Pro Versus Anti-Honesty

Having had someone close to me be faced with the choice - and yes, it is a choice - of abortion or having her life or the life of her unborn child be put at risk, I find the continued drumbeat of Fox"News" and the Modern American Right that anyone of opposing political alignment is purely a "pro-abortion" party to be simply ridiculous.

But, they seem to have their hooks in their easily lead droogies, so why should they give it up?



What Fox and the Right are missing is the fact that the platform of "choice" is not about a woman sitting around at her house going "jeez, if only I could get pregnant just so I could have an abortion". Nor is their insistence that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an "abortion mill" even remotely accurate.

The choice that a woman makes is hers, not that of an alleged "law-maker" that doesn't even know her or her situation. The choice of a woman is not taken lightly, as they would have you believe. The choice of a woman is all to often that of life and death - and not in the fashion that the Right would have many of us believe.

This, more than anything, is about control and regulation of the reproductive system of women all across America - regardless of what is written on their voter registration card. Sadly, the Modern American Right still view women as second class citizens, no matter how many times they shove Sarah Palin in our faces.

Enjoy The Silence

In the continuing fight to stop H.R.#3, I'm wondering why the prominent female voices within the modern American Right are so silent.

We hear all this talk about "protecting our children" when it comes to taxes, but why is there complete and deafening silence in reference to the GOP/Tea Bagger representatives doing all they can to re-define rape and ultimately do much more?

The Queen Mother of the modern American Right, Sarah Palin, uses her children in every way she and her handlers can conceive. Her daughter is even out on the "no sex" circuit while someone is at home taking care of her toddler - and I'm guessing it's not Grandmama Grizzly, as she is too busy with her to-do list provided from her Fox"News" producers.

All that aside, why is Palin ignoring how this re-definition will harm women? The most likely reason is that it will not directly impact her, and more than likely just about all of the "top shelf" female voices of the modern American Right. Who it will harm are those that the Right refuses to acknowledge even exist, regardless of the legislation in question.

One can't but wonder what it's like to be a female who belongs to and champions a movement that has nothing but abject disdain for the choices of women regarding a variety of issues. No matter what a Republican voter will tell you, the last two groups of people whom are considered when votes are cast are women and minorities. And the sad reality is that there are far more women singing the praises of the modern American Right today than there were back when Bush was still occupying the White House.

Every woman who talks about the merits and "moral relevancy" of H.R. #3 should be challenged and questioned on why they would support such a draconian measure against a woman's very safety. Sadly, these questions will not come from the Right, as the constant chant is "tow the line, no matter who falters".

Reproductive Legislation

It amazes me that women haven't revolted in a major way over this.

With two days left in the legislative session, the Republican-held Florida Senate passed a controversial amendment 22-17 Wednesday requiring women who are seeking abortions to pay for ultrasound exams, using legislative maneuvering to deliver an election-year victory to religious conservatives.

The ultrasound requirement would apply to first-trimester abortions, which make up more than 90 percent of abortions in Florida. Ultrasounds are already required in late-term abortions that are performed after the first trimester.

Women could refuse to view the ultrasound image after filling out a form. Exceptions to the ultrasound requirement are provided to victims of rape, incest and domestic violence — but they would have to provide proof.

It appears that there was actually a woman that voted for this piece of legislation. Sen. Ronda Storms ( Rep - you're shocked, I know ) voted for this and I'm seriously questioning her ability to thing outside of her little ideological box.

But, all hope is not lost. Courtesy of the House Dems in Florida, all bills have stopped because of this measure.

The Democrats will refuse to take a final vote on any bills today unless Republican leaders promise not to take up and hear the bill, House Democrats spokesman Mark Hollis said.

House GOP leaders need the 44 Democrats’ votes to roll over some bills so that they can be voted on. So far, the Dems have already blocked that from happening on one item.

More from stevesmill at DailyKos.

Here's what I don't get. Conservatives think they can legislate the female reproductive system into abject slavery. The sad truth of the matter is that they have been largely successful on many fronts.

And what of this "proof" that is required if you are raped or a victim of incest. I'm entirely sure how a "rape kit" works ( and the woman would probably have to pay for that too ) but what would the hospital accept as "proof"? This is just simply disgusting on multiple levels.

It's a longstanding talking-point that anyone that is pro-choice wants to have unfettered access to abortion - abortion on demand. This, as should easily be recognized, is not only patently false, but demonstrably ignorant of the facts. No liberal/progressive woman sits around thinking to herself, "gee, I sure would love to get pregnant so I can have an abortion".

A woman's choice to have an abortion is not one taken lightly - ever. This new measure that Florida conservatives are trying to force upon the women of the state serves no greater purpose than to inflate their own sense of self. Imagine the woman who tried to show proof she was raped and was forced to see the child inside her.

Unbelievable.

That Was It?

I almost feel duped.



And I'm not the only one:

Did you see the Tim Tebow ad that actually aired during the Super Bowl yesterday? The only one I saw was much different than what CBS told us was going to air during the game and which drew a ton of controversy all across the blogosphere and throughout the pro-choice movement. What I saw was not controversial and didn't even talk about the abortion issues that were supposed to be aired.

I didn't see any rough cuts of any other ads that were slated to appear, but this is apparently not the last one to feature Tebow, and conservatives are crowing at the fact that Focus On The Family likely pulled a fast one on the entire country with this ad campaign.

The innocuous nature of the Tebow ad aside, as well as the reactionary statements of both the Left and Right, I'd just like to make this statement: I thought that the Super Bowl was intended to be a "family friendly" event. By that, I mean this - a nipple slip from Janet Jackson is something so shocking that it sends the entire planet into a tailspin, but an advocacy ad from the extremist group Focus On The Family is acceptable?

Certainly the presentation is all fluff and sentimentality, but one has but to look at the legacy of James Dobson and you realize that this is not a message that is conducive of "compassion" and "love"

Concern Trolling The Native American

It seems that conservatives are more than willing to convince people that some specific sub-set of Americans are going to be systematically killed off by healthcare reform should it pass. Erick Erickson over at RedState has formulated a new plan of attack - claim that Indians can abort their babies because Ben Nelson and a "pro-death" President like Barack Obama will allow Federal dollars to be used.

Under Nelson’s compromise, abortion access will fluctuate based on who the President is. A pro-life President will have the power to make it more difficult. A pro-death President like Barack Obama will make it exceedingly easy. The only constant will be federal abortion funding for Indians.

I guess Ben Nelson has no problem with the multi-century history of the feds trying to exterminate Indian populations. Surely Ben Nelson knew what he was agreeing to. The issue with abortions on Indian reservations is related to the reauthorization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is tied to the health care legislation and about which Nelson was fully aware of its implications.

This poorly constructed argument suggests that abortions are going to be forced upon Native American women or that because federal dollars may be used as supplementary funding for Native American healthcare that women are going to suddenly have the urge to abort their unborn children.

I can't think of a single grouping of people that want to preserve their race any more than the Native American. And Erickson essentially calling Nelson a "baby killer" - and wasn't the thinly veiled racial component in there a nice touch? - is kind of par for the course for commentary from the far-right.

But this all goes back to the central issue behind abortion - no one is "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". No one wants to have an abortion simply because they are available, no woman in America is like that. But conservatives paint liberal/progressive women as sitting around their houses telling their friends "hey, I just really want to get pregnant so I can have an abortion" and the reality is that it simply doesn't work that way. It's nothing more than a style of speaking that makes the conservative feel morally superior to everyone else.

I'm no expert in how insurance companies work, but I do know that they operate off of a profit-driven business model. You pay into insurance whether you use it or not and when you finally do, you pay in a set amount and the insurance company covers the balance based on the specific plan that you have chosen. It seems to me that all monies that are taken in by an insurance company make up not just the profits but also the pool of money that the company uses to cover the balance of bills from the procedure you have done from your particular choice in hospital. So, doesn't it stand to reason that you are giving money to an insurance company that is potentially used by someone else? What if that person has chosen to have an abortion? After they pay their portion of the cost and the insurance company has to cover the balance, who's to say that the money taken from the companies pool isn't your money?

Sure, it's not your tax dollars going directly to insurance companies to provide abortions, but the process is essentially the same since you pay your monthly premiums to go into the companies pool. Of course, this is "capitalism", as the insurance company is a private organization and not tied to the Federal Government. And there's nothing that conservatives love more than good ole-fashioned American capitalism.

The Theology Of Healthcare Reform

Is this a new step during Holy Communion?

Body of Christ

Blood of Christ

..............Obstructionist Propaganda

The Conference of bishops reportedly sent the orders out last Thursday, the same day Speaker Nancy Pelosi presented the mammoth 2,000-page House reform bill to lawmakers and the public.

The material explains that the Catholic Church supports reform that will “protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death.”

The insert contains phone numbers and web addresses at which constituents can contact their Representatives.

The League of Catholic Bishops are falling in line with the conservative talking-point that public funds are going to be used for abortions, and that language in proposed legislation actually says this. Unfortunately, this is not true through any interpretation of the language.

However, there has been an approved amendment to the proposed legislation that contained more specific language.

Broader language was contained in an amendment offered by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan the day after the Capps amendment was approved. The Stupak amendment would have overruled Capps and prohibited government funding of "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the committee 27 - 31.

From this perspective, the League Of Catholic Bishops' claims only have a moderate foothold in reality. But the larger point of this is that, should this reform package pass, women that became pregnant due to one of the specific instances listed would have the option of an abortion. And this is something that all religious groups will ignore with unblushing intensity. They refuse to see how the consequences of their particular dogma are consistently and unequivocally bent against women.

One of the larger points in the healthcare debate as it relates to religious groups is that multiple times in biblical scripture it references caring for people other than oneself. Of course, I'm rather certain that religious groups, the Catholic Church in particular, aren't as concerned with what the scripture they allegedly cling to says as they are political and business interests.

Truth In Advertising

It's not so much snark as it is reality.



( h/t to GottaLaff @ TPC )

And these people are often seen as the leaders, the philosophers, the visionaries of the modern conservative movement.

The Convenience Of Conservative Moral Authority

O'Reilly attempts to take on the issue of Human Rights and fails.

*click image to play video*




As if it has become some Pavlovian response, O'Reilly continues with the meme that the torture - O'Reilly prefers to use the term "waterboarding", as it doesn't sound as bad as it actually is - provided actionable intelligence and "saved lives". The "record" that O'Reilly is referring to is more than likely the script that he is reading off a teleprompter.

It has been shown time and again that the continual and sadistic "waterboarding" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn't provide this "life saving" intel that O'Reilly is peddling as fact. And Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator, stated that the non-agressive interrogation of Abu Zubaydah provided actionable intel as well revealing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the "mastermind" of the September 11th attacks as well as Jose Padilla's "dirty-bomb" plot.

These are facts that O'Reilly, and virtually all within the conservative realm, are more than willing to ignore.

----------------------------------------------

In terms of Dr. Tiller's murder as well as his abortion clinic, O'Reilly is attempting to reframe the debate and distance himself from his own rhetoric that eventually lead to Tiller's assassination.

No one is saying that abortion, late-term or otherwise, isn't a difficult and troubling issue to deal with. As I've stated before, I know of no woman that has been forced into ending the life of her unborn child. O'Reilly's claims that Dr. Tiller performed the abortion procedure for "trivial" reasons is suspicious at best. The reason is, is that we have to take his word for it. Save the one time that he blatantly, and with malice of forethough, exploited a young woman and her story of her own late-term abortion performed by Dr. Tiller.

Abortion is a final alternative for woman, as no-one is "pro-abortion". Women have, and should continue to have, the right to choose.

O'Reilly's ham-fisted attempt to draw some sort of equivalency between how progressives/liberals/democrats view waterboarding and abortion is not only laughable but patently false. Of course, he knows this, but this is the type of schtick that keeps his ratings high.

As O'Reilly flows through "Jessica's Law" and the murder of Pvt. William Long, attempting to show that progressives/liberals/democrats are guilty of rank hypocrisy when it comes to Human Rights, it becomes clear that it's not that people don't talk about these issues - that progressives/liberals/democrats don't see issues like abortion, murder, and the protection of children are important - it's that they don't report them "enough".

O'Reilly thinks that since Fox"News" saturates their programming with these issue ( and ultimately ignoring other stories ) it means that, if others of opposing ideological perspective don't act in the same fashion, that Fox holds the moral high-ground.

Ultimately, this all boils down to who does and who doesn't believe as O'Reilly does, who watches his program, and who is willing to believe any and everything he says.

File This Under "I Don't Buy It"

Allahpundit and his fellow compatriots are all agush over at HotAir about Palin's "admission" that she considered abortion when she discovered she was pregnent with her son Trig.

Exceptionally sweet — which only makes the Great Trig Pregnancy Cover-up that much more nefarious. This clip will come back to haunt her when amateur obstetrician/Hardy Boy Andrew Sullivan finally blows the lid off the case.
Even CNN’s compelled to say that she “rocked the house” at last night’s pro-life fundraiser in Indiana. Conservatives4Palin has video of the entire speech; if you can’t spare the time, watch this clip and the quickie at David Brody’s site. I’m surprised that AOL is the only major media outlet (so far) to seize on her admission that she considered — fleetingly — aborting Trig when she first realized she was pregnant. Like Geraghty says, “Pro-lifers will love her all the more, because she contemplated what they see as a great evil, felt the temptation, and resisted it,” but the left will seize on the fact that, even if only for an instant, America’s favorite hockey mom was glad she had a choice. In fact, they’re seizing on it already.

That final jab at liberal bloggers is kind of clever, kind of. The sad part is, she did have a choice and Allah and everyone that reads this knows it.

That being said, I don't believe Palin, for one second, contemplated abortion. She's too politically minded to even do it.

That being said, seeing that she is such a darling within the conservative movement, she can easily say it now and people will swoon and flail about with excitement over the fact that she "decided" to keep Trig. Truth-be-told, she could say anything she wants now and her rabidly ill-informed audience will come running to her. You can easily find them by their trail of drool.

It's been said that Palin is such a magnetic personality due to her motherly instinct. I find this laughable, at best. After all, motherly instincts aren't always something to applaud. The instinct of a mother bird is to shove her young plummeting to their death in the hopes that they are able to fly. Palin would easily toss any of her sychophantic followers out of the nest, should it yeild her more political currency.

Someone's Probably Going To Be Looking For A New Job

Micheal Steele just cant' seem to catch a break.

Frist, he essentially calls Limbaugh irrelavent and gets a verbal beat-down from the "boss". Then, in a shining example of a Republican lacking any sort of backbone, he crawls over to Rush and offers all the supplication he can.

Now comes Steele's thoughts on abortion:

....You can choose life or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

And when asked if he thought that women had the right to "choose" abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.

Palin May Have Just Lost Her 2012 Presidential Bid

It will be interesting to see if this gets any conservative-media play.

Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday threw her support behind a controversial bill that would generally require parental consent before girls under age 17 could get an abortion.

Palin offering "support" could be spun one of two ways. Either she's stating that she supports the "choice" that family's would have to make, or she's saying that she is supporting this in order to prevent women under 18 from getting abortions on their own.

Wherever you fall on the abortion issue, right or left, this legislation is about family, and it's about parents' rights and protecting our children, and it's supported by legislators on both sides of the aisle.

Protecting women from abortions or protecting families? Perhaps I'm looking at this through too conspiratorial a lens, but Palin would never get behind a piece of legislation if it weren't going to burnish her national image. I'm thinking that this might have more to do with abortion "prevention" that family "choice".

Then again, I could be wrong.

Let the spin begin.

Here We Go Again

You would think that Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto, would be advising his congregation on something of merit. But, he's following suit with a previous Catholic priest who insisted that any that voted for Obama aer ricking their very souls and could be denied communion:

If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously,"

More here from McClatchy.

It's interesting, to me at least, that some members of the Catholic faith actually think that Obama - or anyone that agrees with a woman's right to choose - is actively "pro" abortion.

This is where Rev. Illo's arguement falls apart.

Obama is not "pro" abortion. This, by strict definition, means that Obama advocates Abortion at any and all times.

One would think that Rev. Illo knows this. If he does, is this more of a statement regarding his own political affiliations in order to sway the congregation to vote in simular fashion during the next election? Nothing gets a devout religious person's blood-pressure up when they are told that their actions are sending them to Hell.

But what of the alternate consequences that the Catholic Church might face? Could their be a mass exodus from the Catholic church?

Remember Jill Stanek?

She's the flailing ignoramous that started the "Obama supports infanticide" nonsense. Now, she's back on World Net Daily to tell all those that will read her drivel that Americans just elected a "barbarian". But, it's the first line that caught my attention:

Barack Obama was elected president despite the fact he supports abortion into the fourth trimester.

Either the 63 million people voting for him didn't know about his radical record, which includes abandoning abortion survivors to die, didn't care, or didn't believe it.

More here.


4th trimester?

I appears that Stanek doesn't seem to understand that "tri" means 3. This is not suprising.

For a refresher, Obama voted "present" in response to proposed legislation in reference to infants born alive after a failed abortion. The protections were already in place in Illinois State Law and the legislation was even frowned upon by The Illinois Medical Society.

And, to cap everything off, the Republican that introduced the legislation wrote that "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide" even though he disagreed with them.

Apparently, Stanek is now calling on all the religious wingnuts in America to all start chattering at once that Obama is a threat. There is nothing more dangerous than an ill-informed Christian.

Keith, Here's Your #1 Candidate For Tonight's List

From that lovely publication that continues to prove on a daily basis that every one of their employees are giant douches - The National Review.

Nearly 48 years ago, a young woman, not yet 18, became pregnant in her freshman year of college. Living in a time and place in which abortion was generally illegal, she proceeded to marry the father of her child and gave birth to a son. Perhaps she would have done so irrespective of the abortion laws at the time, even if, say, she lived in a legal culture that celebrated abortion as a fundamental right. Very possibly not. (I haven't found any statistics on the percentage of pregnant college freshmen who abort their pregnancies, but indirect indications suggest that it's very high.)

Interesting that Mr. Whelan feels comfortable making grand generalizations about women and what they would or would not do, given the socio-political climate.

We have heard about people yelling "kill him" at McCain / Palin rallies. Perhaps this is Whelan's way of letting the world know that he wishes Barack had never been born to begin with.

Oh, and this part really speaks volumes for his journalistic endavours:

I haven't found any statistics on the percentage of pregnant college freshmen who abort their pregnancies, but indirect indications suggest that it's very high

There is a repository of "facts" available to any and all conservatives that is portable, and easy to find - their ass.