

– Some will recognize in their troubled souls the need to reach out for healing and the hope of reconciliation and peace.

Governor Palin has been clear that, despite the challenges Trig’s condition will present, she and her husband Todd joyfully celebrate the gift of this precious life to their family.

But this very heartfelt, natural expression of love may be striking at a deeply repressed and painful wound in our culture.

Seeing the Palin family, in a very visible public forum, with an uncompromising and public pro life philosophy arouses deeply repressed feelings in post abortive parents, as well as media members, counselors, health care professionals, politicians and others who promote abortion rights, especially the abortion of children with challenges such as Down Syndrome. These powerful repressed feelings of grief, guilt and shame can be deflected from the source of the wound (i.e., abortion) and projected onto an often uncharitable focus upon the trigger of these painful emotions…the Palin family.


On a Related Note…

18 10 2008

Thanks to Little Joe (see his comment on my last post)…

An Epidemic of Abortions

17 10 2008

Gary Bauer writes an excellent article on National Review that tells of the alarming rise in abortions against babies that have been diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

Passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress in late September and signed into law by President Bush on October 10, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act provides expectant mothers whose unborn children receive a diagnosis of Down Syndrome or other genetic condition with up-to-date information about the nature of the condition and connection with support services. Co-sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) and Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), the legislation also provides for the creation of a national registry of families willing to adopt children with pre- or post-natally diagnosed conditions.

Sophisticated prenatal genetic testing can now detect Down Syndrome in an unborn child as early as the first trimester. Earlier screening has led to an abortion rate of up to 90 percent for children with Down Syndrome. That rate helps explain the marked decrease in the population of Americans with the condition. According to a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the number of Down Syndrome live births declined 7.8 percent between 1989 and 2001.

The number of children born with Down Syndrome could plummet even further if physicians begin to follow the advice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which in 2007 recommended that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be offered screening for Down Syndrome. (At the moment, all pregnant women over the age 35, who are more likely to conceive children with the condition, are offered prenatal testing.)

Many doctors welcome universal screening. Dr. Nancy Greer, medical director of the March of Dimes, an organization that promotes abortion of unborn children with disabilities, told the New York Times that the new ACOG guidelines allow more time for women to “make decisions” about whether to continue their pregnancies.

Click on the link above to read the entire article.

Canadian Doctors Worried More Moms Will Choose Life

12 09 2008

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?

Down Syndrome: Photos of Life

15 07 2008

UPDATE: Conny Wenk wrote me to let me know that she had to remove the video from YouTube because of copyright issues with the song she had used. I’d still recommend visiting her website at Conny Wenk.

Barbara from has posted this great video of the work of Conny Wenk. If you visit her website, you’ll see her high-quality photos. It’s unbelievable that some in the pro-choice movement are working to make it more sociably acceptable to abort babies who have tested positive for Down Syndrome. Found this post at Pro-Life Blogs