Ponnuru on McCain

This from Ramesh Ponnuru and the Corner:

I got an email a few weeks ago to which I have been meaning to respond:

Now that the primaries are over, I have slowly been coming around to McCain. I’m reassured by the fact that you’ve been such a strong supporter. Here’s the stumbling block I still have, and I’d be very interested in what you make of it. McCain came out and said that he doesn’t care much about the social issues. As the author of The Party of Death, doesn’t that bother you? It bothers me. I’ll vote for him, but I’m not enthusiastic. It’s the same way I’d feel if Giuliani were the nominee.

Good question. I hope you don't mind that it has taken me so long to get back to you, and that I have added two links to your email. Short answer: McCain needs 270 electoral votes, not 270 enthusiastic electoral votes; and pro-lifers need him to veto the Freedom of Choice Act, not to veto it enthusiastically.

For a longer answer, let me draw an analogy to the civil-rights movement. (I know pro-choice folks hate this analogy, but I’m not using it here to draw a moral equivalence.) John F. Kennedy does not seem to have cared much about the issue; it was a check-the-box question for him. (Bobby Kennedy was reportedly a different story.) It would nonetheless have been a setback for the civil-rights movement if the Democrats had nominated someone who wasn’t at least nominally committed to the cause. And one reason the civil-rights movement was able to get an ally as president was that it did not insist that the president had to have an emotional attachment to the cause.

Would I prefer it if McCain brought to the life issues the passion of Sam Brownback? Sure. But a country capable of electing a Brownback president wouldn’t need him.

Do you agree?

Planned Parenthood teen website

It took this to convince some legislators to cut back PP funding. We'll see if that actually gets done.

Punished with a baby?

Obama, at his worst. Ben Smith blog.

The ability of politicians like Obama to thread the needle between their own support of abortion rights and their constituents' opposition can be deteminative in Pennsylvania. And Obama, who supports abortion rights, handled the questioner deftly.

"This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue," he said. "I have two precious daughters — they are miracles."

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."

The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama's earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Abortion and mental illness...really

Here.

Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.

This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion.

Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation

Anything for a buck

Open letter to Sen. Obama

Read it all, here.

You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

Obama on abortion, Paul, and the Sermon on the Mount

Hmmm.

Why grieve?

From a San Francisco post-abortion hotline comes an idea:

Exhale’s electronic greeting cards range from the general—for instance, “As you grieve, remember that you are loved”—to the more explicitly religious: “God will never leave you nor forsake you.” In addition, Exhale is planning a magazine that will have stories, poems, letters, and rituals by and for women who have had abortions. Thirty years ago, prominent pro-abortionists predicted the disappearance of stigma and the acceptance of abortion as being no more morally problematic than fingernail clipping. Some things in human nature are irrepressible, you might well say, but there are also deep cultural differences. In Japan, for instance, things are done differently. Thousands of Japanese women visit temples every year to bring baby clothes, cookies, toys, and other offerings to their mizugo. The mizugo is a baby removed from the watery warmth of the womb by miscarriage or abortion. It is a “water baby,” and mizugo ni suru means to have an abortion. In temples there are thousands upon thousands of little statues representing water babies. Whole families, including siblings of the dead child, make visits, often pinning notes to the statues, signed by all the family members and expressing gratitude to the water baby. Many homes also have a shrine honoring the missing. Buddhists, believing in reincarnation, think the baby will have another chance, or many chances, at a better life. They do not have to work at convincing themselves that the baby was not a baby. The government agency that certifies abortionists in Japan is called the Motherhood Protection Association. In America it is very different. Thanks to Exhale, you can send an electronic greeting card: “As you grieve, remember that you are loved.” It is always in order to assure people that they are loved. That it is now assumed, also by some pro-abortion advocates, that there is a someone to grieve over is a fact not untouched by reasons for hope.

HT: First Things

Precious pro-life story

Here. What m0ther wouldn't do this?

Roe IQ Test - take it and find out how "pro-life" literate you are

Dobson offers this in his recent newsletter:

Our staff recently joined with our great friends at the Alliance Defense Fund and Concerned Women for America to create a unique survey called the "Roe IQ Test," which gauges each respondent's knowledge and attitudes concerning these infamous 1973 Supreme Court decisions. It includes 12 questions, and I assure you that the answers to several of the questions are surprising. To be honest, when I first saw the test I wasn't sure I would be able to answer each question correctly myself. I have included the full survey below, and I encourage you to take a few minutes to look it over and consider the questions. I'm convinced that if Americans could answer each of these questions accurately, support for legalized abortion would erode even faster than it already has.

The answers to the following questions are included in a separate key at the end of this letter. Please don't look ahead--see how many of these questions you are able to answer off the top of your head, without doing any outside research.

Now, to the test:

Note: The U.S. Supreme Court's control over abortion laws is significantly influenced by two 1973 decisions: Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Doe v. Bolton (Doe). To keep things simple, this I.Q test considers both rulings but refers to the better known of the two cases, Roe. So, Roe represents both Roe and Doe in the questions.

1.	Which most accurately describes when a woman may have an abortion under Roe?
	A.	Anytime during the first three months (first trimester) of her pregnancy
	B.	Anytime during the first six months (second trimester) of her pregnancy
	C.	Anytime during her entire pregnancy
	D.	Anytime during the first three months, but can have an abortion later if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest

2.	Which best describes the limitations Roe places on why a woman may have an abortion?
	A.	No limitations
	B.	Only in case of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger
	C.	No limitations during the first three months of pregnancy, but only medically necessary abortions after that

3.	True or False. Roe allowed late-term abortions.
	A.	True
	B.	False

4.	True or False. If Roe were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion would immediately become illegal in the United States.
	A.	True
	B.	False

5.	According to the Centers for Disease Control, about how many abortions have been performed in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973?
	A.	Less than 10 million
	B.	10-19 million
	C.	20-29 million
	D.	30-39 million
	E.	40-49 million
	F.	50-59 million
	G.	More than 60 million

6.	At what age does Roe require minor girls to have parental notification before an abortion?
	A.	Parental notification is not required
	B.	Girls 18 and younger
	C.	Girls 16 and younger
	D.	Girls 13 and younger

7.	True or False. Roe allowed sex-selection abortions--abortions performed because of the sex of the baby (For example: parents wanting a boy instead of a girl--and vice-versa).
	A.	True
	B.	False

8.	What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest?
	A.	More than 16 percent
	B.	11-15 percent
	C.	6-10 percent
	D.	2-5 percent
	E.	Fewer than 1 percent

9.	Which of our nation's founding documents contains the phrase "right to an abortion"?
	A.	Declaration of Independence
	B.	U.S. Constitution
	C.	Bill of Rights
	D.	None of the Above
	E.	All of the Above

10.	Which Supreme Court Justice said the following about Roe: "Roe v. Wade ... ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an inadequate justification for its action."
	A.	Justice Samuel Alito
	B.	Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
	C.	Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
	D.	Justice Antonin Scalia
	E.	Justice Clarence Thomas

11.	Which country's laws make it easiest to have an abortion?
	A.	Finland
	B.	Great Britain
	C.	Ireland
	D.	United States
	E.	Mexico

12.	Under Roe, which of these are allowed to perform abortions?
	A.	Licensed physician
	B.	Nurse practitioner
	C.	Resident assistant
	D.	Registered nurse
	E.	All of the above

Key:

ANSWERS: 1 [C] 2 [A] 3 [A] 4 [B] 5 [E] 6 [A] 7 [A] 8 [E] 9 [D] 10 [B] 11 [D] 12 [E]

Dobson also hands along these facts:

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) conducted an in-depth study in July 2007 titled "Long-Term Complications Associated with Induced Abortion." It contains a wealth of extensive research demonstrating the devastating physical and emotional effects of abortion on women. Although there is solid research to verify their conclusions, not surprisingly, these findings have been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media and by left-leaning elements of the medical profession. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated: "Long term risks sometimes attributed to surgical abortion include potential effects on reproductive function, cancer incidence, and psychological sequelae. However, the medical literature, when carefully evaluated, clearly indicates no significant negative impact on any of these factors with surgical abortion."

AAPLOG's research demonstrates how faulty this conclusion is. Their study opens with this telling statement: "We are aware of no studies that demonstrate a better mental or physical health outcome for aborted women, compared to those who choose to deliver. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that induced abortion in many cases is associated with significant degradation of emotional health, physical health and reproductive health."

Specifically, AAPLOG's study cites links between abortion and depression, substance abuse, suicide, placenta previa (a dangerous medical condition), breast cancer, premature birth, and low birth weight among post-abortion women.

Consider these examples from the report:

• A study in New Zealand found that at age 25, 42 percent of women in the study group who had had an abortion also experienced major depression at some stage during the past four years. This was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 percent higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy.
• Data from California shows that compared with women who had previously given birth, women who aborted were 929 percent more likely to use marijuana, 460 percent more likely to use other illicit drugs and 122 percent more likely to use alcohol during their next pregnancy.
• A University of Minnesota study on teen suicide found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased tenfold for teens who had aborted during those previous six months.
• Researchers at South Glomorgan Health Authority in Great Britain found that after abortions, there were 8.9 suicide attempts per 1,000, compared with 1.9 suicide attempts per 1,000 among those who gave birth.
• Studies also show a link between abortion and placentia previa (a condition in which the placenta is implanted abnormally low in the uterine cavity) during subsequent pregnancies.
• Although controversial, research continues to suggest a link between abortion and the subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. More than 41 studies worldwide (including 16 conducted in America) have reported data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. A full 29 (70 percent) of these studies reported an increased risk, with 13 (or 81 percent) of the American studies reporting an increased risk.
• More than 50 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature birth or low birth weight risk in women with prior induced abortions. Consider, for example, that in Ireland, where induced abortion is illegal, the prematurity rate in 2003 was 5.48 percent, less than half the U.S. rate of 12.3 percent.
  

88

88. Nearly everybody says they are pro-life as they run for Congress in the first District of Mississippi these days. But Dr. Randy Russell and his family get to say something else. We are pro-life AND we have taken in 88 children into our home and loved for them, cared for them until an adoptive family showed up.

Right now they have twins in their home. Eventually, someone will come and pick them up as adoptive parents. Sometimes soon, sometimes several months, they have kept babies of all races, of various life circumstances, from a variety of moms that either simply didn't want the child in the first place or were just too overwhelmed to deal with a new young one.

88. Randy Russell would make a fine Congressman. He is sharp, conservative, articulate and has a backbone made of steel. But his greatest qualification in this race is that he is a pro-life Christian who really lives it.

88.

Carnage of convenience

Matt

We need to put in perspective the losses of the future due to Roe V. Wade. We have lost a third of a generation that makes the carnage of World War I look tame. Of all nations who fought from 1914 through 1918 the total of killed in action was 9.5 million. We have killed five times the number of people that died in the “Great War” and the war to end all wars.

Our carnage of convenience has placed in the esteemed company of Mao Tse Tung’s China and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union as one of the three top genocidal nations of history. Adolph Hitler is a very poor fourth at a total of 11 million.

One of the real scary thoughts in relationship to abortion is how long will it be before our courts decide that defective humans are as OK to delete as they were in Hitler’s Germany. He killed six million Jews, but the other five million were “undesirables.” Who will choose that in our country?

In Christ,

Steve

Pro-life youth movement?

WashTimes:

A series of recent polls illuminates why films like "Juno" (pro-life flick) are a hit with America's youth.

• A Harris Poll found 55 percent of "young adults" opposed "abortion rights," making 18-30 year-olds the age cohort most likely to oppose abortion.

• A survey of 30,000 Missourians found the percentage of "strongly pro-life" teenagers and young adults under 30 years old increased 13 percentage points, from 23 percent to 36 percent, between 1992 and 2006, while self-identified "strongly pro-choice" Missourians under 30 dropped 21 percentage points, from 39 percent to 18 percent.

• A June New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll found a substantial majority (62 percent) of 17- to 29-year-olds felt abortion should either "not be permitted" (24 percent) or "more strictly limited" (38 percent) than it is now.

• A University of California-Los Angeles poll found the share of female college freshmen who supported abortion fell from 68 percent in 1992 to 53 percent in 2004.

• A Hamilton College poll of high school seniors found 72 percent of female students said they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant, and only 13 percent said they would counsel a pregnant friend to consider an abortion.

This sea change in abortion views among America's youth has helped produce something far more impressive than the recent spate of life-affirming films: a steady decline — 40 percent among states consistently reporting data — in minors' abortions since 1990. All this begs the question: Why, as they become more liberal on many social issues, are young people becoming more conservative on abortion?

First, there's what James Taranto has dubbed the "Roe Effect," a theory explaining abortion's demographic consequences. Assuming that those who support abortion rights are more likely to abort than those who oppose them, the theory goes, pro-choice parents are, on average, likely to have fewer children than pro-life parents.

Also, given the empirical research demonstrating that children tend to follow their parents' political and religious leanings, we would expect, as Mr. Taranto has written, "the post-Roe cohort to be more 'pro-life' than their elders."

While the "Roe Effect" is difficult to estimate precisely, as there have been as many as 50 million abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision (more than the combined populations of 25 states), we can assume the effect is significant.

Second, pro-lifers' embrace of science and technology has been crucial to highlighting the humanity of the unborn child, and thus the brutal reality of abortion. Three- and 4-D ultrasound technologies and fetal pain research have revealed children in the womb as living, breathing, feeling human beings, and at earlier stages than previously imagined possible. As William Saletan said: "Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn't want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we."

Technology's life-affirming effects have been especially acute for young people, who have grown up in a time when complex, lifesaving surgeries can be performed even before the child is born. News stories featuring the miraculous births of the youngest (21 weeks) and tiniest (10 ounces) babies ever to survive have prompted serious discussions about how dropping fetal viability timeframes are changing how people think about abortion.

Finally, social science continues to underscore a possible causal link between abortion and subsequent depression. The growing number of post-abortive women speaking out about abortion's negative effects has given young women reason to seriously question the slogan "pro-woman, pro-choice."

Genuine concern for mothers and their babies in the womb?

Hey Matt,

I probably will not get to hear the show today, sorry. The following may not make sense. Please read my chattering below about a quirk in the news media that I noticed today.

I caught bits of some reporting on two major morning news shows today about a recent study that linked caffeine and an increased risk of miscarriage among pregnant mothers.

Why, with the media’s liberal slant, often supporting pro-choice, would network news shows be concerned with reporting about an issue that would protect the baby and mother from a potential health risk? That seemed odd to me.

So I searched five major news website (ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, and CBS) to view their reporting about this study. Four of the five ran a report about this particular study, each listing it under the health portion of their website. The fifth (CBS), oddly enough, ran a story under their health page about, oddly enough, the “Complex Face of Abortion” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/20/health/printable3733178.shtml

Is it good that the other four websites ran a report about this risk? Yes, because the public has right to know and their efforts should be commended.

Is it a genuine concern of the news agencies for mothers to be given this vital information, or was it a story that helps the ratings? Maybe; because even with the "pro-choice logic" that seems to be prevalent in the media, a pro-choice media would be compelled by its own philosophy to report such information. The reason for that is due to what is at the core of a pro-life philosophy: self gratification. The philosophy of pro-choice would reasonably assert that the value of such a study, pertaining to the risk of miscarriage, lies in its reference to the mother and the preservation of her health, more so than the preservation of the health of the unborn child.

It just struck me funny how the liberal media can report about an issue that appeals to conservative social values.

Thanks for speaking up

Paul

Presidential proclamation...

The following text is a proclamation by President Bush:

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we recognize that each life has inherent dignity and matchless value, and we reaffirm our steadfast determination to defend the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our country remains committed to upholding that founding principle. Since taking office, I have signed legislation to help protect life at all stages, and my Administration will continue to encourage adoption, fund abstinence education and crisis pregnancy programs, and support faith-based groups. Today, as our society searches for new ways to ease human suffering, we must pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects the sacred gift of life and upholds our moral values.

Our Nation has made progress in its efforts to protect human life, and we will strive to change hearts and minds with compassion and decency. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day and throughout the year, we help strengthen the culture of life in America and work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2008, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty- second.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Abortions down

Here.

And congratulations to all those social conservatives and evangelicals that have kept up the fight across 35 years. Still...sorrow for those whose lives were lost even today.

Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus sounds good

...but especially so in front of an abortion clinic, where we sang it this morning. Right there in front of the "gates of Hell."

’Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
And to take Him at His Word;
Just to rest upon His promise,
And to know, “Thus says the Lord!”

Refrain

Jesus, Jesus, how I trust Him!
How I’ve proved Him o’er and o’er
Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus!
O for grace to trust Him more!

O how sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just to trust His cleansing blood;
And in simple faith to plunge me
’Neath the healing, cleansing flood!

Refrain

Yes, ’tis sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just from sin and self to cease;
Just from Jesus simply taking
Life and rest, and joy and peace.

Refrain

Pro-lifers to protest at Dem convention

As it should be.

Provocative stuff - "What WE think about abortion...by the women who've had them

Read and comment. One small comment:

"I don't feel guilty, and I justify it by saying to myself that I only have one life and I can't give up my own happiness and dreams for the sake of a baby."

Can't give up my OWN happiness or dreams for a baby. How Western. How us. How sad.

Single issue voter?

Had a friend who was at a RudyGiuliani fundraiser (he was present but had not given any $).

He was out on the front porch with a number of Republicans talking about the candidacy when my friend wondered aloud how anyone could possibly vote for someone who is pro-abortion.

A couple of them said, of course, that there was no way in this day and age you could be a single-issue voter.

My friend's retort: "If Giuliani was right on all the issues but the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan I bet you would be a single issue voter."

Ah-hem!