International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

Abortion law under attack

NewsBusters reports.

On May 3 an Oklahoma judge delayed enactment of a new law mandating that mothers get ultrasounds before abortions for 45 days.

Oklahoma’s ultrasound law goes farther than others. According to the Associated Press:

The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound, and to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.

That is just not true, obviously skewed to bias readers away from supporting the law.

The law actually states that the abortion or technician “us[e] either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly.”

That said, this is indeed the first pre-abortion ultrasound legislation to specify the option of using a vaginal transducer. These are different in probe placement than typical abdominal ultrasounds.

I give it about 3 days before left-wing blogs here start repeating the “rape by statute” line the pro abortion activists have feed the American MSM.


Would you oppose slavery if given the chance?

A quote of note from Wintery Knight.

The abortion issue is the slavery issue of our time. Abortion is the way that we treat people like property today. The abolitionists of our time are pro-lifers. I often hear people talking about how moral they can be without God and how they would oppose slavery if they had lived in those times. Well, here is your big chance to oppose something even worse than slavery. Get to work, and let’s see that vaunted secular humanist morality in action.

The case he highlights in the post is interesting, and encouraging.

Abortion really bothers me. It’s not about raising a child  you don’t want, since babies can be adopted out. It’s about a woman taking a pregnancy to term, which is inconvenient, but little more than that in most cases.

I don’t see taking a life as being worth that.

Abortion not cool on Facebook?

Andy Moore posted this on Facebook. It got removed, so he put back something slightly less graphic and got his account disabled.

Funny thing is, when you support abortion, what’s your justification for objecting to a picture like that?

The fact that it refutes your “blob of tissue” PR line isn’t really a good reason.

Abortion Uglyness

Some might find this video a useful balance to the one sided coverage we generally get of the American abortion debate.

Taking a life to… well, what?

While I would condemn anyone who takes the law into their own hand and kills a doctor performing abortions, that person is in their own mind trying to save lives.

What was the person who did this thinking? Maybe he just wanted to kill someone and the fact someone opposed abortion came across his path set him off.

OWOSSO, Michigan, September 11, 2009 ( – An elderly pro-life activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School in Michigan while he was peacefully protesting abortion with a sign depicting a baby and the word “Life,” according to local police cited in the Flint Journal newspaper.

Locals say that the victim, James Pouillon of Owosso, was well-known in the area for his pro-life activities.  Columnist Doug Powers wrote on his blog that Pouillon, called “the abortion sign guy” by Owosso locals, was known for standing on street corners holding up signs with pictures of aborted children.

Pastor Matt Trehella of Missionaries to the Preborn said today that Pouillon had joined his organization for a few stops of a pro-life tour less than a month ago. “Jim was a selfless, soft-spoken, kind-hearted man.  All who knew him, knew this,” he said. “Please pray for Jim’s family.”

In the wake of the tragedy, Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life told that he hoped to see “a strong expression of indignation from the pro-abortion community, just like there was a strong expression of indignation from the pro-life community at the killing of Dr. Tiller.”

It will be interesting to see if that happens.

HT: Semper Vita

Can we call abortionists liars now?

Gee, weren’t we all told that having abortion available on demand woudn’t create a situation where human life wasn’t regarded as precious? Isn’t that what abortionists keep telling us?

I guess they’ll be voting against this in Texas then.

Abortion Clinic Covers up Murder

This case is absolutely horrific. A young woman went to a clinic for an abortion, and gave birth instead.

But instead of recognising the right to life enshrined in law of the newborn, the clinic staff simply threw it into the trash.

This is the attitude that abortion creates towards human life. It’s sick.

Renelique was still not present when Williams “felt a large pain” and delivered a baby girl, according to the suit.

“The staff began screaming and pandemonium ensued. Sycloria watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed.”

A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby’s umbilical cord, the suit said. She “then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can.”

Staff at the clinic did not call 911 or seek medical assistance for Williams or the baby, the suit said.

Renelique arrived at the clinic about an hour later and gave Williams a shot to put her to sleep. “She awoke after the procedure and was sent home still in complete shock,” the suit said.

Police were notified of the incident by an anonymous caller who told them the baby was born alive and disposed of.

“The complainant [Williams] observed the baby moving and gasping for air for approximately five minutes,” according to a police affidavit requesting a search warrant for the clinic.

Two search warrants found nothing, but officers executing a third warrant “found the decomposing body of a baby in a cardboard box in a closet,” the suit said.

The baby was linked to Williams through DNA testing, the lawsuit said. An autopsy showed it had filled its lungs with air prior to death. Documents from the state Department of Health said its cause of death was determined to be “extreme prematurity.”

Patterico puts it well.

Both sides of the political aisle find this story disturbing. Conservatives, because someone apparently felt entitled to take a live human being and throw her in the trash to die. Liberals, because wingnuts might use the story to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Which aspect concerns you more?

Don’t Abort

I see that NZ Conservative have already posted this, but it’s so good that I’ll post it anyway.

This ad was to be played during the Super Bowl, but there’s a funny side to that story.

Brian Burch, president of the pro-life group, told he is upset that NBC officials rejected what he calls a uplifting and positive pro-life ad.

“There is nothing objectionable in this positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC’s parent company GE has done for years,” Burch said.

“We congratulate Barack Obama on becoming the first African-American President. And we simply ask people to imagine the potential of every human life,” he told

Burch said NBC told Fidelis that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements.

“But that’s not what they told PETA,” he said about the network’s recent decision to reject an ad from the animal rights group. “There’s no doubt that PETA is an advocacy group. NBC rejected PETA’s ad for another reason altogether.”

Funny as in “I’ve a funny feeling that someone is telling big, fat porkies”.

My wife and I were discussing Roe v. Wade the other day, and it struck me just how sick it is that a court could every discuss (let alone decide the legality of) killing someone who now walks on this earth. That’s right – the baby that Roe v. Wade was over was born, alive and is “now” a human being with full rights.

Just like Obama.

Oh, I forgot to mention that NewsBusters has several articles comparing the coverage of Obama’s recent overturning of the order prohibiting federal funding of abortions.

But on Sunday’s World News, ABC’s Dan Harris highlighted conservative criticism of Obama’s abortion decision, arguing that it showed how “despite his desire to reach out to people who disagree with him, the new President may find that on some issues, it may be impossible to find common ground.” Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi also painted the President — whom she said hoped “not to provoke” conservatives by banning photographs of the signing — the victim of a “brutal” reaction from conservatives:

And this one too.

In his first few days as President, Barack Obama issued decrees concerning a terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay, abortion, and apparently told Congressional Republicans who they should and shouldn’t listen to.

Yet, according to the Associated Press, “he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands.”

Makes you wonder what these folks were watching this week, doesn’t it, for in a piece astoundingly titled “Obama Breaks from Bush, Avoids Divisive Stands,” Liz Sidoti seemed to be reporting from another planet:

Life Compatable Abortions

A Patterico reader has suggested….

Here’s one I’ve been toying with for years: Suppose the technology existed to safely remove a fetus from a womb at any gestational stage for incubation elsewhere until birth. If such “no-death abortion” was available to any woman who wanted it, would most abortion rights supporters stand down?

I’m especially interested in what abortion rights supporters have to say, because I’ve always thought that their position is based on opposition to forced pregnancy (”Keep your laws off my body”).

Unfortunately, when the precedent of partial-birth abortions is taken into account, I have severe doubt that any abortion supporter would actually support this sort of thing. When you insist that you have a right to kill a baby right before the moment of birth, are you really going to be happy to save that baby if technology allows?

Abortion… Again

NRT blogs on abortion. He posts:

  • An allegation that a woman was not told that her pregnancy was “incompatible with life” because of a doctor’s moral position. Strangely, the pregnancy reached “a very advanced stage, one presumes advanced enough to deliver a premature baby that could survive without endangering the mother’s life. Of course, there is also the fact that the actual position of the other doctor is not stated – there are a variety of possible explanations here depending on circumstances outside the moral position of the doctor.  It just so happens that this one suits the story teller.
  • Another allegation that “…one doctor withheld ultrasounds showing a foetal abnormality until it was too late for an abortion. The child was born and died a slow, unpleasant death, the doctor said.” So the baby was not killed, but left to die because it could not survive. How exactly is it more moral to kill a baby in the womb than to have that baby born and die? The mother does not have the death of this infant on her conscience, neither does anyone else.
  • Finally, we have the allegation that Catholic hospitals are refusing to refer rape victims to rape crisis centres because they’ll be able to get emergency contraception“. Except when you click the link, this allegation turns out to be false.

With this questionable mix of cherrypicked hearsay and outright lies, Idiot/Savant feels the moral superiority to vent against those that try to stop what they see as a genocide against thousands of innocent lives.

These people are simply monsters, using their religion as an excuse to sadistically abuse women, endanger lives, sentence children to short “lives” of pain and suffering, and generally act like arseholes. And if this law drives them out of (this part of) the medical profession, then I think we’re better off for it.

Well, it’s certainly giving someone an excuse to act like an arsehole.


Tag Cloud