With the way the country is, and the way Lincoln trampled the constitution (even call these united states “a nation” instead of looking at this as a union of independent states) we need not a right of cessation, but a right to expel. I’d like to put on the list Maryland, Mass., California (at least the southern part), New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan and a hand-full of New England states.
Browsing Posts in Abortion
by Brian Withnell
History shows that when a significant percentage of a population is enraged with the government, the government fails. Mostly through some kind of revolution; sometimes through despotism, sometimes through a popular uprising. That percentage historically has always been less than 30% (find any country in which 30% of the population is angry about the government in which the government has remained … I don’t think it possible). Right now, there is a large percentage of people in this country that are enraged with what congress has done. It may be that the change of government will be peaceful … we do have an election in November coming. But knowing how polarized the country has become I’m not confident we can continue in a peaceful exchange of power any more.
The present government came about because of liberals being enraged over Republican policies (not what I would call conservative policies, but what Bush I and Bush II did). There were a high percentage of people angry about government then. Now there is a similar percentage of people angry about the government. In a very real sense, there is little ability for the country to cut a “middle ground” as the polarization becomes more and more complete.
The fundamental issue that presses is the proper role of government. If one group hears “We are from the government; we’re here to help” as a curse, and the other hears the same words as a blessing, there is little way to have reconciliation and compromise that will satisfy either group. Those that see government take over of everything as a curse will be upset by a government that imposes itself in more and more of life. Those that see government take over of everything as the only way to be “fair” will by upset unless government does take control. Even a middle ground is excluded, both side will dislike it.
My hope is many people see the problem, and realize this could be the end of the republic.
The time to remember is November…both 2010 and 2012…. Let us hope that we can pass through one more change (in both congress and executive branches) and that the people will remember how they were betrayed by those they elected.
An open letter to congress
We won’t forget it.
Regardless of what you might want to think, or hope, the people of this country are not as stupid as you might want to think. Sure, they are gullible at times, but they won’t easily forget what you do if the entire country has spoken. Remember Scott Brown. If you don’t, you too will find out what it is like having those whom you would have vote one way (for you) vote another way. Polish up your resume, or vote against the health care bill.
Brian Withnell
(Sorry about not signing it before, I forgot that the new software does auto sign.)
by jacob
The people are coming out tomorrow to march against Obamacare 2.0. The socialists (Democrats) are desperate. They cannot pass this bill on an honest vote. They cannot pass this bill by bribing their fellow congressmen with our money. So. What do they do. They will pass it in committee and call it a day. The Slaughter proposal takes us into banana republic style government. This would be a law passed by fiat. Do we now call the DOTUS el hefe? What is wrong with this bill? A better question is, “What is NOT wrong with his bill?!” It is:
Riddled with Taxes: This legislation is riddled with tax hikes. They start by taxing those earning over $10,831 year who don’t buy health insurance $750—a tax that escalates to $3,800 as income rises. Health insurance, health care devices and drugs are also taxed, adding to the cost of health care, and decreasing the competitiveness of these businesses.
Medicare Cuts: The bill cuts $500 billion in Medicare spending, including over $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage and nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they “expected the Medicare Advantage plans to lose 2.7 million enrollees over the next decade” as a result.
Raises Insurance Prices: CBO also finds “premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market…” (so we are doing this WHY?)
Force, Not Choice: This legislation includes an “individual mandate” forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance, like the Massachusetts law. Taxpayer subsidies will be given to those earning up to three times the federal poverty level. Those not qualifying for subsides will be taxed up to $3,800 if they do not buy insurance, and the Joint Tax Committee has confirmed failure to pay your fine could result in jail time. The experience in Massachusetts has left those caught in between unable to afford insurance and having to pay the tax.
Big Insurance Boondoggle: Forcing all the uninsured into insurance could bring as much as $200 billion a year in new premiums to insurance companies, including $465 billion in subsidies over 10 years.
Privacy Violation: This legislation would allow law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Justice unprecedented unfettered access to medical records.
No Lawsuit Reform: This legislation fails to curb junk lawsuits. It doesn’t even implement the “demonstrations projects” on reform the President called for (despite the fact that states like Mississippi have already done so and seen medical malpractice insurance premiums drop 42 percent). Instead, it will “express the Sense of the Senate that health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance.”
Bipartisan Opposition: The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it.
The Senate:a vote for “cloture” on this legislation is a vote in favor of government-run health care.
We will be watching your vote closely. Congress — VOTE NO! People — Now is the time to call your congressman. Now it is time to call the blue dogs in the house. Blue Dog Democrat means, ‘leftist pretending to be moderate’ in a right leaning district. Let these dogs know the jig is up.
Obama is a leftist ideologue. The press, our dear MSM sold us a bill of goods last November. They refused to look behind the curtain and see the great Oz for what he really is. A man who gives good teleprompter. A man who whether the MSM will report it or not is a pawn of the far left thug-o-cracy of Chicago. This is what we get for refusing to pay attention to the scam the NYT’s and the alphabets were pulling. Shame on US.
At his town hall meeting last Tuesday, Rep. Moran opened with a slide show presentation attempting to dispel twelve “myths” about the health care reform bill H.B.3200. The “myths” and “facts” are reprinted in the Falls Church News-Press. (Although Rep. Moran’s commentary is not yet posted there, his many others are, so I expect this one will be posted very shortly.)
The town hall meeting was not a debate — it was a show-and-tell followed by a question-and-answer. This article covers Rep. Moran’s show-and-tell. continue reading…
Forget cursing or mud slinging. It doesn’t do anyone any good.
What can do some good is working to undo much of what was done. I would suspect there are plenty of laws that need to be removed from the books … instead of wasting time on beating a dead horse, work to get the course of the country back on track.
National health-care is just about dead, but it needs to be put to sleep.
No Child Gets Ahead needs to be repealed.
Real immigration reform (closing the boarders) needs to be passed.
Those three ought to be enough to get people moving. It would help to push a national prohibition on restriction of firearms as well. There are a number of things that might be possible to push. Don’t waste breath on what changes nothing. Get motivated. Start working to push appropriate legislation through.
Limit the power of the central government to what the constitution says.
The murder of Dr. Tiller was the textbook definition of an assassination. It is a crime for which there is no excuse, and is appalling. The murder of the Pvt. William A. Long, a soldier outside an Arkansas recruiting station, was the textbook definition of a hate crime. It is also a crime for which there is no excuse, and is also appalling. Scott Roeder, the alleged assassin, picked his target because of what he did – killed the unborn past the 20th week. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad allegedly picked his targets because of what they are – soldiers in the U.S. Army.
The assassination received over ten times as much press coverage as the hate crime. Why is this? The coverage of Matthew Shephard was even more extensive. Are abortionists ten times more valuable than soldiers? Are gay men ten times more valuable than straight? What is driving the outcry in one case but the relative silence in the other?
Why is the president’s response so different? From the Weekly Standard, the following contrast shows what is valuable in Obama’s world:
“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe.”
The above was in reference to the murder of an American soldier by a Muslim on his personal Jihad. The following was in reference to the murder of an abortionist:
I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.
The tone could not be more different. The murder of a soldier in the name of a violent religion is not heinous? Islamists commit over 2000 acts of violence per year on unarmed civilians. That is a world wide pandemic, it is not senseless, it is the purposeful act of terrorizing those who do not submit, and that is certainly heinous. One miserable lunatic breaks the 6th Commandment targeting an abortion doctor and the liberal media makes political hay over it. The president, whose voting record on abortion is solidly in the NARAL/NOW camp, joins in the fray. This is cowardice and opportunism on many planes.
All lives are precious. It appears Obama holds some in higher regard than others. It appears that in Obama’s world view, and in the world view of the press, abortionists deserve more outrage than soldiers. It appears in Obama’s worldview that a single pathetic loon deserves more attention than the 1284 Muslims who attacked people outside of Iraq and Afghanistan — and in the US. The single doctor is the victim of a heinous act. Killing 5061 people world-wide in 2008 alone in the name of the ‘religion of peace’ is just senseless?
Where is the outrage for the soldiers gunned down in Arkansas? The media reporting here did not interview people who spoke of the hate crime in terms of a war, they described Abdulhakim’s jihad in far more neutral terms. Completely forgotten are the innocent women and children all over the world who are murdered by the religion of peace. The death of a lone abortionist is a rallying point? This bizar-o-land — our 21st-century United States.
This is puerile and vapid because the outrage is manufactured to make a political point. The victims of Islam do not have political interest groups pressuring the president. This abortionist does, and was hailed as a hero?!? For what? Vacuuming the unborn out of their mothers? Stabbing unborn children in the back of the head, or in the heart? For doing this a thousand times? Tiller made a lot money for practicing his trade. What was heroic?
If anything, the assassination of this doctor deserves less outrage than the murder of Pvt. Long. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad was looking to kill anyone wearing a military uniform; Scott Roeder was looking for Tiller. What is more dangerous to society as a whole? Both acts are 100% wrong. Both injure all of us. Muhammad’s action has broader implications than Roeder’s.
Making political hay of a murder is almost as vile as the murder itself. Such an overt appearance of valuing one victim’s life over another’s is also damaging to society precisely because, in the process, the victim is objectified. To treat the death of Pvt. Long in a way so substantially different than that of Dr. Tiller is appalling. All human life deserves to be protected. Favored classes reduce all of us.
Uh, no.
Here’s the quote:
“This is the equivalent of Martin Luther King being assassinated,” Dr. Carhart said of the May 31 slaying of one of America’s best-known late-term abortion providers.
Right. King was trying to make lives better; Tiller was ending them.
It gets better:
“I think there is absolutely no difference in putting a cross in front of a person’s home because of what race they belong to than there is putting a cross in front of our homes because we do abortions,” said Dr. Carhart, who assisted Dr. Tiller in providing late-term abortions at his Wichita, Kan., practice every three weeks.
No, doc. People do not choose to be Black, White, or Asian. You choose to kill innocent children. If Dante were alive today, he would have written a special passage for you and your colleagues in The Inferno, in which you are repeatedly subjected to the treatments that you use to kill your “patients.”
Comparing yourself to civil rights activists shows just how sick you are; as if murdering innocents did not do that already.
Catholic League President Bill Donohue is someone whose opinion all conservatives should note, and he makes the case that hair-trigger opposition to President Obama’s nominee to the US Supreme Court may be mistaken:
“I wish I knew more about her. But from what we know, it looks like she’ll be at least a wash with Souter, and maybe we’ll even see improvement.”
He noted that while Judge Sotomayor’s record on abortion-related cases is thin and tangential — a challenge to policies on U.S. aid to international family-planning groups and a decision about the free-speech rights of abortion protesters — but she has backed the legal claims of pro-lifers.
“She’s [also] been pretty good on religious liberty cases” and “doesn’t hold any animus on religion” either in her decisions or her known public remarks, he said. “She said it was wrong to prohibit a menorah on public ground; I like that. She talks about the religious rights of prisoners; I like that too.”
Donohue goes on to note that Obama’s next best choice may be far worse from a conservative perspective – an opinion I’ve seen expressed elsewhere. A next potential Obama nominee is Diane Wood, who pro-lifers should view with much greater apprehension.
Now that 0bama has nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, it is time we take a look at her rulings. Fortunately, the NYT has already compiled some of them, so I will direct your attention there.
Of particular interest is the ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo (2009):
“The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”
This argument is, quite simply, ludicrous. I seriously doubt that Judge Sotomayor would say that the First Amendment does not apply to the States, despite the fact that the first words of that Amendment are “Congress shall make no law….” The Second Amendment does not have such wording. Indeed, she wrote in Ford v. McGinnis that a Muslim prisoner in the New York State Department of Correctional Services had had his First Amendment rights violated by his not being allowed to participate in a non-mandatory holiday feast. So the First Amendment, which specifically applies to Congress, also limits the State governments, but the Second Amendment, which does not specify Congress, does not limit the States.
Well, then, Judge Sotomayor, is it OK for the States to quarter soldiers in people’s homes? It is OK for the State Police to go into people’s homes without warrants? Do the Fifth Amendment protections only apply in federal courts, not State courts? Is one only entitled to a jury of one’s peers in federal courts, not in State courts? Does the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments apply only to the federal courts, not to State courts?
Is Sotomayor’s “logic” what we need in the Supreme Court?
From the Web site of record:
After a Barack Obama advertisement implied she was part of a “sleazy” campaign for promoting a “despicable lie” about the senator’s voting record, abortion survivor Gianna Jessen has responded to the attack with another commercial saying, “I’ve dealt with worse; I survived an abortion.”
As WND reported, the 31-year-old Jessen, who was born alive following her mother’s botched abortion, made a television advertisement earlier this year highlighting Obama’s votes against born-alive infant protection bills while he was serving as a state senator in Illinois.
The Obama campaign responded with an advertisement of its own labeling Sen. John McCain’s campaign ads as “sleazy” and “truly vile,” while showing clips from Jessen’s ad in the background, including a photo of Jessen.
I heard Ms. Jessen on the radio the other day; she is a very impressive young woman. She relates how she was invited to sing the national anthem for the Colorado state legislature during the “celebration” of the 90th anniversary of Planned Parenthood, and when she had concluded the crowd cheered wildly (she has cerebral palsy but apparently is a great singer), but when she told her story of surviving a botched abortion a sizable section of the audience turned on her, in “rage.” No wonder the Obama camp is is working to demonize her.
“Safe, Legal, Rare” is a campaign slogan and a bumper sticker. It also frames the debate in a way that totally misses the point: one should not pawn the consequences of one’s bad decision off on the baby one has conceived. Getting liberals to discuss abortion on those terms is mission impossible. Still, this is the essence of the good fight.
Is Abortion Safe?
It is never a safe procedure for the baby. For those that actually survive the abortion most later die from complications due to the procedure. For this reason, the federal bill regarding applying life saving measure to those that survive the ordeal was passed.
If the procedure is done in a licensed medical facility, it is safe, most of the time, for the mother. However, there is a certain percentage of women who do suffer complications. This percentage is higher than for those women who have gone through with the pregnancy and allowed the baby to live.
Should We Keep It Legal?
Keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land is legislating from the bench. Judges ought not to be making law. I would be far and away more tolerant of this were it given back to the states. Inventing rights and distorting the constitution is a terrible way to govern — look at the 35 years of acrimony. If Virginia makes abortion legal on its own, then that is the will of the people.
As noted, currently abortion is legal throughout the U.S. by judicial fiat. Like Kelo, it is really bad law. I would prefer to see this go back to the states where it belongs. In 1970, abortion was already legal in some states. Why force people to fund things they do not agree with, that do not benefit them, and that they find ethically repugnant?
My personal preference would be to make the procedure illegal. Women today have dozens of birth control options they did not have when Roe made it up through the court chain. No one is forced to be pregnant anymore, unless they are Islamic or belong to some cult. In 1967, women had access to condoms only in some jurisdictions. Today there are over a dozen options for birth control — aside from abortion — at any pharmacy or clinic.
Furthermore, when one considers that nearly all states allow one to drop a baby off at the hospital with no-questions-asked, one wonders, “To save a life, can’t you be bothered for 8-9 months?” With all the contraceptives out there now, one continues to wonder, “Could you not have taken the 5 minutes needed to stop yourself from getting pregnant?”
Since it is a woman’s body, the consequences of what she does with it should be hers and hers alone; someone else should not have to pay the ultimate price.
One of the arguments for keeping it legal is that back alley abortions would kill more than the continued situation. 1.5M women per year did not die from botched abortions. Frankly, this number never went within three orders of magnitude of the current number of aborted babies. The ‘unreported argument’ does not bring the number over a thousand per year. The morgues would have filled up with Jane Doe’s had it even approached 10K per year, let alone 100K or 1.5M. Since the county morgues did not fill up with the bodies of 1.5M dead women each year, or 100K each year, or 10K each year, then one can retire the ‘under-reported’ argument as political fantasy.
All things considered, Roe would be overturned in only a few states, but at least it would be the people’s will. We would more than likely see an end to second- and third-trimester abortions in many more states. Then the question would remain what to do about the first trimester.
How To Make Abortion Rare
There is the practical aspect that ‘rare while legal’ the left really bumbles upon … once again the liberal mind removes the most critical aspect of the equation … human nature. The argument for legality on the grounds that it can be made rare is preposterous. All the countries that have legalized this practice see abortions occurring in the thousands. If it is legal, it happens more often — one will not escape that except in Utopia. Yes. Utopia, the land to which all good Socialists look to for guidance, but we don’t live there.
1.5 million abortions per year is not rare. That means if the abortion clinics are closed on weekends we see 5769 abortions per day. I have a feeling that it is higher, as the clinics are also closed on Christmas and other Federal holidays.
The historically proven way to suppress an activity is to make it illegal. Social taboos and the threat of punishment what have worked since the dawn of time. Providing funding, legality, and eliminating social stigma for a behavior will have only one effect — to cause the frequency of a given behavior to escalate.
But, if it were rare, would keeping it legal be palatable?
The liberals’ assertion behind safe-legal-rare is, “A compromise that keeps abortion legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.” There are several issues with this; but let’s go down this rabbit hole.
Try this minor rewording of the original sentence and one may begin to see what I see …
A compromise that keeps BANK ROBBERY legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.
or
A compromise that keeps LITTERING legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.
or
A compromise that keeps PLAGIARISM legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.
All of the above are activities that are convenient or beneficial to the individual who is perpetrating the act, just like abortion, so how could you come up with a ‘compromise’ that would make these activities RARE if they were legal?
Let’s try one last example:
A compromise that keeps MURDER legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.
The Price
There is no free lunch. Many will trot out the proverbial “nine-year-old who was raped by her father” case, or some other tragic poster-perfect situation that says ‘how can you force her to bring the spawn of this monster to term?’ OK, we can make an incest, or rape exception, but again, why make the child pay for the father’s crime? Answer that. Why should Jr pay for Dad’s criminality? Put the father to death, not the child. The situation is already tragic. Why compound it with the state-sanctioned killing of an innocent? The other side of the coin is where we are now — 1.5M dead per year.
Therefore…
It is not a simple matter of making abortion acceptable. It is the fact that abortion is murder. If a deer fetus is considered a deer when someone poaches the mother, then why is a human fetus not considered a human? This is another political fiction, a bit of mendacity to support the killing of close to 6000 children per day. This fiction has lead to the ending of over 40M lives since 1972. Technology has changed since then, do our most innocent have to continue to pay the price for our irresponsibility?
If a politician voted to pay for people to have guns, wouldn’t you call him “pro-gun”?
By the latest tally, 2975 people died in the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.
The following day, September 12th, 2001, the death tool was even higher — an estimated 3570 people were killed in abortion clinics in the United States — unnamed and unloved, even by the ones who should have named them and loved them.
Look on him if you dare, and weep — not for him, but for us, for what we have become.
“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.”
“Punished with a baby” is all you need to hear to understand why Obama supports every mother’s unfettered access to abortion up until the punishment’s first day of kindergarten.
