Category Archives: Abortion

Women’s Health And Safety Be Damned

An abortion training project for non-physicians has prompted Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo has issued a ruling that truly defies logic.

In his May 17 decision, Judge Evelio Grillo denied the Life Legal Defense Foundation’s petition for a writ of mandate to require release of the names of physicians, clinicians and stakeholders who participated in the pilot project conducted by the University of California San Francisco/Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health.

“[T]he court finds that the public interest in withholding the names of the Clinicians outweighs the public interest in disclosing those names,” the decision states. “First, there is a public interest in protecting persons who provide abortion services from harassment. … Second, the public has an interest in academic research, and that interest may be compromised if research participants cannot participate with the assurance that their privacy will be protected.”

The project itself is revealing. For years, abortion proponents have claimed that only by keeping abortion legal can women’s health and safety be protected, presumably because doctors could perform them without fear of prosecution. Now comes this push to allow nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and certified nurse midwives to perform abortions with as little as two day’s training. How’s that working out? 8,000 patients later, “…the project’s own documents show that the injury rate is 80 percent more than when physicians perform abortions….”

Now Judge Grillo has ruled that the privacy concerns of the project participants outweigh the safety concerns of patients. That seems backwards to me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion


Someone found my blog today with the search string, “cute abortion pictures.” Don’t even want to know. But, oh, hey, since we’re talking about abortion, I still think it’s wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion

There’s A New High Priestess In Town…

…And she’s ready to fulfill her sacred duty.

Melaney LintonA Planned Parenthood affiliate’s newest president and CEO said in an official statement that she regards her work for the biggest abortion business in America to be a holy profession.

Melaney Linton, who will now oversee Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, is determined to further the Life-ending work of Planned Parenthood:

“I am honored and humbled to be entrusted with such a sacred duty…I pledge to do everything in my power to fight back against the ideological attacks on Planned Parenthood and women, so that no teen will ever say she didn’t know how she got pregnant, no one will ever be denied basic reproductive health care, and no woman will ever be forced to bear children she cannot adequately support.” (full article)

There’s so much wrong with Ms. Linton’s statement, it’s hard to know where to start, so I’ll just focus on her “sacred duty.” I wonder which of these definitions she’s referencing.



1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.

One would hope that the people involved in providing abortions regard it as a necessary evil, but it appears that Ms. Linton regards it as a sacrament, in which case she is truly a High Priestess in the Church of Abortion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion

Sometimes It’s Not “Only Words”

I am pro-life. I oppose abortion under any circumstances, no matter how psychologically painful or even physically dangerous carrying a pregnancy to term might be for the mother. I am pro-life because I believe that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and that it’s always wrong to take an innocent human life. Did I not believe the first point to be true, my position would be different. When an unborn child is denied its humanity, there is no reason to protect it in the womb.

Let me repeat: I am pro-life because I believe that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception. These are not “only words” to me; in terms of their need to be loved, cherished and protected, I see no difference between an embryo, a fetus, a newborn and a toddler.

Recent conversations with both people who describe themselves as pro-choice and people who describe themselves as “pro-life,” have brought me to the conclusions that to many people, these are only words.

People who are pro-choice hear what I’m saying but have only a superficial understanding of my meaning; they still can’t understand why I want to deny women their “right to choose.” For these people, my words are only words. That’s to be expected; there’s no reason they should understand the depth of my belief and in not understanding, it’s no wonder that my position angers them.

More disturbing are self-described pro-lifers who agree that an unborn child is a human being, but would still grant a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy for so-called compassionate reasons – in cases of rape, incest or danger to her own life. For these people, their own words – their own beliefs, apparently – are only words. In the cases of rape and incest, people who would be horrified to see a ten-year-old jailed for the crimes of his father feel its acceptable for a ten-week-old fetus to be given the death penalty for the same, as if the circumstances surrounding an unborn child’s conception have a bearing on the value of its life. They would be shocked to see a mother put her five-year-old child between herself and an attacking dog, but also accept that same mother’s right to abort her five-month-old fetus for reasons of her own health.

To hold a pro-life position based on the humanity of the unborn child, while still wanting to allow  for abortion in certain circumstances is a position that cannot be supported through logic or reason.  Furthermore it’s my opinion that this position is less moral than that of the pro-choice individual who holds a sincere belief that the unborn child is lacking humanity.

In fact, I find it to be morally abhorrent; when I say I object to abortion as the unjustified taking of an innocent human life, it’s not “only words” to me.


Filed under Abortion, Christianity, Culture

$363 Million

Are the Democrats in Washington, D.C. really willing to deny pay to our servicemen and women over $363 million in funding for Planned Parenthood? Sadly, it appears so.

Thankfully, there’s a better way. Depending on the poll, roughly half of all Americans believe that abortion should be legal in “all or most cases.” Admittedly my math skills are weak but I believe that 50% of the 308,745,538 is Americans counted in the 2010 census is 154,372,769. If each of those people who apparently feel so strongly about a woman’s right to an abortion were to contribute just $2.35 to Planned Parenthood, the funding gap would vanish!

People who think Planned Parenthood provides valuable services can direct their dollars to its continued operation. People who have moral objections to abortion aren’t forced to fund them. This is the beauty and the logic of re-privatizing charity; people are free to direct their charitable contributions according to their own consciences. Win-win situation…what’s not to love?

Update 1: Ezra Klein of the Washington Post thinks Planned Parenthood is a swell organization because abortion accounts for only 3% of their services. Let’s look at what that means in human terms.

Because of Planned Parenthood, 899 babies won't be born today.

According to Ezra, Planned Parenthood claims to perform 220,000 abortions a year. That doesn’t quite jive with their 2008-2009 annual report (the most recent available). According to the report, they provided 10,943,609 services, with abortion accounting for 3% of the total or 328,308 abortions…meaning that Planned Parenthood performs 899 abortions every day; 37 every hour; one every 95 or so seconds.

But that’s a-okay with Ezra Klein because 3% is such a small number. (H/T The Other McCain)


Filed under Abortion

Knowing What’s Important

How perverted has feminism become – even the name of the movement implies, wrongly, it seems, a celebration of all things feminine – when a simple, spontaneous and beautiful expression reflecting the joy of becoming a mother could be considered wrong or controversial?

Read what Alexa Shrugged has to say about it.

Congratulations to Ms. Portman on her Oscar win and for understanding, even in the midst of the Hollywood insanity, what things are really important.

1 Comment

Filed under Abortion, Pop Culture, Pro-Life

Again I Ask, Who’s Extreme?

Unwilling to run on her lackluster record, Patty Murray has resorted to a series of misleading and dishonest ads attacking Dino Rossi for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the issues about which people are most concerned. Her latest ad attempts to paint Rossi as an extremist who will turn back the clock on abortion rights.

As I see it, are two extremes in the abortion debate. On the pro abortion side, the extreme position advocates the right to abortion for any person – even minors – for any reason, at any time during gestation up to and including partial birth abortions. In this world view, the right to an abortion is inalienable and requires government protection and facilitation through funding and coercion of health care workers who have sincerely held conscience objections.

On the pro life side, the extreme position advocates the right to life for every human being from the moment of conception. In this world view, abortions would be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, or when the life of the mother would be endangered by a pregnancy. Conscience objections would be protected.

So let’s compare the positions of Patty Murray and “Turn Back the Clock” Dino Rossi.

Rossi opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. This moves him towards the center, away from the extreme pro-life position.

On the other hand, Patty Murray has, apparently, never met an abortion she wasn’t willing to protect with legislation. She voted against the ban on the barbarous procedure rather euphemistically known as partial birth abortion and against conscience protections for health care workers. Try as I might, I’ve been unable to find any scrap of evidence to support moving Murray towards the center on this issue.

If you don’t agree that Murray’s position is extreme, tell me…what, exactly, would constitute an extreme position on abortion?


Filed under 2010 Senate Races, Abortion, Dino Rossi, Patty Murray, Pro-Life, Washington

Of Bishops and Congressmen

You may have seen news stories over the weekend about the controversy surrounding Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and the Bishop’s request that Kennedy refrain from taking communion because of his publicly stated pro-choice stance.

As a result of the controversy, Bishop Tobin appeared on “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” For those of you who can’t bear to watch Chris Matthews, I sympathize – I couldn’t watch the entire thing myself. Fortunately, the part I found really interesting was right at the beginning. The segment started with a clip of John F. Kennedy speaking to Ministerial Association of Greater Houston on September 12, 1960.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.

Matthews assertion, of course, was that the Bishop’s request that Kennedy not take communion was tantamount to imposing the will of the Catholic Church “upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.”

From my perspective, Bishop Tobin isn’t seeking to influence Kennedy on public policy so much as he is defining what it means to be Catholic. Isn’t that the right of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter? Of what use is a church that’s uncommitted to its own doctrine? Jesus had something to say about it in the Sermon on the Mount.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.  ~Matthew 5:13 KJV

That makes it rather clear that a church is obligated to teach and apply doctrine to the best of its understanding. Having been raised in the Catholic Church, Kennedy must have known what he was risking when he chose to support the pro-choice position. My Catholic friends tell me that any Catholic who publicly challenged church doctrine on the abortion issue could face the same restriction; Kennedy’s not been singled out for special treatment.

For someone who apparently has so little regard for church teaching, one has to wonder why he’s chosen to make a public issue out of what should have been a private matter, especially now, at least two years after the fact. The Boston Herald provides some insight.

“I thought they were pro-life. If the Church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health-care reform because it’s going to provide health care that (is) going to keep people alive,” Kennedy told the Catholic News Service in October, less than two months after the death of his father, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

It appears as though Chris Matthews may have it exactly backwards. Rather than Bishop Tobin trying to influence Kennedy, perhaps Kennedy is using Tobin’s genuine pastoral concern to try turn public opinion against those Bishops who are opposing the Democrats health care reform plans. Advice for the Congressman: Tread carefully; God will not be used.


1 Comment

Filed under Abortion, Christianity, Health Care

Is Patty Murray Really Pro-Choice?

On Thursday, Patty Murray voted against the Coburn amendment to S.Con.Res.13, the Senate budget bill. The Coburn amendment would have protected health care professional from employment discrimination if they refused to participate in medical procedures or dispense drugs for which they hold moral or religious objections.

Patty Murray’s vote against this amendment should come as no surprise. It’s not as though she was just going along to get along. Last November, she co-sponsored a bill with then-Senator Hillary Clinton that would have prevented the Bush administration from granting new protections to those workers.

It’s time to drop the pretense that Patty Murray is really “pro-choice.” If she were, she would value the rights of everyone to choose whether or not to have an abortion or be involved in performing one. Instead, she callously affirms the right of women to seek abortions at the expense of the rights of those who have sincerely held objections. So…Patty Murray; pro-choice or just pro-abortion?


Filed under Abortion, Patty Murray

Choices Have Consequences

Happy Birthday

Leave a comment

Filed under Abortion, Pro-Life