Posts
A follow up from the Wallstreet Journal to my post, "What to do with all the Little Boys" regarding a new book on the market. This from the perspective of those who are no longer with us; the female victims of China's one child policy. A sample from the article:
"...Late in "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl makes some suggestions as to how such "abuse" might be curbed without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion. In attempting to serve these two diametrically opposed ideas, she proposes banning the common practice of revealing the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing. And not just ban it, but have rigorous government enforcement, which would include nationwide sting operations designed to send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail. Beyond the police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, doctors would be required to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal.
Such a regime borders on the absurd. It is neither feasible nor tolerable—nor efficacious: Sex determination has been against the law in both China and India for years, to no effect. I suspect that Ms. Hvistendahl's counter-argument would be that China and India do not enforce their laws rigorously enough.
Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice..." <emphasis mine>
The book is written by a pro-choice advocate for abortion.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Racist ravage of Abortion
Center for disease control numbers seem to indicate that abortion is a serious problem that is ravaging the babies of the black community. More is here. We need to join together to fight this atrocity.
"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."
--Erma Clardy Craven (deceased)
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader
"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."
--Erma Clardy Craven (deceased)
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Obama's Reproductive Healthcare Hype
I must say that I am a bit concerned about the huge negotiations that appear to be taking place around keeping federally funded abortion out of the health care bill. I am concerned that the democratic administration is hyping the inclusion of this as a leveraging ploy to get a government run program that will take over our health care economy. I am not sure of the politics preventing them from dropping the abortion clauses in reconciliation simply to get the government in place. I have largely been opposing this for social justice reasons, but do we really want governement health care? Won't this fly through congress if abortion is gone? Think of it: we all breath a sigh of relief, no federal funding of abortion...whew. But that begs the question: once abortion is gone - do we really want government health care of any kind? By doing this the government will beome both a player and the referee in the medical community. In so doing it will be able to regulate all other options out of business. If the government could actually run a transparent, efficient and effective system that wouldn't be so bad. But what is the history of our government running things?
1. The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. 234 years to get it right and it is becoming more unsustainable by the day.
2. Social Security was established in 1935. 74 years to get it right and it is bankrupt.
3. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. 71 years to get it right. It is bankrupt and now has an unlimited line of credit from the Fed (printing fiat).
4. The War on Poverty started in 1964. 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor". We are still around.
5. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. 44 years to get it right. They are bankrupt.
6. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. 39 years to get it right. It is bankrupt and now has an unlimited credit line from the Fed.
7. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
FAILED in every "government service" attempted while overspending massive tax dollars that could be saved, invested or spent by the American people. Can we NOW trust a government Health Care system to work...a system bigger than all of these programs? And aside from that once they put private insurers out of business, what's to stop them from reinstating the funding?
2. Social Security was established in 1935. 74 years to get it right and it is bankrupt.
3. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. 71 years to get it right. It is bankrupt and now has an unlimited line of credit from the Fed (printing fiat).
4. The War on Poverty started in 1964. 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor". We are still around.
5. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. 44 years to get it right. They are bankrupt.
6. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. 39 years to get it right. It is bankrupt and now has an unlimited credit line from the Fed.
7. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
FAILED in every "government service" attempted while overspending massive tax dollars that could be saved, invested or spent by the American people. Can we NOW trust a government Health Care system to work...a system bigger than all of these programs? And aside from that once they put private insurers out of business, what's to stop them from reinstating the funding?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Prayer for protection from appointees that can kill Health care Reform
Father as the President prepares for his State of the Union speech today we ask that you would awaken him to the time and attention that must be given to his appointees. Lord, so much to do and so little time to do it in. I pray that you will guide him in a way that respects your declaration in Jer 1:5. As he figures out how to get congress back on track and into a bi-partisan discussion of health care reform we ask that some hard working assistant will realize how detrimental a nominee for the office of legal counsel like Dawn Johnsen can be to his administration and it's pursuit of health care reform - particularly as it relates to government and it's relationship to abortion. Lord, I don't understand how any individual that believes that becoming pregnant is akin to slavery - can be expected to have the judgement required to win favor with a just people. Children - as you say - are a blessing. Father, Ms. Johnsen's contention to the Supreme Court that "...Statutes curtail [a women's] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude prohibited by the thirteenth amendment..." or that women are constantly aware when pregnant "...that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for it's own ends..." (amicus Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490, 1989, No. 88-605)
Certainly judgment that compares pregnancy to slavery is NOT what we need in this administration. Protect him from this unnecessary diversion by removing her from consideration.
Certainly judgment that compares pregnancy to slavery is NOT what we need in this administration. Protect him from this unnecessary diversion by removing her from consideration.
Monday, January 18, 2010
An Open Letter to the Obama Prayer Chain
I am responding to an item of concern on the Obama Prayer chain. I do so through this seldom used blog out of respect for the forum of prayer that the Obama Prayer blog represents. This post is in response to questions about the availability of federal premiums to be used for the purpose of abortion on demand.
In the fall of 2009 Bart Stupak (D-MI) presented an amendment to clearly and strictly prohibit the use of any federal tax dollars to be used for the purpose of abortion. This amendment was voted and approved by the House of Representatives. (240-194) You can see the amendment here. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both oppose this amendment which would assure that no federal funds were used to fund abortions. Click here for an article that offers both perspectives on this amendment. The side antagonistic to this bill (generally democratic) continually emphasizes that it is an "assault" on women's reproductive rights. This is a euphemism for a woman's right to kill her baby for any or no reason. We know this because Stupak specifically allows for cases where "a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...". I'll leave the rightness or wrongness of the exceptional type of abortion to God...the fact is that this amendment is designed to prevent our federal dollars from being used to fund abortions as a means of birth control and our House leader, Ms. Pelosi voted against it. See paragraph 3 in this article for proof. Further, the very next paragraph has Ms. Pelosi telling us she is confident - as they reconcile the two bills (house and senate)- they can eliminate the language because Stupak goes "to far". Harry Reid for his part didn't even include the Stupak language in the Senate version of the bill for consideration. Instead they wish to work with something called Nelson(D-NE)-Casey(D-PA) which allows for a subsidized insurance exchange to pay for abortions. (See paragraph 9 in this article.) While we can opt out of the exchange as a federally insured individual - Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says it's an accounting procedure to allow premiums to still be used to subsidize the exchange whose sole purpose is to accommodate abortion on demand. Hence, Mr. Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate version. In any case Rep. Stupak is not included in the reconciliation process to stand up for the fetus, which would be obvious to all if the Senate/House leadership were broadcasting on C-Span as Obama repeatedly indicated they should during the campaign. Which brings up the next question.
"GOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS" ... DOES ANYONE KNOW ANY GOOD REASON(S) THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE?
It is out of line for several reasons. Many who voted for President Obama did so with the understanding that he would be bi-partisan. Clearly our congressional majority leaders have decided that if you can't get 'em to join your view then leave them out of the process. The President clearly advocated for transparency, and a minimum of 48 hours for the American public and our leaders to review legislation before a vote. I suspect that you wouldn't be wondering about the legitimacy of my concern if the negotiations were being broadcast on c-span. There would be ample information as a result of that public forum for the interested observer to understand what is happening. This trend is something that even many democrats are concerned with which, in my opinion explains why the race in Massachusetts is as close. There is now a pro-choice republican advocating transparency running a close race behind a pro-choice democrat who advocates casting the final vote required to pass a bill that has lacked transparency. And even a solidly democratic constituency understands that this is not what we were promised.
Finally, "RICHARD, WHY DID YOU CAPITALIZE THE "O" WHEN YOU REFERRED TO PRESIDENT OBAMA...". I'm so glad you ask that question because as I wrote the note I first wrote it with a lower case, then changed it because I thought some would feel offended that since the one I was talking about was President Obama. (as if I used lower case to say 'president obama') No doubt this confusion on my part is a result of Oprah christening of Mr. Obama as "the One" for prior to that incident I would never have even considered that there might be people that actually believe the capital letter is necessary. Sometimes reading the Obama Prayer team prayer submissions, it seems there are those who believe he can do no wrong. That his efforts and administrative team is absolutely right in all things. To that I repeat what my friend Benjamin stated shortly after my prayer, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". This includes me. you. obama. bush. and every man making decisions and passing laws on behalf of "we the people". I voted for George Bush, I don't think he did everything right. In fact I disagreed with many policies. My past vote doesn't preclude me from hoping in the Lord and asking God's protection and direction for our current President. I take great pains to be objective. What I don't understand is the disposition about our President which implies that all who disagree with him have 'hate' or somehow have a 'wicked spirit of judging' - and those who agree are among the righteous. He does not define right and wrong. Only God in his infinite wisdom can define right and wrong - and I do believe that Obama, our congress - just as Bush and the congress that served with him can and do get it wrong on occasion. The beauty of our system however, is that by balancing the interests of us all - e pluribus unum - from many come one. From many opinions come one rule of law. It is a truly an amazing system. When that one rule of law is a result of only one view (60 democratic votes), and that view serves to destroy the most innocent rather than protect - I become exceedingly concerned, hence my prayer earlier today.
I have come to accept Ms. Jordan's assertion that we all pray what the Lord places on our heart and let the prayer be given to the ONE [smile] who truly is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins"I Jhn 1:9, even those that we commit out of ignorance of the facts.
In the fall of 2009 Bart Stupak (D-MI) presented an amendment to clearly and strictly prohibit the use of any federal tax dollars to be used for the purpose of abortion. This amendment was voted and approved by the House of Representatives. (240-194) You can see the amendment here. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both oppose this amendment which would assure that no federal funds were used to fund abortions. Click here for an article that offers both perspectives on this amendment. The side antagonistic to this bill (generally democratic) continually emphasizes that it is an "assault" on women's reproductive rights. This is a euphemism for a woman's right to kill her baby for any or no reason. We know this because Stupak specifically allows for cases where "a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...". I'll leave the rightness or wrongness of the exceptional type of abortion to God...the fact is that this amendment is designed to prevent our federal dollars from being used to fund abortions as a means of birth control and our House leader, Ms. Pelosi voted against it. See paragraph 3 in this article for proof. Further, the very next paragraph has Ms. Pelosi telling us she is confident - as they reconcile the two bills (house and senate)- they can eliminate the language because Stupak goes "to far". Harry Reid for his part didn't even include the Stupak language in the Senate version of the bill for consideration. Instead they wish to work with something called Nelson(D-NE)-Casey(D-PA) which allows for a subsidized insurance exchange to pay for abortions. (See paragraph 9 in this article.) While we can opt out of the exchange as a federally insured individual - Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says it's an accounting procedure to allow premiums to still be used to subsidize the exchange whose sole purpose is to accommodate abortion on demand. Hence, Mr. Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate version. In any case Rep. Stupak is not included in the reconciliation process to stand up for the fetus, which would be obvious to all if the Senate/House leadership were broadcasting on C-Span as Obama repeatedly indicated they should during the campaign. Which brings up the next question.
"GOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS" ... DOES ANYONE KNOW ANY GOOD REASON(S) THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE?
It is out of line for several reasons. Many who voted for President Obama did so with the understanding that he would be bi-partisan. Clearly our congressional majority leaders have decided that if you can't get 'em to join your view then leave them out of the process. The President clearly advocated for transparency, and a minimum of 48 hours for the American public and our leaders to review legislation before a vote. I suspect that you wouldn't be wondering about the legitimacy of my concern if the negotiations were being broadcast on c-span. There would be ample information as a result of that public forum for the interested observer to understand what is happening. This trend is something that even many democrats are concerned with which, in my opinion explains why the race in Massachusetts is as close. There is now a pro-choice republican advocating transparency running a close race behind a pro-choice democrat who advocates casting the final vote required to pass a bill that has lacked transparency. And even a solidly democratic constituency understands that this is not what we were promised.
Finally, "RICHARD, WHY DID YOU CAPITALIZE THE "O" WHEN YOU REFERRED TO PRESIDENT OBAMA...". I'm so glad you ask that question because as I wrote the note I first wrote it with a lower case, then changed it because I thought some would feel offended that since the one I was talking about was President Obama. (as if I used lower case to say 'president obama') No doubt this confusion on my part is a result of Oprah christening of Mr. Obama as "the One" for prior to that incident I would never have even considered that there might be people that actually believe the capital letter is necessary. Sometimes reading the Obama Prayer team prayer submissions, it seems there are those who believe he can do no wrong. That his efforts and administrative team is absolutely right in all things. To that I repeat what my friend Benjamin stated shortly after my prayer, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". This includes me. you. obama. bush. and every man making decisions and passing laws on behalf of "we the people". I voted for George Bush, I don't think he did everything right. In fact I disagreed with many policies. My past vote doesn't preclude me from hoping in the Lord and asking God's protection and direction for our current President. I take great pains to be objective. What I don't understand is the disposition about our President which implies that all who disagree with him have 'hate' or somehow have a 'wicked spirit of judging' - and those who agree are among the righteous. He does not define right and wrong. Only God in his infinite wisdom can define right and wrong - and I do believe that Obama, our congress - just as Bush and the congress that served with him can and do get it wrong on occasion. The beauty of our system however, is that by balancing the interests of us all - e pluribus unum - from many come one. From many opinions come one rule of law. It is a truly an amazing system. When that one rule of law is a result of only one view (60 democratic votes), and that view serves to destroy the most innocent rather than protect - I become exceedingly concerned, hence my prayer earlier today.
I have come to accept Ms. Jordan's assertion that we all pray what the Lord places on our heart and let the prayer be given to the ONE [smile] who truly is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins"I Jhn 1:9, even those that we commit out of ignorance of the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
