Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

Update III:  The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable.  Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”.  It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board.  Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.

Update II:  Rumor confirmed.  Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.

Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this.  So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.

The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.

The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.

Yeah, that’s the compromise.

If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival.  Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

  • It’s George Orwell’s 1984, except the date should be 2012.

  • …only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control…

    And who pays premiums into the insurance pool? The Religious Organizations and in most cases, their employees. This is no compromise; it’s word-smithing.

  • Exactly Big Tex.

    I wish I were more eloquent and prescient as you were, but I wanted to get this out and digested before Obama did another Pravda Announcement.

  • Next, he’ll offer 30 pieces of silver, the price of a man.

    I’m insulted.

    He must think we are as stupid as he.

  • Pingback: . . .Breaking: Obama Compromise is No Compromise. . . | ThePulp.it
  • Politics at its worst. This administration is not caving in on anything. They are mandating and telling the insurance companies what product to sell and at what price to sell. Unconstitutional.

  • He’s on the run.

    Don’t accept the first.

    Counter with: “Resign tyrant.”

  • Let’s pretend that birth control is a health issue (hahahah, sorry — I’ll stop laughing now). Since when is the President qualified to ORDER medical treatments? Did he go to medical school or something?

  • Lord have mercy. Has Sr. Keehan have no shame? No conscience? Her bishop should have a friendly chat with her, remind her that part of the reason the Church and the entire country is in this mess is in part her doing, and then politely ask her to keep her mouth shut.

  • Unfortunately it may be that Sr. Keehan has no problem with contraception, sterilization etc.

  • She also has no problem in wearing anything but a habit.

  • HHS was The Institute of Medical Services idea. BO and KS said so.
    The change in payment was recommended by some Insurance Business Institute.
    One, quick little mention of ‘religious liberty’ being intact, so there you guys who are complaining so much.

    Contraception was the whole focus of what HHS means to USA, no mention of the laundry list of other ‘care’.

    Contraception is good for preventing women’s health problems. What about all the studies of causes for women’s cancer? Women, not girls, what happened to the 11 year olds that were going to be ‘cared’ for? Not PC for a noonday speech for Catholic listeners. Ugh. More questions than answers from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.

    Contraception is the lowest common denominator of appeal for those who would trash Church teaching before letting go of complacency.

    No apology for using the word Mandate in olden times like yesterday. Now, it’s all about being the bearer of ‘good’ compromise for all concerned, especially those who want contraception. Politics, pandering to voters, and shutting up the Church.

  • I think Sr. Keehan has no idea how insurance works.

  • from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.
    He said so.

  • Too busy today to do anything right now except to note that this is no compromise and anyone who thinks it is is either a fool or a knave. Obama truly does have nothing but contempt for those outside of his ideological bubble.

  • Who is this Senior Keehan?

  • Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group.

    Gag me with a spoon. I wonder which Catholic group funded his community organizing. I wonder further if those funds made their way through the CSA.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-announce-accommodation-religious-groups-contraceptive-rule-enough-170500694.html

  • There can be no compromise with evil.

    I would hold out for his resignation. That’s me.

  • Another great takedown of this duplicitous “compromise” over at Vox Nova.

  • Haha Paul. I’ll comment on that later. I’ll let others read the takedown first.

  • “Sister” Keehan is a traitor. If she approves of this, then it is not to be trusted. The road of compromise is never ending! Don’t take it. Time for Catholics willing to suffer persecution to stand up and be counted. If Obama wins this, it’s all over for Faith and freedom. Wake up America!
    Immaculate Conception pray for us.

  • I’ll update my post with that link, Paul. Good catch.

  • If the bishops will not or cannot make (Sr.) Keehan behave then hopefully the vatican will discipline her and her order. She is a disgrace to American nuns who are pro-life. In effect, she is giving comfort to the enemy and she needs to be stopped!!!

  • I clicked on the link thinking someone at Vox Nova had actually written something critical of Pharaoh Obama’s “compromise.” It seems most there are content to retreat into philosophical condemnations of American Democracy and other acts of mental onanism.

    I suspect MM is waiting for the Dem talking points.

  • Phillip:

    Kudos. I am afflicted with violent nausea by ravings of lunatics that believe in a vast array of dumb and illogical rubbish.

    Apparently, that pack of catholic Commies (adherents of the gospel of Mao) believe the destruction of the evil, unjust private sector justifies both the damnation of souls and the denial of basic human rights, i.e., religious liberty.

    Seems, they have bought into the tyrant’s alibi: the “welfare of humanity justifies enslaving humanity.”

    You are too kind and genteel. I would have waxed sort of alliterative: “acts of mental masturbation.”

  • The vn are not compromising with evil. They are evil.

  • There aren’t enough exorcists — are there?

  • I was going to rebuke T Shaw for going a bit too far, but he’s really not far afield. To rationalize this decision in such a way is just astounding. There really is no road low enough for these folks at VN. That said, I have to agree with Tony on one thing.

    Think of Romney attacking Obama when he did the same thing in Massachusetts!

    Well, at least that one was non-demented sentence in the rant.

  • How did Sr. Keenan get quoted? I understood this article was about what Catholics thought?
    Dan Malone

  • May God Change Sr. Keehan’s heart. We all should pray she converts and repents. She is truly a lost soul directing others to HELL.

  • The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration Mr President, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

  • Me and my wife have been trying to have a child for over a year and we are seeing a fertility doctor who is putting my wife on birth control for one month to regulate her cycle (i.e., as part of a plan aimed at treatments during the following month). I don’t think this is a sin and I don’t see any problem with the Catholic Church providing those contraceptives if I worked for them. I don’t see the catch-22 Nancy describes because it seems the sin only occurs when contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy. Although contraceptives can be used in a sinful way, so can other health-related drugs, medical devices, or equipment. The most obvious examples are the use of many prescription drugs to commit suicide or to be abused. In the case of these other drugs, the Church doesn’t eliminate the drugs from their health plan but instead provides them and expects Catholics to follow its teachings and not use the drugs in the commission of a sin. Why are contraceptives different? They have a number of non-sinful uses, including use by non-Catholic employees or to regulate menstruation (i.e., in someone who is not having sex). I don’t see why providing these drugs would be any more a sin than providing Oxycontin or morphine. Would it be a sin for the Church to provide baseball bats because they could be used to commit a murder?

Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

Friday, February 3, AD 2012

The Susan G. Komen Foundation did not reverse course as many have thought, suggested, or commented all over the Interwebs today.

Even Austin Ruse President of C-FAM is not sure and has issued this press release:

Statement by Austin Ruse on the Susan G. Komen Foundation

“Today the Susan G. Komen Foundation made an announcement that appears that they have reversed themselves on funding of Planned Parenthood. While I do not believe they have reversed themselves, it may turn out to be the case. We do not know.

What happened this week was nothing short of a Mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Planned Parenthood told the Komen Foundation “either give us money or we will destroy you.” They were aided and abetted in this hostage taking by the mainstream media.

At this point, pro-lifers should cease their support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. We should wait and see what happens. We know there are five more Komen grants to Planned Parenthood in the pipeline. If any more come up, we will know we have lost and Planned Parenthood has won.

I do not regret the work I did over the past days on this issue, neither should any pro-lifer. I only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off the thuggish abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.

What the week has shown is that Planned Parenthood, an organization that is under criminal investigation all over this country, will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

We should continue to pray for Nancy Brinker and all of her colleagues at the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

The American Papist and Steven D. Greydanus agree with me on this one.

Look at it from Komen’s perspective, they’re taking a public relations hit by the punks and thugs from Planned Parenthood and their allies.  It’s a war, a Culture War out there!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

  • Pingback: Komen Foundation Reverses Course, Promises to Keep Funding Planned Parenthood [UPDATED AGAIN] | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: . . .SUSAN G. KOMEN REVERSES DECISION?. . . | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: SUSAN G. KOMEN DID NOT REVERSE COURSE | ThePulp.it
  • What no one’s picking up on is that Nancy Brinker isn’t just some ingenue who got taken advantage of by PP. Brinker has served on a Planned Parenthood board. She has accepted a personal award from PP. She has steered a fortune to PP, over many years. The woman is a savvy insider, not a well-meaning innocent who fell in with the wrong bunch. The Komen organization is fundamentally corrupt, infected with an anti-life ethos.

  • So, Lance Armstrong donates $100,000 to Planned Parenthood.

    On the exact same-day, the Obama Justice Dept., without explanation, drops its doping case against Lance Armstrong:

    http://espn.go.com/oly/conversations/_/id/7538482/federal-prosecutors-close-lance-armstrong-doping-case-press-charges

    Yeah, nothing fishy about that at all.

  • Re your postscript, hopefully NRTL is watching and adding to the boycott list.

  • Pingback: Komen knuckles under… | Catholic and Enjoying It!
  • Jay Anderson’s observation will sadly never find the light of day in main stream media.

  • Was’nt the woman herself, Susan G. Komen, Pro-Life? Susan G. Komen would have been ashamed to know that the foundation that bears her name is helping to support a business that provides abortions!

  • I guess the Susan G.Komen foundation found out what real political pressure is like.

  • Oh great. I once gave the LAF $100 out of my meager wallet. Cross him off the list too. What planet am I living on? Did the magnetic poles reverse and now we’re living in Bizarro World? All the donors are dogpiling on the one that doesn’t even DO mammograms!

  • A “mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood”? Really? We do ourselves no favors by finding hyperbole to delude ourselves. What it was a great wash of supporters from all over who reacted in knee-jerk opposition to what they saw as a hostile action.
    Planned Parenthood may act in some ways we strongly oppose, but blind demonizing and making them out to be the organized kingpin of some vast conspiracy only makes us the fool, and tools of those who have their own agendas. Austin Ruse is doing us no favors. Let’s keep a level head.

  • enness: I once admired Lance Armstrong very much myself. Then he hooked up with left-wing whacko Sheryl Crowe (who lectured us on the necessary of using only 1 square of toliet tissue per bathroom visit – to save Gaia) , which was a tip-off to Lance’s politics and ideology.

    I’m very happy I didn’t actually mail in a check to Komen the other day, although I considered doing so. Then I checked my bank balance. The few bucks I have to give to charity this month went to my parish and to the Scott Walker campaign (no, giving to a a political candidate isn’t charity, but it is a very good cause.)

    When my mother died of cancer back in the ’80’s, I, and my siblings began giving to the American Cancer Society. I haven’t sent them a check in years. I will again, but only after I look into them to ensure they aren’t relying on fetal stem cell research, or are aligned with some nefarious organization.

    If there is one lesson this whole nasty business has taught us it is: research your charities. I’ve been reading about the reaction to this on secular sites and there are plenty of pro-lifers who had given to SGK in good faith for years, without ever suspecting they were in league with PP. The only way I discovered the link was because of Catholic blogs.

  • Donna, ugh, I’d almost forgotten about that.

    I donated, taking the B.F. Skinner approach, as I’ve been calling it — heaping rewards on the smallest step in the right direction. For the briefest second I considered a chargeback, but I feel like that would be appalling ettiquette and I can’t bring myself to do it. I will say that I certainly would respect them more if they returned the money.

Komen Foundation Reverses Course, Promises to Keep Funding Planned Parenthood [UPDATED AGAIN]

Friday, February 3, AD 2012

UPDATED AGAIN: Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part – Tito Edwards, The American Catholic

The last two days have been a huge publicity storm for the Komen Foundation as supporters and opponents of abortion squared off over the foundation’s decision to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood to fund breast cancer exams. Today, Komen apparently decided that offending the pro-abortion half of the country wasn’t enough, and decided to offend the pro-life half as well by reversing their decision and pledging to continue funding Planned Parenthood:

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligiblity to appy for future grants,” Nancy G. Brinker, the agency’s ambassador, said in a statement.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”

In addition to disgust that the pro-aborts got their way on this one, I have to say that I’m simply staggered by the utter PR incompetence of this whole circus. Perhaps the hope on Komen’s part had been that they could drop Planned Parenthood quietly and thus widen their support base without offending pro-aborts. Whatever the thinking that led to this high profile flip-flop, the result is not merely the appearance of lacking principle but also that those with strong feelings on both sides are now deeply distrustful of the organization.

UPDATE: LifeSiteNews is claiming (on the basis of statements by Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) that this is all basically smoke screen on the part of the Komen Foundation in order to get Planned Parenthood off their backs, and that all they’re doing is promising to allow Planned Parenthood to continue applying for grants (at which point they may well not select them.)

Austin Ruse, the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, who has been very closely following the Komen decision-making process, told LifeNews that the statement is not really a change in position but he says the sentence “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities” is “troubling” for pro-life advocates.

“This represents nothing new. We have known and have reported that they are continuing five grants through 2012. This is a reference to that. The second clause about eligibility is certainly true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going to get anything,” Ruse told LifeNews.

“What this is is an effort to get the mafia off of their backs. As James Taranto said in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, this is a classic shakedown operation. Give us money or we will destroy you. This is Komen’s attempt to save their organization, which we should know is in peril. Our side should know that nothing has changed.”

Jill Stanek, a pro-life blogger, also says pro-life advocates should not give up on Komen yet.

“If Planned Parenthood is found guilty of criminal investigations, several of which are ongoing around the states (Medicaid fraud in Texas and California; fraudulent reporting and illegal abortions in Kansas, and yes, the federal Congressional investigation, etc.), Komen’s criteria will still disqualify Planned Parenthood from receiving grants, as it should,” Stanek says. “This is Komen’s attempt to get the abortion mafia off their backs. Planned Parenthood and its thugs have engaged in typical shakedown: Give us money or we will destroy you.”

Ruse responded to that saying those grants will very likely be the last Komen makes to the abortion business.

“Komen has five outstanding grants going out this year to Planned Parenthood. We have known about them all along. After that, the door is shut,” Ruse said. “Nothing has changed since the decision was made in December to defund Planned Parenthood after these grants are finished.”

“Could these Planned Parenthood groups apply for future grants? Of course they could. Anyone can apply for anything. Will they get them? Highly unlikely for two reasons,” Ruse added. “First, Komen’s new policy says they do not fund groups that are under investigation or groups that do not provide primary care of women or research.”

“Second, Planned Parenthood’s vicious attacks against Susan G. Komen for the Cure has engendered a great deal of hurt and anger inside the organization,” Ruse told LifeNews. “Quite simply, Planned Parenthood is utilizing a scorched earth policy against Komen and burning all their bridges. Funding will never come back to them. Keep in mind also, that Nancy Brinker may be trying to make conciliatory gestures to her former friends. But she is discovering what we have known all along, that Planned Parenthood are dishonest thugs.”

Frankly, I don’t know whether I buy this or not, and even if it’s true it seems to me that the double talk is only going to hurt them more. However, one can only wait and see.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Komen Foundation Reverses Course, Promises to Keep Funding Planned Parenthood [UPDATED AGAIN]

  • Sadly predictable, and as you say, now they’re probably going to take flak from both sides. What’s more, the attention they have drawn to themselves over the past few days is really going to damage them in the long-run. I’m sure many pro-lifers were otherwise unaware of their connection to Planned Parenthood. Now they sure are, and this retreat in the face of adversity is going to make the rest of us even more opposed to their organization.

  • Pingback: . . .SUSAN G. KOMEN REVERSES DECISION. . . | ThePulp.it
  • So I wonder if the people who donated in the wake of the earlier decision can get their money back?

  • Now everyone, including bishops, of every Catholic diocese in the country know the connection between Komen and PP. There is no reason that ANY Catholic diocese should support Komen now.

  • Yeah, I’d seen a news story last night that Komen donations were up 100% over their normal run rate since the announcement they were breaking with Planned Parenthood. The way they betrayed all that good will is pretty shocking.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: SUSAN G. KOMEN FOUNDATION | ThePulp.it
  • Folks,

    The liberals who dominate in this country will not give up abortion or homosexual sodomy without civil war. They will continue until they begin to martyr Christians in the same way that they currently murder unborn babies. That being said, yes, we should and must work for a peaceful victory, and that requires prayer and fasting as well as letter writing to one’s political respresentatives and vigils outside of abortuaries. But we can’t kid ourselves any longer. The blood shed from the womb is sadly going to spread.

    PS, I do NOT advocate violence. That is exactly what these murderers want. But they will force violence on the born just as they are on the unborn. And yes, I would be overjoyed to be wrong and see this defeated starting this November 6th. But it looks like Donald’s Weathervane (well, he’s not Donald’s but I like Donald’s description) will be the candidate and that likely spells victory for the Obamanation of Desolation. If he wins, then the hammer will fall and fall hard indeed.

  • The pressure to cave has probably been enormous for those in the C-level ranks at SGK. I keep on thinking how it would have been easier for them if they had done this transition differently or slower. But what in the heck does breast cancer treatment and cure have to do with abortions besides the A-BC link? Why would SGK get in bed with PP in the first place? Is it a general sweeping “women’s health” thing? Unfortunately my conclusion is that SGK has made their bed and now they have to lie or die in it.

  • FWIW, I’ve added an update via LifeSiteNews which claims the reversal is not as bad as it sounds. I honesty don’t know if I buy their argument or not.

  • Paul Z- exactly what I was going to say. I’ve already had one person who is not in the least bit ignorant mention he had no clue Komen funds went to PP.

    Paul W.- My bet is that the first open, deadly violence will be against those who make pro-aborts feel guilty.

  • Foxfier,

    Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy…..

  • Darwin,

    Nobody buys that argument (well almost nobody), but the majority of us don’t.

    It’s a Public Relations disaster on an epic scale if this is a nuanced statement.

    Hey Darwin, read the email I sent you so you can know what’s up (soon).

    🙂

  • I appreciate the clarifications and updates that have been made by Life Site News. I am still not giving any money to the Komen Foundation until all existing financing stops. I acknowledge that appearances indicate Planned Parenthood is “victimizing” its benefactor once upon a time. This is typical for a liberal Democrat individual, and for a liberal Democrat organization. The bottom line is this: these people (not necessarily the Komen Foundation, but the liberal Democrats, especially those in Planned Parenthood) want to wallow in lust like a baboon, getting their genitals titillated whenever they wish, and if that results in a pregnancy, then they want to murder the result of that pregnancy and have the murder financed by someone other than themselves. And if they get venereal disease or AIDS from their sexual promiscuity, then they want nanny government to pay for the hospital bills and medications. But they will forever abuse us with that red herring: “Men get away with it, why can’t women?” The answer, of course, is simple: if a man causes a pregnancy, then he is responsible to support woman and child for the next 18 years and 9 months. Anything less is immoral, and God’s wrath will one day descend on his head. No one gets away with it. God treats everyone equally according to their deeds. Indeed, unwanted pregnancy (that these people say necessitates abortion) is always prevented by abstinence. No one died from ever NOT having sexual intercourse. But these people would rather behave like wild dogs and then tell us how much they revere science, reason and logic when they can’t even control their own passions. They reject that they have been created in the image and likeness of God Himself, and as St. Paul writes in the first chapter of his epistle to the Church at Rome, God hands them over to their depraved indifference.

    But I suspect that I am writing to the choir.

  • PP is highly effective at preventing breast cancer.

    Approximately 100% of murdered babies have not contracted breast cancer.

    Kill for the cure!

  • The public retraction of SGK’s position to not fund PP is akin to Judas betraying Jesus for his 30 pieces of silver. That didn’t work out well either.

  • Pingback: Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part | The American Catholic
  • At least now more people are made aware of the link between Komen and Planned Parenthood and when the time comes later this year people will not be as willing to donate to Komen.It seems like each year more and more stores and business get on the bandwagon of Komen cause.

  • For at LEAST 10 years, and probably more, I have been aware that Komen gave money to Planned Parenthood; it was a regular topic of letters to the editor in the Catholic newspaper I worked for, and I knew of several Catholic schools and institutions that would not endorse Race for the Cure or similar events due to that connection. That connection has been controversial for years and has probably cost Komen millions in potential donations. No one in the lame stream media bothered to cover that! Combine that with the fact that NO ONE goes to PP for mammograms (all they do, at best, is referrals) and one would think the sensible, non-controversial thing for them to have done would have been to drop PP years ago. Then when they finally do, all of a sudden it’s front page news and a humongous controversy?

    I agree that the most recent statement by Komen does NOT necessarily mean they have “caved.” They have NOT said they will fund PP, they have merely said PP will continue to be ELIGIBLE to apply for grants instead of being told they should no longer bother even applying. However, eligibility to apply for a grant is no guarantee of getting one.

  • just when I hoped Komen had come to their senses. this shows the power and pull of evil,esp by the responses of some donors such as the mayor of NYC. we need to pray for everyone’s conversion before they implode upon themselves.

  • Only remaining donor to the Susan G. Komen Foundation: New Coke.

  • “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5 )

  • Pingback: Saturday, February 3rd 2012 « CrossRoads Daily
  • Women are advised to get mammagrams to help early detection of breast cancer, yet Planned Parenthood hardly does any.

    PP is in practice promoting and supporting teen age promiscuity and providing abortions, 300,000 a year, with the USA has the highest teen pregnancy in the world. The sex contraception culture has separated the conception of a human being from sex, made women sex objects, abuse and human trafficking, as well as infidelity and uncommitted men to marriage.

    Over 40 years ago, most teens had personal morals and free of sexually transmitted diseases. It is a crime to destroy the innocence of young people, and accommodate them in sexual activity before they are ready to have a family.

  • I WAS SO VERY PROUD OF kOMEN FOR DROPPING PP. Why they have reversed what they did is beyond me. Now they are a supporter of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, of creatures with souls from God. I am totally disgusted!

  • Komen can no longer say, “We don’t give money to Planned Parenthood.” Although some of the Chapters do not give grants to PP, each Chapter must give 25% to the National, who, in turn, gives money to PP.

    Because of this firestorm, no one can say, “I didn’t know that Komen gave grant money to Planned Parenthood.” If that money were to be taken away (from Planned Parenthood) and given to clinics that provide mammograms, they would be able to provide valuable services for women, without aborting innocent children as well.”

    Despite the efforts to publicize the non-abortion related services within the Planned Parenthood Federation, it is clear that the driving force behind the business is abortion. Abortion must be the most lucrative item on Planned Parenthood’s agenda, hence its mandate to force affiliates to perform abortions or refer for abortion by 2013.

    I do disagree with claims that the money given by the federal government is kept separate. Every dollar the government gives Planned Parenthood for services like cancer screenings frees money for abortions. Mechanisms to segregate these funds are mere accounting gimmicks and funding schemes.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation Breaks Partnership with Planned Parenthood

Tuesday, January 31, AD 2012

In a piece of very good news, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has announced that they are breaking the partnership they have maintained for some years with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is miffed, calling the decision “deeply disturbing and disappointing.” From The Hill (linked above):

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has broken off a partnership through which it provided cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. Planned Parenthood blamed the political controversy over abortion.

“We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Planned Parenthood said its clinics provided about 4 million screenings for breast cancer over the past five years, roughly 170,000 of which were supported by Komen grants.

Planned Parenthood said it has established an emergency fund to offset the loss of the Komen funds.

Komen told the AP that it ended its partnership with Planned Parenthood because of a congressional investigation into the organization. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee have requested detailed financial records from Planned Parenthood.

This seems like an utterly obvious thing for Komen to do, and frankly it’s surprising it’s taken so long.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation Breaks Partnership with Planned Parenthood

  • ….”Victim” of cancer? Being victimized generally requires there be a will to do something, doesn’t there? Or have I been a victim of the cold in a non-metaphorical way?

    Incidentally, I know several folks who have gone through cancer and do care about your “politics” when the lives of babies are involved.

    More on topic: WHOOT! Now if they’ll just stop giving money to ESCR, I’ll be able to buy pink ribbon stuff again!

  • emergency fund = more of my tax dollars

  • Pingback: susan g komen - Tenvipo
  • I donated to Komen for the Cure for years without knowing of their affiliation with PP. When I found out (via a Catholic blog), I was very distressed. The lesson learned was to look very carefully at charities before reaching for the checkbook. I am glad to find they are dropping their partnership with that infernal organization.

  • Donna V. – I couldn’t agree with you more. I have also given much more scrutiny to organizations that I choose to give money too. Susan G. Komen is now back on my list of considerations.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY PRO-LIFE EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • While this is great, I urge caution. I for one will not be giving them money, yet. They may still rejoin with PP, and they also have a long on-again-off-again relationship with embryonic stem cell research, not to mention the salaries of the SGK CEOs. I hope this represents a real change in SGKs life philosophy, but it is still too soon to know.

  • They also tend to make donations to political candidates. All in all, they are not quite ready for my donation.

    I thought Lila Rose did an expose that involved calling dozens of PP offices to schedule a mammogram and was told in every case they could not or did not offer them. What are they calling “breast cancer screenings?”

  • The Huff Post is speculating that this development has the fingerprints of former GA gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel who recently joined the Komen Foundation as VP. I have no idea, but it is plausible. I know Karen and she is pro-life notwithstanding the lies and distortions spread by sorry folks at GA Right to Life.

  • The liberal comments at the Susan G Komen Facebook page are quite obscene and vicious over this announcement.

  • Therese Z-
    the manual examination- the sort that is pretty standard at any doctor’s. It’s like a self exam, although if I remember correctly things have to be REALLY dire for a doctor to notice something odd. Even self-exams done regularly often don’t find things until it’s rather late– the earliest symptoms are changes, not something specific. (Yay, generalities. There are cases of women catching it very early, but there are also cases of not finding it until it’s massively advanced, even when the exams are done correctly.)

  • Well, that is unfortunate, but not surprising. I hope that the Foundation realizes that those commentators are not benefactors, at least as a group. Just angry pro-aborts who consider abortion a sacrament and obscenity literature.

  • According to this article, Komen has also quietly stopped funding embryonic stem cell research:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2841458/posts

    On November 30, 2011, Komen quietly added a new statement to its web site stating that it does not support embryonic stem cell research but supports the kinds that do not involve the destruction of human life.

    “Komen supports research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for breast cancer, but are derived without creating a human embryo or destroying a human embryo,” Komen says. “A priority in our research funding is to quickly find and deliver effective treatments, especially for the most lethal forms of breast cancer, while seeking effective preventive strategies, enhanced screening methodologies, and solutions to disparities in breast cancer outcomes for diverse women.”

    Meanwhile, as LifeNews reported, new Komen Vice President for public policy Karen Handel, a pro-life advocate for Georgia, also opposes embryonic stem cell research. She has been credited with being instrumental in helping stop the Planned Parenthood funding.

  • Komen backtracks, now says they WILL fund Planned Parenthood. I thought is odd when they held their International Conference in Cairo and the Egyptians insisted (remember this was during the ‘peace treaty’) that Israel not be allowed to attend and Komen agreed! Israeli hospitals are on the cutting edge of cancer research. Egypt? They are on the cutting edge of cutting Coptic Christian throats.

  • in fact, PP is highly effective at preventing breast cancer.

    Approximately 100% of murdered babies have not contracted breast cancer.

    Kill for the cure!

  • I see that my comment was not useful the other day as I tried to warn everybody to re-read the press report from Komens before they got too excited about this news. The one good thing that came out of this mess, is that for years, we pro-lifers have been trying to wake people up about Komen & their ties with “pp”, but, to no avail. Now, we not only have the proof, but, “pp” has exposed it’s poisonous fangs for all of America to see. The bottom line: READ EVERYTHING CAREFULLY, especially where the devil is involved. +JMJ+

Party of Death

Wednesday, November 30, AD 2011

4 Responses to Party of Death

Planned Parenthood Thanksgiving Talking Points

Friday, November 25, AD 2011

Ah, nothing quite says Thanksgiving like a pro-abort attempting to defend the indefensible while the turkey is being carved!  Worse Than Murder, Inc., a\k\a Planned Parenthood, lest a pro-life word be uttered around the Thanksgiving table, has some talking points for its supporters to mutter :

1. Avoid bumper speak talk. A slogan might work for a poster or a button, but in a conversation it just leads to a heated back and forth. Try to steer clear of catchall phrases—they very rarely lead to common ground or change anyone’s mind.

2. Remember the big picture. Debating when life begins or whether or not abortion is federally funded may get you nowhere. Instead focus on your shared values and the big picture—for instance, talk about how you believe everyone should be able to afford to go to the doctor, or how the decision about when and whether to become a parent is a personal one. You never know, you just may find yourself actually agreeing with your relatives.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Planned Parenthood Thanksgiving Talking Points

Elections Have Consequences: Congress to Investigate Worse Than Murder, Inc.

Sunday, October 2, AD 2011

Congressman Cliff Stearns (R. Fl.) , Chairman of the investigation subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee gave Cecile Richards, President of Worse Than Murder, Inc, a/k/a Planned Parenthood, a very bad day recently when he sent her a letter asking for numerous documents.  Go here to read the letter.

This sets the stage for a full scale Congressional investigation of Worse Than Murder, Inc.  Fields of inquiry could include:

1.  The failure of Worse Than Murder, Inc to comply with laws which require reporting of possible sexual abuse of minors.

2.  Just what Worse Than Murder, Inc does with all the federal money it receives each year.

3.  The number of abortions conducted by Worse Than Murder, Inc.

4.  Subpoena of internal e-mails involving Worse Than Murder, Inc’s use of federal funds and non-compliance with laws regarding the reporting of the sexual abuse of minors.

5.   Have any federal funds been used by Worse Than Murder, Inc for political purposes?

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences: Congress to Investigate Worse Than Murder, Inc.

2 Responses to Don’t Worry, Planned Parenthood Says It’s Not a Baby Yet

Worse Than Murder, Inc. Can Always Depend on Obama

Thursday, June 2, AD 2011

President Obama continues to live down to his title of most pro-abort president in our nation’s  history.  He is now seeking to block implementation of Indiana legislation to deny funding to Worse Than Murder, Inc., a/k/a Planned Parenthood.    

The Obama administration today denied Indiana’s use of its new state law that would deny millions in taxpayer dollars to the Indiana affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion business.

Governor Mitch Daniels signed the law, which would cut off anywhere from $2 million to $3 million the Planned Parenthood abortion business receives in federal funds via the Indiana government through Medicaid.

Daniels said that “any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.”

However, the Obama administration has told the state it can’t implement the new law, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick denying a request to deny funds saying the federal Medicaid law stipulates that states can’t exclude providers based on the services they provide.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Worse Than Murder, Inc. Can Always Depend on Obama

  • The Republican law says that a person on the Medicaid fee for service program cannot get a covered health care service (abortions not covered in Indiana) at a clinic that also performs abortions. They can get a health care service at a doctor’s office that performs abortions or a hospital that performs abortions.

  • It is not perfect legislation Kurt but it is a big step in the goal of defunding Worse Than Murder, Inc, legislation of a similar nature moving forward in other states due to the Republicans now controlling more state legislatures than any time since the Twenties of the last century. Obama would of course sooner eat ground glass than see Planned Parenthood lose a cent of its blood money. Abortion is the Holy of Holies of the Democrat party, and Obama is the chief priest of the cult.

  • “…forces Planned Parenthood to choose between doing abortions and getting taxpayer funding.” Yes, precisely and the people providing the taxes have every God-given right to force that choice.

  • And you can always depend on Kurt to deflect the attention away from his baby-killing allies and place the blame on “the Republican law”.

    (I REALLY should tone down such rhetoric. After all, we know that Kurt feels “alienated from the Pro-Life movement” because of such things. A pity that he couldn’t bring himself to be similarly “alienated” by his party’s devotion to abortion on demand and its willingness to go to any lengths to protect legalized abortion.)

  • It is not perfect legislation Kurt…

    So why the gutlessness at perfect legislation?

    For that matter, why does the Catholic Church allow it ‘s employee health care to be used at facilities that perform abortions?

  • Obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation. I guess it’s easier to do than look yourself in the mirror and realize you’re a cheerleader for someone who thinks it should be perfectly legal for infants who survive abortions to die on the table.

  • Shows you how worthless his “executive order” was post-Stupak.

  • When I read things like this, I am reminded of how the Lord God allowed the Assyrian king to carry King Manasseh away into captivity for having made his own children walk through fire in worship of the Canaanite gods of death and destruction. Some people don’t like it when that parallel is pointed out, claiming that in these modern times somehow things are different because “we’re a democracy” and we got all this modern science and technology. But God doesn’t change. Defy Him and and His laws, and there will be hell to pay. The economy is beginning to resume its downward spiral. We have had an awful spate of destructive weather in the form of flooding in the mid-west and tornadoes in the south and even one in Springfield, MA yesterday. But all the scientifically-minded people say it’s always been this way; we’ve simply never noticed. Perhaps we will notice if and when God allows the Yosemite caldera to explode, or the San Andreas fault to finally let loose. It took the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people into Babylon before they sat up and noticed, and their sins are less than ours with our having once been a Christian nation and now having elected a godlessly wicked president who legitimatizes the murder of the most innocent and helpless every chance he gets.

    Our choice is clear: repent and convert or get destroyed. The wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, His Son. Hmmmm….that’s in Scripture, right?

  • Paul —
    Can’t deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is financing abortion, can you?

  • Kurt,

    Those clerics in the Catholic Church who allow (or worse, aid and abet) Catholic organizations which fund abortion or support gay sex would do well to read Ezekiel 34:1-10. That this occurs, however, does not constitute validation of the supposition that the Catholic Church Herself finances abortion.

    Christ will separate the wheat from the chaff and the chaff will be burned up in everlasting fire. That may begin in this life or be deferred to the next as He wills it. But in the end, Christ will have a spotless Bride. Ananias and Saphira learned that the hard way in Acts 5:1-11. Hymenaeus and Alexander had to also learn that the hard way in 1st Timothy 1:19-20. And Jesus told Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-23 that her children of adultery would be struck dead and she would be tortured until she learned to obey Him who is Lord God Eternal.

    As the write of the Epistle to the Hebrews states, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

  • Those clerics in the Catholic Church who allow (or worse, aid and abet) Catholic organizations which fund abortion …

    Those clerics would include Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal Burke. Should I have the opportunity, I will give them your recommendation.

  • Kurt,

    I do see how that might include Cardinal Wuerl. He refuses to put apostates like Nancy Pelosi and the other pseudo-Catholic politicians in Washington, DC in their proper place – outside of receiving Holy Communion until they repent. Oh, he says that’s the responsibility of their local Bishop (in her case Niederauer), but they parade themselves right on up in parishses in his diocese. And Niederauer of course is no better. These people who make a public scandal and flaunt their disobedience right in front of the national news media must be publicly excommunicated. St. Paul did it with Alexander and Hymenaeus.

    As for Cardinal Burke, my understanding is that he is about as orthodox as they get. I can understand how that would enrage the liberal pseudo-Catholics. Good for him.

  • As for Cardinal Burke, my understanding is that he is about as orthodox as they get.

    All the more troubling that, as Archbishop of St. Louis, he financed abortion. Sad day when a man like Burke spends Church money on abortions.

  • How did Cardinal Burke fund abortions? Web link to pertinet news story, please. Or was money diverted from his diocese by liberal laity serving in diocesan offices?

    Interesting that liberal Bishops and peudo-Catholic politicians escape your notice, however.

  • “…a cheerleader for someone who thinks it should be perfectly legal for infants who survive abortions to die on the table.”

    ..Words which came right out of the mouth of our Master of Deceit in Chief.
    It was this adamant belief expressed on three separate occasions while as a congressman which defined Obama to thousands BEFORE he was elected. And still thousands of Catholics voted for this alleged Christian and a man of compassion. If we have reached that level of public morality and are willing to REELECT this proud pompous enabler of Murder Inc. then we need to prepare for the wrath which surely we have purchased for ourselves.

  • “And still thousands of Catholics voted for this alleged Christian and a man of compassion. If we have reached that level of public morality and are willing to REELECT this proud pompous enabler of Murder Inc. then we need to prepare for the wrath which surely we have purchased for ourselves.”

    Sadly there will be thousands of Catholics finding themselves cast out of the Kingdom of Heaven just as many Pharisees and Saduccees saw themselves cast out.

    Now is the day of repentance, for surely wrath is coming. One thermonuclear detonation at the Yosemite caldera by the al Qaeda nuts (and some equally horrific action – asteroid impact, bio-warfare, chemical warfare) is all it would take. Tic tock. Tic tock. Tic tock. “Be not deceived. God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap.” We have sown the whirlwind.

  • How did Cardinal Burke fund abortions?

    The exact same way Indiana is unless the new legislation is allowed to take effect. The exact same way.

    Interesting that liberal Bishops and peudo-Catholic politicians escape your notice, however.

    Oh, I’ve noticed. I originally named two cardinals, one of which seems to meet you standard of a liberal. I’m just following up on Cardinal Burke’s funding of abortion as it seems to be news to you. Almost all of them are probably funding abortion.

  • Kurt,

    So how is Indiana’s new legislation allowing abortions to take place, what Role does Cardinal Burke have in that (if any), and how has anything he has done been remotely similar to what Indiana is doing.

    Link to the Indiana legislation would be helpful, as well as link to reports on any past activities by Burke that are similar to this. In your first response you didn’t provide links as requested. You just made an accusation and then gave reference to Indiana.

  • Kurt is basically just lying to cover his own conscience. In his convoluted world, as long as you can draw the most tenuous connection between Action A and Outcome U he can say he’s no different than any of the Bishops and Priests. Kind of sad, really.

    Then again, what’s a few million dead babies so long as those union coffers remain filled?

  • Paul Z.,

    That’s exactly what I thought, but I wanted Kurt to use dispassionate logic and objective evidence to make his case instead of liberal group-think.

    I thought I was bad in being so emotional and non-objective! Well, I am…..

    Many hate Burke not because of some nebulous and tenous link to abortion (and there isn’t one that I can find), but because he is orthodox, so anything that can be shaded to look like liberal hypocrisy in him they will go all out to expose. In the meantime they ignore the worst of hypocrisy among themselves because Obamessiah promises all hungry bellies will be filled.

  • So how is Indiana’s new legislation allowing abortions to take place, what Role does Cardinal Burke have in that (if any), and how has anything he has done been remotely similar to what Indiana is doing.

    Cardinal Burke financed abortions the same way that the old Indiana law allowed it. As Archbishop of St. Louis, Burke financed abortions in the same way Indiana did until it was corrected by the new law. The financing of abortions by the Archdiocese of St. Louis continues to this day.

    EXACTLY THE SAME.

  • Kurt,

    Web links to the applicable laws and to the news reports, please. Where’s the evidence?

  • Kurt,

    You have been asked multiple times to provide evidence of your allegations. If you continue to obfuscate the issue by failing to provide a cogent defense of your argument, I will put you on moderation.

  • I would happily walk you through step by step if you could just help me avoid any distractions over terminology by allowing me to totally defer to your use of terminology and standards.

    I would just ask that you describe for me (without the restrictions of the new Indiana law) how abortion was being funded in Indiana. That way I can courteously use the same terminology, standards and measures you use. I will then walk you through how the Archdiocese of St. Louis finances abortions in the exact same way and provide links giving further evidence.

    I’m confident I can do so, but just want to start off by using your description so we are not sidelined or confused by using differing meaning of words.

  • Kurt,

    I work in the commercial nuclear industry. If I make an allegation to the US NRC, they expect me to cite the exact part of the Code of Federal Regulations that was violated (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59, or 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion III or whatever). Then they expect me to specify what procedure or instruction at the company where I work is in violation by alphanumeric identifier and name, as well as the affected procedural steps. Date, time, and setting of the violation is also required. Everything has to be objective. No ranting. The NRC doesn’t listen to rants.

    So do the same. Go to the web page for the Illinois legislative code, find the actual law, bill or state code in question, reference the web link, quote the law, bill or code, and then identify the physical circumstances (date, time and seeting) under which Cardinal Burke did what you said. Use web link to pertinent news reports. Don’t be like me ranting about liberals. Be objective. Get the facts and to the last decimal place. If Cardinal Burke screwed up, then prove it with the facts.

  • A little off-topic, but relevant story: We had a visitor last week in our home, a Catholic childhood Holocaust survivor from Poland who now lives in NY. She requested an appointment with her Congressman who is pro-abortion and also attends Catholic Mass. It took time to call over and over, but she didn’t stop calling. Finally she got the appointment, and once in his office she looked him straight in the eyes and told him that she wanted him to stop taking Communion in front of everyone at well-attended Masses each week. She’s a very direct woman, go straight to the source. I like that!

  • Another Deborah, another Judith doing what too many Catholic men are afraid to do. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for women like the one about whom Stacy wrote. There is hope!

  • From Bill McGurn’s piece yesterday at National Catholic Register:

    “… we surely would have more Thomas Mores if we had more Bishop John Fishers.”

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/notre-dame-and-emilys-list/

  • “Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for women like the one about whom Stacy wrote.” To them it must be said in all turthfulness “man” was made from the dust of the earth but “woman” was made of flesh and bone to bring him to fulfillment.
    However, speaking of WRATH in conjunction with an Obama regime, if you dare think this to be an extreme or unimaginable perception you might want to recall another “policy change” which der Obamamister told us would be required for him to succeed in fundamentally transforming America. Like murderous abortion is hidden under the umbrella of “women’s health” there is an even more sinister change lurking under the umbrella of “homeland security” which is surely ready to take shape as internal turmoil like we have witnessed in Wisconsin with union thugs and across the nation in public demonstrations against immigration reform and right to work laws.
    Obama knew in his rush to transform us into a European styled socialistic “democracy” as he systematically shredded the constitution there would be strong resistance by those American patriots who realized what was happening. Enter his campaign’s spoken urgent need to protect us from all harm foreign and “domestic”. It went something like this. “We need and internal civilian security force just as well equipped and funded as our military”. You thought of domestic terrorist maybe? Wrong.
    Eric Holder won’t attempt to prosecute militant Black Panthers intimidating voters. Then Obama (sheepishly) vows to stand with the storming army of thugs as they demolish Madison’s capitol.
    The administration files suit against any state trying to enforce immigration laws or prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions. Who do you think is the “domestic” enemy threatening the administration as the transformation proceeds? We have met the enemy and…
    Could it be that we have unwittingly created the hands and fists of the perpetrator of the WRATH about to descend upon us?

  • Actually Kurt is right. Employees of the Archdiocese of St. Louis can get health services at Planned Parenthood clinics, though not abortions. Medicaid recipients in Indiana can get health services at Planned Parenthood clinics, though not abortions.

    There is nothing immoral about paying for non-abortion services at a clinic that provides abortions. Now, you may want to pressure PP into ending abortion services by withholding funding for morally permissible services but not withholding it isn’t immoral.

    As for the politics, doesn’t this prove that elections don’t matter as much as some would like them to matter? Neither a pro-life governor nor a pro-life president can overturn federal law.

  • These aren’t grants to PP so it has nothing to do with fungibility. If you sell bread and pickles and I buy bread, I’m not subsidizing pickles. Paul is confusing this with the inherent fungible nature of grants.

    There’s an unrelated question: Suppose you have an employee who donates some of his income to PP. Should you fire him?

  • RR,

    Kurt’s argument would only begin to have validity if a diocese instead of paying for its small number of employees to have health insurance via some existing health care plan (which is actually the case) was actually running a health insurance plan, which listed Planned Parenthood as an authorized service provider.

    Saying that the Church is at fault for using health care providers is like saying that individual users of Medicaid are at fault for the fact that Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood.

    As for the fungibility issue — clearly it’s of financial benefit to Planned Parenthood to get a few million dollars worth of business from a place that reliably pays its bills like the government, and it’s probably also financially advantageous to them to get their hooks into the sort of low income customers who would come in via Medicaid, since PP can then market non-covered services such as abortions to them. These are, after all, a particularly easily exploited group of customers for a vulture organization such as PP.

    People who are so blithe about insisting that it’s not problematic for the government to be paying for non-abortion services to be provided by Planned Parenthood should consider whether they’d feel similarly if the Aryan Nations opened a “health care” wing and wanted federal funds for providing services to the poor. Anyone with a Catholic moral compass is pretty clearly going to see Planned Parenthood as about as socially respectable as the Aryan Nations, if not less so.

  • DC, I didn’t say the diocese is at fault. I think it’s clearly morally permissible to buy non-abortion services at PP just as it’s morally permissible to buy toothpaste at a pharmacy that also sells birth-control.

    To be clear, it’d be great if PP didn’t get any money for anything. But on the question of whether it’s morally permissible to buy non-abortion services from PP, the answer is clearly “yes.”

  • “To be clear, it’d be great if PP didn’t get any money for anything. But on the question of whether it’s morally permissible to buy non-abortion services from PP, the answer is clearly “yes.””

    Rubbish. Planned Parenthood is in the business of murdering the most innocent among us. Any interaction with that organization other than demanding that they be shut down yesterday is deeply immoral.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I didn’t say the diocese is at fault. I think it’s clearly morally permissible to buy non-abortion services at PP just as it’s morally permissible to buy toothpaste at a pharmacy that also sells birth-control.

    Well, you said that you thought Kurt was right, and Kurt was (disingenuously) arguing that the diocese was at fault for acting in the same way that as Indiana is trying to make Medicaid stop behaving.

    I pointed out that he’s wrong to assert that the dioceses’ behavior is the same as Medicaid’s — this at a minimum seems to pretty clear.

    As to whether it’s “clearly” moral to purchase other services from Planned Parenthood so long as one doesn’t purchase killings — I don’t know if I’d assert that it is in and of itself to buy something completely harmless (say, typing paper) from Planned Parenthood because of the incredible evil of their other acts, but I would say that they are so closely identified with such an abhorrent moral evil that no morally formed person would consent to have anything to do with them. Seriously, we’re dealing with an organization even worse than the Klan here, there is absolutely no reason to have anything to do with them. I’d rather starve than take food from them.

WEDNESDAY EXTRA EDITION

Wednesday, May 18, AD 2011

A round-up of some of the best punditry in the Catholic Blogosphere, courtesy of ThePulp.it:

“Why Is Mugabe Visiting the Vatican?” – James Kirchick, New Republic

. . .Mark Stricherz of Catholic Vote wrote about this here. . .

God & Political Science – Timothy Shah, Daniel Philpott & Monica Toft, PD

Exposing the Death Dealers – Amy Welborn, Crisis Magazine

Syria Christians Fear for Religious Freedom – Reuters

Pro-Lifers Help Win Canadian Baby Battle – Maryann Gogniat Eidemiller, OSV

About Face on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ – Joan Frawley Desmond, NCRegister

Abp. Jose Gomez: You Have a Duty to Confront This Culture – Cal Cth Daily

Fig Leaves & Falsehoods (Lying & Planned Parenthood) – Janet E. Smith, FT

Quaeritur: Selling a Rosary & Other Sacred Things – Father John Zuhlsdorf

Paternalistic Violence in the New World – David, The School of Salamanca

Monster Baptism & Chemical Pregnancy – Doctor Stacy Trasancos

The Sistine Chapel, In the Depths of Wales! – Richard Collins, The Guild

_._

If you liked this roundup of the best posts from around the Catholic blogosphere, visit ThePulp.it for daily updates twice a day.

For ThePulp.it click here.

Continue reading...

Abby Johnson and the Still Small Voice of God

Friday, April 15, AD 2011

As faithful readers of this blog know, I am an attorney, for my sins no doubt.  It supplies me with bread and butter for my family and myself as well as an opportunity to observe the frailty, follies, crimes and, occasionally, the nobility, of the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve.  However, that is just my day job.  For over a decade now I have also been chairman of the board of directors of the Caring Pregnancy Center located in Pontiac, Illinois in Livingston County, the county in which I live.  There, dedicated pro-life volunteers, almost all of them evangelical women, labor ceaselessly to help women in crisis  pregnancies.  In the movie the Agony and the Ecstasy Pope Julius II is depicted as saying that when he comes before God he will throw into the balance the ceiling painting of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel against the weight of his sins and he hoped it would shorten his time in purgatory.  If such an opportunity exists for me, it will be due to my association with the Caring Pregnancy Center and their truly awe-inspiring and selfless female volunteers.

On April 14th, we held our 25th anniversary banquet which was a grand affair, with our supporters and well-wishers turning out in en masse.  I opened with a few introductory remarks where I talked about the Center and its 25 years of service to the women of Livingston County and their babies.  I also asked why we did this.  First and foremost to protect innocent human life, and, second, because we remember with Thomas Jefferson, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”  It will come as a vast shock, no doubt, to faithful readers of this blog that I somehow worked into my remarks the surrender of Fort Sumter 150 years before on April 14, 1861 and Mr. Lincoln’s remarks in his Second Inaugural Address that the terrible war the nation had been through was God’s punishment on both the North and the South for the sin of slavery.  I ended by stating that it was still possible for America to turn around and repent for the great sin of abortion and that the great words of the prophet Isaiah, as always, give us hope:  “Though your sins be as scarlet, they will be made white as snow.”

Abby Johnson was our speaker, and she gave the most effective pro-life speech I have ever heard and I have heard many over the decades.

She was funny and moving at the same time.  Her delivery was as natural as if she was talking to a next door neighbor, but every word she said was riveting.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Abby Johnson and the Still Small Voice of God

14 Responses to Vote to Defund Planned Parenthood Fails in Senate 42-58

  • I little surprised by Nelson. Very surprised by Manchin. I take that to mean that political pressure within the party is stronger than political pressure from voters.

  • How does Casey remotely justify this?

    There was a time when I took him at his word, but it seems that he’s just another Dem who claims the pro-life mantle to garner the blue-collar traditionally-Democrat pro-life vote and then promptly acts just like the rest of his party.

    I hope his dad is praying hard for him, ’cause I’m having a hard time doing so right now.

  • Which will address the 2011 graduating class of The University of Notre Dame? Which Georgetown’s?

    You’re going to see a leprechaun riding a unicorn down le Grand Boulevarde du Shangri-La before you see dems vote pro-life.

    But, that’s okay. Pro-life/pro-abortion/pro-PP dems are 24/7 social justice, 100%. No sweat: 43,000,000 dead babies!

  • 0 Democrat senators voted to defund Planned parenthood while 42 Republicans did.

    How much more nonsense do we have to listen to about how both parties are equally evil…. Mr. Shea and Ms. Cardigan?

  • Jasper,

    I think Mark refers to the GOP as the Stupid Party, saving the Evil Party for the Dems. While he certainly calls Republicans on the carpet, I don’t think he equates the immorality of their erroneous positions with the Dems’ on abortion.

    But your larger point certainly stands… pro-life Dems are now almost entirely a joke, at least at the national level.

  • The Democrats are a wholly owned subsidiary of Abortion, Inc. When Planned Parenthood whistles all the jackasses come running. As for the Republican defectors, time to make the RINO an extinct species.

    “I think Mark refers to the GOP as the Stupid Party, saving the Evil Party for the Dems.”

    That was Mark’s original formulation Chris. I believe he then went to Stupid Evil Party for the GOP. Since I stopped reading Mark’s blog circa 2006, except on rare occasions, I am not sure what cute phrase he is addicted to now for the party that pro-life Republicans like myself have battled for decades keeping pro-life.

  • In addition to this unforgivable vote Mark Kirk was also one of the handful of Republicans who once again stabbed their own party in the back by voting with the Evil Party on the Cap and Tax bill.

    I would love to have him replaced him here in Illinois but the Republican Party in this God-forsaken state is woefully inept.

  • Mark Kirk is a living symbol of why the GOP in the Land of Lincoln needs a root and branch reformation. The great victories for the GOP in the Congressional races were all due to tea party enthusiasm and had nothing to do with the GOP-Lite Party we have in this state.

  • “I think Mark refers to the GOP as the Stupid Party, saving the Evil Party for the Dems.”

    “That was Mark’s original formulation Chris. I believe he then went to Stupid Evil Party for the GOP.”

    I think Don is right. The GOP is the Stupid Evil Party while the Dems are the Evil Stupid Party. Thus the equivocation.

  • There is solidarity in numbers, everyone. The solution is not to find the fault in individuals, but work HARDER next election to VOTE OUT pro-choice Reps and Senators, and VOTE IN pro-life Reps & Senators to the tune of a 2/3 majority.

    I’m not totally disappointed with this result. I have incredible hope, in fact, because now I know that it’s possible to win this battle for life.

  • In addition to this unforgivable vote Mark Kirk was also one of the handful of Republicans who once again stabbed their own party in the back by voting with the Evil Party on the Cap and Tax bill.

    The use of tradeable permits as a means of environmental protection and attempting to allocate the costs of economic activity was an innovation promoted a generation ago by resource economists. One of them who did so (in his teaching if not his professional publications) was Steve Hanke, currently associated with the Cato Institute, among other agencies. The Environmental Defense Fund was (ca. 1989) the first such organization to endorse the idea. Environmental lobbies were generally hostile to the idea prior to that. Tradeable permits, excises, regulations, tort suits, &c. are all inhabitants of a toolbox. The problem they are meant to address is the problem of externalities from economic activities. Which tool is best is going to depend on granular details. Cursing politicians for these sorts of decisions is needlessly sectarian.

    P.Z.: This fellow Kirk may be a disappointment or worse. Unless his complex of views renders him more suitable for the Democratic caucus, calling him a Republican-in-Name-Only makes little sense. Same deal for the Maine ladies. When policy preferences are bimodally distributed, you always have some people in the tails of the distribution, in the middle and on either end.

  • . Cursing politicians for these sorts of decisions is needlessly sectarian.

    The nature of my employment makes me uncomfortable discussing the pros and cons of the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House; however it is not unreasonable for opponents to question – even vehemently – the wisdom of voting this particular measure.

    As for the RINO label, I normally don’t like using it myself for the reasons you have mentioned. But for some politicians it is rather apt, and so far it seems appropriate for Senator Kirk.

  • “But for some politicians it is rather apt, and so far it seems appropriate for Senator Kirk.”

    It is a mild term for a man who symbolizes the fact that in Illinois the GOP establishment is Democrat-Lite and does their shameful best to sabotage conservative Republicans who run for election. With “Republicans” like Kirk Democrats are superfluous.

Shocking

Wednesday, April 13, AD 2011

Sit down, folks, because I’m going to share a piece of news that will completely flabbergast you.  Bart Stupak – the ever courageous pro-life Democrat who so valiantly fought against abortion funding in Obamacare until the administration offered him an easily breakable and meaningless compromise – yeah, that dude.  Well now he’s a lobbyist for a law firm.  And among the firm’s clients . . . Planned Parenthood of Maryland.

I know, I know, this is a blow.  We all admired the brave soul who was a voice crying out in the wilderness, until the wilderness got a little creepy and he decided bigger, better paydays were more his speed.

Have no fear.  I have been assured that none of the money that Planned Parenthood is billed by the firm goes to pay for Bart Stupak’s salary.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Shocking

  • Hey, as long as Stupak’s office is at the complete opposite end of the hall from the dude who handles PP, then I don’t see a problem with this whatsoever.

    But just to be sure, there needs to be five or six spaces separating their parking spots as well.

    /sarc

  • I am sure that Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova will write an excellent post explaining how Stupak joining a firm that shills for Planned Parenthood demonstrates his deep committment to the pro-life cause and that we who point this out are truly in league with the real anti-life forces.

  • What’s also sad is that years ago, before Stupak sold out the unborn, he was featured on a Knights of Columbus video about building a Culture of Life. Really sad.

  • Don,

    Correct. MM would only complain about Stupak if he joined National Right to Life.

  • Venable is a HUGE firm. Number 83 in the world based on revenue:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_100_largest_law_firms

    They seem to represent just about everybody:
    http://www.venable.com/nonprofits/clients/

    I don’t think we read much into Stupak’s character from this.

  • That’s true Matt. Interestingly, a lot of the organizations represented by Venable are health care related.

  • Matt is right. I am not aware of my Firm (#55 on that list) representing PP, but I would have little practical ability to prevent it even as a rather senior partner — just as no partner could stop me from representing either the Catholic Church or a pro-life organization. I have no brief for Stupak, but I don’t think it is particularly fair to read much into this except for some odd variant of karmic irony, I suppose.

  • Matt and Mike:

    Fair enough. Of course a person in Stupak’s shoes should have a wider range of options to pick and choose the firms he works for, but your points are well taken.

  • The problems are far broader than saying y’er pro-life and 24/7 acting pro-abortion.

    Michael Walsh (from Instapundit) “SO OBAMA’S PEOPLE ARE TALKING TAX INCREASES AGAIN. Here’s my proposal: A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax. Some House Republican should add this to a bill and watch the Dems react.

    “UPDATE: Should we also provide that salaries paid to former government officials aren’t deductible for corporations? Or is that going too far? I say: Put it in as a negotiating point!”

  • Why not just make lobbying legal after all it is only a synonym for bribe. Look, most of these jobs are payback for votes legislation while in office. They get rich while in office and if they leave. Also, make it illegal for them to reside on a company board in which they introduced legislation that directly effected a particular industry.

  • It must be close to impossible to not be tied to Planned Parenthood. They have their claws into every aspect of society now. Just look at the way the USCCB through CHHD and most Catholic Universities give them credence, even supplying links on their websites to Planned Barrenhood.

    Stupak is just another one of their minions playing their game. He probably thinks he is 5 degrees from their evil, or he just doesn’t care as long as the paycheck keeps on coming in.

Compare and Contrast

Tuesday, April 12, AD 2011

Behind Door Number One we have Mark Shea firing up his catchphrase and strawman machine as he hyperventilates about the “Evil Stupid, Stupid Evil,  Evil is Stupid, Am I Evil?  Yes I Am, Stupid is as Stupid Does” Party.  Behind Door Number Two we have Bill McGurn’s account of what happened on Friday night as President Obama dug in his heels and refused to budge on the issue of Planned Parenthood.  Tough call, but let’s go with door number two, Monty.

In the end, President Barack Obama was the one who refused to blink on Planned Parenthood. Another way of saying it is this: The president was willing to shut down the entire federal government rather than see Planned Parenthood’s federal funding cut.

According to press accounts leaked by Democratic aides, House Speaker John Boehner argued for the funding cut late into the evening. The president answered, “Nope, zero.” He then said, “John, this is it.” Mr. Boehner accepted the budget deal without that cut.

A Republican aide confirmed more or less the same account to me. He said it was “chilling” to see how inflexible Mr. Obama was. You might call it ideological.

Certainly there’s a political logic here. To begin with, many of the women’s groups that supported him are still smarting over the executive order (banning federal dollars for abortions) he issued to secure passage of his health-care bill. That’s still a sore spot, even though—as his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently told the Chicago Tribune editorial board—that language is not in the law. The presumption ­being, of course, that eventually the order will be overridden.

The hard line on Planned Parenthood funding also makes sense if the president was calculating that Mr. Boehner would get the blame for a shutdown no matter what. That’s a reasonable assumption, judging from the way the press has swallowed the White House line on who the extremists here are. Never mind that this is the same president who, as an Illinois state senator, famously opposed limiting even partial-birth abortion.

For his part, Mr. Boehner now finds himself criticized for accepting too little in spending cuts and giving up the ship on defunding Planned Parenthood to get a budget deal. Leaving aside his victory in restoring the previous status quo prohibiting taxpayer funding for abortions in the District of Columbia, Mr. Boehner came away with two strong accomplishments.

First, in just three months as speaker, he has managed to change the national debate from “stimulus” and “investment” to “how much spending do we need to cut”—which is why Mr. Obama will be pressing the reset button in a planned speech on spending tomorrow. Second, on Planned Parenthood funding, he has secured something that those concerned about restoring these contentious issues to the people should appreciate: an agreement that the Senate will vote on a separate measure to defund Planned Parenthood.

Surely it tells you something about who the real extremists are that an up or down vote is deemed a concession. In an appearance at a rally before the deal, Mr. Schumer vowed that any bill taking taxpayer dollars from Planned Parenthood would “never, never, never” pass the Senate. In the normal way of doing things, it wouldn’t even have come up for a vote.

McGurn’s whole column is behind a pay wall, and I can violate fair use only so much (K-Lo did it first).  There is one other line in the column I do have to take issue with.  McGurn notes that Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, and adds, “Planned Parenthood counters that no federal dollars go to abortion, but Americans are not stupid.  They know money is fungible.”  Sadly, based on some of the Facebook and blog posts I read last week, I’d have to disagree with McGurn’s assessment about the public’s stupidity.

I can partially understand the sentiment of those who think Boehner should have drawn a line in the sand as well.  The problem is we have an ideological extremist in the White House – and one would think by now people would finally get this – who is beholden to the abortion lobby.  Oh, he might change his mind when it comes to things like military commissions and waging war in the Middle East, but when it comes to abortion there ain’t no stopping him now.  There can be negotiating with the likes of Obama when it comes to abortion – only removal from office.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Compare and Contrast

  • The problems confronting Boehner were a practical one and a political one:

    1. The practical one is that the GOP simply lack the votes in the Senate to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, with the Democrats still having a slender majority.

    2. The political one is that shutting down the Federal government solely over Planned Parenthood funding would have given the Democrats a gift which would keep on giving for 2012. Such a stand simply could not be sold to the American people, especially as distorted by the mainstream media. (Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortion! Those crazy Republicans are taking the nation over the cliff in order to mollify pro-life zealots!)

    Under the circumstances Boehner came out well: a ban on funding abortions by the DC government; and an up or down vote on funding Planned Parenthood on Thursday in the Senate, something that Reid wanted to prevent, as Democrats running in Red States for re-election to the Senate in 2012 hate being put on the spot to support Planned Parenthood. Oh, they’ll do it, because abortion is the Holy of Holies in the Democrat Party and Planned Parenthood is the chief minister to that Sacred Mystery of the Party of the Jackass, but they hate doing it since it reminds voters in Red States just how alien they are to the sense of morality of most voters in those States.

    Boehner also got more spending cuts than the Democrats were initially willing to agree to.

    Not bad for a new Speaker facing a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President.

  • Have you been following the Pence Amendment though? The House has already approved the Pence Amendment to remove all Title X funds from PP. It’s a brilliant move on Boehner’s part because now there’s no budget argument for the Dems to hide behind and it’s only a vote to defund PP. Those who vote to continue funding PP will have to answer for it at election time. PP could still be defunded. It’s time to call Senators! My husband’s been letting Scott Brown have it!

  • Pingback: Paying Attention: BO for Abortion | Cowboy Papist
  • I guess that’s one of the excuse people used to vote for Obama in 2008 and will again employ in 2012.

    At least the (D) is for despicables have the cowardice of their convictions, i.e., they are truly fearful of voting against their baby-murdering base.

    I wince at the moral contortions through which good people put themselves to justify voting for the 100% abortion candidate. The pro-life party couldn’t do anything! NOW GET THIS: pro-life couldn’t prevail because the pro-death candidates keep being elected by good people.

    Did I make it sufficiently clear? No. If you are pro-life, do not vote for abortion candidates, i.e., any democrat. I am an accountant, not an MA in moral theology, etc.

  • My prediction: 47 senators will vote to defund. 45 Republicans (47 minus Olympia Snow and Susan Collins) plus Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin.

  • Close RR. My tally is 45 voting to defund. Scott Brown, who the best I can say for him right now is that he is not Ted Kennedy, has come out against defunding Worse Than Murder, inc, and Princess Lisa from Alaska, ever the pro-abort, wants to continue to fill the coffers of PP. Having said that, I can imagine a surprise vote or two more on the Democrat side that might make it razor thin, especially if Reid decides to release some Dems who are in tough races next year. (Not though Bob Casey, Jr, the disgraceful offspring of a great man. He has announced that PP can depend on him. Can we dispense with the pretense now that Casey the Lesser is in any sense pro-life?) Ironic if our first Catholic Vice-President would have to break a tie vote in favor of Planned Parenthood, although I expect the Dems will probably have at least a 4 vote margin of victory.

  • The bottom line is Boehner does not have a backbone but that only means he is average among his colleagues. The Republicans should have called their bluff and allowed the federal government to shut down. It is not as if the federal government is doing their job anyway just look at our boarders. The fed sucks the life blood out of taxpayers and wastes it on abortions, foreign aid (which only really makes the elite richer), give aways to non-citizens at citizens expenses, financial aid to foreign business, etc.

    I say let the fed shut down and then the states can start doing more without the huge pile of red tape to attend with.

  • Forgot about Brown and Mukowski. You’re right, Don. 45. Even if the GOP won all the competitive Senate races last year, they wouldn’t have a pro-life majority.

The Budget Deal, or Why Elections Have Consequences

Monday, April 11, AD 2011

Unsurprisingly the last minute budget deal was the talk of much of the blogosphere over the weekend.  Some think it’s a big Republican victory.  Others are less inclined to see this as something to celebrate, to say the least.  Ed Morrissey strikes a more middle-ground approach, but says something that I think we should all keep in mind.

We’ll see who won in September, but Republicans have achieved one major accomplishment.  Not only did they force the first actual reductions in government spending in ages, but they have changed the political paradigm from whether to cut to how much and where to cut.  That’s a pretty impressive victory for a party that only controls one chamber of Congress.

To me we’re in round two of a twelve round heavyweight fight.  The real battles will be over the FY 2012 budget and the 2012 elections.  This was but a skirmish.

As for me, I agree with Gabriel Malor at Ace (linked above) that this is a good first step.  I completely understand the frustration some have expressed, especially over the inability to de-fund Murder Inc, aka Planned Parenthood.  But the fact remains that the Republicans control only one of the three democratic elements of the budget battle.*

* Slight tangential note, but I do think the talking point that Republicans only control one-half of one chamber to be a bit overdone.  First of all it’s more than half, and if we’re going to be consistent then we should say the Republicans have almost half of another chamberthe Senate.  After all, Republicans have a greater share of votes in the House than Democrats do in the Senate.  Moreover, because it lacks a filibuster rule, majority control in the House – even a small majority – is more significant than majority control in the Senate.  The minority is all but powerless in the House, less so in the Senate, especially if it has at least 41 votes.

The Republicans won big in the 2010 elections, but the Democrats won just as big as 2006 and 2008.  Therefore we are at a stalemate.  It was unreasonable to think that with control of just the House that Republicans could have completely reversed the tide of the previous two years.  At best it seemed that the Republicans could at least put a halt to further advances for Obama’s agenda, and so the relatively puny amount of real spending cuts is not an insignificant victory.

The Planned Parenthood de-funding is another matter.  Could Republican leadership have done more than merely secure an up-or-down vote on it?  Perhaps, but I just don’t see it.  It would have satisfied our sense of outrage if they had huffed and puffed and threatened to go the mattresses on it, but they would likely have been as successful in achieving their ultimate aim as we are in blowing hot air on a blog.

And again, elections have consequences.  Rick Santorum was defeated in his re-election bid in 2006, and many pro-lifers seemed to be gleeful at his defeat.  Santorum had the temerity to endorse Arlen Specter in the 2004 Republican primary in Pennsylvania, and so many suggested that one act over-rode anything else he may have done as a Senator.  He was replaced by Bob Casey, Jr., a “pro-life” Democrat who has proven that the apple falls very far from the tree.  While his dad was the defendant in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (my selection for the worst Supreme Court decision of all-time) and was a true defender of the unborn, the son has been a bit of a weasel where life issues are concerned, and has not indicated one way or the other whether he would vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood.  I predict he won’t, and yet the purists who celebrated Santorum’s defeat will bemoan the Republican Party’s unwillingness to do anything with regards to this matter.

We have a very long way to go, and it was unlikely that anything of consequence would be settled in the recent budget battle.  I just can’t wait for September.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Budget Deal, or Why Elections Have Consequences

  • Other than thinking that it’s important to emphasize that the Republicans only control one chamber of Congress, and Dems control the other, that’s more because so many people think Republicans control “all of congress.” (it’s been pushed by the folks who don’t want blame for congress’ screw ups)

    It’s sad, but it seems to be very true: pro-life democratic pols don’t exist when the going gets though. Pro-life republicans are a bit more likely, and get more likely the more conservative they are; RINOs aren’t any better than dems, and they weaken the republican side.

    I think that the mourning about not cutting PP is a little early, since the budget hasn’t been submitted yet– we’ll see.

  • As a liberal, I don’t have a big problem with any of the cuts that have been announced so far or in the earlier CRs. I think it shows that savings can be found when both sides get serious.

    Of course, the PP amendment was as phony from day one as it was unconstitutional.

  • Of course, the PP amendment was as phony from day one as it was unconstitutional.

    How on Earth was it unconstitutional?

  • How on Earth was it unconstitutional?

    Once again, the GOP has taken the pro-life rank and file for a ride. Congress can’t ban a particular organization by name from bidding on federal contracts. (Article I, sec. 9).

    The GOP knew this and wrote the amendment to be rhetorical, not legislative. They could have at least tried something that might legally stand up like the proposed Maryland Big Box Retailer Medicaid Recovery bill. — written to apply to Wal-Mart without actually naming it.

    But why take the trouble when you are not serious?

  • Okay, there was a very profound and insightful conservative commentary on the President atfter Paul Zummo’s 11:24 post. I had copied it and sent it to some friends as an example of conservative thought and opinion. Now that the Moderator have deleted it, I need to recall it from my friends and let them know thinking conservatives really don’t share these views.

    This is cutting into my time for setting up the union hall for tonight’s kielbasa and kraut social.

  • Once again, the GOP has taken the pro-life rank and file for a ride. Congress can’t ban a particular organization by name from bidding on federal contracts. (Article I, sec. 9).

    Umm, there is nothing remotely in Article 1, Section 9 that touches upon this issue. Next time you want to blow smoke, try running it by someone else.

  • The bill of attainder argument is total rubbish Kurt. The same worthless argument was raised in the cutting off of funding for Acorn and rejected by the Second Circuit last year.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202469732573

    The idea that Congress cannot decide not to fund a particular organization because such a funding decision is a bill of attainder is simply ludicrous.

  • Bill of Attainder? That’s what Kurt was getting at? It’s so ridiculous that it didn’t even occur to me that he was referring to that provision. I know leftists like to stretch the meaning of the Constitution, but man that’s not even in the ballpark.

  • Okay, there was a very profound and insightful conservative commentary on the President atfter Paul Zummo’s 11:24 post. I had copied it and sent it to some friends as an example of conservative thought and opinion. Now that the Moderator have deleted it, I need to recall it from my friends and let them know thinking conservatives really don’t share these views.

    I hesitate to dictate how someone spends their non-kielbasa and kraut time, but one solution would be not to send out “Oh my gosh, would you believe how crazy these guys are?!?!” emails… 😉

  • For those who don’t have one of those cool pocket constitutions. (Mine, sadly, cannot co-exist with a toddler who knows how to climb chairs, and move them.)

    Allow me to agree that removing funding from an organization does not equal either issuing a legal statement that they are wrong without a trial, nor to imprisonment without trial, nor is Planned Parenthood a ship or port or business of a specific state. (Just to cover all grounds.)

    Darwin- my goodness! What kind of crazy suggestion is that? Next thing you know, you’ll suggest that Wikipedia isn’t a better reference than original texts!

  • “Once again, the GOP has taken the pro-life rank and file for a ride. ”

    The old tired lie straight from the devils mouth. Meanwhile his fellow Democraps vote 0-100 against pro-life legislation..

Worse Than Murder, Inc Goes Astroturf

Friday, April 8, AD 2011

Hattip to Creative Minority ReportWorse than Murder, Inc , a/k/a Planned Parenthood, and the other denizens of the “murder is a right!” movement, must be getting desperate judging from this ad.  The Pro-aborts are subletting to Grassroots Campaigns the gaining of “volunteers” for their cause at the rate of $335-$535  a week.  Go here to have a gander at Grassroots Campaigns, and here to gain some background information on these paid “astroturfers.”  “Astroturfing” is the creation of fake groups to simulate an actual grassroots popular organization.   David Axlerod, Barack Obama’s chief campaign strategist in 2008, became a very wealthy man perfecting this political black art

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Worse Than Murder, Inc Goes Astroturf

  • The liberals will NOT give up baby murdering without a civil war. It took war to free the blacks. It took war to stop Hitler’s genocide of the Jews. Like it or not, these things are only resolved by war. And no, I do NOT advocate civil war. I do NOT advocate violence against baby-murderers or anyone. Such violence to me seems oxymoronic – “I’ll save babies’ lives by murdering abortionist doctors.” BUT I do note that throughout human history “the tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed by the blood of tyrannts and patriots alike. It is its own natural manure.” And that’s the way it is – sadly and regrettably.

  • “the tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed by the blood of tyrannts and patriots alike. It is its own natural manure.”

    Thus spake Thomas Jefferson, a man who never served a day in the Continental Army, and whose main feat of arms as a wartime governor of Virginia was the rapidity with which he fled from a British raiding party. If Jefferson had ever seen a battlefield, I very much doubt he would have spoken so glibly about blood. I think the pro-life cause will succeed peacefully through conversion of hearts and winning elections. If there was ever a struggle where violence is completely counter productive, it is this one.

  • Your tax dollars ($750 million to PP) at work . . .

  • At the risk of derailing this thread, Donald and Paul’s exchange reminded me of this quip from Connor Cruise O’Brien: “The twentieth-century statesman whom the Thomas Jefferson of January 1793 would have admired most is Pol Pot.”

    Speaking of TJ, I am going to see his “bible” today, currently being repaired. Should be fun.

  • Whether Thomas Jefferson said that famous quote or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is true. History says it is. I do hope that you’re right and this war can be won without bloodshed, and I do think people in the pro-life movement should be pro-life. Bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors is just as anti-life as what they do – dismember living infants in the womb. BUT it took bloodshed to free the blacks. And it took blood shed to stop the Nazis. Lord Jesus, please may it never come to that!

  • “Whether Thomas Jefferson said that famous quote or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is true.”

    He said it; that he said it is relevant since he had no personal experience of what he was praising; and it simply is not true. Most wars have had precious little to do with liberty. Sometimes fighting for freedom or some other just cause is necessary; most of the time wars can, and should be, avoided. (As the most hawkish contributor to The American Catholic that may sound odd coming from me, but that has always been my view regarding wars.)

  • Well, Donald, maybe you’re right. I will admit that I am a coward when it comes to shedding blood. That’s why I went into the submarine service instead of the Army or Marine Corps when I was a youth. The idea of actually seeing and dodging bullets on a battlefield was horrifying to me.

  • I served in the Green Machine in peace time Paul. My main service to the defense of my country I suspect was when I was discharged from the Army. 🙂

  • Pacem. Here’s what has come to pass in our country.

    “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.” Romans 1:28-30

    And, it’s mainly funded by taxes.

    PWP: “Peace is our profession.” Your sub was capable of more righteous “good works” than all the soldiers, sailors, and marines since Cain slew Abel.

  • Folks,

    Forgive me that I digress.

    T. Shaw,

    Technically, I was assigned to a fast attack, not a boomer. But still, I felt not the slightest bit of moral discomfort (just physical discomfort) sleeping beside a nuclear tipped sub roc in the torpedo room (there wasn’t enough berthing space, and when you’re a junior ETN2/SS, you sleep where you can). Nuclear weapons were a necessary deterrent to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And while I was a reactor operator back aft and not a torpedo man’s mate, I did have to learn how to load, flood and launch a weapon (we all did to get qualified “Submarine Service). If I had ever been asked to launch a nuclear weapon, then I would have done so without hesitation. I was a submarine sailor. At that time we were facing what we did not know and we kept the peace by doing what we did.

    Now let it be known that I am NOT a war monger, nor would I WANT nuclear weapons launched. But I would have done my duty. Forgive the reptition: “Peace IS Our Profession,” and we kept it.

    Besides, as previously explained, I was a coward. I didn’t want to face a hail of bullets on the battlefield or see soldiers disemboweled across field and stream. If I had to go, then let it be instantaneous with explosive decompression at test depth. 😉

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Opps – I meant to say, if I had to go, then let it be with explosive compression (really not the right phrase) at test depth.

  • Sub service, Paul? Yikes. I thought it was established doctrine that the three quickest paths to insanity were dropping copious amounts of acid daily, being a tail gunner in a B-17 or B-29, and sub service (even in peace time!). Glad you made it out with more than a few marbles left.

    🙂

  • Pingback: Liberal Astro-Turf | Blogs For Victory
  • The problem with the pro abortionist of the 60’s and 70’s is that THEY are in the highest positions. They are in our government, colleges and schools, and community organizations. These people are well organized and are in positions to that enable them to “buy” votes and manipulate their followers. As Paul W P pointed out, cleaning this mess up without bloodshed is preferable but not likely.

Someone Give This Man a Job Immediately!

Friday, March 25, AD 2011

Hattip to Creative Minority Report.

If Tim Roach questioned his own manhood after six months of unemployment, consider the question asked and answered. Tim Roach is a man, a good man.

In mid February, Tim, got a call from his local union with the news every laid off worker longs to hear — a job offer.

It couldn’t have come at a better time. Tim’s unemployment benefits were about to run out. He could hardly believe what the voice on the other end was presenting to him — an offer to be a job foreman for at least 11 months, with a salary of $65,000 to $70,000 a year.

Perfect, Tim thought. Then came the bad news — he would be working on construction of a new Planned Parent­hood Clinic in St. Paul on University Avenue. The highest of highs became the lowest of lows as he quickly turned down the offer.

Tim’s Union rep tried to get him to reconsider saying he wasn’t sure if abortions would be performed there but he simply responded, “It’s a Planned Parenthood. No.”

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Someone Give This Man a Job Immediately!