I was instantly cheered when I read some of the readers' comments on the Seattle PI's latest Plan B editorial.
My favorite response:
Posted by cps at 8/24/07 9:39 p.m.
So, I'm confused now after reading this. I'm assuming that implantation means implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus?
If that is the definition of when life starts at implantation, as stated by Ms. Page from birthcontrolwatch.org, then any termination of life after that would be murder. I thought that most pro-abortion advocates defined the beginning of life to be at birth, thus removing the murder arguement.
WTF??? Are we murdering live individuals who just happen to be living in cramped quarters?
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Romney is no Reagan When it Comes to Abortion
First we had Giuliani and his Washington state supporters aping Reagan with this line — “My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy“ – a line falsely attributed to Reagan. Now we have Romney claiming that his change of heart on abortion is similar to Reagan’s. Romney says his position is, ”exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.” Washington state republicans took up the same line in favor of Romney at the Evergreen Leadership Conference earlier this year and continue to try and sell it to us to this day as Garry Pagon says in this post – ”Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation when he was governor of California, and only later changed his mind to become a champion for the right to life as President. If we cannot rally and welcome new converts to the cause, we will never have the political strength we need to change the law.”
Like the Giuliani 80/20 line, this revisionist history defies reality and takes advantage of the electorate’s short memory or ignorance of the public abortion debate pre Roe v. Wade.
When Reagan signed California’s abortion law there was no “pro-choice” movement, just a pro-abortion movement. With the sexual revolution of the 60’s the demand for abortion increased, especially on the part of men. There were many doctors doing abortions illegally who saw the huge money making potential in legalized abortion. This was the situation here in our own state of Washington. Planned Parenthood of King County (Lee Minto who filed I-20) partnered with politicians (Dan Evans, Joel Pritchard, Slade Gorton) and local doctors performing illegal abortions (Dr. A. Frans Koome) and came up with a legislative strategy to legalize abortion. The marketing slogans of “choice”, “women’s health”, “women’s liberation”, “every child a wanted child”, etc. were conjured up to put words in the mouths of politicians and the public so they could mindlessly pin a smiley face on abortion. The slogan “Saving Children is Statist” wasn’t invented until 2007.
Reagan was not part of this movement.
Conversely there was no pro-life movement. The right to life was something that most American’s had taken for granted up to this point. Recognizing the abortion movement for what it was — a radical attack on the human person emanating from the nation that had liberated Hitler’s death camps – was a new concept that the public still can’t seem to get their minds around. Hence, the desperate and emotional attachment to the word “choice”. To this day it’s as if the entire nation has come to suffer from a communal case of Stockholm syndrome.
It is understandable that in this environment — a nation proud of its human rights achievements, freedoms, and superiority; with a well financed, organized, motivated, politically savvy pro-abortion movement; combined with a pro-abortion drum-beat from a media, political, legal, and medical elite hell-bent on legalization, no pro-life movement, no knowledge of where abortion would lead the country – Reagan signed the law he did. He was anything but “adamantly pro-choice” and from the sound of it confused and conflicted. He had neither full knowledge of the intent of the bill or the carnage that was to come. Furthermore, he was under incredible pressure to act so that it appears he could not have given full consent of the will.
We also need to remember all the promises made by the abortion industry: less abortion, wanted children would mean less child abuse, healthier women, healthier children, better relations between men and women, more freedom, better sex, more better sex, oh and don’t forget really great sex. Promise Americans better sex and they’ll practically kill their first-born to get it.
Romney can claim none of these mitigating circumstances.
Thirty-five years after Roe and none of the abortion movement’s promises have come true. Thirty-five years after Roe the number of abortions is approaching 50 million in the US alone. Thirty-five years after Roe we know that abortion is not safe. Thirty-five years after Roe we can see a human child developing in the womb. Thirty-five years after Roe and AG Christine Gregoire gives nurses free reign to hand out RU-486 so a women can lie alone in a back-bedroom abortion while her dead child bleeds from her body. Thirty-five years after Roe a band of nobodies called the WA state board of pharmacy decides to take the Constitutional right not to participate in the killing of another person from the pharmacy profession. Thirty-five years after Roe the former Governor of Washington, Booth Gardner, begins an attack on the old and infirm and defenseless through legalized euthanasia. Thirty-five years after Roe and the Washington State Superintendant of Education is about to unleash on school children the idea that killing a child is equal to the act of giving life to a child. Thirty-five years after Roe and the University of Washington begins breeding humans for the express purpose of harvesting their body parts. Thirty-five years after Roe and the nation’s scientists begin cross-breeding humans with animals for….what?..better sex?
That’s the environment in which Mitt Romney now wants to play footsie with the pro-life movement. That’s the environment in which Mitt Romney wants to “send it back to the states.” That’s the environment in which he wants to claim he’s just like Reagan. Real converts to the pro-life cause know and understand what is at stake. We welcome converts to the cause but they need to have the will to act if they are going to be given the power to act.
Mr. Romney you sound like a well-meaning man who wants to do the right thing but 35 years after Roe it’s later that you think.
Like the Giuliani 80/20 line, this revisionist history defies reality and takes advantage of the electorate’s short memory or ignorance of the public abortion debate pre Roe v. Wade.
When Reagan signed California’s abortion law there was no “pro-choice” movement, just a pro-abortion movement. With the sexual revolution of the 60’s the demand for abortion increased, especially on the part of men. There were many doctors doing abortions illegally who saw the huge money making potential in legalized abortion. This was the situation here in our own state of Washington. Planned Parenthood of King County (Lee Minto who filed I-20) partnered with politicians (Dan Evans, Joel Pritchard, Slade Gorton) and local doctors performing illegal abortions (Dr. A. Frans Koome) and came up with a legislative strategy to legalize abortion. The marketing slogans of “choice”, “women’s health”, “women’s liberation”, “every child a wanted child”, etc. were conjured up to put words in the mouths of politicians and the public so they could mindlessly pin a smiley face on abortion. The slogan “Saving Children is Statist” wasn’t invented until 2007.
Reagan was not part of this movement.
Conversely there was no pro-life movement. The right to life was something that most American’s had taken for granted up to this point. Recognizing the abortion movement for what it was — a radical attack on the human person emanating from the nation that had liberated Hitler’s death camps – was a new concept that the public still can’t seem to get their minds around. Hence, the desperate and emotional attachment to the word “choice”. To this day it’s as if the entire nation has come to suffer from a communal case of Stockholm syndrome.
It is understandable that in this environment — a nation proud of its human rights achievements, freedoms, and superiority; with a well financed, organized, motivated, politically savvy pro-abortion movement; combined with a pro-abortion drum-beat from a media, political, legal, and medical elite hell-bent on legalization, no pro-life movement, no knowledge of where abortion would lead the country – Reagan signed the law he did. He was anything but “adamantly pro-choice” and from the sound of it confused and conflicted. He had neither full knowledge of the intent of the bill or the carnage that was to come. Furthermore, he was under incredible pressure to act so that it appears he could not have given full consent of the will.
We also need to remember all the promises made by the abortion industry: less abortion, wanted children would mean less child abuse, healthier women, healthier children, better relations between men and women, more freedom, better sex, more better sex, oh and don’t forget really great sex. Promise Americans better sex and they’ll practically kill their first-born to get it.
Romney can claim none of these mitigating circumstances.
Thirty-five years after Roe and none of the abortion movement’s promises have come true. Thirty-five years after Roe the number of abortions is approaching 50 million in the US alone. Thirty-five years after Roe we know that abortion is not safe. Thirty-five years after Roe we can see a human child developing in the womb. Thirty-five years after Roe and AG Christine Gregoire gives nurses free reign to hand out RU-486 so a women can lie alone in a back-bedroom abortion while her dead child bleeds from her body. Thirty-five years after Roe a band of nobodies called the WA state board of pharmacy decides to take the Constitutional right not to participate in the killing of another person from the pharmacy profession. Thirty-five years after Roe the former Governor of Washington, Booth Gardner, begins an attack on the old and infirm and defenseless through legalized euthanasia. Thirty-five years after Roe and the Washington State Superintendant of Education is about to unleash on school children the idea that killing a child is equal to the act of giving life to a child. Thirty-five years after Roe and the University of Washington begins breeding humans for the express purpose of harvesting their body parts. Thirty-five years after Roe and the nation’s scientists begin cross-breeding humans with animals for….what?..better sex?
That’s the environment in which Mitt Romney now wants to play footsie with the pro-life movement. That’s the environment in which Mitt Romney wants to “send it back to the states.” That’s the environment in which he wants to claim he’s just like Reagan. Real converts to the pro-life cause know and understand what is at stake. We welcome converts to the cause but they need to have the will to act if they are going to be given the power to act.
Mr. Romney you sound like a well-meaning man who wants to do the right thing but 35 years after Roe it’s later that you think.
Monday, August 20, 2007
WSGOP: The Mascara Begins to Fade
Actually, it's been fading for some time now and the person handing (actaully throwing buckets at) the WSGOP the Take it Away Total Make up Remover is Michelle at Life of the Party. If you are pro-life and want to know what is going on within the Washington state GOP on pro-life issues Michelle is the person you want to know and her blog is the one you want to read.
She's the one who first tipped me off to the done-up look of the state party on pro-life issues. I always sensed something wasn't quite right with the the state GOP but I couldn't put my finger on it. I'd read their fund raising letters and the life issues were never mentioned. I chalked it up not not wanting to be controversial. Besides, the GOP is pro-life. Right? Phrases like 'individual rights' and 'individual liberty' were over emphasized. They read like love letters to a member of your local Objectivist Society. Two and two just didn't add up to four when I heard them speak.
Her term for the republicans who claimed to be pro-life or who used code words like 'individual rights' was, 'cosmetically pro-life.' Basically, these politicians tart themselves up as pro-life, take the pro-life votes and then vote pro-abortion or do nothing to help the pro-life cause. Michelle's analysis brought it all in to focus and things became a lot clearer. A lot clearer.
Take for example a group I'd never heard of before talking to Michelle -- Mainstream Republicans of Washington. Here's their asinine statement on Life: We value life and seek to protect it - We should not attempt to legislate a definition of life.
Is anyone at MRW embarrassed by that statement? Do they even understand the implications of that statement?
Their executive director Alex Hayes has come out, somewhat out of public view as pro-abortion choice, as have many of their board members and sponsors. Some of them have aided and abetted the state's abortion industry for years but most pro-lifers are unaware of it. Yes, MRW may have individual members who claim to be pro-life but no American in their right mind would want to be associated with such a radical statement.
Rather than having the common decency of, oh say providing a list, or publishing a manifesto or other notice in their state owned newspaper classifying which lives are worthy or underworthy, this so-called 'statement of principle' actually takes it one step futher by saying no life is worthy by simply refusing to define what or who is a life. This one simple sentence excludes every human life from the expectation of basic and legitimate protection the state owes its citizens. At least the communists gave us a heads up on who was a target. A running start you could say. And the MRW have the nerve to call themselves 'mainstream'!
It should be apparent to all that the cosmetics of MRW and other GOP politicians resemble those of a two dollar hooker, not a super model.
But I digress.
Michelle has now informed us that Jennifer Dunn the former pro-abortion congresswoman has signed onto Mitt Romeny's campaign. This comes on the heels of cosmetically pro-life Dave Reichert signing onto the Giuliani campaign.
AIW wants to know -- Who will cometically pro-life republican Rob McKenna endorse after McCain tanks, and how will pro-lifers respond to his campaign for the next ring in his political career?
She's the one who first tipped me off to the done-up look of the state party on pro-life issues. I always sensed something wasn't quite right with the the state GOP but I couldn't put my finger on it. I'd read their fund raising letters and the life issues were never mentioned. I chalked it up not not wanting to be controversial. Besides, the GOP is pro-life. Right? Phrases like 'individual rights' and 'individual liberty' were over emphasized. They read like love letters to a member of your local Objectivist Society. Two and two just didn't add up to four when I heard them speak.
Her term for the republicans who claimed to be pro-life or who used code words like 'individual rights' was, 'cosmetically pro-life.' Basically, these politicians tart themselves up as pro-life, take the pro-life votes and then vote pro-abortion or do nothing to help the pro-life cause. Michelle's analysis brought it all in to focus and things became a lot clearer. A lot clearer.
Take for example a group I'd never heard of before talking to Michelle -- Mainstream Republicans of Washington. Here's their asinine statement on Life: We value life and seek to protect it - We should not attempt to legislate a definition of life.
Is anyone at MRW embarrassed by that statement? Do they even understand the implications of that statement?
Their executive director Alex Hayes has come out, somewhat out of public view as pro-abortion choice, as have many of their board members and sponsors. Some of them have aided and abetted the state's abortion industry for years but most pro-lifers are unaware of it. Yes, MRW may have individual members who claim to be pro-life but no American in their right mind would want to be associated with such a radical statement.
Rather than having the common decency of, oh say providing a list, or publishing a manifesto or other notice in their state owned newspaper classifying which lives are worthy or underworthy, this so-called 'statement of principle' actually takes it one step futher by saying no life is worthy by simply refusing to define what or who is a life. This one simple sentence excludes every human life from the expectation of basic and legitimate protection the state owes its citizens. At least the communists gave us a heads up on who was a target. A running start you could say. And the MRW have the nerve to call themselves 'mainstream'!
It should be apparent to all that the cosmetics of MRW and other GOP politicians resemble those of a two dollar hooker, not a super model.
But I digress.
Michelle has now informed us that Jennifer Dunn the former pro-abortion congresswoman has signed onto Mitt Romeny's campaign. This comes on the heels of cosmetically pro-life Dave Reichert signing onto the Giuliani campaign.
AIW wants to know -- Who will cometically pro-life republican Rob McKenna endorse after McCain tanks, and how will pro-lifers respond to his campaign for the next ring in his political career?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
