Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	5/26/2010 3:17:23 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

As Morally Serious as a Root Canal By: Mona Charen National Review Online I am often asked whether I support Sarah Palin for president. I don’t. But I do very much support her as America’s next Oprah. Her cultural antennae are exquisitely sensitive, and she relishes combat. “Sarah’s book club” would be an improvement. After a recent speech in which she argued that “choosing life may not be the easiest path, but it’s always the right path,” the Washington Post web edition invited responses. Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, thundered that “Palin calls herself a ‘frontier feminist,’ but she sounds more like a Pat Robertson feminist.” Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a professor at the Chicago Theological Seminary, noted that “A woman’s life is a human life: Those who would deny women the right to moral autonomy, the ability to engage in moral reasoning about whether to continue a pregnancy to term or to have an abortion, develop their arguments based on assumptions of women’s moral ineptitude.” Debra Haffner, of the Religious Institute, wrote, “In more than 30 years of working with women struggling with the question of continuing a pregnancy to term or having an abortion, I can think of fewer than a handful who approached the decision lightly. Almost every woman wrestled with what would be best in her individual circumstances, and with what her faith taught her.” This is fatuous moral reasoning. Professor Thistlethwaite suggests that to oppose abortion on moral grounds is to “deny women the right to moral autonomy.” Rights talk, as Mary Ann Glendon has observed, has invaded every arena of American life and impoverished civic discourse. Of course women are moral actors. But what is “moral autonomy”? Is it a new right to make immoral choices without being criticized? Does it apply in areas beyond abortion? Do laws against prostitution or baby selling compromise women’s “moral autonomy”? Do all laws? Ms. Haffner’s argument is also familiar -- not to say hackneyed. We’ve heard it many times. Abortion is an “agonizing personal choice.” Women struggle with the decision. Well, some doubtless do agonize, but, let’s face it, many do not. Feminist writer Naomi Wolf admitted in 2004, <<< “I used to think of abortion as being somewhat trivial; the moral equivalent of serious root canal dentistry.” >>> A recent survey by the Allan Guttmacher Institute found that 50 percent of women undergoing abortions each year have had at least one abortion in the past. If the process of deciding on abortion were truly that wrenching, repeat abortions would not be nearly as common. But, in any case, agony is irrelevant. If, before robbing a bank, the thief agonizes about the act, does that make the decision a moral one? Is it a “very personal choice” whether to libel someone? Shall we say that making insider trading illegal compromises people’s “moral autonomy”? These terms are designed to obscure the issue rather than clarify it. Though the pro-life position continues to be characterized by the press as marginal, it has in fact become the majority view. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 51 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-life” versus 45 percent who said they were “pro-choice.” This year’s poll saw some narrowing, but the pro-life position still outnumbered the pro-choice. Only 38 percent of respondents said abortion was “morally acceptable.” The poll also found that young people, ages 18 to 29, were much more likely to say that they oppose abortion in all circumstances today than a decade ago (one in four, versus one in seven). NARAL president Nancy Keenan has noticed this collapse of support among the young, even referring to herself and her contemporaries as the “postmenopausal militia.” Partisans among the press, meanwhile, continue their rear-guard actions, making themselves ridiculous with semantic gymnastics. It is not abortion, it’s “reproductive choice” or “abortion rights.” The New York Times consistently skirts the term “partial birth abortion,” as in this story about Sen. Blanche Lincoln: “Even Emily’s List....joined the pile-on last week, reminding followers that it stopped supporting Mrs. Lincoln....after she voted to ban a form of late-term abortion in 1999.” A form. For decades, feminists have argued that the unfettered discretion to harm their unborn children was the foundational women’s “right.” The law has changed little in that time, but the psychological shift has been significant. The number of annual abortions has been steadily declining since 1981, and polls suggest that people see through such cynical manipulations as calling abortion “choice.” By provoking their ire, Palin reminds us of the shallowness of the “pro-choice” case. -- Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc. .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	6/10/2010 8:45:08 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Democrats Seek to Lift Ban on Abortions at U.S. Military Hospitals Abroad By Mike Emanuel FOXNews.com Published June 09, 2010 Democrats are looking to repeal a longtime ban of abortions performed at U.S. military hospitals overseas. Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., introduced the repeal as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee on a 15-12 vote. The amendment still has a long way to go. It threatens policy put in place by congressional Republicans during the Clinton administration that restricted abortions at military hospitals to only cases of rape, incest or if the woman's life is threatened. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., says military facilities, including all hospitals, should be places of healing and should protect life. "We will stand firm and I welcome the fight…if they want to bring it. I do believe that there will be an overwhelming vote to keep our military hospitals as nurturing centers not abortion mills," Smith said. But supporters say this is about giving female service members or military families the right to choose while serving overseas and insist the patients would pay for the procedure. "It's only done on a voluntary basis by a doctor," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. "There's no requirement, in other words, that doctors in military hospitals perform the abortions, but it authorizes them that they are prepaid, no expense to the government." That still doesn't satisfy Smith. "When we hire abortionists, when we provide operation rooms and recovery rooms and nurses, all of whom would participate in the killing of that child and wounding of that mother by the way of abortion, that is facilitation, that is public funding," Smith said. It is not clear if the votes will exist for this amendment this summer, since some Democrats are opponents of abortion and there was just a bruising fight over abortion in the battle for health care overhaul. The Pentagon typically does not comment on pending legislation. .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	6/18/2010 2:25:56 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

GAO: Planned Parenthood received $657 million in tax dollars over last seven years By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 06/16/10 4:44 PM EDT The Government Accountability Office has a released a report, “Fiscal Years 2002-2009 Obligations, Disbursements, and Expenditures for Selected Organizations Involved in Health-Related Activities.” But despite the soporific title, the report contains some pretty startling revelations about the amount government funding going to groups either perform abortions or advocate it. Over the seven year period studied in the report, Planned Parenthood received $657.1 million in tax dollars; Population Council received $284.3 million, the Guttmacher Institute received $12.7 million, Advocates for Youth received $8.7 million, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation received $3.9 million. All in all, $966.7 million tax dollars went to encouraging a practice a plurality of Americans finds morally wrong. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	6/23/2010 10:56:48 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Debating Where Life Begins By: Patrick Lee National Review Online Fertilization in humans and other mammals produces a new member of the species in the embryonic stage of its natural development. That is to say, the entity produced by the union of spermatozoon and oocyte is a complete, though developmentally immature, organism. Unlike the gametes -- the sperm and egg cells independent of each other -- it is no mere part of another organism, nor is it merely something that can be used to produce a complete organism. At fertilization, the ovum and the sperm cease to be and something new comes to be -- an organism (the embryo) whose genetic constitution and epigenetic state orient and dispose it to develop in the direction of maturity as a member of the species. We recently encountered a new objection to this logic; a student mentioned that one of her molecular-biology professors had made reference to it in class: After the sperm penetrates the ovum, it remains possible, with modern technology, to extract that sperm, with the result that one will have both the sperm and the ovum once again. So fertilization, strictly speaking, does not result in the gametes’ ceasing to be. And if an embryo had been produced by their union, what happened to it? Did it die? This process could occur following either (1) natural fertilization or conventional in vitro fertilization; or (2) the in vitro fertilization technology known as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), in which a technician uses a pipette to mechanically insert a sperm into an ovum. In normal (natural or standard in vitro) fertilization, many sperm penetrate the corona radiata of the ovum (a layer of follicle cells surrounding the ovum). Then, typically, only one sperm will penetrate the zona pellucida (a film of glycoproteins surrounding the oocyte) and reach the oocyte. Then, the sperm’s membrane fuses with the actual membrane of the oocyte. This fusion triggers changes in the oocyte (rather, what was the oocyte) so that: (a) the membrane of this new cell undergoes a rapid polarization; and (b) a calcium wave is produced throughout the new cell’s cytoplasm so that the zona pellucida hardens over approximately 30 minutes and repels penetration by sperm. These facts indicate that what is living at this point is not an ovum. With the fusion of the sperm and the ovum, the tail of the sperm is lost, and the membrane surrounding the head of what was the sperm joins the surface membrane of the former oocyte creating a single, continuous membrane; this allows cytoplasmic factors derived from the ovum to affect the nuclear contents derived from the sperm -- for example, new types of histones begin to be associated with those chromosomes, modifying the behavior and interaction of the molecules in these chromosomes. This shows that the sperm has ceased to be. At this point the genetic material from the ovum (the female pronucleus) and the genetic material from the sperm (the male pronucleus) are both contained within a single new cell, are being moved toward each other, and will eventually intermingle. This is the point just after the fusion of the membranes of the sperm and the ovum, when the ovum and the sperm cease to be, and a new organism -- a whole human organism -- comes to be. Now the question is: Could at this point the sperm be retrieved from inside the ovum? The answer is: No, since the sperm no longer exists at this point. At best, the male pronucleus could be extracted from the zygote, that is, the new, one-celled organism. The result would not be a sperm and an ovum, but only nuclear material from a zygote, on the one hand, and a disabled embryo (or perhaps the death of the embryo), on the other. On the other hand, when the sperm is mechanically inserted into the ovum via ICSI, it is not clear precisely when the ovum and the sperm unite and cease to be, or at least, it is not clear to us -- and we have not taken a position on the question. It seems reasonable to hold that if the sperm can be retrieved and still behave as a sperm, without the assistance of extensive manipulation, fertilization has not yet occurred. These points are in no way incompatible with the position that a new, whole, though immature, human organism is generated at fertilization -- whether it occurs in vivo or in vitro. -- Patrick Lee is director of the Institute of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Robert P. George is McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project. .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	7/7/2010 3:19:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

White House Backs Kenyan Constitution Allowing Abortion By Tess Civantos FoxNews.com Published July 06, 2010 The Obama administration is offering incentives to Kenya to approve a controversial new constitution that would legalize abortion for the first time, promising that passage will "allow money to flow" into the nation's coffers, including U.S. aid. But there's a hitch to that pledge. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment passed in 2006 makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries -- and three U.S. lawmakers say they want a federal investigation into the promises made by the administration. Kenya has long been ripe for a new constitution, one that will balance power in the country and prevent the kind of violent rioting that followed Kenya's 2007 presidential election. The Obama administration has vocally expressed enthusiasm for the new constitution, which it says will provide for easier transition of power through more balanced branches of government. But according to anti-abortion groups in and outside of Kenya, the constitution will cause harm to the nation by overturning its ban on abortion. Article 26 of the proposed constitution states that abortion is allowed if "in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger or if permitted by any other written law." The problem for some is how much that provision is left open to interpretation. "There are parts of this constitution that violate human dignity," Rebecca Marchinda, director of advocacy for the human rights coalition World Youth Alliance, told FoxNews.com. "A trained health professional could be anyone who has health training, including a student or a physical therapist," Marchinda said. "The provision is also broadly defined to include any kind of health, including psychological health or emotional health. Finally, this clause opens the way to create other laws that make abortion available on demand." In a speech delivered last month in Kenya, Vice President Joe Biden urged the Kenyan people to pass the constitution in a referendum scheduled for Aug. 4. "The United States strongly supports the process of constitutional reform. ... Dare to reach for transformative change, the kind of change that might come around only once in a lifetime," he said. "If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you've never seen," Biden added. According to reports, U.S. ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger told Kenyan officials in May that the U.S. has offered $2 million in taxpayer funds for "civic education" to support the process of enacting a new constitution. That's a problem for Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Chris Smith of New Jersey. In letters to the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Government Accountability Office and U.S. Agency for International Development, the lawmakers said they want a federal probe to determine whether the administration violated federal law with its assistance. "Any advocacy by the administration in support of the proposed new constitution would constitute lobbying for abortion," reads one letter sent in May. "There is no doubt that the administration is advocating for adoption of the proposed constitution." Issa's office confirmed that the congressman has not spoken to Biden regarding the request for a federal probe, and they did not say whether they had received a response from the inspectors general. Funding from the United States, meanwhile, is the least of the Kenyan pro-lifers' worries. They are facing violent and even fatal opposition from constitution supporters within their own nation. A peaceful anti-constitution protest and prayer service on June 13 turned violent when two bombs exploded, killing six people and injuring over 100 more, according to Kenyan newspaper The Standard. Not only are constitution opponents being bombed, their leaders are being arrested. Three members of the Kenyan parliament were taken into custody on June 16 on charges of alleged hate speech relating to their prominent leadership in opposing the new constitution. Three other members of parliament were also accused of hate speech, including Higher Education Minister William Ruto, widely seen as a leader in the campaign against the new constitution. Obadias Ndaba, who works in the World Youth Alliance branch in Kenya, told FoxNews.com that the government "is trying to do everything it takes to pass the constitution." "The US VP Biden, while in a visit here, promised that Obama would visit the country only if the constitution is passed," he wrote in an e-mail Friday. "What is clear is that we are having a powerful elite in government supported by foreign powers against the weak forces of church leaders (plus few politicians under threat of hate speech) with huge support in the population but with less means and security to get their message across," he wrote. Requests for comment sent to the vice president’s office were not returned. .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	7/16/2010 8:21:29 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Fund abortions? Yes, we can! By: David Freddoso Online Opinion Editor 07/14/10 3:45 PM EDT Remember all the controversy over taxpayer abortion funding in the Obamacare debate? Well, it’s back. From CNS News: <<< If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio). Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state. “The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable,” Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday. >>> A spokeswoman for Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was not immediately available for comment, but I’ll have an update if she replies to my inquiry. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	7/22/2010 1:48:56 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say By Tess Civantos FoxNews.com Published July 22, 2010 A Republican lawmaker is accusing the White House of “unconscionable” and “illegal” acts for its role in Kenya's referendum on a new constitution, which would legalize abortion in the country for the first time. Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a report by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, that estimated that more than $23 million in U.S. taxpayer funds have been spent on the referendum. Smith and other conservatives have complained that at least some of that money has been spent in support of the proposed constitution, possibly violating U.S. law. “Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” Smith said at a news conference Wednesday. “Yet that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.” The proposed constitution will curtail the vast powers of the Kenyan president, offering more balance among the different branches of government in an effort to bring order and stability to the political process of a nation often torn by tumultuous exchanges of power. Vice President Biden told the Kenyan people in a recent speech, "Let me repeat, this is your decision, your decision alone. And the people of Kenya must make this choice -- a choice for Kenya by Kenyans." Smith and other lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers. A federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries. “We were unable to get any information prior to asking for those (USAID) reports,” Smith said. “There’s been no transparency in this process.” Smith had been joined by Reps. Darrell Issa of California and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans, in requesting the federal investigation into the administration's spending on the referendum. “U.S. law is being violated with impunity,” Smith told FoxNews.com. “We shouldn’t be pushing for other the ‘yes’ or the ‘no’ camp, but instead, we’re bankrolling the ‘yes’ campaign.” One group that has received almost $3 million from the U.S. government, Development Alternatives, openly supported “advocating for efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya,” Smith said. Another group, The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, changed the wording of the Kenyan constitution’s abortion clause to make abortion more widely accessible – and has received over $180,000 from the U.S. Thanks to these findings, nine of the more than 200 organizations in Kenya that received money from the U.S. have been suspended from receiving assistance, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi told the AP Friday. But the congressmen are asking for more. They want the White House to be held accountable for its role. “If violations of the law have occurred, which on the face of it they have, the information must be brought before law enforcement,” Smith said. “Not even presidents are above the law.” The federal probe also found that the Kenyan constitution was not actually written by Kenyans, but by “U.S.-funded NGOs, working in concert with Planned Parenthood,” Smith said. According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s website, Planned Parenthood supports the Kenyan groups that wrote the abortion clause – the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers and its parent organization the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance. Planned Parenthood’s website states that it sought “to improve maternal health conditions in Kenya by securing reproductive health laws and policies that promote women's health,” its motivation for becoming involved in the constitutional revision process. But some Kenyans think that the role of American organizations like Planned Parenthood in drafting the Kenyan constitution compromises Kenyan sovereignty and assaults its cultural heritage. Theresa Okafor, CEO of Kenya’s Life League, said in a speech that the proposed constitution is “a conspiracy to strip Africa of its cherished values by international organizations like Planned Parenthood and the United Nations.” “Africans regard every child as a blessing,” Okafor said. “Amidst biting poverty, the birth of a child is celebrated with pomp and pageantry. Children are treasures in Africa.” Because abortion has never been an issue in Kenya until now, the country lacks an organized anti-abortion movement on the scale seen in the United States. But a number of church groups are mobilizing against the proposed constitution, as are some Kenyans who want to preserve the traditional culture of family values. In March 2003, a group of young professionals formed the Life League, one of Kenya’s first pro-life organizations. In 2009, the Life League and 20 other Kenyan pro-life and pro-family groups united to form the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage – a heritage that they believe the abortion provision attacks. .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	8/4/2010 1:38:43 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Reporter Asks Pelosi: Was THE WORD [Jesus] Made Flesh at Conception or at the Nativity? Posted by : Greg Hengler TownHall.com Blog 6:19 PM On the day of her judgment, Pelosi will not be able to use ignorance as an excuse. YouTube: Reporter Asks Pelosi: Was THE WORD [Jesus] Made Flesh at Conception or at Nativity? . .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	1/19/2011 10:37:37 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Project Undo It Continues ... Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner Wed Jan 19, 2011 18:07 .... tomorrow in the House with the bipartisan (thanks to Illinois Democrat Dan Lipinski) introduction of H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” and the “Protect Life Act.” The former will put to an end the annual fight over various separate abortion-funding prohibitions here and there in appropriations negotiations. It will be a universal, permanent ban on federal taxpayer funding of abortion. Contrary to popular myth, no such comprehensive prohibition currently exists. Just as they Pledged. The “Protect Life Act” is a fix to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” adding a prohibition on abortion funding to it. As you've heard here, no such prohibition currently exists in the law. As Rahm Emanuel of all people pointed out earlier this week. As the current Speaker, John Boehner, said in June, to the National Right to Life Committee: "It's time for Washington to stop defying the will of the American people on this critical, common-sense issue." .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	1/19/2011 10:49:47 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35834

[T]he process of ascription, that of assigning today’s villain to the other side of the political spectrum is a process that is more alive and well than any of the babies in Kermit Gosnell’s obstetrics and gynecology clinic. Kermit the Fraud Richard Fernandez The Belmont Club January 19, 2011 Philadelphia discovers a “House of Horrors”, an abortion clinic run by Kermit Gosnell. <<< NEW YORK — A US abortion doctor was arrested Wednesday and charged with using scissors to murder late-term babies. … “He regularly performed abortions beyond the 24-week limit prescribed by law. As a result, viable babies were born. Gosnell killed them by plunging scissors into their spinal cords,” the district attorney said. “He taught his staff to do the same.” Among those arrested and charged was the doctor’s wife, Pearl Gosnell. >>> Gosnell is being charged with infanticide and murdering his patients. The Philadelphia DA’s office says charges include the illegal distribution of narcotics. Reports say that drug complaints led to Gosnell’s investigation. “The investigation began February 2010 when police received tips that Gosnell was illegally selling thousands of oxycontin prescriptions to ‘patients’ he had never examined.” <<< With respect to the death of Karnamaya Mongar, Kermit Gosnell, Lynda Williams, and Sherry West are charged with third-degree murder, drug delivery resulting in death, drug violations, and conspiracy. Gosnell operated a corrupt criminal enterprise, for which the Grand Jury recommended racketeering charges against Kermit Gosnell, Lynda Williams, Sherry West, Adrienne Moton, Maddline Joe, Tina Baldwin, Pearl Gosnell, Steven Massof, and Eileen O’Neill. Massof and O’Neill, who pretended to be doctors, will be charged with theft by deception and conspiracy, with Gosnell, to deceive patients. Gosnell and Massof are also charged with conspiracy and drug violations for illegally dispensing narcotics. >>> Gosnell made millions of dollars over the decades doing late term abortions. His profile on HealthGrades says he practiced obstetrics and gynecology and accepted a number of insurance plans, but noted that “sanctions” had been applied against him including the suspension of his license in New York and Pennsylvania. YouTube video: Phila. Doctor Kermit Gosnell charged with murder in abortion cases Predictably, “the pro-life and pro-choice camps have had very different reactions to the news”, according to AOL News. <<< many pro-choice groups are arguing that the Gosnell case underscores the need for abortion insurance coverage and access to quality providers. As the staff of Clinic Escort claimed in a Tweet that Gosnell was created by the Right. “1 in 3 women abort. 87% of counties have no provider. The right wants AB out of insurance. #Prolife, Gosnell isn’t ours. He’s YOURS. Bravo.” >>> Maybe it’s a little too soon to say whether Gosnell, who practiced in PA and NY belongs to the “right” any more than Jared Loughner did. However, the process of ascription, that of assigning today’s villain to the other side of the political spectrum is a process that is more alive and well than any of the babies in Kermit Gosnell’s obstetrics and gynecology clinic. Golda Meir once said that “peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.” Maybe the West is not as far above the fray as it thinks; perhaps when you hear, “it’s for the children”, that is really an infallible sign that it “it’s about the politics”. .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	1/26/2011 11:17:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Stupak's Back! Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:18 So explains the latest scare-campaign from the ACLU. An e-mail they sent out yesterday reads: <<< Anti-choice forces in Congress wasted no time trying to limit access to abortion. Their opening salvo: a proposal that penalizes women and businesses and would eliminate insurance coverage of abortion. It would revive the Stupak Amendment that the last Congress rejected. >>> They're talking about H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” introduced last week, the morning after the repeal vote. And they're admitting the truth: Stupak's once-proposed funding restrictions and conscience protections are not law. And, yes, H.R. 3 would do what the Left has long pretended is already a reality: Create a universal Hyde amendment, keeping taxpayer money away from abortion funding once and for all. (Some more here about these issues and why abortion is a coalition-building tea-party issue.) .

To: Sully- who wrote (34280)	4/9/2011 5:14:36 AM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Respond to of 35834

The Planned Parenthood Awareness Campaign By Charmaine Yoest The Corner April 8, 2011 11:49 P.M. One marker of progress that we’ve seen in this budget debate is increased awareness that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion business. They’ve been working hard over the last few weeks to avert attention from that reality. For example, over at The Nation, Katha Pollitt weighed in earlier today claiming that “the budget stalemate is not about abortion.” Then she asked, in a tone saturated with condescension: “How can the fight be about abortion, when . . . no federal monies are spent on abortions at Planned Parenthood?” Spare us the sophistry. Planned Parenthood is the world’s largest abortion provider. And 97 percent of its pregnant clients receive an abortion. Meanwhile, it is receiving over $360 million in federal and state monies. In this context, asserting, as Pollitt does, that “[Planned Parenthood’s] abortion services are not funded with taxpayer dollars” is just downright silly. — Charmaine Yoest is president of Americans United for Life.