IRS Scandal: The Harassment of Pro-Lifers Continues

Friday, August 2, AD 2013



Incredible.  Even after the exposure of the IRS targeting pro-life groups, go here to read about it, the IRS is continuing to target pro-life groups:


August 1, 2013 – Chicago)  Today, the Thomas More Society has submitted an updated second memorandum to Congressman Aaron Schock (IL-18) of the House Committee on Ways and Means, detailing additional evidence of continued IRS targeting of pro-life organizations. Despite claims by the Obama Administration that the harassment has ceased, the Society produced over 230 pages of documentation showing that the federal government is still interrogating pro-life groups beyond the scope of its legal authority, infringing upon these organizations’ First Amendment rights of assembly, free speech, and religious liberty.

“Despite claims to the contrary, the IRS continues to target and harass pro-life and conservative charities, illegally questioning their religious activities and withholding their tax exemptions,” said Peter Breen vice president and senior counsel of the Thomas More Society. “We have now produced irrefutable evidence of six clients whose First Amendment rights were trampled upon by the IRS because of their position upholding the sanctity of life. Even after public disclosure of this wrongdoing, the Obama Administration’s IRS has refused to cease its illegal activity. We will continue to aid Congress in its investigation until those responsible are brought to justice and the IRS is made to respect every American’s constitutional rights.”

Since the Thomas More Society disclosed evidence in May showing IRS harassment of three pro-life groups, the Society has been contacted by numerous additional organizations seeking legal counsel related to IRS issues. Three of these entities, Cherish Life Ministries, LIFE Group, and Emerald Coast Coalition for Life are highlighted in today’s memorandum as having experienced illegal targeting by the IRS.

The memo details the recent experience of several pro-life organizations applying for 501(c)(3) charitable recognition and reveals blatant bias on the part of the IRS agents assigned to process those applications. Repeatedly these pro-life groups were harassed with questions about time spent in prayer at abortion facilities and told that they must educate and advocate on abortion from both sides of the issue. Two groups were also falsely denied their tax exemption status by IRS agent Mrs. R. Medley who claimed they didn’t qualify under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. All three groups’ tax exemptions were delayed 13-16 months with IRS supervisors, including Lois Lerner, singling out their applications for further review by an “exemption organization specialist.” While Thomas More Society attorneys have intervened and secured relief for two of these three organizations, one organization – Emerald Coast Coalition for Life – still remains in limbo.

Continue reading...

One Response to IRS Scandal: The Harassment of Pro-Lifers Continues

Texas, Satan and Gosnell

Saturday, July 13, AD 2013



Well, after  all the sturm und drang of the Wendy Davis filibuster, Davis of course being the pro-abort Democrat Texas State Senator elected into office with the help of Ralph McCloud, director of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, pro-aborts saluting their dishonorary leader, Satan, and pro-abort thugs having confiscated from them bricks, feces and urine that they intended to throw at Texas state legislators, the bill banning almost all abortions after 20 weeks has passed:


After a day filled with pro-abortion threats, pro-life people hiding in secure areas of the capitol fearing for their safety, jars of feces and urine and protestors disrupting the Senate proceedings, democracy finally prevailed.

Members of the state Senate approved the bill to ban late-term abortions on a 19-11 margin on second reading. The chamber then approved the bill in third reading by the same 19-11 vote.

The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion clinics accountable by making them meet basic health and safety standards that have closed facilities in other states that are unable to comply. The bill also requires all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety regulations as an ambulatory surgical center, requires a doctor providing abortions to secure admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and lastly, requires a doctor to personally administer the abortion-inducing drugs to the patient.

Go here to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air to read the rest.  Ed makes an interesting prediction:

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Texas, Satan and Gosnell

  • Bravo Texas.

  • This shows what vile people these pro-abortion advocates really are. The filth from their private parts which they intented to throw on the legislators matches the filth they have in their souls.

  • She was elected “with the help of Ralph McCloud, director of Catholic Campaign for Human Development”????!! Wasn’t that apostate band forced to drop the Catholic part from their name? Or am I just dreaming that would happen?

  • Human sacrifice is the ultimate devil worship, especially innocent children. So, “Hail Satan” is the truth coming out.

  • “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment. Inciting to riot and mob mentality with bricks and other obscenities is not peaceable assembly and these interlocutors had no civil right to use the public square for their promotion of human sacrifice.

  • ” a case that focused the nation on the humanity of the unborn.”

    The nation focuses on reality TV, not reality. The Gosnell case received nearly no major media coverage. The polls are either inaccurate or the people are reacting emotionally, i.e. not from a firm bedrock of principles, or from the little moral conscience left. They can be swayed into a belief and understanding of what it means to pro-life, and I hope so. But until the cause is firmly planted in the mind and heart, they can easily be swayed back. The Democrats just haven’t figured out a way to buy their conscience on this issue yet.

  • Pingback: Unmistakable Fervor: Servant of God Augustine Tolton -
  • Way too cynical Kyle. If you were correct we might as well pack it in and go hide in caves. I actually think the reverse is true: our current hedonism uber alles culture is a hot house plant that requires reinforcement continually from the mainstream media, academia and the entertainment industry. Think about it. All of these major organs of our culture have been in the control of our enemies since Roe and half the nation is against abortion. That is a monumental achievement. If I were our culture war adversaries I would be worried long term, especially since they abort so many who might well be members of their ranks.

  • “The Gosnell case received nearly no major media coverage.”

    You hit the nail on the head. That’s the reason the execrable left so fears (weak as it is) FOXNews and (gasp) the Koch brothers gaining control of a major news outlet.

    “Orwell wrote: “Without a free press, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intent known . . . ” Replace the word “free” with “unbiased

  • How about starting a petition going to the Bishops, individually, and to the USCCB. Clean up the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and the Catholic Relief Services or resign yourself if you cannot do your job better than this. See “Catholic Relief Services gave over $13 million to pro-abortion group in 2012”.
    The dumbest reason to end up in hell is for sticking up for someone else’s sin. In the case of abortion that would not be taking part in that particular sex act, not making any money off of it as you are not the pimp, abortionist, paid-off politician, worker for a pro-abort organization, etc. yet still backing those who are and helping them continue in their sins. Sounds like one could end up in hell, waiting for your friends to show up while they realize their sin, confess and end up in Heaven. Poor, lonely you.

  • When the pro-abort forces yelled “Hail Satan,” that showed the true spirit behind their evil cause.

  • the inhumanity of abortion . How can one human being do that to another and walk away like nothing happened ? its beyond me. all i can think of is how they crucified Jesus, the cruelty of what nations have done to each other, how our children are treated. how will we pay for letting this happen ? that should scare all of us.

  • To Gov. Perry and the legislatures who are trying to protect life, I say, remember what Jesus said, “Blessed are you when they persecute you for your reward will be great in Heaven!”

  • While I find abortion murder, this is a bit of a stretch. I only heard one girl at the end say “hail Satan”

  • There’s a battle for souls going on.

    Every once in awhile, it bursts through the Veil, and becomes visible.

    This is one of them.

  • Has anyone seen the attack on our Blessed Mother in a facebook sight? Horribly anti Catholic as well. The evil one is prowling about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Our Bishops need to be held accountable for their lack of leadership, their lack of guiding their priests.

  • Patty Morris, I wouldn’t know how to start a petition, I’m one of those nearly-internet-illiterate old crocks, but I thought your comment so good I sent it to the USCCB.

    In other news, at there is a passage promising that if we can do away with abortion in our country, it will be spared the worst of the chastisements the rest of the world can expect. (Economic collapse, unfortunately, is not one of those chastisements. We did that to ourselves.)

  • d says:
    Friday, July 19, 2013 A.D. at 4:36pm

    While I find abortion murder, this is a bit of a stretch. I only heard one girl at the end say “hail Satan”
    – See more at:
    so what.
    perhaps you were in the wrong area –
    it’s all up and public on youtube and there is more than one one voice
    but if you were there you would have heard and witnessed the commotion.

  • as for gosnell ? TX has their own named Karpen.

A Tale of Three Choices

Wednesday, July 10, AD 2013



On July 7 the New York Times had what is doubtless their 666th pro-abort piece this year, an op ed by a woman celebrating her mother’s abortion.  (So long as it wasn’t you being tossed out like so much garbage, right honey?)  If you enjoy irony, go here to read it.

Katy French, an epidimeologist  has written a grand response:

Merfish writes that her mom was 20, engaged to her dad, 21, both co-eds at  Texas’ “public Ivy,” the University of Texas at Austin. My mother, Terry Cavnar  French, was 18. She couldn’t afford to go to an elite college, and instead,  lived at home and worked her way through the local commuter college, the  University of Houston. She didn’t have a fiancé to lean on (the father was not  in the picture), and was barely acknowledged by her dysfunctional parents. Her  ninth month was spent at a home run by Catholic Charities.

Merfish writes that her parents, though about to graduate from college and  marry, were simply not ready to be parents. They drove across states lines for  an abortion. My mother wasn’t ready to be a parent either. She could have driven  to another state, too. Instead, she drove to college, sitting in traffic every  morning with the windows rolled down to try to beat the Houston heat in those  pre-air conditioning days. Merfish writes that her parents were made to “feel  like criminals” by the abortionist they visited. My mom was made to feel morning  sickness-induced nausea from traffic fumes during her commute, often pulling to  the side of the road to throw up and then back on the road to class.

Merfish writes with pride about her mom’s choice to kill her brother or  sister because he or she was a few years early for her parents’ taste. Today,  I’m writing with pride about my mom’s choice to save my brother’s life and give  him a loving, intact family that could provide him the life he deserved.  Merfish’s mom had to endure the judgmental attitudes of the abortionist. My mom  had to endure months of morning sickness and ten hours of labor and delivery.  Then she endured the pain of letting another woman, a woman who was ready to be  a mom, take her baby boy home.

Merfish writes of the solidarity she felt with her mom while the two of them  shouted down a Texas bill that would protect unborn babies who are old enough to  recognize their mother’s voice, and would require unregulated Gosnell factories  to meet the same hygiene standards as medical facilities in the state. Today,  I’m writing of the solidarity I felt when my mom and I recently prayed at the  hospital bedside of my sister’s baby. He had just been diagnosed with a genetic  disease that would cripple and kill him in a few years. If the diagnosis had  come a few months earlier, when he was still in the womb, many physicians would  have handed my sister an abortion referral along with the test result. We later  found out that the diagnosis was wrong. Luckily for him, he has a family that  celebrates his life instead of a family that celebrates the killing of children  on the altar of Almighty Convenience.

Merfish’s mom married her dad shortly after her abortion. They finished  college and went on to have better-timed children and, presumably, successful  lives. My mom later met a dashing grad student at that commuter college. They  married, graduated, had two daughters, successful careers, and are now  approaching a secure retirement. Choosing life, no matter how inconvenient,  doesn’t have to end anyone’s chance at the American Dream.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to A Tale of Three Choices

  • Something about this and Motley Monk’s article really jumped out at me. In the recent gay marriage debate, there has been a lot of personalization. The idea is that it’s easy to “discriminate” against an unknown person, but if you can put a face on gay marriage, especially the face of a loved one, then people will be more welcoming. I think there’s something to that, in the positive way that the gay-marriage supporters would hope, but there’s also a negative effect that works in their favor, namely that guys don’t want to think about guys having sex. In the face of a visceral reaction, there’s a tendency to say “fine, whatever, just don’t talk about it in front of me”.

    It looks like abortion supporters are thinking of using the same personalization tactics. No one wants to tell a woman face-to-face that she’s killed her child. (Also, no one wants to hear a woman talk about her private biological stuff.) I guess they’re thinking that they can use this to their advantage.

    Personally, I can’t see it helping a candidate. If a guy bragged about his divorce he’d be eaten alive. Likewise if a male candidate said that he had two kids “as far as I know” he’d get no sympathy. The female candidate who tries the same thing would have a pretty hard time. But – and this is a biggie – it would take the subject off the table, out of fear of being called a bully. If you dare to criticize the proud abortion-survivor woman you’ll be alienating everyone who’s even slightly ambiguous on the issue. You’ll be the bad guy. Like I said, I don’t think it would work well for candidates, re Motley’s article, but it may put a face on the pro-choice movement, re this article, in a way that shifts public support in their direction.

  • Anyone who remembers France in the 1960s & 1970s, before the Veil Law of 1975 (Law No. 75-17 of 18 January 1975), will know that pretty well every village seemed to have its « faiseuse d’anges » or “angel-maker.” Everyone knew about it, nobody talked about it and the police regarded it as “women’s business” and turned a blind eye. Occasionally a woman died and, then, the Parquet, like Captain Renault in “Casablanca” would be shocked, shocked to discover that such things went on and there would be a brief flurry of prosecutions of unqualified women, quickly rounded up and, so, obviously known to police. Medical practitioners, doctors and midwives were never, ever, prosecuted.

    In that atmosphere, the 1971 « le manifeste des 343 salopes » when 343 mostly prominent women admitted to having had an abortion and challenging the authorities to prosecute them had a profound impact. Needless to say, there were no prosecutions. Perhaps even more significant was the publication of a similar manifesto in February 1973 by 331 doctors, including clinical professors in the leading teaching hospitals, admitting to performing abortions and, again, challenging the authorities to prosecute them. The procurator of the Republic excused himself on the grounds of “lack of evidence.”

    The Veil Law was passed two years later, with the National Assembly solemnly proclaiming “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law” whilst allowing abortion up to the tenth week, if the woman was in “a state of distress.” This apparent flat contradiction exactly corresponded with the public mood.

  • “This apparent flat contradiction exactly corresponded with the public mood.”

    More’s the pity. Go to the link below for a list of pro-life groups in France:

  • Choosing life, no matter how inconvenient, doesn’t have to end anyone’s chance at the American Dream.

    Amen. And not only a generic “American Dream,” but the exact one Merfish implies was only possible through abortion. I was in nearly the exact situation the Merfishes were – except my bride was not a student at UT, only I was. Other than that (and perhaps the dates of attendance at UT), the situations were identical. We were able to choose life, graduate, raise a family, go on to law school, have a reasonably comfortable life and will be celebrating our 27th anniversary.

    There is one more difference between us and the Merfishes: we are not murderers.

  • That’s a grim account, Michael. I hate to think that that would work.

  • Pinky,

    It will work, when people are already ambivalent. I am only surprised that no one has come up with an English equivalent of that ghastly euphemism, « faiseuse d’anges » as a sop to weak minds and wavering consciences.

  • Choice? Reproductive health? Decision? What I do with my body?

  • Pingback: After Architectural Modernism -
  • MPS- those “personalization” examples work so well because it’s hard to bring the dead out to challenge anyone. Gee, each of those abortionists killed at least two women, and maimed a dozen more? Well, it was swept under the table, and they’re not going to show up, and their families won’t say “my daughter died from an abortion.”

    *feels ill*

  • Pinky:
    “Choice” -that must mean you are in full support of INFORMED choice. A living egg cell with one set of DNA is fused with a living sperm cell with a different set of DNA to create an entirely new and unique human being with a separate metabolism, etc….. This human is killed by abortion.
    “Reproductive Health” : obviously not for the baby. The percentage of mothers killed by abortion since bringing them out of the “back alley coat hanger” days is MUCH HIGHER. Witness: Pro-aborts fight tooth and nail to prevent any kind of medical standards for these places.
    “Decision” – you made that decision when you chose to have sex – and invited this new human being into your body.
    “What I do with my body” – just plain selfish. Don’t have sex. You’ll make a lousy partner and a lousy parent, anyway.

  • I loved the rebuttal!

    I wish Catholic Republican politicians would be more consistent about Life. Yes, abortion is the flagship issue. But what about the living human beings outside of the womb? What about preserving and restoring the environment, so that those precious souls can actually live full lives once they make it to the world? God bless. Let’s push for a Godly culture of Life.

  • “But what about the living human beings outside of the womb?”

    Ben, somewhere along the way people equated love and care for “living human beings outside of the womb” with large federal government programs intended to help those people. Therefore, the logic goes, anyone opposed to those large federal government programs must not care for their fellow human beings.

    Do you see the disconnect in that logic? Do you understand that political conservatives help their families and communities in ways that do not involve the federal government? The Republican agenda can (not always does, but can) enable people to help others while cutting back on some federal programs.

How Can You Tell When a Pro-life Ad is Effective?

Sunday, July 7, AD 2013

9 Responses to How Can You Tell When a Pro-life Ad is Effective?

  • To be honest, that’s the best pro-life ad I’ve seen.

    It’s not gory, it’s not silly, it’s not preachy. It simply points out that hey, at this point in the pregnancy this is exactly what the “non-human fetus” the pro-choicers refer to really is.

    To the public, it could drive the point home without the disgusting crap you see that really harms the pro-life cause.

    This is likely why it is scaring the pro-choicers… because this angle might actually work.

  • A very positive ad, though no surprise about those three. It would be helpful to know which newspapers were “brave” enough to run the ad and hopefully every blog that’s pro-life will print that info.

  • This morning’s Wall Street Journal included the ad on page A-12, below the fold.

    Those three other papers are best employed to wrap dead fish viscera.

  • Those other papers must be ’employed’ by something agenda-driven in order to be able to reject the opportunity to watch a possible and wondrous thing happen in the way of increased readership.

  • check their published and sworn circulation figures (USPS requirement) on the first weekend of October and save for comparison in 2014.

  • Pingback: Ukraine's Future Depends on Greek Catholic Church -
  • USA today is worthless for any meaningful news and is far left to boot.

  • Moral Relativism has no capacity for truth and its adherents have no use for it. It just gets in the way of promoting their Godless agenda. Moral relativists look at this beautiful and powerful pro-life ad with hardened hearts. It is shocking to those of us who choose to live according to the Truth, the Way and the Life to realize how very far from God, that Life deniers truly are. Life deniers see themselves as inordinately more clever and sophisticated, but in the end without Truth, they will reap the evil that they have sown.

  • I myself was born at 6 1/2 months, and I wasn’t much bigger than the precious child in this ad. My birth mother almost aborted me. Thank god that she did not, by the grace of God! So, to anybody that thinks that these beautiful children aren’t human until birth- here is the truth, right in your face! “Just a lump of cells…” That is what my former Child Psychology professor in college told me in class. Needless to say, I dropped that class as soon as I could.

IRS Scandal: Pro-life Groups Were Targets

Tuesday, May 14, AD 2013

IRS Scandal


On any enemies list compiled by the Obama administration, no doubt pro-lifers would be near the top.  Illinois Review reveals today that pro-life groups were targeted by the IRS:

Were pro-life groups also a target of the staunchly pro-abortion Obama Administration?

Chicago’s Thomas More Society reported first dealing with IRS concerns from pro-life groups as early as 2009.

When the Coalition for Life of Iowa sought tax exemption status in 2009, the IRS sought details about the content of members’ prayers at a Planned Parenthood facility. They also demanded that the group refrain both from activities that could be construed as protesting or picketing by police, and to cease activities that could be seen as confrontational or harassing by abortion-seeking clients.

Thomas More Society said the IRS insisted that “every member of the board of directors of the Coalition sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, that they will not picket or protest or organize others to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood.” 

Soon after the unprecedented demands were made, the Chicago-based public interest law firm made the legal challenge on behalf of the Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based group. Shortly thereafter, the IRS backed off and the group was granted 501(c)3 status.

“The IRS must operate within the constraints of law, and it cannot condition the grant of tax exempt status on the forfeiture or surrender of First Amendment rights on the part of any non-profit group or individual American citizens,” Thomas More Society’s attorney Thomas Brejcha commented in a 2009 press release.

But again two years later, Thomas More Society issued a letter to the IRS on behalf of a group called Christian Voices for Life. The IRS made repeated requests for information about the viewpoint and content of the group’s communications, prayer vigils, and other activities, violating the group’s First Amendment rights.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to IRS Scandal: Pro-life Groups Were Targets

  • Pingback: Why the Vatican II Hymnal is the Best Hymnal of All Time - Big Pulpit
  • Nothing will come of all this but more hand-wringing and more protestations. As the first black President, Obama is untouchable – at least untouchable by anyone except God, and unless God intervenes, this is going to get a lot worse. Christians will continue to be marginalized and vilified in the press, Government agencies will step up their campaigns of harassment and intimidation, law suits by atheists and pro-aborts and pro-sodomizers will increase, and then will come the brown shirts who will finally begin to imprison. It will end as it always does, with martyrdom. We Christians have been complacent for too long and St. Paul has some tough words to say about that in Romans 11:17-22:

    17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness * of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20* That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.


    God regularly prunes His olive tree.

  • Rubbish Paul. Nothing is a bigger waste of time than pessimism. Obama thus far has managed to lose the House for the Democrats, weaken the Democrats in the Senate, allowed the Republicans to take more governorships, 30 currently, than they have in decades and control more state legislatures, 27 currently, than they have since the time of Calvin Coolidge. Obama is busily transforming the Democrat party into a much weaker version of itself than it was when he was elected in 2008. Obama isn’t ten feet tall and I am heartily sick of people pretending that he is.

  • Seems to me like the system worked. The IRS tried to impose unlawful restrictions on the Iowa group, the Thomas More Center sued, the IRS backed off. As for the current scandal, so the IRS scrutinized extra hard Tea Party groups. So what? Did the IRS violate their rights in any way?

  • After watching Jay Carney try to spin these scandals, this song foes out to the Administration:

  • “As for the current scandal, so the IRS scrutinized extra hard Tea Party groups. So what? Did the IRS violate their rights in any way?”
    “The IRS tried to impose unlawful restrictions on the Iowa group,”
    That rather answers your question Harold. Attempting to impose unlawful restrictions is a violation of rights and citizens should not have to sue in order for government agencies not to play rough shod over their rights.

    Singling out groups for harassment because of their political beliefs is a violation of rights Harold. Releasing confidential information on groups by the IRS is not only a violation of rights, it is a crime, and the IRS has done that to conservative groups.

  • Donald, when I pray the Rosary tonight, I will make a specific intention that you be correct. I really hope what I wrote is rubbish. Nothing would make me happier at this point!

  • Judging from this comment you left last year on the National Catholic Register Harold, I suspect that you would bellow a different tune if the IRS were singling out Democrat groups for “special” treatment:

    “Posted by Harold Ullenberg on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 11:42 AM (EDT):

    Ridiculous! Why do your Republicans fantasize about being persecuted?”

    Read more:

  • “Obama thus far has managed to lose the House for the Democrats, weaken the Democrats in the Senate, allowed the Republicans to take more governorships, 30 currently, than they have in decades and control more state legislatures, 27 currently, than they have since the time of Calvin Coolidge. Obama is busily transforming the Democrat party into a much weaker version of itself than it was when he was elected in 2008. Obama isn’t ten feet tall and I am heartily sick of people pretending that he is.”

    But since then. Obama not only got reelected when he should have lost resoundingly, he gained seats in both the House and the Senate. To get reelected with the unemployment rate as it was and with the economy in the shape it is in is practically unprecedented. You also have Marco Rubio, who is considered, not by me, but by many others, as the great conservative hope, making crawling in to bed with the worst elements of both parties on illegal immigration his signature issue.

    False optimism is an even bigger waste of time than pessimism, It isn’t that Obama is so tall it is that the GOP continues to act so small. So small, they lose even when they win.

    It is my hope that these latest scandals amounts to the political proctology that enables the republican establishment to pull its head out of its collective ass and wake up to the fact that the democrats view us as every bit the enemy that Islamo-nutjobs aren;t in their view and act accordingly.

  • Rubbish Greg. Obama won primarily because Republicans made the mistake of nominating Romney. Many of us were warning that he was the weakest candidate that the Republicans could put up. In a low turnout election Obama was able to turn out enough of his base to win, in spite of the fact that his vote total was down by three and a half million votes. This does not show Obama as strong but rather as a weak candidate in 2012 who beat an even weaker candidate in Romney. That is not a cause for pessimism but optimism. As for your everlasting standard rant against Republicans, you have a point but you run it into the ground because you fail to see that overall the trend is against the Democrats in spite of Republican misteps.

  • Rubbish Donald. Romney was a weak candidate yes, But he was the strongest one in line of pathetic candidates. This only illustrates the truth of my “rant” against the GOP. Let’s see, would Santorum have been a stronger candidate? Yeah, right! The only reason why he gained steam was that he was the last not-Romney standing. That he was the last hope after Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, and Perry fizzled out proves my point.

    Like I said, Obama’s success is more the republican failure than anything else.

  • Perry would have been a much stronger candidate than Romney. Santorum would have done no worse than Romney. Even Gingrich would have had a hard time not at least equaling Romney’s vote total. Bachmann and Cain were never serious candidates. Romney’s problem was a deep alienation from the Republican base which allowed fairly weak candidates to compete against Romney fairly successfully in spite of being massively outspent. Romney lacked that advantage in the general election and it showed, along with his failure to turn out the base in the numbers that he needed. He barely surpassed McCain’s miserable totals. Republican woes in the Presidential field was caused by Romney’s money scaring off A-listers other than Perry. Perry’s poor physical condition caused bizarre performances in the debates and he was history. Even so, Romney struggled against two weak candidates like Gingrich and Santorum, who were vastly underfunded, because the Republican base did not want Romney.

  • To get reelected with the unemployment rate as it was and with the economy in the shape it is in is practically unprecedented.

    I think the salient metric is the direction the unemployment rate is moving.

  • Rubbish Pinky. (Just saving the next guy some time.) Romney won the nomination in the classic Republican way, by being not-terrifyingly-awful on a stage of people that the Founding Fathers, if they were around today, would have excluded by name from the Presidency.

  • The idea that Perry would have been a stronger candidate than Romney is pure non sense. Not only did Perry look like he was on drugs during the debates, he accused those who opposed in state tuition for children of illegals as “heartless”. We all know how that would have went over with the conservative base. He also endorsed David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s senate seat. Need I remind you how wildly popular Cruz was and still is amongst the conservative base? And if, memory serves me correctly, it was Rick Perry who beat Ron Paul to the succession punch by at least a few years. Perry would have gotten eaten alive by Obama in general election.

    Pretty much the same for Gingrich. Again, Newt wasn’t too well liked by the conservative base for his political schizophrenia. One minute he is articulating conservative principles in a Reaganesque fashion and he is calling the Ryan Budget “right wing social engineering. And of all the things he could have gone after Romney for, he chose to demonize his Bain Capital record in Obama like fashion,

    The fact that the base looked to Bachmann nad Cain before they looked to Santorum is an indication that the base had more confidence in the formers than the latter.

    Alienation of the conservative base is the GOP leadership’s MO, which has beemn the basis of my “rant” against the GOP from the outset.

  • Rubbish. Because I wanted to say rubbish. 🙂

  • Perry has shown immense voter appeal in Texas, GOP voters do not get more conservative than Gop voters in Texas, and most members of the Republican base do not share your obsession with immigration. It is an important issue for them, but they are not going to stay home because a candidate deviates from the immigration policy they would wish. Certainly if this were not the case Perry would not be the longest serving Governor I believe in Texas history. In 2010 he captured 39% of the Hispanic vote, and if Republicans are to be competitive nationally they have to replicate his success. In regard to Cruz you have a point, but considering Dewhurst had been Perry’s Lieutenant Governor since 2003 I can see why he backed him. None of the points that you make in any way negate the fact that Perry would have been a superior candidate to Romney. Can you imagine Perry deep sixing an attack ad on Benghazi as Romney did? Perry would have gone full throated against Obama on Obamacare, something that Mitt “Romneycare” Romney was unable to do.

    In regard to Gingrich once again I can think of no state that Gingrich would have lost that Romney carried. I cannot imagine Gingrich allowing Candy Crowley to push him around as Mitt the Lionheart did.

    I cannot imagine Perry, Gingrich or Santorum being dumb enough to make the 47% comment, probably the remark that doomed Romney.

    Santorum demonstrated that he was a gifted, if undisciplined, candidate. He had no money and a reputation of being a loser after his dismal Senate race in 2006. That he came close to upsetting Romney demonstrated both his strengths as a candidate and Romney’s weakness.

  • “Can you imagine Perry deep sixing an attack ad on Benghazi as Romney did?”


    As far as my obsession with immigration. I don’t have an obsession with immigration. But much of the conservative base does consider that to be an important issue. And Perry’s comments as well as his other train wrecks would have done him in.

  • “Can you imagine Perry deep sixing an attack ad on Benghazi as Romney did?”


    On what basis? Throughout his career Perry has been an agressive take no prisoners campaigner, perhaps a tribute to the fact that he started out as a Democrat. I can’t imagine him pulling any punches against Obama.

  • “Rubbish. Because I wanted to say rubbish.”

    I have always liked the sound of the word Phillip! 🙂

  • By the way, if Perry was a stronger candidate than Romney, then why did he do so badly when he started out as the frontrunner? If Perry was such a trainwreck in the primaries he would have been an even bigger one in the general election.

  • I think the problem is that nomination procedures have produced a donnybrook so gruesome that the candidates willing to endure it tend to well adapted to the donnybrook but ill-adapted to anything else in political life. That is true in both parties.

  • His debate performance is a stunner and completely unlike his performance during the rest of his political career. However, as Mitt Romney amply demonstrated, one can perform well in a debate and still lose an election. I don’t think Perry would have had Romney’s over confidence or Romney’s misreliance on a campaign team that clearly did not know what the devil they were doing.

  • Seems to me like the system worked. The IRS tried to impose unlawful restrictions on the Iowa group, the Thomas More Center sued, the IRS backed off. As for the current scandal, so the IRS scrutinized extra hard Tea Party groups. So what? Did the IRS violate their rights in any way?

    If their procedures were selective, yes (and they have already admitted to asking for information outside of the usual protocols). By the way, this letter was sent from Washington to a tea party group in Albuquerque last month. Their application has been pending for two years.

  • Don, I can tell you something that didn’t happen before the debates. The candidates weren’t herded into a room with a hairstylist, a speechwriter, and a press agent and told that this is what they want to say, this is what they can’t say, these are the subjects that they can argue about, this is how to do it without looking foolish, this is what George Stephanopoulos wants to trick you into saying, et cetera. Go take a look at Obama, Edwards, and Hillary Clinton debating. They look like the Channel 9 News Team, working together to bring the news you need to know to this town that we love. Polish isn’t the only thing that candidates need, but a poor appearance from anyone on the stage hurts the whole party.

  • “Polish isn’t the only thing that candidates need, but a poor appearance from anyone on the stage hurts the whole party.”

    I am not sure that is true. The debates in 1980 for the Republicans were pretty chaotic and didn’t seem to hurt Reagan. As a matter of fact he had one of his finest moments initially in the campaign as a result of the chaos:

    In regard to the Democrats I always thought the silk pony was a lousy debater, Shrillary always came across as someone trying out in an off broadway production for the role of Lady Macbeth, and Obama usually seemed bored, which is his default mood I think.

  • Nothing strikes fear in the heart of an ultra conservative “posse loving” bleeding heart liberal “communist” farmer than an IRS certified letter delivered right to the old farm house door. I quite like the word “rubbish”.

  • The fact that Perry would’ve had a more “take-no-prisoners” attitude than Romney’s campaign doesn’t really mitigate his other flaws, same for the other guys.

    obviously Romney was seriously flawed but the “not conservative enough, not tough enough” viewpoint seems to be comparing him to some kind of ideal conservative Republican that did not exist in the 2012 campaign

    “In 2010 he captured 39% of the Hispanic vote, and if Republicans are to be competitive nationally they have to replicate his success”

    OK but I’m not sure how simply agreeing with the Democratic position on immigration does this. you could make the case that it’s “less bad” than if it’s rejected and the GOP is tarred as nativist or what have you. But if you’ve got two parties with the same positions people’re gonna vote for the one they agree with on other stuff.

  • OK but I’m not sure how simply agreeing with the Democratic position on immigration does this.

    That would be a valid critique were that Perry’s position, but at best what you’ve just said is a gross oversimplification.

    There is no point rehashing the 2012 primary. What’s done is done and it makes no sense to continuing to battle over something that was decided over a year ago. Enough.

  • Yeah, bad transition, I meant the Schumer-Rubio stuff, which so far as I can tell is not radically different from what’s been the Democratic position. Which doesn’t automatically make it wrong, but it is what it is.

  • “But since then. Obama not only got reelected when he should have lost resoundingly, he gained seats in both the House and the Senate. To get reelected with the unemployment rate as it was and with the economy in the shape it is in is practically unprecedented.”

    It’s worth mentioning that the Watergate hearings began exactly 40 years ago this week, six months after Nixon won reelection with 60% of the popular vote and 49 states. Granted, the MSM loathed Nixon and they love the “O”, but if the evidence points to him, they will have no choice but to do their job, whether they like it or not.

Abortion Survivor

Thursday, May 9, AD 2013



Hattip to  Pat Archbold at Creative Minority Report.  Congressman Marlin Stutzman (R. IN) recalls how he came very close to being an abortion statistic:


On a cold December night in 1975, a 17-year-old girl sobbed on the bedroom  floor of a neighbor’s house. Her own home had just burned to the ground,  destroying everything she had. But that wasn’t the only weight she carried that  night. She had just discovered that she was a few weeks pregnant with her first  child.  In the dark, alone and terrified, she decided to find a way to  Kalamazoo, Mich., 40 miles away, to “take care of her situation.”

That young girl was my mother, and if she had gone to Kalamazoo that night,  you wouldn’t be reading this today. I would have been aborted.

Recently, after speaking on the House floor about the horrors of Dr.  Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I began wondering if my  mother had ever thought about ending her unplanned pregnancy. My parents never  gave any indication that it was ever a consideration, but was it?

I gave her a call. When she answered, I talked to her about my speech on the  House floor and then asked gently, “Mom, did you ever think about  .” There was  a tense pause, and then, through tears she said, “Marlin,  I’m so sorry!” As we cried together, I was no longer a congressman, but a son  understanding for the first time the heartache and struggles my mom had gone  through before I was born. As we talked about her fear of driving 40 miles  alone, I had to think, “What if a ‘Gosnell‘ clinic was only four miles away  instead of 40?”

She asked if I could forgive her. I answered, “Yes, with all my heart.” I  said that I couldn’t imagine how scared she must have been, and how thankful I  was for her and Dad’s strength to do the right thing and protect my life. It  could have ended so differently. At home with my wife and two children that  night, my heart ached at the thought that all of this might never have been.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Abortion Survivor

  • Stop it Don with this . . . you are bringing tears to my eyes.

  • Perhaps stories like this, along with the Gosnell case, are beginning to have an effect. I saw what might be a very small example of this today. I went to the local blood center to donate blood and while sitting in the canteen area afterward browsing through newspapers, another woman sitting across the table — a complete stranger, probably 60-ish — was doing the same. After reading a story concerning the Cleveland abduction case she abruptly remarked “How can they be charging him with murder (for causing one of his victims to have FIVE miscarriages) when they allow abortion.” And I said, “I hear ya there.” I interpreted her remark in a pro-life sense, to mean that if it was wrong for Ariel Castro to kill those unborn babies then it’s wrong for ANYONE to do it. It’s possible, I suppose, that she meant it in the opposite sense — since abortion is legal, he shouldn’t be facing murder charges — but I did not get that impression. Either way, I had to agree that there was a glaring inconsistency there.

    The two things I find significant about this are, first, that she would even bring up the topic of abortion in front of a complete stranger whose viewpoint she didn’t know — for all she knew I might have been a die-hard Personal PAC or Planned Parenthood lobbyist — because I very rarely see people doing that. And second, that she would see the wrongness of abortion in the midst of the ultimate “hard case” situation — that of an abused woman repeatedly impregnated by rape, the very case that pro-aborts have used to justify abortion for decades.

Kirsten Powers and the Still Small Voices

Tuesday, May 7, AD 2013




11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

1 Kings 19: 11-13

One of the ironies of the Gosnell case is that a liberal Democrat, Kirsten Powers, is largely responsible for shaming the Mainstream Media into covering the Gosnell case.  A supporter of abortion, who now believes that life begins at conception, she wrote a fiery series of columns in which she called out the media for their obvious bias in refusing to cover the Gosnell murder trial for fear of jeopardizing the right to abortion.  Yesterday she called for banning late term abortions:



But Gosnell’s clinic was not illegal. It was a licensed medical facility. The state of his clinic was well known: there were repeated complaints to government officials and even the local Planned Parenthood. He wasn’t operating under the radar but in plain sight, and he received referrals from abortion clinics up and down the East Coast. Gosnell performed plenty of abortions within the 24-week limit in Pennsylvania and worked part time for a National Abortion Federation–accredited clinic in Delaware.


The woman Gosnell is on trial for allegedly killing, Karnamaya Mongar, perished during a legal abortion while she was 19 weeks pregnant. Gosnell was not forced to operate in the dark because of anti–abortion rights regulations. It’s the opposite: he was able to flourish—pulling in $1.8 million a year—because multiple abortion rights administrations decided that to inspect his clinic might mean limiting access to abortion. It’s all in the grand jury report, if you don’t believe me.


One of the bodies discovered in the raid of the clinic was of a 22-week-old baby with a surgical incision on the back of her neck, which penetrated the first and second vertebrae. The only thing that would make her death illegal would be if Gosnell failed to finish her off in her mother’s womb.


Does that statement make you uncomfortable? Good.


What we need to learn from the Gosnell case is that late-term abortion is infanticide. Legal infanticide. That so many people in the media seem untroubled by the idea that 12 inches in one direction is a “private medical decision” and 12 inches in the other direction causes people to react in horror, should be troubling. Indeed, Gosnell’s defense attorney Jack J. McMahon has relied on the argument that Gosnell killed the babies prior to delivering them, therefore he is not guilty of murder. His exact words were: “Every one of those babies died in utero.”


Gosnell is accused of aborting infants past the 24-week limit in Pennsylvania. But those same deaths – if done in utero – would have been perfectly legal in many states with sometimes abused health exceptions, which can include the elastic category of “mental distress.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Kirsten Powers and the Still Small Voices

  • Pingback: Candida Moss - Big Pulpit
  • The distinction is not new. In 1797, David Hume (a nephew of the philosopher and the leading authority on the criminal law) says this: “A child, though it has become quick is regarded as pars viscerum matris and not a separate being and it cannot with any certainty be said whether it would have been born alive or not. The destruction of an unborn infant therefore, though an atrocious crime and severely punishable under a different denomination is not murder. But if breathing once has begun, it is immaterial how frail may be the tenure by which life is held … A child which is only a minute old, or an old man on the brink of the grave are equally entitled to have their lives protected by the pains of murder; for it belongs to the Supreme Disposer of events, not any human hand to determine the duration of life. (Commentaries on the Law of Scotland Respecting Crimes 1:186)

    I believe the law of England was to the same effect.

  • Yep, a distinction based on bad science, as this Report of the American Medical Association in 1859 on abortion stressed:

    “AMA Report on Criminal Abortion, 1859

    Although no draft of the Report on Criminal Abortion has been located, the unanimous approval of Horatio’s March effort probably indicates slight changes at most from the following final version read at the convention in Louisville in May, 1859 and published later that year in the Transactions of the American Medical Association.

    The committee appointed in May, 1857, to investigate the subject of Criminal Abortion, with a view to its general suppression, have attended to the duty assigned them, and would present the following report:

    The heinous guilt of criminal abortion, however viewed by the community, is everywhere acknowledged by medical men.

    Its frequency – among all classes of society, rich and poor, single and married – most physicians have been led to suspect; very many, from their own experience of its deplorable results, have known. Were any doubt, however, entertained upon this point, it is at once removed by comparisons of the present with our past rates of increase in population, the size of our families, the statistics of our foetal deaths, by themselves considered, and relatively to the births and to the general mortality. The evidence from these sources is too constant and too overwhelming to be explained on the ground that pregnancies are merely prevented; or on any other supposition than that of fearfully extended crime.

    The causes of this general demoralization are manifold. There are three of them, however, and they are the most important, with which the medical profession have especially to do.

    The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime–a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

    The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life; not that its respectable members are ever knowingly and intentionally accessory to the unjustifiable commission of abortion, but that they are thought at times to omit precautions or measures that might prevent the occurrence of so unfortunate an event.

    The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection.

    Abundant proof upon each of these points has been prepared by the Committee, and is elsewhere* [Report Footnote: *North American Medico-Chirurgical Review, Jan. 1859, et seq.] being published to the profession; but as the statements now made are almost axiomatic, recapitulation would be here wearisome and is unnecessary.

    Our duty is plain. If, by any act, we can effect aught towards the suppression of this crime, it must be done. In questions of abstract right, the medical profession do not acknowledge such words as expediency, time service, cowardice. We are the physical guardians of women; we, alone, thus far, of their offspring in utero. The case is here of life or death–the life or death of thousands–and it depends, almost wholly, upon ourselves.

    As a profession we are unanimous in our condemnation of the crime. Mere resolutions to this effect, and nothing more, are therefore useless, evasive, and cruel.

    If to want of knowledge on a medical point, the slaughter of countless children now steadily perpetrated in our midst, is to be attributed, it is our duty, as physicians, and as good and true men, both publicly and privately, and by every means in our power, to enlighten this ignorance.

    If we have ever been thought negligent of the sanctity of foetal life, the means of correcting the error are before us. If we have ever been so in deed, there are materials, and there is good occasion for the establishment of an obstetric code; which, rigorously kept to the standard of our attainments in knowledge, and generally accepted by the profession, would tend to prevent such unnecessary and unjustifiable destruction of human life.

    If the tenets of the law, here unscientific, unjust, inhuman, can be bettered–as citizens, and to the best of our ability we should seek this end. If the evidence upon this point is especially of a medical character, it is our duty to proffer our aid, and in so important a matter to urge it. But if, as is also true, these great fundamental, and fatal faults of the law are owing to doctrinal errors of the profession in a former age, it devolves upon us, by every bond we hold sacred, by our reverence for the fathers in medicine, by our love for our race, and by our responsibility as accountable beings, to see these errors removed and their grievous results abated.

    In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child; and that while it would in no wise transcend its legitimate province or invade the precincts of the law, the Association recommend, by memorial, to the governors and legislatures of the several States, and, as representing the federal district, to the President and Congress, a careful examination and revision of the statutory and of so much of the common law, as relates to this crime. For we hold it to be a thing deserving all hate and detestation, that a man in his very originall, whiles he is framed, whiles he is enlived, should be put to death under the very hands, and in the shop, of Nature.

    In the belief that we have expressed the unanimous opinion of the Association, our report is respectfully submitted.

    Horatio R. Storer, of Massachusetts.
    Thomas W. Blatchford, of New York.
    Hugh L. Hodge, of Pennsylvania.
    Charles A. Pope, of Missouri.
    Edward H. Barton, of South Carolina.
    A. Lopez, of Alabama.
    Wm. Henry Brisbane, of Wisconsin.
    A. J. Semmes, of District of Columbia.

    If the recommendation of the report are adopted, the Committee would offer the following resolutions:

    Resolved, That while physicians have long been united in condemning the act of producing abortion, at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child, it has become the duty of this Association, in view of the prevalence and increasing frequency of the crime, publicly to enter an earnest and solemn protest against such unwarrantable destruction of human life.

    Resolved, That in pursuance of the grand and noble calling we profess, the saving of human lives, and of the sacred responsibilities thereby devolving upon us, the Association present this subject to the attention of the several legislative assemblies of the Union, with the prayer that the laws by which the crime of procuring abortion is attempted to be controlled may be revised, and that such other action may be taken in the premises as they in their wisdom may deem necessary.

    Resolved, That the Association request the zealous co-operation of the various State Medical Societies in pressing this subject upon the legislatures of either respective States, and that the President and Secretaries of the Association are hereby authorized to carry out, by memorial, these resolutions. “

  • Horatio Storer is probably one of the greatest American pro-life heroes that no one has ever heard of. Notice also that the AMA committee represents both Northern and Southern states, at a time when they were on the verge of war; perhaps they themselves or their own family members fought one another on the battlefield just a few years later. Yet they all agreed on the need to halt the “wanton and murderous destruction” of unborn children. It would be interesting to know whether any of the Confederate states, in the period between their secession and readmission to the Union, attempted to carry out the AMA’s recommendation for tougher abortion laws.

  • Alison, a student of Hume’s, writing in 1832, certainly recognized the humanity of the child, for he says, “the life of one human being is by such practices seriously endangered, and an incipient existence stifled in another.” Note that he says “incipient” and not “potential.”

    Hume’s reason is that “it cannot with any certainty be said whether it would have been born alive or not.” and Alison stresses that “Administering drugs to procure abortion is an Offence at common law punishable with an arbitrary pain and that equally whether the desired effects be produced or not,” which obviates difficulties of proof, especially in a system that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and on corroborated evidence. I once checked the indictments for abortion in the Books of Adjournal for the period 1900-1967. I looked at about 40 of them and all were for administering drugs or using an instrument with intent. In only two was it averred that the pannel actually “caused or procured [the woman] to abort, or part in an untimely manner with the foetus or child in her womb;” In both, the actual delivery was averred to have taken place in the Casualty Ward of a hospital, and one was coupled with a charge of murdering the mother. Clearly all these charges were based on what the prosecutor could prove.

  • I e-mailed her on this same point last week but she never answered. Orthodox, Indeed!

Margaret Colin: Profile in Courage

Sunday, May 5, AD 2013

Hattip to Matt Achbold at Creative Minority Report Margaret Colin is the honorary chairwoman of Feminists for Life.  An accomplished actress, she has also been outspokenly pro-life.  I can think of no occupation, other than abortionist, where the pro-aborts are more dominant that in the entertainment industry.  It takes considerable courage to buck that trend, and I salute Ms. Colin.  She is the daughter of a New York City cop, so perhaps courage runs in the family.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Margaret Colin: Profile in Courage

  • I like the message i the video because it is simple and direct. Often we make our messages overly complicated and I think people tune out.

  • Ironically, Hollywood is one of the places where there is something of a ray of hope. Several Hollywood conservatives have come out of the shadows in recent years.

  • I remember when she became famous working on As the World Turns soap opera- I thought that she was simply fabulous then adn this only raises her in my estimation!

Who is the Terrorist?

Tuesday, April 30, AD 2013

The second video in Live Action’s expose on late term abortions.  Go here to view the first video.  Here is the Live Action press release:

During the breaking “Inhuman” investigation, Live Action investigated the Washington Surgi-Clinic where Cesare Santangelo performs late-term abortions in Washington, D.C. Santangelo revealed several horrors involved with late-term abortions that America needs to know.

1) Babies are purposely suffocated or otherwise cruelly killed to ensure their deaths.

Santangelo explained:

Um, I cut the umbilical cord first, wait for the baby to expire, and then we do it that way.

Of course, we all know that the umbilical cord is a baby’s means of receiving the vital oxygen her body needs to survive. The umbilical cord also conducts blood to the baby’s body. In order to ensure that a baby does not survive a late-term abortion at his facility, Santangelo purposely suffocates the baby and stops her vital blood flow.

And did we catch the word “wait”? This is a process – suffocation, that is. It does not happen instantly. What terror and pain does an almost-born baby experience through this process?

2) The ability of babies to survive at later stages of pregnancy is greatly misrepresented.

Santangelo tells the investigator, who is 24 weeks pregnant (or, in Santangelo’s words, 24-25 weeks along) this:

– in your pregnancy, it’s too early to survive, usually. It will expire shortly after birth.

He also goes on to relate false statistics:

When you have a pregnancy that is 23, 24 weeks, if you’re you know, extra – if you – if you do everything possible to help it survive, you know, there’s a – maybe a 20-30% chance that it would survive. If you don’t do anything, then, you know, the chances are much, much less.

Maybe a 20-30% chance of survival? What about the findings of this Swedish study, back in 2009:

Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows.

This review of 33 different studies on survival rates of premature infants found that “the survival of infants born at 23, and mostly at 24 and 25 weeks of GA is significant in the majority of studies.” Rates vary from study to study, and yet, the conclusion is that a significant number of babies at these stages do indeed survive – quite different from the picture that Santangelo was painting.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Who is the Terrorist?

Kermit Gosnell and the Abortion Industry

Monday, April 29, AD 2013

Abortion, all abortion, is violence and violence is an impermissible alternative in a world of reason.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Eclipse of Reason


One of the myths of the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell is that he is not representative of the abortion industry.  In regard to the manner  in which Gosnell performed late term abortions, and his indifference to state laws restricting late term abortions, Gosnell is typical.  Lila Rose and her intrepid band at Live Action are helping establish this fact with their patented undercover videos.  From their press release:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Kermit Gosnell and the Abortion Industry

Galloping Historical Illiteracy

Friday, April 19, AD 2013
Remember Laura Curry, the Adjunct Professor, who went berserk at a pro-life display at the University of Buffalo?  Go here to read all about it.  Six of her colleagues, two professors of history, one associate professor of history, one assistant professor of history, one American studies assistant prof, and one assistant professor of “global gender studies”, decided to write in to the student newspaper, The Spectrum, to demonstrate that they too could make public asses of themselves.  Herewith is the letter and my fisk:

Dear Spectrum:

We are writing to condemn the message of the anti-abortion protest that took place outside the Commons this week.

Yes, we certainly wouldn’t want to give anyone the impression that a modern university is a place where opposing viewpoints are welcomed and debated.

In particular, we are disturbed by the equation of those who support women’s reproductive rights with those who lynched thousands of African American men and women in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is an unfair comparison.  Between 1882-1968 approximately 3,446 blacks, along with 1,297 whites, were lynched in this country.  That is less than a morning’s work in the abortion clinics of this country.

We do not condemn the protest itself; in fact, we believe that the right to peaceably assemble is one of the foundational rights of American citizenship.

I am sure there is a “but” coming.

However, as historians, we feel it is imperative to speak out against this crass, uninformed and dangerous misuse of history.

Yep, I am certain it is the purity of History, and not voices raised against your right to slay your offspring, that has your knickers in a twirl.

From the end of the Civil War through the mid-20th century, white lynch mobs throughout the United States, although mostly in the South, deliberately and with extraordinary malice, terrorized and murdered African Americans under the pretense of “protecting” white womanhood from the supposed threat of rape by black men.

Actually, lynch mobs had various motivations.  In regard to blacks, one of the chief motivations immediately after the Civil War was to ensure that black Republicans did not vote, lynch mobs often acting as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, the party of abortion today.  The Republicans in Congress and in the White House made attempt after attempt to pass federal legislation against lynching, some 200 bills being introduced between 1882 to 1968.  Each time the legislation was blocked by Southern Democrats in the Senate.


Of course, this mock chivalry was just a ruse. Lynchers could not imagine a world in which a white woman might choose to love a black man, and no doubt some of those lynched were guilty only of crossing the South’s prohibition against consensual interracial sex.

Lynchings involving accusations of rape were almost always based upon a white woman making the charge of rape.  Of course that is an inconvenient fact for the professors, so they don’t mention that.

Others were simply guilty of owning their own land or trying to make a way for their families. Regardless, all of them paid the price for the white South’s brutal effort to control not only black bodies but white female ones, as well.

Oh give me a break.  The idea that white females making accusations of rape were merely pawns in the hands of male lynch mobs is feminist clap trap and has virtually no basis in the historical record.

The inability to see women as capable of making decisions about their own sexuality. The use of violent, inaccurate, and misleading imagery. The pretense of protection. Anti-abortion protesters appear to have a lot in common with those who supported lynching.

Only if one views history as through a glass, darkly, combined with a bad case of feminist stigmatism.  Pro-lifers of course wish to stop the slaughter of black babies just as they wish to stop the slaughter of all babies.  No doubt the professors would view the main problem with Kermit Gosnell as being, not that he slaughtered hundreds, maybe thousands, of nearly full term black babies, but that his case threatens the sacred rite of abortion.

We applaud vigorous, thoughtful debate and protest.

Sure you do, so long as the debate and protest agrees with you.


It is the lifeblood of democracy. However, this kind of political action requires much deliberation, which unfortunately was missing from yesterday’s anti-abortion protest.

I would certainly hope that anyone undertaking political action engages in much more deliberation than you put into this letter.

If students wish to learn more about the history of racial and sexual violence, including lynching, we welcome them to take any of our classes.

Thanks for closing on a humorous note.


Susan Cahn, Professor of History

Carole Emberton, Assistant Professor of History

Theresa Runstedtler, Assistant Professor of American Studies

Lakisha Simmons, Assistant Professor of Global Gender Studies

Victoria Wolcott, Professor of History

Jason Young, Associate Professor of History

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Galloping Historical Illiteracy

  • Students comments give great hope for tomorrow. Profs are empty and should be ashamed at themselves.

  • Someone needs to forward this reponse to the school news paper and hope the publish it!

    Well done!!

  • Thank you my brother of the bar!

  • You really have a lot invested in this “Democrats as the party of Jim Crow” thing. A good amount of the Democrats in the South who turned on the national party from 1964 on were probably not too keen on abortion, and vice-versa for members of the liberal wing like McGovern. People are complex ‘n all that. I doubt George Wallace would find tons to agree with in the current Democratic Party platform today.

    of course this has nothing to do with both being moral evils but when it comes to people who come down somewhere in between the choicer absolutism quoted and the pro-life position, probably better to argue why abortion is wrong in and of itself rather than drawing analogies between two very different phenomena.

  • “You really have a lot invested in this “Democrats as the party of Jim Crow” thing.”

    It is called fidelity to the historical record JDP, a record studiously ignored by most of the contemporary partisans of the party of the Jackass.

    “I doubt George Wallace would find tons to agree with in the current Democratic Party platform today.”

    George Wallace, like almost all of the major segregation figures in the South, lived and died a Democrat. He last ran as a Democrat in 1983, winning the governorship of Alabama, and the Democrats had become the party of abortion by that time. Married three times, his last two marriages ending in divorce, I think Wallace fit right in with the contemporary Democrat party, especially since he had embraced affirmative action by his last run.

  • Actually, JDP, many of the southern Democrats who clung to the party were fairly more left-leaning than people assume. For instance, the Klan which dominated in the early part of the 20th century consisted of self-styled Progressives and Populists who would have been sympathetic with the Occupy Movement. Further, as Sean Trende has written, the southerners who wound up switching to the GOP earliest were those who had much more tolerant views on race, meaning that the ones who stayed in the Democratic party were the old guard, Jim Crow crew.

  • “I doubt George Wallace would find tons to agree with in the current Democratic Party platform today.”

    Wallace started out in Alabama politics as a protege of James Folsom, Sr., a populist agreeable to the social democratic and union tendencies in the national democratic party and with little inclination to play white against black. Wallace re-invented himself as a fire-eating segregationist after losing a primary election in 1958. Alan Crawford, in his brief assessment of Wallace published in 1979, quoted an observer of Alabama politics of the time (I believe an official of the Alabama Chamber of Commerce) thus: “he was the leading liberal in the legislature; a lot of people regarded him as downright pink”. A better description of Wallace might be sociopathic opportunist.

    (His treatment of his 1st wife did not incorporate adultery but in other respects makes John Edwards look downright gallant).

    I think if you rummage through it you will discover that quondam segregationists (Jimmy Carter comes to mind) were very hit and miss on social questions. The most prominent defenders of life in the Democratic Party after 1973 tended to be ethnics like Robert Casey and John LaFalce, who had no segregationist past.

  • the southerners who wound up switching to the GOP earliest were those who had much more tolerant views on race,

    In federal elections, the peripheral South abandoned the Democratic Party before the Deep South. IIRC, as late as 1985, Southern Republicans tended to be quondam Bourbon Democrats, people who had fewer points of conflict and competition with the black population than did the remainder of the Democratic electorate.

  • many of the southern Democrats who clung to the party were fairly more left-leaning than people assume

    I think it might confound rather than illuminate to put the old South on a left-right spectrum.


  • Caterine-
    Your capitalization is NOT loud enough for the women who continue to see this as “their right.”
    I scream with you.

  • You guys are right that you can’t necessarily fit all this neatly into a left/right deal. I just really dispute that the Jim Crow Democrats thing, as a matter of historical accuracy, should be brought up in arguments about the modern parties. Not to whitewash the past or anything, because obviously important Democratic coalitions like FDR’s were partially built on tolerance of the Southern wing, but because it’s not relevant to anything today, there’s no ideological lineage between Dixiecrats and the current Democratic establishment. “Fidelity to the historical record” should include recognizing the shifts on this country’s politics over time and not a view that treats the parties and coalitions like monolithic entities.

    I know it’s not the point of the post, just that this particular argument is intellectually unserious and symptomatic of a partisan desire to fit all historical wrongs on the other ideological side.

  • “I just really dispute that the Jim Crow Democrats thing, as a matter of historical accuracy, should be brought up in arguments about the modern parties.”

    It most certainly should be when Democrats routinely bring up the charge that Republicans are racist. Additionally the Democrats are still using their time honored tactic of race baiting in order to win elections. Recall this gem from Biden last year?

    Democrats have shifted the colors of their racial appeals, but the use of race to divide Americans for cheap political advantage remains a key part of the Democrat strategy.

  • “It most certainly should be when Democrats routinely bring up the charge that Republicans are racist”

    So what? Just refute/brush off the charge, this type of historical revisionism is not necessary. Republicans like Rand Paul are not going to convince blacks that what Southern Democrats thought back in the day is at all relevant to what the national party did from 1964 on no matter how hard they try. For him specifically making that argument’s kinda ironic since he holds a slightly Goldwater-ish libertarian view against part of the Civil Rights Act.

    “Democrats have shifted the colors of their racial appeals, but the use of race to divide Americans for cheap political advantage remains a key part of the Democrat strategy.”

    a lot of politics is “divisive” and based on redmeat/hyperbole for your most likely voters, can’t say I was shocked by a typically overwrought Biden statement. On the same subject, you mentioned affirmative action upthread, which arguments can be made against while acknowledging it was initially seen as an attempted correction and not drawing strained analogies to Jim Crow.

  • “this type of historical revisionism is not necessary.”

    Not revisionism JDP, simple historical fact.

    “on no matter how hard they try”

    Accurate history is always relevant JDP, especially when a distorted view of it is being propounded by the Democrats.

    “a lot of politics is “divisive” and based on redmeat/hyperbole for your most likely voters, can’t say I was shocked by a typically overwrought Biden statement.”

    Race baiting and appeals to racial paranoia are in a special low class all by themselves JDP. Whenever someone like Biden engages in it, they need to be called on it hard. Forner Congressman Artur Davis was right on target last year:

  • a lot of politics is “divisive” and based on redmeat/hyperbole for your most likely voters, can’t say I was shocked by a typically overwrought Biden statement.

    You mean there is not much to bother about in Biden’s remarks but that a private citizen reciting historical fact is troublesome. Your slip is showing.

  • . I just really dispute that the Jim Crow Democrats thing, as a matter of historical accuracy,

    Care to refute it with evidence instead of assertion?

  • “Care to refute it with evidence instead of assertion?”

    Do you view Southern Democrats of the time as hardcore leftwingers in the mold of Nancy Pelosi? I don’t and I think it’s pretty silly to. This is “accurate” in a very limited sense — the Democratic Party as a party that used to include segregationists in its coalition — that doesn’t take into account ideology, doesn’t take into account the divide between Northern and Southern Democrats at the time and doesn’t have a ton of relevance to today. It’s not like the black Republican vote dropped in 1964 out of nowhere.

  • *more dramatic dropoff should say.

  • Your serial exercises in press agentry are tiresome, JDP.

    And it is relevant. Partisan Democrats have for a generation been trafficking in fraudulent history, useful story. Black electorates have proven highly responsive to opinion leaders therein, gesture, and myth. Much of the myth has to do with what Republican politicians did and did not do over a thirty year period and what they do and do not intend today. An aspect of that is a ‘look over there’ diversion. The Democratic Party was very dirty and very tainted by the civic and social system of the South. The Republican Party had nothing to do with that.

    One of the things that has proved impossible over the last 40 odd years has been the erection of a system of natural liberty – equal liberty and careers open to talents. There is no structural impediment to this. It is just that the Democratic Party’s reflexive modus operandi is to manufacture patron-client relationships mobilize elements of the population on ethnic lines. These have lately been complimented with another social impulse: putting all human relationships under the superintendency of lawyers. All this is tarted up with judicial opinions and agency rulings and the bushwah in which politicians, journalists and public interests lawyers traffick. Here is a nice example of the nuttiness of some of it:

    In 1945, we lived in a world where talented Southern blacks could not get medical training, because the state universities they might have attended to get it did not admit them. Now, we live in a world where politicians insist we have to subsidize higher education for illegal aliens, to please the public interest bar and professional ethnics. Officers of the same political party are responsible for both sets of nuttiness.

  • Do you view Southern Democrats of the time as hardcore leftwingers in the mold of Nancy Pelosi? I don’t and I think it’s pretty silly to.

    No, nor have I inferred that they were save to allude to their populist economic jargon. However, it would be even sillier to claim that many of them, particularly the most virulent Klan members or Klan protectors were exactly Reaganite conservatives. Read some histories of the Klan and tell me which party, in toto, would appeal to Klan ideology.

    As Art said, this is important because the left has whitewashed history and presented a false narrative of American political development, implying that the Republican party has been taken over by a bunch of southern racists who pine for the days of Jim Crow.

  • “No, nor have I inferred that they were save to allude to their populist economic jargon. However, it would be even sillier to claim that many of them, particularly the most virulent Klan members or Klan protectors were exactly Reaganite conservatives. Read some histories of the Klan and tell me which party, in toto, would appeal to Klan ideology.”

    OK I agree with this. my point isn’t to say racism is inherently right-wing. I also think it’s fine to clear up any misconceptions people might have about Republican policies in the past — of course people talk about the Southern strategy but that was electoral politics, not policy.

    and we agree that the people we’re discussing aren’t leftists. So again…clearing up misconceptions and simplified “Republicans and Democrats switched places” narratives is fine, but I still don’t see the point of lumping George Wallace (who I assume saw himself as nonliberal considering the amount of cracks he made about ’em) in with Pelosi-Reid-Obama like it means anything, any more than someone like Nelson Rockefeller means anything to GOP politics today.

    i am not trying to defend the current Democratic Party (really,) I just think it can be criticized on its own terms, without trying to lump its post-’60s incarnation and earlier, more coalitional state together.

  • — of course people talk about the Southern strategy but that was electoral politics, not policy.

    No, they utter the term “Southern Strategy” as a mantra. They would not know Nixon’s actual campaign literature from a toilet paper ad.

  • but I still don’t see the point of lumping George Wallace (who I assume saw himself as nonliberal considering the amount of cracks he made about ‘em) in with Pelosi-Reid-Obama like it means anything,

    Why not ask who Wallace was trying to mobilize and what his methods were and then have a look at the other three shnooks.

    any more than someone like Nelson Rockefeller means anything to GOP politics today.

    GOP policy wonks begin with the world wrought during those years and attempt to whittle it down. ‘Fraid he means a great deal.

  • There seem to be a lot of professors around. Is this the American equivalent of the English term ‘lecturer’?

  • Someone earning 18,000 a year and no job security is graced with the title adjunct professor in this country John.
    This wikipedia article explains the American system of profs here, profs there, profs everywhere!

  • Is this the American equivalent of the English term ‘lecturer’?

    ‘adjunct’ is a generic which refers to a menu of peripheral faculty.

    1. Modally, the term ‘lecturer’ in this country refers to a faculty member who has an open-ended term of appointment or an indefinitely renewable term of appointment but is paid by the number of courses taught. In arts and sciences faculties, they are most common in foreign language departments teaching the lower level courses. As a rule, lecturers do not participate in faculty governance structures.

    2. An ‘adjunct professor’ is commonly someone employed elsewhere (as a working professional or as a teacher) who has a contract to teach a partial or full load for a limited term, for a renewable term, or for an open ended period. These also usually do not serve on faculty committees.

    3. A ‘visiting professor’ (modally ‘visiting assistant professor’) is generally someone on a limited-term contract (one to six semesters) to fill a vacancy because a regular faculty member is on leave or has retired or has departed. However, there are sometimes prestige appointments where the institution cadges an established scholar for a limited period (who is on leave from his home institution).

    4. A ‘clinical professor’ is generally a working professional who teaches courses at a training academy, usually the most practical courses. You see the term in medical and law schools, not elsewhere much.

    Most aspirant faculty spend several years as visiting professors or adjunct professors or lecturers before landing a tenure-track position and many remain in these short-term position until such time as they give up on academic employment. Those in the hard sciences often spend years as ‘post-doctoral fellows’, who typically do not have teaching duties but are expected to publish.

    Faculty who are tenured are referred to as ‘professors’ or ‘associate professors’. The former have higher salaries and more prestige than the latter. A small selection of faculty have endowed chairs which come with a research stipend and a reduction in course loads. The titles these professors hold typically commence with the donor’s name, as in “Ralph and Rita Raffles Professor of Literature”. There are visiting professorships that are endowed as well and similarly styled. An ‘assistant professor’ is a candidate for tenure. An ‘instructor’ is an assistant professor who has yet to complete his dissertation. Fifty years ago, institutions commonly hired scholars still working on their dissertation; now it is rare. The British term ‘reader’ is never used in this country.

  • It is up or out for assistant professors. You are accepted on the permanent faculty or you are gone. Visiting professors are commonly around for no more than three years. The other sorts of faculty are generally around for indefinite periods depending on funding, the preferences of the permanent faculty in a given department, and the preferences of the peripheral faculty in question. Every institution is a bit different, though. One place I worked had a corps of professors called ‘category i faculty’. They were on three year contracts, renewable indefinitely. They taught anywhere from one to four courses (not the standard five) and were paid accordingly. Otherwise, they were treated like regular faculty. A few who produced interesting research or who had a political connection in the institution were granted tenure after a mess of years.

  • Pingback: Monday Update on Kermit Gosnell Trial - Big Pulpit

Dead Baby Uber Alles

Tuesday, April 2, AD 2013

The above video of a Worse Than Murder, Inc, a\k\a Planned Parenthood rep blithely indicating that a baby surviving an abortion should not receive medical care if  the mother and the abortionist do not wish the child to receive medical care has received considerable play.

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Dead Baby Uber Alles

  • Look what an attractive, gentle and feminine person this spokeswoman appears to be. No sign of red leathery skin, warts and stench; nothing to hint of the diabolical in her manner. Another issue of main concern is presented with rainbows and glee, montages of love.
    Obfuscation,packaging, marketing, deception, death.

  • If a convicted criminal survived a hanging, back in the day, didn’t they let him live?
    I don’t recall reading this, however I do remember hearing this.

    If this was true, then P.P. has viewed the fetus in ways even worse than a criminal, yet what crime has the fetus committed?
    This is a time of hell on earth.

  • “I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

    OK, as a human, what would you do if you saw an abandoned newborn on the sidewalk? Call 911, or try to locate the mother and ascertain her wishes?

  • Is Soylen Green next?? How frightening for humanity . . . my soul cries out in pain and sadness for the lose.

  • “How can people be so heartless?
    How can people be so cruel?

    From “Hair.”

  • We are going through the phase of decline that all great powers undergo at some time or another. For example, the parallels to ancient Rome, which are well-known because well-studied, are astounding. We must come to see that there is nothing really new under the sun and that we cycle through the same situations. Ours is a post-Christian society which makes us ripe for a tragic ending.

  • “For example, the parallels to ancient Rome, which are well-known because well-studied, are astounding.”

    Actually Jon when Rome entered its period of rapid decline the general level of morality was improving from what it had been due to the influence of Christianity. History rarely provides us with simple parallels.

  • True on both counts. Thank you.

  • True on all three, sorry. And that’s why it’s important not to be too abstract, avoiding the particulars that are often more meaningful than the generalities.

  • God will judge these people whether or not they believe it. Planned Parenthood is one of the most evil organizations modern man could have come up with. those who support it will regret it.

  • Pingback: Aquinas on the Psalms & Liturgy as the Source of Wisdom - Big Pulpit

  • This, precisely, is the reason that if you vote democrat, you will not be getting into Heaven.

  • this really makes one wonder if these idiots who take lives actually realize that they too could have been aborted if they were not loved enough by their parent to give them life…is really sad..

  • Today is day 6 of the Divine Mercy novena.
    I mention this because of the emphasis on souls of children. How delightful and pleasing to the entire celestial court.

    Without Gods mercy life would be death.

    America is the poorest nation on earth.

  • I really don’t think anything PP could say or do can shock me. Was does shock me is the nonchalant attitude of some who claim to be pro-life, but do not take seriously the matter that businesses that support Planned Parenthood should be boycotted, and so should all 127 sponsors of PP’s partner in crime, Susan G Komen for the Cure. I was appalled to learn recently how prevalent the practice is of parochial schools to collect box tops from General Mills products, to be exchanged fovrvarious school and playground equipment. General Mills is one of the circle of “million-dollar elite” donors to Komen! Pro-lifers should not even be buying anything with a General Mills label – Betty Crocker, Chex, Bisquik, Green Giant, etc.

  • T. Shaw, God will not shut the gates on someone who votes Democrat. Everyone knows when we vote for a party it’s not for the whole package, at least not usually. We vote in a two-party system which makes it hard on everyone. But God’s acceptance of us depends upon Christ and our faith in him.

  • I can’t agree with you there Jon – you said “vote for the party”. I think the D party’s stated stance is in favor of killing the little ones and having the taxpayers pay for it. The R party doesn’t build that into their platform (so far).
    There are individual pro life democrats and pro abortion republicans. We have to be careful that we do not remotely participate in procuring abortions, and we should do everything can to stop them.

  • True, Anzlyne. I do think we get to heaven because of what Christ does rather than what we do, though. I also think we do what Christ wants when we believe in him. We are saved in Christ and consequently/subsequently become like him. Hope that makes sense.

It Takes A Lot of Verbiage to Justify Murder

Monday, December 3, AD 2012

Would that all pro-aborts were as forthright as the abortionist in the above video.  Instead, most of them hide behind an endless torrent of evasions and euphemisms to conceal a very simple truth:  abortion is the killing of the innocent.  Alison Taylor, first Anglican Bishopess in Australia, is typical in her lame defense of an unspeakable crime.  Unfortunately for her, her effort receives a fisking to remember from Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so often in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith:

Alison Taylor, the new Anglican Bishop of Queensland and the first female Anglican bishop in Australia, riffs on abortion:

The Bible speaks of a world which God has created and which he loves beyond measure, in which all life is to be embraced as a gift from Him. However, it is a world which is fallen, and which longs for the full redemption in Jesus Christ which is to come. Sin and suffering abound in a human condition of great complexity, and at times immensely difficult decisions need to be made.

Like whether or not Allie actually meant what she just said.

What the Bible does not teach, and which has never been a part of Christian doctrine – contrary to the assertion in this month’s TMA letter – is that ‘all human life has absolute moral value’. The latter view is unbiblical because it would be untenable for Christians in situations where complex moral choices must be made, in diverse circumstances ranging from military defence and self-defence to the sometimes conflicting rights of mother and unborn child.

Let’s see.  National defense.  Protecting yourself from someone who wants to physically harm you.  Fileting the kid because you don’t want to have to take a pay cut right now.  Morally, they’re all pretty much the same.  And on the ludicrously small chance that you missed Allie’s lame “theology,” she repeats it here.

Nowhere in the Bible is a foetus accorded the full moral status of a human person. On the contrary, in the sole biblical text on induced abortion, Exodus 21.22-23, an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. Other than what might be inferred from this text, the Bible is silent on the issue of the moral status to be accorded to foetal death, as it is on the question of when an embryo might be said to have a soul that survives death. These two issues, which preoccupy the abortion debate today, could probably not even have been conceptualised by writers living in the Biblical era.

I think it was Andy Warhol who once said, “In the future, everybody will be an Anglican bishop for fifteen minutes.”  It’s not like you have to know any actual Christian theology or anything, like Catholics, Orthodox and serious Protestants do, or be versed in some kind of Christian tradition.

Just memorize a few handy cliches that are useful for just about any occasion and you’re in like Bishop Flynn.  Allie uses two here.  The Scripture writers, who were mere men who had absolutely no assistance whatsoever in writing down the Word of the Living God but it wouldn’t have mattered if they had since they were all blithering idiots who couldn’t find their heads with both hands.

Then there’s the ever-popular “The Bible never said anything about _________” argument, probably the most useful Anglican dodge of all.  If, of course, you overlook the uncomfortable fact that the Bible also doesn’t teach that racism, sexism, “homophobia” and voting against Barack Obama are sins.  But did Allie happen to mention what absolute morons the Scripture writers were?

The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.

So what say Allie bottom-lines it for you?  It’s a human being when and if I want it to be and NOT BEFORE, bitches.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to It Takes A Lot of Verbiage to Justify Murder

  • 2nd Timothy 4:3-4 – For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

    Canterbury is in full flight from orthodoxy, and into heresy and apostasy. Judgement Day is coming and it ain’t a’gonna be pretty.

    Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy!

    PS, I love how the Nova Vulgata reads that passage – I just can’t help myself: “Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus, et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur.”

  • What do we expect from a female bishop of the Anglican church? It once celebrated the supernatural but now worships the unnatural,,,,,,,

  • Oh, but Patrick, in worshipping the unnatural, the faux-Anglicans still worship the spiritual – the demonically and diabolically spiritual.

  • Pacem Patrick and Paul. it isn’t the piskies’ fault. There aren’t so many of them compared to the hordes of common goods/socialist justice/sexular humanist cathies.

    And, it’s more the constant efforts of liberal US Catholic bishops’ bureaucracies (you should not give $$$ to your bishop); far-left US Catholic universities, et al that provide the “cover” to rationalize infanticide as a common good, “human right”, just, and “women’s health.”

    Oh, yeah, if you voted for Obama, you “own” this.

  • How very Anglican of her. She seems to be in the right “religion”. Lord have mercy on her.

  • “The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.”

    If anything, the advances in medical science and embryology that she cites make it more obvious than ever that abortion is killing a human. If someone wants to justify abortion, medical science does not provide a good template.

  • Anyhow, the Bible is the “Word of God.” Briefly, God, not man, decides who lives or dies. “Thou shalt not kill.”

    We’ve come a long way, baby!

    Recently re-reading a freshman Ancient History text, I see that as part of the development of the Spartan polis, Spartan fathers’ rights to kill their infant children were usurped by the polis’ council.

  • It is easy to see that many liberal or progessives have an illusion that because of the amount of scientific knowledge we enjoy today that it automatically converts to wisdom. It doesn’t. Unwanted pregnancy has a peaceful solution. Adoption.

  • “How very Anglican of her. She seems to be in the right ‘religion’. Lord have mercy on her.”

    No, Elizabeth, you got that wrong. Bishopress / High Priestess Alsion Taylor is in the LEFT religion, NOT the right religion.

    Big difference! 😉

  • A cup of Rath cometh.
    Keep your vessel filled with oil.
    Trim your wicks.
    And stand in humble awe of the vindicator to come.

  • Dr. Boyd is what “social justice” Catholics will look like in ten years.

  • God said to Eve: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth childen.” Gen.3:16. Children before and after birth.

  • T. Shaw: “Recently re-reading a freshman Ancient History text, I see that as part of the development of the Spartan polis, Spartan fathers’ rights to kill their infant children were usurped by the polis’ council.”
    From the Preambe to the U.S. Constitution: “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our (constitutional) posterity,”

  • as posted here already, knowledge and wisdom not necessarily the same thing.
    I hate how they cite 9 year old pregnant girls as the reason we should have abortion legal. Something about it reminds me of terrorist hiding behind children.

  • Not to mention anzlyne the probable violation by the abortionist of the legal and moral duty to expose the hideous crime of a sex abuser impregnating a child. If I were the local prosecuting attorney I would have been opening up immediately a criminal investigation after seeing that video.

  • “an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. ” It is considered manslaughter. If the pregnant woman was killed by accident by another person, it is considered manslaughter. Justice is predicated on intent. To lay in wait for one’s neighbor to kill him is capital one homicide. The above doctor lays in wait to murder an innocent person. The doctor is one of the men emasculated by Roe v. Wade

Akin Comeback?

Friday, November 2, AD 2012

The Democrats thought they had a silver bullet with Todd Akins’ “legitimate rape” comment in explaining why he does not support a rape exception in regard to abortion.  Akin was inarticulately attempting to distinguish forcible rape from statutory rape where consent is given.  He also, once again inarticulately, was attempting to state something that I believe is true:  women under stress are less likely to conceive than women who aren’t.  Never mind.  Akin became a cause celebre for a few weeks and seemed to be the poster child for the Democrat’s War on Women Meme.  He was left as road kill by the Republicans.  Vastly underfunded in comparison to his opponent, he stayed in the race, fought it out and has battled back to a statistical dead heat.   With Romney poised to win Missouri by double digits next Tuesday, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him take the Senate seat from the highly unpopular Claire McCaskill.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Akin Comeback?

  • I speculated elsewhere that there could be reverse Bradley effect at work in this race as people responding to pollsters might be wary of admitting they are voting for Akin, but when faced with the choice of re-electing McCaskill, ultimately will pull the lever for him.

  • I will wager that if the GOP establishment had any nerve or loyalty to social conservatives, this would have blown over much more quickly. I am hoping the voters of Missouri stick a thumb in their poltroonish little eyes.

Compare and Contrast, or Reason Number One Why I Am A Republican

Tuesday, September 4, AD 2012



The Democrat platform on abortion:

The President and the Democratic Party believe that women have a right to control their reproductive choices. Democrats support access to affordable family planning services, and President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans, and the President has respected the principle of religious liberty. Democrats support evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to supporting family planning around the globe to help women care for their families, support their communities, and lead their countries to be healthier and more productive. That’s why, in his first month in office, President Obama overturned the “global gag rule,” a ban on federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provided information about, counseling on, or offered abortions. And that is why the administration has supported lifesaving family planning health information and services.

The Republican party platform on abortion:

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Compare and Contrast, or Reason Number One Why I Am A Republican

  • The choice could not be more stark. i am continually stunned that American Catholics could support such an organisation – and of course, in other countries as well; but it seems to be more pronounced in the US.
    Surely, Don, that seal for the Democrats has been doctored -“mors vincet omnia” ?

  • Death conquers all. I am continually stunned also Don that any Catholic could support the Democrats but many do. We might have one or two show up in the comboxes to argue that it is really the Democrats who are pro-life! The human capacity for believing what we want to believe, evidence be hanged, is infinite.

  • But Don, of course death doesn’t conquer all – Jesus’ victory over death tells us so. 🙂

  • I think the Democrat Party, leaving aside individual Democrats, and Jesus aren’t on speaking terms right now!

    The Democrats have removed any reference to God in their platform. They do mention the Southside Messiah over one hundred times.

  • Ha!

    It just proves once again that men who don’t worship God will worship something, or someone else instead.

  • since I have many family members who are democrats, I find reason to pray very hard for them..It seems that there is nothing else left to do…reason does not work!

  • Pingback: We Belong to the Government | The American Catholic
  • What I find interesting is that the Democratic platform completely dances around the issue of human life. At no point do they come out and say “We don’t believe an unborn child is a human person.” nor do they say “We believe an unborn child is a human person, but we should kill them if they are inconvenient.” They leave that question alone, and for very good reason. If they answer that it is not a human person, then they must defeat the mountain of scientific and medical evidence that says otherwise, not to mention the philosophical questions. If they answer that it is a human person, then they must admit that they are murderers. Either way, they look bad, so they pull a Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to the baby behind the belly button, oops, I mean the man behind the curtain.” They avoid any language which might suggest that is an issue. They have to do that, because they have no good response.

  • Don stated it best. “The choice could not be more stark.” I’m always dumbfounded by people who say there is no difference between the parties.

    I wish the Democrats would move in the pro-life direction. I have a sort of moderate, non-political friend who always says “I have high hopes for the Democratic Party,” meaning he thinks that at some point they’ll get over the far leftist infection and return to what they were like in the early part of last century. But he feels that way because he doesn’t follow politics; there is no evidence that they are doing anything of the sort. On the contrary, national Dem candidates are getting progressively worse on the issue.

    But if they did move toward Life it would push the Republicans in a pro-life direction. The country as a whole has been moving in that direction as the horror stories about the evil of abortion pile up in the hearts and minds of Americans. The people know it’s wrong. But the Dems rely on the monetary proceeds from it. It will take a miracle for them to shake that monkey off.

  • To clarify, when I said “.., would move Republicans in a pro-life direction” I meant in an even more pro-life direction and would give them more boldness and bipartisan clout to the movement rather than just the same old expectation of being obstructed on every pro-life initiative.

  • @Pauli, I’m sure your friend is a lovely person, but you might consider getting him a history book. The Democrat party wasn’t a very kind and gentle group of folks in the early 20th century.

    And with that in mind, I have to say how impressive (and depressing) it is that the Democrat party seems to have set out in the last quarter century to ignore their reprehensible past and proclaim themselves the party of civil rights and so many people actually buy it. Slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, why do I feel like I’m the only one left who remembers those were all pushed by the Democrats? And now they’ve got the honor of being the party of envy and death. Lovely folks, they are.

  • the “Democrats are the party of slavery and Jim Crow” is silly because it ignores that politics used to be much more coalitional. before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where Goldwater opposed it on constitutional grounds, civil rights were basically bipartisan, it’s just that the Democrats tolerated Southern segregationists to hold electoral votes in the South from people who were nothing like future McGovern Democrats on other issues. once that coalition broke those people gravitated toward the GOP in national elections because they didn’t have anything in common with the increasingly left-wing nature of the Democratic Party.

    note that this isn’t a “GOP won the South because of racism” argument. Nixon did try to get votes from Wallace people but you could argue they regardless of segregationist views they might’ve held in the past, they were more in tune with the GOP on other issues anyway.

  • i basically view the Dixiecrats:today’s Democrats analogy as flawed in the same way as if you tried to compare Rockefeller Republicans to today’s Republicans. demographics and ideology have shifted over time.

    if anything is wrong with the modern Democratic Party on the race issue it’s that they’re too ANTI-racist. by which i don’t mean that racism is acceptable, but that it has consumed them to the point where they’re blissfully ignorant of any potential cultural problems that could arise from unchecked immigration, and they buy into all the multicultural slush.

  • “i am continually stunned that American Catholics could support such an organisation”

    As Lord Macauley observed, “We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical.”

  • “if anything is wrong with the modern Democratic Party on the race issue it’s that they’re too ANTI-racist. ”

    If twere only true! Actually the Democrat Party has always been fine with government discriminating against people based on their race. The colors have shifted over time, but the principle has remained the same. The Republicans on the other hand have remained remarkably true to the principle that government must not discriminate against Americans on the basis of race.

  • Thanks for the Reagan clip! He certainly has a way of telling a punch line.

  • As for the Democrat Platform – so called “social justice” has won out. Thank you Cardinal Bernardin – and the U.S. bishops and half the clergy who remain registered in the pro-abortion party even still today.

  • well even affirmative action, which obviously does not treat individuals equally, is based on the Dems’ “equality of outcome” philosophy. it’s in keeping with their idea that blacks are still horribly oppressed in this country and the government must give them a leg up. AKA, an overcorrection to past racism.

    it’s also why for all the optimistic talk about how blacks are more socially conservative than whites, the Dems’ combination of affirmative action and successfully painting the GOP as the party of those eeeeeevil white flyover states aren’t gonna have black people voting GOP any time soon.

  • Affirmative action is not just for blacks in the Democrat universe but also for Hispanics and native Americans. Asians can go hang. Interesting how for the Democrats’ favored skin colors always come in the shade of useful voting blocks for the Democrat party.

  • @JDP, my point was not that the Democrats are exactly the same now as they were then. Only to point out that this idea of a time when the Democrat party represented everything wonderful in the world is a fantasy. The fact is the party has a very dismal history, demographic shift or no.

  • Oh, well, Donald, as I have stated times without number, Obama is the High Priest of Satan. He is determined to divide, and hopefully destroy the Catholic Church. But I have news for him……even if you Americans commit suicide by re-electing him, God will hit back, and viciously, too. May each and everyone in your country who calls themselves Catholics, and all people of goodwill, jump into the trenches and vote this Monster out.

Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth

Wednesday, August 29, AD 2012

2 Responses to Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth

This is Why I Call Pro-Aborts, Pro-Aborts

Tuesday, June 12, AD 2012



I never use the term “pro-choice” but always use the term “pro-abort” to designate those who are perfectly fine with the unborn having no legal protection from contract killing in the womb.  Here is an example of why I do so:


Melissa Clouthier, a conservative blogger, attended the panel and reported on how one member urged attendees to applaud women who had killed their unborn children in abortions:


In an act of public bullying, one of the three speakers, Darcy Burner of Washington (the others being Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii), asked women who had had an abortion to stand up in front of other attendees. It was difficult to estimate the number of women as they were sprinkled through out the audience. They stood alone while Burner admonished the attendees to hold their applause.

Then Burner asked the others seated in the audience to stand and give these women a standing ovation. The audience complied enthusiastically. I sat during this spectacle.

Burner said,”If you are a woman in this room, and statistically this is true of about 1/3 of the women in this room, if you’re a woman in this room who has had an abortion and is willing to come out about it, please stand up.”

She continued, “Now, if you are willing to stand with every woman who is willing to come out about having had an abortion, please stand up.” Nearly everyone stood.

Burner said, ”This is how we change the stories in people’s past. We need to make it okay for women to come out about the choices they make.”

The left will say that they’re not pro-abortion, they’re pro-choice or they’re pro-women. It was clear, though, that abortion itself was elevated as something good and something to be celebrated. The speaker and the audience was honoring women who had an abortion as though the action was an objectively good thing.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to This is Why I Call Pro-Aborts, Pro-Aborts

  • So it’s not enough to love the sinner and assure them of God’s mercy if they turn to Him. No, we have to pat them on the back and say, “Good job!”

  • Just like the militant homosexual activists u cannot just love them as people u have to embrace NO celebrate their way of life.

  • I find strange that some people think that there is no more slavery in America when loads of sex-slaves arrive on US shores from lots of different places.

  • I have trouble to call anyone pro-abortion within any specific context in which they are willing to look honestly into a mother’s eyes and tell her that the best “assistance” they can provide is to reach inside of her and kill her child. While there may be one or two in the world that are that callous, I suspect most are merely misinformed or addicted or scared into their support of abortion within that specific context.

    However, when it comes to endorsing a pro-abortion policy. When it comes to funding non-abortion services at an abortion facility vs. a non-abortion facility, they prefer funding the abortion facility because it might cover the overhead costs of abortion. When it comes to enact their supposed principle of choice, they deny other choices and even shame women for having children. When it comes to trying to create moral and theological defenses for the murder of humans. When it comes to creating incentives and legal protections for motherhood and children, they would rather privilege abortion. There are many proven cases of those that pro-abortion. Again, perhaps it’s merely misinformation or fear or their own addictions. We’re all sick from original sin. Most of us in shame, some others openly and in positions of influence to lead the littlest ones to sin. These people are not pro-choice, but pro-abortion.

  • My beloved Americans, now that you have joyfully elevated the mass murder of the unborn to a “Religion”, tell me; if this goes on for the next 25 years, where will your population stand in comparison to the rest of the World Population?????

    Why do you conceive and then kill your own children???? Why not just ensure no conception takes place when you are indulging in your sexual gratifications???? At least that way, you would have committed only One Sin. But to copulate and then kill what you have brought to life makes you appear totally callous to the extreme. May God have Mercy on America.