Patterico's Pontifications

7/1/2014

Today in Failed Criticism from the Left

Filed under: Abortion,Court Decisions,General — JVW @ 10:56 am

[guest post by JVW]

How many of you have seen this recent image bouncing around the Internet? It was apparently created by the deep thinkers at NARAL Pro-Choice America and has been promoted by the DailyKos and Huffington Post among others.

NARAL

The idea, naturally, is to call attention to the idea that Christian groups who object to covering contraception and/or abortifacients are somehow being hypocritical if they have no objection to also covering Viagra or other erectile dysfunction treatment medication.

I’m going to pull back the curtain here and divulge a hitherto super-secret and never disclosed principle of Catholic theology [did the sarcasm come through enough there?] which explains why covering Viagra is acceptable whereas covering birth control pills is not, and I think this principle is also adopted by other religious groups who follow the same standard:

Viagra is used to facilitate a process which can lead to conception.

Birth control pills are used to prevent conception.

It really is as basic as that, but somehow this simple concept is way beyond the comprehension of the gender politics warriors whose voices dominate public discourse in these matters.

- JVW

2/9/2012

Austin Teacher Charged with Giving Morning-After Pill to Student

Filed under: Abortion,General — Patterico @ 7:18 am

In Austin, a teacher gives one of her students the “morning after” pill — and it doesn’t work out so well:

Steinberg, who also was a math teacher at LBJ, gave the pill to a 16-year-old student who was crying in her class about Jan. 26 because she had unprotected sex with her boyfriend, [an arrest] affidavit said.

. . . .

The student did not have a prescription for the medication, which is required for females younger than 17, the affidavit said.

The student and her boyfriend then gave Steinberg money for the medication, the affidavit said.

. . . .

Later, the student texted Steinberg and said she was nauseous, light-headed and experiencing back pain, the affidavit said. The student also said she was frightened, the affidavit said.

Steinberg texted back “this was normal, and to take a hot shower and relax,” the affidavit said.

Dr. Steinberg — oh, I mean NON-Dr. Steinberg — has learned her lesson:

Steinberg “expressed anger at (the student), blaming her for getting in trouble,” the affidavit said.

Or not.

Steinberg has been charged with a felony. I say: good. Will abortion advocates agree with me?

Somehow I doubt it. I am thinking this is going to be one of those instances where abortion advocates support an action they would never support in any other context. Normally, rational people say that you don’t give a child prescription medication that could have serious side effects unless you’re a doctor. But abortion advocates will no doubt see this as different: a horrible situation caused by a draconian law, blah blah blah.

The same thing happens with informed consent laws. Want to make a doctor tell his patients what the gall bladder surgery really entails? What the potential risks are? What the patient is truly about to undergo? Excellent. Want to make sure abortion doctors do the same? OH MY GOD YOU CAN’T DO THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU ARE A TROGLODYTE. Is the response.

It’s OK if you’re supporting abortion.

So. Let’s wait and watch to see if this becomes a big story. And if it does, how the pro-abortion crowd (yes, I said it) responds. A new right to have your child’s teacher become a doctor dispensing potentially harmful medication? I bet they’re for it.

RELATED: Or perhaps they are just counting on the Obama administration’s mandate that healthcare plans provide the morning after pill — a requirement that could force religiously-affiliated hospitals to provide medication that they consider to be immoral.

1/3/2012

Accepted Wisdom™ on How to Properly React to the Death of a Fetus or Infant

Filed under: Abortion,Accepted Wisdom,General,Scum — Patterico @ 12:22 am

(Accepted Wisdom™ is an occasional feature of this site, highlighting contradictory viewpoints held by the elite.)

It is Accepted Wisdom™ that:

If a woman decides to end her pregnancy, no matter how developed the fetus is, and no matter how frivolous the reasoning, that is her choice, dammit. If she decides to kill an 8-month-old fetus because the birth of the child might personally embarrass her, then how dare you criticize her, mister!

And at the same time:

If a family wants a child, and the baby is born but dies 2 hours into his young life — and the family chooses to bring the boy home to introduce the child to the rest of the family, then bwahahahahahaha. Pro-life freak. Let’s all point and laugh!


12/28/2011

Rick Perry Changes His Mind on Abortion — Does This Really Matter?

Filed under: 2012 Election,Abortion — Patterico @ 12:07 pm

Via Hot Air, the lazy blogger’s gold mine of blogging material, comes news that Rick Perry has just changed his mind on abortion in the case of rape or incest. He’s against it:

Perry said the change came after seeing the “Gift of Life” film produced by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He told an audience of Iowans at Clark Electric Co-op in Osceola that he was moved by the story of a woman who introduced the film during a screening earlier this month in Des Moines.

“She said, ‘I am the product of rape.’ And she said ‘my life has worth,’” Perry said of his exchange with the woman. “It was a powerful moment.”…

[Pastor Joshua] Verwers said after the event that he was initially skeptical of Perry’s flip on the position but that the governor’s answer was “too perfect” and “sincere” to have come from anywhere but Perry’s own heart.

Although the natural tendency is to be skeptical, I think it is possible for people to change their minds on even important issues like this late in life. I can also see both sides of this difficult issue, having both met decent people who are the product of rape, and being acutely aware (mostly through my wife’s work) of people who are impregnated after a rape.

Ethically, the case for allowing the woman to choose after she is the victim of a violent crime is, to my way of thinking, clearly much stronger. Something very much akin to self-defense comes into play, and the prospect of the state denying a rape victim access to at least an early-term abortion will make many uncomfortable. On the other hand, I would like for people to have the chance to persuade even a rape victim to keep the baby. I don’t see where such pro-life measures should be prohibited — and they certainly have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Ultimately, Rick Perry’s personal opinion on abortion matters far less than the constitutional views of the justices he would appoint. A Rick Perry justice (or a Mitt Romney justice) would be far more likely to take a proper constitutionalist approach to such matters than, say, a justice appointed by Barack Obama.

CLIMBS ON SOAPBOX: If you care about the Constitution, always, always remember that virtually any Republican candidate will do better on Supreme Court appointments than Obama would.

If you don’t care about the Constitution, of course, then feel free to be petulant and stay home if you don’t get your way in the primaries.

CLIMBS DOWN FROM SOAPBOX . . . BUT KEEPS IT WITHIN REACH

3/31/2011

Three Short Films About Media Matters

Filed under: Abortion,Media Bias — Stranahan @ 6:07 am

[Guest Post by Lee Stranahan]

(Thanks to Hot Air for the link. Also — Media Matters is on the attack against me — read their response here.)

Media Matters for America is a well funded, well organized and effective truth killing machine. Here are three short films I’ve made in the past few days to expose their techniques.

Yesterday, I did a film showing how Media Matters used deceptive editing techniques on the Fox / Bill Sammon story. This story has been all over the left wing blogosphere – if you haven’t seen the original piece that MMfA did, it’s here. Gotcha journalism at its worst. Here’s my video on it.

The next video shows how Media Matters used the ‘straw man’ fallacy to attempt to discredit the piece published by Lila Rose yesterday on the Mammosham story. As I say in the video, your position on the controversial issue of abortion doesn’t really matter here – Media Matters are contemptible news twisters.

But – who cares? So Media Matters lies. You know that so why does it matter? That’s what my second video is about. It matter because they have influence on the media narrative today and through the effective use of SEO techniques, they are also writing tomorrow’s ‘history book’. Watch and see what I mean.

- Lee Stranahan

6/29/2010

Is This the Kagan Smoking Gun?

Filed under: Abortion,Judiciary,Politics — DRJ @ 7:32 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

NRO’s Shannen W. Coffin has a major story that impacts the Kagan confirmation hearings, and PowerLine’s John Hinderaker summarizes it: While working in the Clinton White House, Elena Kagan was apparently responsible for getting the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) — “a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ organization” — to replace its initial statement on partial birth abortion:

[ACOG] “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

With the following statement:

[The partial-birth-abortion procedure] “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

Read both links for the details of Kagan’s role in producing the ACOG statement, a role that Hinderaker says could be a “gigantic scientific deception:”

“Unless there is some other interpretation of these documents that does not occur to me, it appears that Elena Kagan participated in a gigantic scientific deception. On behalf of the Clinton White House, she deliberately subverted what was supposed to be an objective scientific process. The ACOG report was certainly seen in that light by the federal courts. Federal Judge Richard Kopf was deeply impressed by the scientific integrity of the report; he wrote:

“Before and during the task force meeting,” he concluded, “neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed” in the ACOG statement.

This statement was obviously false. The federal courts were victimized by a gross deception and a perversion of both the scientific process and the judicial process, carried out, the evidence appears to show, by Elena Kagan.”

Hopefully Senator Lindsey Graham and his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are reading and listening.

– DRJ

3/21/2010

Senate Bill Passed by House

Filed under: Abortion,Health Care — DRJ @ 7:57 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Senate health care bill passed 219-212 in the House. Thirty-four Democrats voted against it.

The Republicans have submitted a Motion to Recommit that addresses the tenuous nature of handling abortion via an Executive Order. It’s not clear what the provisions of the Motion are — whether it addresses abortion alone or other issues — but it appears to be limited to abortion. That could be a problem for the Democrats.

You can watch the Motion to Recommit on CSPAN.

EDIT: The Motion to Recommit failed.

– DRJ

3/12/2010

Democrats may have Health Care Deal; Choose Student Loans Over Babies

Filed under: Abortion,Health Care — DRJ @ 6:58 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP reports House Democrats may pass health care reform next week following agreements today that call for more federal spending on student loans:

“Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama’s health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand.

“It won’t be long,” before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She said neither liberals’ disappointment over the lack of a government health care option nor a traditional mistrust of the Senate would prevent passage in the House.
***
The decision to add far-reaching student aid changes to the bill had its roots in obscure parliamentary rules governing the Senate’s debate of the legislation. But House Democrats and the White House quickly seized on it as a way to advance a top administration priority that lacks the 60 votes needed to clear the Senate otherwise.

The measure would require the government to originate student loans, closing out a role for banks and other private lenders who charge a fee. Obama proposed taking the savings and plowing it into higher Pell Grants that go to needy college students.

Officials said that under current estimates, the change would free as much as $66 billion over a decade, although Pelosi indicated she wanted it spread beyond Pell Grants to other education programs.”

Increased student loan spending added to a health care bill gave Republicans another reason to oppose Democratic-backed legislation:

“Well of course it’s a very bad idea,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We now have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and they do want to take over the student loan business.”

He said it was symptomatic of Democrats’ determination to have the government expand its tentacles into absolutely everything.”

Only liberals could believe more federal spending will get people to agree to more federal spending, but the really big news is Rep. Bart Stupak’s belief that Democrats want federal funding for abortion because they know the government can’t afford to pay for more health care:

“Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Margaret Sanger (and others) would be pleased.

H/T Drudge Report.

– DRJ

1/29/2010

Roeder Convicted in Murder of Abortion Doctor

Filed under: Abortion,Crime — DRJ @ 3:43 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Jurors in Wichita, Kansas, took only 37 minutes to convict Scott Roeder for the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

“The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder for putting a gun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and pulling the trigger.

Defense attorney Mark Rudy described his case as helpless and hopeless.

“I’ve never seen anyone lay himself out as much as Mr. Roeder did,” Rudy said after the verdict, referring to his client’s confessions.”

Roeder claimed he acted to protect the lives of unborn children who were in “immediate danger” because of Tiller. His attorneys hoped for a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, “a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.” The Judge ruled the manslaughter charge could not be submitted to the jury because Roeder failed to show Tiller constituted an imminent threat.

Roeder could receive a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. The prosecutor may also seek a so-called “Hard 50″ sentence that would require Roeder “serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.”

– DRJ

1/26/2010

The Tebow Super Bowl Ad

Filed under: Abortion,Sports — DRJ @ 4:31 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Super Bowl XLIV pits Drew Brees and the New Orleans Saints against Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts. It’s scheduled for February 7, 2010, so the famous Super Bowl ads haven’t even aired yet, but there will be added interest this year — especially from abortion advocates and their pro-life opponents — because of the Tebow ad:

“The 30-second spot, paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow’s turbulent pregnancy in 1987:

When Tebow suffered from a dangerous infection during a mission trip to the Philippines, doctors recommended that she terminate her pregnancy, fearing she might die in childbirth. But she carried Tim to term, and he went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy and guide the Florida Gators to two BCS championships.

It’s a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to “throw women under the bus.”

The Women’s Media Center, the National Organization for Women, and other abortion groups have initiated an online petition and letter-writing campaign asking CBS to pull the ad as too controversial:

“Greene, of the Women’s Media Center, says CBS should simply follow its own example and ban advocacy ads from its airwaves.

“CBS has a very long history of prohibiting advocacy ads that it deems controversial,” she said, listing banned commercials from PETA, MoveOn.org and the United Church of Christ. “We are calling them out for the hypocrisy and bias in making the decision to air an ad that clearly is on a controversial issue.”

Reportedly CBS is “not backing down,” releasing a statement that says, “At CBS, our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a process that ensures all ads — on all sides of an issue — are appropriate for air.”

– DRJ

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1814 secs.