“… we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her health. I want you to know you’ve got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you Planned Parenthood, God bless you.” — President Obama, April 26, 2013.
WOMEN’S “CHOICE” IS ARGUABLY THE MOST DIVISIVE ISSUE of the past 40 years. The extremes on both sides are adamant: “Hands off my womb” cry those who advocate for unbridled termination rights, while the opposite spectrum would force a woman to carry all pregnancies to full term.
Reasonable people seek a middle ground. Unfortunately, neither extreme is “reasonable.” And currently the pro -“choice” crowd is winning.
But in Philadelphia, a murder trial continues that, if given the coverage it warrants, would likely turn the tide in favor of those who seek reasonable abortion controls.
I refer to the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. The facts in the case are shocking, they are horrific, they are scandalous — and they have been virtually ignored by the media (more on that later).
First, it is important to understand facts pertaining to the charges against Gosnell. Quoting from James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal:
“More and more of his patients came from out of state and were late-second-trimester patients. Many of them were well beyond 24 weeks. Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage, without regard for legal limits.”
In many of those cases the “choice” of termination was actually carried out by Gosnell postpartum — in his words, “ensuring fetal demise.” He referred to this procedure by the deceptive euphemism of “snipping”: severing the spinal cord with scissors. This horrific act was not an isolated occurrence; quoting from the grand jury report of January 2011, “Over the years there were hundreds of snippings. Sometimes if Gosnell was unavailable, the snipping was done by one of his ‘fake’ doctors, or even by administrative staff.” Gosnell destroyed the files on most of these cases to avoid prosecution.
Beyond sheer inhumanity and depravity, there are several aspects of the Gosnell case that are deeply troubling. Predominant among them, to date, is the paucity of media coverage and the political implications of that near-blackout. The case finally garnered national attention recently when Kirsten Powers wrote a column in USA Today slamming the media for its silence; if you have in fact heard of this case it is likely because of the exposé by Ms. Powers.
The trial, which opened in March of this year, was reported by the New York Times on page A17. The paper then failed to mention the trial again until after Ms. Powers’s column of April 10.
This absence of coverage of this mass murderer — oh yes, I forgot: “alleged” mass murderer — was so appalling that 72 members of Congress, led by Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Steve Scalise, R-La., signed a letter directed at ABC, CBS and NBC demanding they provide coverage.
Those who favor “choice” often choose dehumanizing terms for new life like “zygote” or “blastocyst.” These two terms in particular, if used correctly, describe only the earliest stages of human development, yet in the parlance of pro-abortion advocates they have been redefined from days to weeks or months. It’s a way for advocates of unrestricted abortion to rationalize the fact that a human life is being terminated. But zygotes (days 1-5) and blastocysts (days 6-8) do not cry out when “snipped,” as occurred in Gosnell’s office.
Defenders of “choice” declare Gosnell to be an anomaly, one blown out of proportion. The fact is, we do not know how many Gosnells are currently practicing, or have been for years.
In Powers’s USA Today piece, she correctly observed that “(y)ou don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy. This is not about being ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life.’ It’s about basic human rights.”
There are several possibilities as to why the media has chosen not to cover this horrific case. One of them is the calculation of political backfire.
Had the media fanned the flames with headlines of “Baby Killer Doctor Trial Shocks the Nation,” one politician who would have received considerable flack would have been President Obama, an unabashed advocate of “choice.”
When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, the subject of late-term abortion failures was debated by the legislature. A proposed law stated that a “live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures … shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.”
Three times Obama voted no — a vote that would have essentially legalized Kermit Gosnell’s actions had they occurred in the state of Illinois.
During the period of debate on the law, Obama said: “It is important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. If these children were being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”
Kermit Gosnell shows that statement to be one of willful naiveté at best.
Closing arguments were last week and so far the president has declined comment on the trial in Philadelphia. Had this story captured the attention of the nation, as it should have, he would likely have been pressured to defend his Illinois votes.
Many pro-“choice” advocates like President Obama, Planned Parenthood and others have tolerated by denial even the rare occurrences of actions by people like Gosnell. But if the trial in Philadelphia had been properly publicized, the backlash could have been enormous against those who have advocated for the “choice” of death.
There are those who still have faith that the media of this country tries to present “All the news that’s fit to print,” but there is no better case than Kermit Gosnell to dispel that falsehood.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.
Sharing is caring!
While Obama was not commenting on the case, he makes a point to place a phone call personally to a gay athlete coming out. Wow, that was important.
If you were to follow reaction to this case like the media and the left do to a mass killing with a gun, they would be calling for the ban of abortions. But that doesn’t fit with their agenda so they have to try to stay quiet about it so they are not challenged on the consistency of their belief systems.
The concept of using medical terms to describe the baby to dehumanize it is also a joke. If scientists were to find a living single cell organism on Jupiter, it would be the rage of the news world wide. “LIFE found on another planet”. And the scientific community would be going crazy. But here a life in a woman’s belly is not a baby. More hypocrisy!
Women make a lot of choices long before getting pregnant. They choose to take off their clothes off, they choose to engage in sex; how about making the choice to use birth control prior to the act. That is a responsible choice that respects life. We all know that abortion is a socio-economic issue. I would suggest that many if not most women would carry and keep their babies if they could afford to do so.
I say choose life. Your mother did!
Indeed, and I wonder how many of those who support “choice” are truly sorry their mothers chose to let them live. We are not about to throw women in jail for making a decision early in pregnancy to have an abortion. The issue, however, is whether the state should do anything other than encourage the preservation of life itself. If the protection of the most vulnerable isn’t a fundamental right and principle of the left and the right I don’t know what is.
JLB Stated: that doesn’t fit with their agenda so they have to try to stay quiet about it so they are not challenged on the consistency of their belief systems.
1000% correct!
The left’s motto is “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. Sadly, those in the mainstream press have apparently adopted the same. Silence, as someone (perhaps Burke) said is what allows evil to exist and, in this case, thrive. JLB put it very well. It is amazing that the Fourth Estate considers itself to be the “guardians” of civil liberties.
Reg, Burke may well have had a similar quote, but this one states, essentially the same thought:
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Sensible folks to your “left” do not advocate impoundment of everybody”s guns. Universal registry of guns and licensing of gun owners, IMHO, would be as good a pair of measures as licensing drivers and registering motor vehicles for use on public roads. The paranoia of conspiracy fear-mongers, of course, makes good-sense legislation nearly impossible. Innate fear of falling puts an illusion of foundation to worry about “slippery slopes.” The “Defense Against Our Tyrannical Government” and “Women Defending Their Homes Against Armed Intruders” are romantic fairy-tales that mask intransigent opposition to reason.
As for women’s responsibility for sex, birth-control and conception, we should all study the statistics of age, ethnicity, religion, social class and financial status. Some things would immediately become subject to good analysis and understanding. It would melt away myths, delusions and groundless opinions.
Hypocrisy is more often produced by confusion than by malice. People who bend the English language to suit their emotions suffer from disorderly ideas and bad definitions. They often lack the relevant sciences.
Well said Reg!
Very good article Dennis. Great comments by Reg and JLB.
Thanks Bob. Fully agree with your comment regarding Reg and JLB
Where are the usual contingent of attack liberals defending the practice of late term abortions? I thought the leader of the liberals supported this type of activity. Just days ago he was helping Planned Parenthood fundraiser, first President in the history of the organization to do this. Guess the overall liberal press do as they are told by their master Obama and pretend these houses of horror don’t exist. The current trial describes in detail just one of these killing factories. Would appear there are more out there and this practice continues. I found this little news piece in the liberal “Huffington Post” so the liberal foot soilders will believe…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/live-action-abortion-videos_n_3178725.html
From the link provided by Watching:
Dr.Santangelo: “What I said is, basically I wouldn’t do anything extraordinary. We would call EMS. We would call 911. But I wouldn’t do intubation or anything. … You let nature take its course.”
That last line shows an extremely high level of hypocrisy. If the Doctor wanted ‘nature (to) take its course’ he would not be aborting 24 week old babies.
Watching asked: Where are the usual contingent of attack liberals…
Maybe they saw this on a previous thread:
“I am taking this opportunity to announce that trolling behavior will no longer be tolerated on this blog, or whatever venue may succeed it. Be courteous, be topical or be gone.” Benicia Herald
Dennis – You reference a quote from the editor, “I am taking this opportunity….” Please help – where does this appear? Thanks.
To Roger: Last night, it appeared on this thread.
We’ll see what happens the next time we have a Jerry Page or Matt Talbot or Bob Shelby column and the right wing trolls come crawling out of their holes. In the meantime, no, this column is not worth commenting on; like all of Lund’s childish meanderings, it rushes eagerly to his predetermined conclusions, another fantasy in which all liberals are hypocrites and conservatives the only thing keeping us from Armageddon. In a word, trash.
RA Stated: this column is not worth commenting on
And yet you did, twice.
I was responding to comments, not your book report.
R.A., I generally agree with your views, but Lund is not all that bad. He’s highly intelligent and articulate. He sees a reverse template to much of our view and does not firmly accept the notion that truth may not lie on one side or the other, though he’s aware of that possibility. Obviously, he stimulates us to respond and interact, at least on these threads. I have to deny that his input is childish, although as for predetermined conclusions, most of us start a piece of writing with some view or other. The easiest thing in the world is for writers to get lost in their own premise. You and I know very well, not all liberals are hypocrites while many conservatives really are.
Thank you Robert.
RMS stated: You and I know very well, not all liberals are hypocrites while many conservatives really are.
‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ could be reversed in that sentence without impacting its validity.
Quite true, Dennis. Q.E.D.
Mr. Lund is usually smug and full of hate, but the thoughtlessness and undertone of violence that goes through this week’s comments from readers is disturbing. Bringing up the crimes of Dr. Gosnell doesn’t bear mention by liberals who support women’s control over their own bodies because he committed crimes. We’re supporting the law of the land. The hypocrisy of people like Mr. Lund who believe government has no place in our lives, except in the case of women’s healthcare is especially staggering (not to mention the hypocrisy of Mr. Lund in bringing up courtesy, when his supporters are the trolls). When you advocate for government to make your health care decisions, then you can have a legitimate right to an opinion about government making mine.
Gdo: Mr. Lund who believe government has no place in our lives,
I have never stated that to be the case. Quite the opposite is in fact true, as government serves many useful purposes, it is the misuse of those purposes, as well as government acting without authority to which I object.
in bringing up courtesy, when his supporters are the trolls That of course ignores Mr. Shelby, ‘Mike’ (who was banned), and another person whom I will not name.
There is NO undertone of violence in the feedback I’ve posted or read. Please do not demonize people with whom you disagree.
Dennis Kirsten Powers is a Fox News contributor and considered left leaning. I have always thought she was very balanced in her comments on Fox News. She is an excellent writer/reporter and very well respected. I like her very much, a fresh voice and approach to issues. Yes the media has ignored this issue until recently.
Bob said: Powers is a Fox News contributor
Yes she is, but the references in this piece pertain to her contributions to USA Today, so I did not mention her connection to Fox News.
The acts attributed to Gosnell are horrific, and assuming he is convicted, he should be treated as a criminal. His criminal business is an aberration, unlike any other proper women’s healthcare clinic, and his malfeasance should in no way be used as an excuse for denying women adequate healthcare and freedom of choice. Abortion is clearly the best choice and a moral alternative in many cases, and under proper control – and under the law – is permitted throughout the land.
Roger, the laws vary from state to state, Pennsylvania, where Gosnell practiced, sets a time limit of, I believe, 22 weeks, hence the charges against him.
I do not know the law, as to a time frame in Illinois, but why would a person object (as did then Senator Obama) to reasonable medical procedures being followed in the event that an abortion results in a live birth?
You seem willing to entertain that President Obama would have cast his Illinois vote based on worst imaginable motives. The majority of Americans give him the respect and confidence a President is due. We might both agree that every piece of legislation has context and consequences that could cause respectable folks to disagree – and offer research and opinion on both sides of an old Illinois debate. We might amicably disagree not only about Obama, but also about abortion and the “silence” of the “liberal” media on a case that has more to do with criminal aberrant behavior than women’s healthcare or Obama.
Roger stated: Obama…worst imaginable motives
I made no comment regarding his motives.
He supports unrestrained abortion rights for women, unfortunately with that position gosnells are going to occur in Philadelphia, Michigan (as linked to earlier) and in Illinois.
But I do appreciate the discussion. Above in this thread, I quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer a man with whom I am confident you are familiar. He found Biblical justification to participate in a murder plot against Hitler. That was not an easy choice for him, as it conflicted with his Christianity.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how someone could argue in favor of withholding medical treatment from a baby, when that baby is apparently viable.
Roger stated: Gosnell… His criminal business is an aberration,
Unfortunately Roger, it may be more common then we think:
Muskegon Abortion Clinic
1000 words is hardly adequate to go into the depth of this subject. As you know when something hits the news and becomes widely known, other people will come forward with similar stories or occurrences. I do believe that was a factor that paid into the lack of coverage.
The fact is the horrors are happening and the government that made this law seems to be very lacking on providing regulation in this industry. Planned Parenthood is making $500,000,000,000.00 per year killing baby’s. Where there is big money changing hands there will be greed. Gosnell got away with this because his business was never inspected by government regulators. This failure to act really makes the government a party to the murders. Gonsness should have been put out of business years ago. I wonder how many children were killed that we will never know about due to records being destroyed?
Correction half a billion not half a trillion.
Watching: No one debates that Gosnell’s acts are criminal, nor that he should never have gotten away with even one such horrific procedure. But your use of “killing baby’s” in the wider sense to describe all abortions is an unwarranted judgmental description of a moral and legal act, supported by a vast majority of Americans. Your facts here are incomplete, and your numbers are wrong.
Please Roger, if you are not killing baby’s then what are you doing? Changing the word baby to “Fetus”, “It”, does not change the fact that a life is being terminated at the hands of another. Please don’t tell me it is not a life until born, that would be medically incorrect also. The left makes it sound better by changing the words, the fact does not change.
We will both agree that much more is at stake here than words. We will have to agree to disagree, hopefully peacefully and with some modicum of respect. I’ve written enough here – Roger and out.
Dennis I do believe your article did bring out how devisive this issue is. I happen to agree that women have the choice. But when does that choice stop. Many states do have laws with time limits. The comments show the divide on this issue. But it does appear the issue has become you Dennis writing the article. I know what your intent is and it was explained very well. I totally agree with the way you presented this very difficult issue.
Bob said: But it does appear the issue has become you Dennis writing the article
I would disagree Bob. I think the Gosnell situation put’s the ‘Choicers’ in a very difficult situation as they have to face the ‘choice’ so many people are willing to make. The media refused to cover this tragedy and exposing this, as Kirsten Powers, did was very commendable
Fact: Conservative media, such as it is, didn’t cover the story either. Not until they could add a high pitched whine to the storyline.
Dennis I made that statement based on some of the comments. What you said is true and should not be overlooked. Exposing this as Powers article did made media outlets look bad. It just appeared that some of the comments were on the defense and were angry it was even being talked about.
Bob, I missed the comment that you referred to, but just now saw it, that is to be expected.
It must be very difficult to support unrestrained abortion rights, while numerous Gosnell’s are out there, thus those who deliver the message are either ignored, in hopes they go away, or attacked, which remains the only other weapon.
Let’s say for example that a particular state law says a baby is not viable until 24 weeks. So what happens between 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes and the actual 24 weeks that makes the baby all of a sudden viable. It makes no sense. It is a baby with a heartbeat, two hands, two feet, two eyes, etc. It is a human being. I would bet that many women would choose differently if they saw an ultrasound of the baby before the procedure to kill it.
Again, if a single cell organism was found on another planet, the scientific community would go nuts saying we found “LIFE” on another planet. A baby in a woman’s belly is a life. You can spin it any way you want, but that is just the fact. We all find ways to justify what works for us, be it morally, ethically or what ever. It’s a whole lot less of an inconvenience to use a condom or birth control than to go through an abortion. I know of many women who have had them. Not one of them doesn’t regret it in one way or another.
Well put view JLB!
Any WOMEN have a comment? Just wondering…
I find it stunning that that all the commenters on this topic are men. Did it ever occur to any of you who don’t have a clue what it’s like to carry a child or have to make the decision to end a pregnancy that even though a women’s right to choose what to do with her body and pregnancy, regardless of what any of you think, is “the law” of the land and has been for 40 years. The women who went to this butcher were probably coming from one of the many states where the neanderthals have basically rendered a woman’s decision over what to do with their body impossible. Make abortion illegal again and Dr. Death will be the tip of the iceberg.
I guess you have missed that this is happening in many states and has apparently been for several years. To use a term borrowed from Hillary Clinton, “what does it matter” what sex the poster happens to be? Anybody ever think about the baby? BTW, it is against the law to abort a baby outside of the womb which is what was charged here and alleged in three other states. What is next, parent not able to handle 2am feelings so a postpartum abortion at 2 month old?
Another man with a crazy extreme right-wing extrapolation, like, hmm, Obama is Hitler. Clearly reality eludes them.
like, hmm, Obama is Hitler.
Where in this thread is Obama compared to Hitler?
Different thread, and all the time in the real world.
Some crib deaths are actually domestic executions. Parents are to be pitied as much as babies.
Proud American said: Make abortion illegal again…
Nowhere in my column did I imply that abortion should be illegal, nor do I feel it should be.
This piece deals strictly with late term abortions (about 22 weeks +). It is unfortunate that a woman would decide to terminate her pregnancy, but there are many reasons why she would choose to do so. It is not unreasonable to ask her to decide sooner rather than later.
This piece also deals more specifically with the termination of life after a failed abortion (odd though it is to term a new life as a ‘failure’), this action should be illegal in all states where humanity is respected.
I would ask you this: In the case of a fetus, emerging via a botched abortion alive and apparently as healthy as one may expect from after a 24-26 week gestation, should the Doctor be required by law to provide health services to maintain that life?
That has nothing to do with restricting a woman’s right to an abortion.
Dennis,
The other thing you did was to highlight the question of why the story has been ignored by the main stream press. If Dr. Gosnell had stolen babies from a hospital nursery and killed them the story would have been front page news everywhere. Even those on the left should ask themselves why this has been so and what else is the media not reporting?
You’re right Reg. Thanks.
Looking again at what I said to Proud American, ‘strictly’ was meant to apply to the question of abortion, and not to the full subject matter of the piece.
It seems inevitable that abortion clinics must fail now and then to terminate gestation early enough to prevent a viable “preemie” from coming into the world. That makes opportunity for cooperation between clinics and adoption agencies, state, county or private. First, of course, the unwanted infant must be stabilized and supported to adoptable age and strength. There might need to be assistance from multiple sources, starting with the nearest hospital and local social-services. Murder must be avoided.
Proud, I think the issue is this: women have a right to control and seek medical help for THEIR bodies. But should women control the right for other bodies to live?
It takes the wisdom of Solomon to figure this one. Clearly, life can live within a woman. Therefore, two lives are at issue. The question remains “is the second life human?”
If you believe the life is not human, abort away. If the life is human, shouldn’t laws protect a human life? The Supreme Court has ruled that women can determine whether this life can continue for a period of time. It is settled law. But it does not settle the issue from a moral or ethical view point. That is the debate here. Women will be able to end the lives that exist within them, but is it correct or moral to do so?
At the very least, I believe that the “choice” mentality has cheapened the value of human life and made the role of the man diminished. After all, the baby’s life is a woman’s only choice. Our society has suffered socially with the diminished role of fathers and cheapening value of human life.
Matter, it’s less a matter of fetuses’ humanity than lack of sociality and conceptuality. They are not yet “persons.” While they register pain, clearly they do not “know what it is” or “who suffers it.” They are human organisms but not yet human “selves.”
Mr. Shelby,
Apparently you believe one human life has more value than another human life. I can accept that as a philosophy but disagree with you. I value human life; all human life. Whether a life continues is not a matter of choice, I believe.
All that being said, the practice of abortion is legal and will remain so. I just hope this legal procedure becomes very rare. To cheapen the value of life has a major impact on society as a whole, as I stated earlier.
One last comment on this thread then off to other matters. For those that have brought up “It’s the law” I would ask that you consider other laws we’ve had in this country as well as the effects of the law. Remember that slavery was allowed under the law, marriage between races was unlawful, women at one point in our history could not vote, and for those on the left an example of an effect of the law….Remember that the population and electorate were ignored not long ago and “One” Justice of the Supreme Court picked who the President of the United States was going to be. Laws are as flawed as the people that write them. The current POTUS even disregards laws he does not believe in even though he is sworn to uphold them. Not a perfect system, we as citizens need to look at laws that cause so much stir in our society and decide if they are necessary or correct…..
It seems we do not much disagree that women have some rights including primary decision over their part in child-bearing. In the classical world, fathers had absolute say during early months over the infant’s fitness to survive and enter society. This say included determination of the family’s ability to muster the social support and nutritive sustenance for raising a child, or another child, in the current conditions of the community, i.e., whether the city was in a state of famine or siege. By the start of a second year, decision rested deliberatively with a council of elders in the family’s “clan” or “sub-tribe.” A mother might advocate or appeal, but with negative ruling the infant or sub-toddler was terminally exposed to the elements on a mountain side, in order to spare the family and community from the burden of raising a defective member.
Among us, the patriarchal paradigm has subsided. Women are much more important, though not yet comfortably equal in fact. This is in spite of our laws that aim toward equality for them. All of us largely agree that abortion is not widely desirable and should remain a last resort. This discounts the woman’s view of her circumstance, health, maternal ability and prospect. Quite rightly, women don’t like their views ignored, for who can know better their immediate conditions, wishes or prospects?
We all agree that Dr. Gosnell’s actions have gone over the line from good medicine into crime. Killing a postpartum infant seems murderous, but what of a society that makes inadequate effort toward rescue and adoption of the superfluous and unwanted? Half our culture seems increasingly inclined to ignore the individual and special in favor of the categorical. Maybe this explains why we lack research and report on what decides so many women to turn to someone like Gosnell. We can agree on what motivates media silence. But, what made women wait so long as to risk live birth at an abortion clinic? Their state laws? Fathers’ opposition? Delayed financing? Vacillation? Can it be that Gosnell and some mothers find themselves in a legal “Catch-22” or “No Exit” situation?
We all agree that the whole thing is a sad affair. How can it be improved upon and the worst prevented? Does it really suffice to brand women immoral who get pregnant accidentally or who wait too long to decide on abortion? Our personal inclinations to judge one way or another solve nothing for actual people involved. Consensus among us is thwarted by words that rouse inappropriate perception and feeling. Abuse of words follows from ignorance of real-life structure and process — the untainted facts. Babies are never found in women’s bellies. They are in mothers’ arms. There are no unborn babies. No living fetus is found outside a woman’s belly. Euphemisms notwithstanding, denotative words have non-mental reference. Otherwise we enter upon insane circularities that can roll us over cliffs of incommunication.
Shelby I do not generally agree with your statements. But I must say I do believe you understand what Dennis was saying.
Very enlightened of you, B.L.!
Dennis posted this in other thread, but I think it’s very illuminating and wanted to apply it to a theory I have about this and every one of his columns:
“‘While the facts were fabricated, in the pretzel logic of progressives, the attitude was right because it necessarily captured the true intent and attitudes and “spirit” of desired goals. For progressives, there is no alternate explanation for opposing views. Since progressive views reflect a state of enlightenment, opposing views must be the product of evil intent.’
“That succinctly sums up why those on the political left remain silent in the face of so many wrongs, they assume that those errors are based on good intent, thus they look away and ignore ‘sins’ of omission and naiveté. When those whom they oppose do the same, then the ‘sin’ is blown out of proportion based on the assumption of evil intent.”
I think you can substitute “conservative” for “progressive” and be just as accurate. And I think this is what Dennis does 95% of the time — assume the worst of Democrats while overlooking or dismissing bad acts by Republicans. It’s what many partisans do, and it’s very transparent (even if we struggle to define it), and it’s why so many people simple tune out or refuse to be a part of the political process.
It’s a natural way of looking at the world, but it’s inherently unfair.
RA stated: this is what Dennis does 95% of the time — assume the worst of Democrats while overlooking or dismissing bad acts by Republicans
The first Presidential candidate I voted for was George McGovern and I voted Democrat until Bill Clinton came along. I witnessed a lot of things that made me realize that the Democrat Party was undeserving of my vote:
Ted Kennedy destroyed Robert Bork based all on lies.
Bill and Hillary “stand by your man” speech — all lies.
Clarence Thomas’ “Modern day’ lynching – accusations against him all lies
Bill Clinton – “I did not have sex with that….” All lies
Waco – (we covered that earlier)
Fast forward and it continues:
Fast and Furious – The lies obfuscations continue to this day
ObamaCare – “Not a Tax” – Lies
Benghazi – All Lies from:
Hillary – It was a video. What difference does it make??
Rice – “It was a video”
Obama – “It was a video”
Carney – “It was a long time ago”
Kerry – “I’ve got better things to do”
I would ask you to name a “bad act” of a Republican that I have stood in support of or ignored, and do not be so predictable as to mention the Iraq War, recall that was supported by most democrats as well, including the Clintons, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others.
Also wrote a piece for the Herald in which I listed numerous issues or actions of George Bush to which I took exception. I have yet to read any issue from any of the Obamites that post here or the local columnists that have ever stated a disagreement with the Chosen One.
Prove me wrong on that point.
Thank you for proving my point.
Your point was not proved at all, nor did you offer any evidence to dispute the closing of my statement.
Nothing you wrote above disproves my contention about your work. You have a very selective view of history, and you take positions based on bad evidence, like George Bush stumbling into Iraq, or in rejection of perceived progressive positions — a knee-jerk partisan response. This is an honest assessment, not a personal attack.
RA Stated: you take positions based on bad evidence
In the hundreds of postings made to my online columns, I am trying to recall a single post refuting my position where evidence has been provided contradicting facts presented on substantive issues.
I well understand how the evaluation of facts may differ, thus differing conclusions being the resultant, that is an entirely different matter.
Excellent Dennis. All very accurate and timely. Thank you.
Thanks Bob.
Roger Straw posted on May 4: “Abortion is clearly the best choice and a moral alternative in many cases, and under proper control – and under the law – is permitted throughout the land.”
Apparently Mr. Straw is ‘lost in his own premise’ that “abortion is the best choice and a moral alternative in many cases.” The Gosnell murders are clear proof that the existing law giving women the right to an abortion is definitely not “under proper [or lawful] control.”
As Watching posted on May 4: “Gosnell got away with this because his business was never inspected by government regulators.” [As was posted elsewhere here, Pennsylvania had a Republican governor while Gosnell’s butchery was being officially ignored.] In the final analysis, this issue is not about politics; it’s about morality.
But politicians of every stripe love to act like arbiters of other people’s morals. Hence, here in the State of California, AB 154 will soon allow nurses, midwives and physician assistants to perform aspiration abortions. As I recall, back before Roe v. Wade, many botched abortions were performed by moonlighting hospital interns (physician assistants). Who needs Planned Parenthood when you can get the job done at your local pet store?
“Who needs Planned Parenthood when you can get the job done at your local pet store?” Somebody else just got lost in their own premise. That lovely picture you paint is precisely why we need Planned Parenthood. Thanks for illustrating the need so graphically.
You are correct. This is why we need parental guidance and not some outside group deciding what is correct. Yes I do believe it is a womens choice. But there are also choices before the pregnancy happens. That is when the choice should be made and is the best choice. No need for Gosnell.
Parental guidance is not always available or desirable. Planned Parenthood is a godsend.
RA:Planned Parenthood is a godsend.
Some how I have doubts that God sent Planned parenthood to do much of the work that they do.
Somehow I doubt you know anything about Planned Parenthood at all.
RA – I assume you are using “‘godsend” as a figure of speech. It surely cannot have been meant to be literal.
You assume correctly.
Bruce Robinson (optimisterb): I disagree thoroughly. Please don’t take my comment out of context.
Reverend Straw I do not believe Bruce took your comments out of context. You did state them. Reverend as I have said before I do believe a woman has a choice. That choice is taught and developed over many years. The choice is now a big choice. Before or after. I like the before choice. There are many before choices and some after choices. Try the before choice and then if necessary move to the after choice. If the after choice is not done with proper timing then we move to a very difficult choice which could have been prevented with proper parental and counciling for the female. It is available at a very young age in schools all over this country. In fact it is promoted just like a football game. So as far as I am concerned Plannned Parenthood should change their name to Planned Abortion and not Planned Parenthood. So why should a young person even worry? Planned Parenhood is there to solve the problem. I am sorry this discussion is sickening and not at all moving toward solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Just think about that Reverend Straw.
So what you’re saying is, let’s eliminate the safety net so kids make more responsible choices?
Yeah, um, no. And let’s be clear: Very little of what Planned Parenthood does involves abortion or abortion counseling. This is an ironclad fact. Anyone who has been to a Planned Parenthood office knows this immediately. So we have a lot of uneducated people throwing around a lot of incendiary charges that simply have no basis in fact.
That said, why shouldn’t they include good, factual information about abortion in their counseling? Why should that be off the table? IT’S LEGAL. Educate yourself at plannedparenthood.org
300,000 Abortions. Sounds to me like they are very involved in abortion.
I have. The latest number is right at 334,000 abortions a year and rising.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/06/abortion_accounts_for_only_three_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services.html
“three percent of it’s services”
That number is a misleading statistic, as a women going to planned parent hood receives multiple services (breast exam’s, prenatal visits, etc.) One needs to consider how many abortions are provided per patient, not per “services”.
If one takes that into consideration, the number more than triples to 10% or more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
You use your metric, I’ll use the conventional and more realistic one. Regardless, those who would defund PP would deprive women of the other 90-97 percent of its services. That is unconscionable.
Bob,
Here are some numbers to consider for Planned parenthood America’s top abortion provider:
Planned Parenthood income from US Tax dollars (2008 to 2012): $1,800,000,000 (1.8 Billion)
Planned parenthood total profit for those years: $324,000,000 (324 Million)
Planned Parenthood’s top officers for this ‘nonprofit’ made over $2 million in 2010:
• Cecile Richards, President $353,819
• Maryana Iskander, Chief Operating Officer: $288,886
• Maria Acosta, Chief Financial Officer: $263,443
• Vanessa Cullins, VP of Medical Affairs: $257,115
• Barbara Otten, VP of General Counsel: $251,379
• Laurie Rubiner, VP of Public Policy: $248,438
• Karen Ruffatto, VP of Operations: $247,932
• Lisa David, VP of Affiliates: $245,322
For the year 2009 (numbers are rounded off):
Number of Prenatal services provided: 40,500
Number of prenatal patients: 7,000
Number of Abortions: 300,000
If one can find a bright side regarding abortion we can always find some small level of solace in the Roe effect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
“But when a representative of Planned Parenthood is caught on camera defending infanticide, it merits barely a mention in the mainstream media.
Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Jaws in the committee room dropped. Asked again, she repeated her answer.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Just to be clear here: You are in favor of allowing a baby, one who has survived a failed abortion attempt, to not receive any medical care to allow it to possibly live?
Just to be clear here: I am in favor of allowing those in the room — including and especially the physician and patient, and excluding old male legislators at a far remove — to make the best decision. And it cannot ever be any other way.
You are then taking a position more extreme than PP, as they later backed off of the position that was initially taken.
I find it troubling you would support a decision to allow a viable baby to die.
Since a woman should not be ‘punished with a baby’ in the case of a viable baby being born, what would the preferred method be of termination of life for the said baby?
Nonsense, but nice try. I’m not a doctor, and that’s the point. The decision isn’t, and shouldn’t, be mine — nor should it belong to those who put their moral outrage before medicine. The question of viability can only be determined by a doctor, not a moralizing preacher. Not a legislator. Not you. Not me.
Dennis, have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood clinic? For some of us, this debate is not academic. I think you should take a field trip and learn a thing or two.
Dennis, have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood clinic?
Yes I have.
For what purpose?
Not to be rude, but to be honest that is none of your business.
Fair enough. Listen, we’re not going to change each other’s minds on this. I would just urge anyone who is curious to learn the facts by going to plannedparenthood.org. This is an organization that does a world of good for women and it is wrongheaded in the extreme to target it for destruction — which I understand Dennis Lund is not advocating. Unfortunately, many are.
“none of your business” – About sums it up.
Choice starts before a man and woman have sex. Throughout life we are constantly presented with choices we must contend with. Should I have the choice to terminate a significant other that does not meet my needs? Should I have the choice to terminate the teacher or employer whom I do not care for? Should I have a choice to terminate a child who gets into trouble all the time while failing school? Of course these “Choices” are ridiculous and should never happen….wait, the man and woman having sex choice. There is a consequence for that choice that involves the possibility of procreation. Birth control works almost always, did they consider its use? I know this is a foreign subject to many progressives, same sex marriage thing does throw a rather large wrench into the cog. What if
Obama’s mother exercised this choice? Who would the MSM and progressives worship? Religious or atheist, in the eyes of god or in the eyes of the law does a person have the right to terminate the life of another. Each and every person reading this could have been an abortion but was not. What if you were, think about the outcome, all you have become would not exist, all you have touched would not know the feel, all that has happened because of you would never occur…Time to close your eyes and consider reality and our place…..
What if Lenin’s mother had an abortion?
Think of a mother having a misscarriage. “In a universe governed by god, there are no chance events”.