Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Statute Blocking Planned Parenthood Funding Ruled UnConstitutional

August 4, 2011 by  

A judge's ruling will allow Planned Parenthood to receive Federal funding.A Federal judge ruled that the Kansas statute that prevented groups like Planned Parenthood from receiving Federal funding was unConstitutional. The judge granted a request by Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri for a temporary injunction to block the enforcement of the law, according to The Associated Press.

The law was designed to allocate Federal money to State health departments and hospitals first, leaving no money for programs like Planned Parenthood. The judge agreed with Planned Parenthood’s argument that the law was in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, which guarantee rights of association.

“The purpose of the statute was to single out, punish and exclude Planned Parenthood,” said U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten, reports the news source.

Several forms of anti-abortion legislation have been approved by Congress over the past several months, only to be blocked by judges. According to the article, one of the pieces of legislation would have put more stringent regulations in place for abortion clinics.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Statute Blocking Planned Parenthood Funding Ruled UnConstitutional”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://naver sook young

    I guess that hospitals full of sick people have to wait behind murderers backed by insane liberal judges. This has nothing to do with the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. I don’t see anything that talks about association in the 1st Amendment nor can I find it in the 14th Amendment. This judge was obviously already in the pockets of planned parenthood. An organiztion that all Christian and patriotic women need to come together and close. Thank you.

    Sook Young
    Wife of the Samurai

    • Vagabond

      so very true sook young. that judge like many others should be removed from the bench and dissbarred to prevent him from practicing his brand of law,

      • http://naver sook young

        Thank you very much Vagabond.

        Sook Young
        Wife of the Samurai

        • Jay

          The Supreme Court settled this once and for all. They said that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

          Although, the word “abortion” does not appear in the Constitution, in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the right to abortion. However, the word “privacy” is not found in the Constitution either. Despite that, the Court said that a right to privacy is found in a “penumbra” (shadow) of the Constitution. That little example of verbal gymnastics is known as “judicial activism” which simply means that the Court started with the conclusion they wanted and twisted the Constitution to make it fit.

          After he died, the notes of Harry Blackmun – the Supreme Court Justice who wrote Roe v. Wade – were released and they made it undeniable that Blackmun, and the majority of the Supreme Court, found a right to abortion because that is what they set out to find. When they saw that the Constitution contained no foundation to support their political agenda, they simply manufactured one. This is best exemplified in their assertion that abortion is constitutional because the unborn are not “persons.” That is the modern version of a tactic the Court has used in the past to make certain groups constitutionally invisible. In their 1857 Dred Scott decision, they ruled that slavery was constitutional because black people were not “citizens.”

          As for the claim that the abortion issue was settled by Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has a long history of discovering that some of its prior decisions were wrong. We do not have to accept that abortion is a settled issue because of Roe v. Wade anymore than our ancestors had to accept that slavery was a settled issue because of Dred Scott.

          http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=20

          • Dan az

            Jay
            I can see that you did not go to school just to eat your lunch ;0

          • James

            Jay, I agree. Roe v. Wade discovered a new right in the “liberty” of the 14th Amendment, that never before existed. In Lawrence v. Texas, they did likewise with homosexual acts.

          • James

            Jay, Dred Scott v. Sanford was dismissed for lack of jurisdictiion, not to uphold slavery. Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, may only hear cases in which a citizen of the United States is a party. Dred Scott wasn’t a citizen, thus he had no standing. While that seems silly to most Americans, the Court was going by the Court limitatiions in Article III, Section 2, which lists the types of cases federal courts may hear. In Dred Scott, the lower courts were so caught up in the issue of slavery, they never considered their jurisdictional limits. Taht’s also true in Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. all cases beyond the jurisdiction of federal courts. (Both parties were of the same State, a category denied to federal courts.)

          • James

            Jay, In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court relied on the 14th Amendment’s “All persons born…in the United States…are citizens of the United States.” They held that until one born, s/he is not a ‘person’ with a right to “life, liberty, or property.”
            To change that ruling the 14th Amendment would have to read: “All persons conceived by a citizen of the United States are citizens of the United States…” Then an unborn fetus would have the same rights as a ‘person born’ here.

          • GregS

            James says:

            “They held that until one born, s/he is not a ‘person’…”

            James, I think you are confusing “citizenship” with “personhood.” Where in the 14th Ammendment does it explicitly say that one has to be “born” to be a “person?”

            The requirement of persons to be born in the United States to be “citizens” has NOTHING to do with having to be born to be a “person.”

      • wandamurline

        It is time to start removing these activists judges…they all need to be elected instead of appointed…no one should be put into a powerful job FOR LIFE and have to answer to no one. It is time for some real changes in this country and we can start by kicking out the socialist,marxist, Mualim in the White House in 2012 along with the RINOS and Demorats…then finish up with changes to the system of apponted judges versus elected officials. It is time.

    • Robert Smith

      Awwww sook: “An organiztion that all Christian and patriotic women need to come together and close. ”

      Really? PP prevents more abortions than any other organization by getting birth control information and products into the hands of women.

      Interesting how you call doctors “murders” here and spout off about name calling in another thread. Is that the old right wing double standard showing up again?

      Rob

      • Dan az

        RS
        So you think thats name calling?What then would you call it?That killing babies is OK and not murder?I see you just wanted to attack someone for your miserable life and it dosen’t matter what its about along as you can spin it and attack some one other than your personal mistakes in life.You need help professionally.And the one that denies it proves my point.

        • Robert Smith

          From Dan: “That killing babies is OK and not murder?I”

          Abortion is NOT murder. It is mostly legal in America. Generally only in the minds of apparent religious zealots does the term “murder” come up.

          What is gestating is NOT necessarily a “baby.” It is what the woman calls it. Further, if it is such a “complete” human being then she can toss it out, just as she can toss someone out of her home if she so chooses. Will you not give a woman the same right with her body as you demand with your home? Her very person… You will take that from her for your beliefs. Quite frankly I think that is unAmerican.

          Rob

          • Texas LMT

            RS you can say what you want and do what you want, but I do not want my tax dollars killing babies and it should not be. What do we have to do to stop this-stop paying taxes to get peoples attention?!!!

          • Robert Smith

            I don’t want my taxes going for war.

            Fix that first.

            Rob

          • Dan az

            The fis is in the works there robby come 2012 he who has started three more will be gone.There its fixed!

          • simian pete

            Women who have abortions should be either 1)Sterilized or 2)Euthanized for the good of society. Their irresponsible behavior is causing a financial burden. They shouldn’t never be allowed to reproduce.

            Allowing women who have had abortions to reproduce will cause the suicidal genocide of the human race !!! These women will neglect an future offspring to the financial detriment of society as a whole (if they have children after the abortion(s)).

            Abort and sterilize ! They should change the law for the good of society.

          • Karolyn

            simian – So you’re a communist?

          • GregS

            Robert Smith says:

            “…only in the minds of apparent religious zealots does the term ‘murder’ come up.”

            Wrong! The abortion issue is a HUMAN LIFE issue, NOT a religious issue. Just because many religions speak out against abortion, that doesn’t make it a religious issue. There are atheists who are pro-life.

            Robert Smith says:

            “…she can toss it out, just as she can toss someone out of her home if she so chooses. Will you not give a woman the same right with her body as you demand with your home?”

            “Toss[ing] someone out of [my] home” does NOT require taking the life of another living human organism, as it would in an abortion, Robert.

            Your analogies are sooo lame!

            Robert Smith says:

            “You will take that from her for your beliefs. Quite frankly I think that is unAmerican.”

            My beliefs are firmly grounded in the U.S. Constitution, Robert. One of them is the belief in the RIGHT TO LIFE, and I think that is VERY American!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          robert,
          Quitcher bitchin!! Just get out your pen and checkbook!!!! It’s the first of the month and time to pay child support!!

          • Robert Smith

            Quit lying Joe. I have NEVER been involvde with child support in any way.

            Rob

          • Dan az

            So there’s the facts you wont help out your loved ones is that it robby!

      • Karolyn

        Have you see the latest on contraception? Some conservatives are even against that!

        “Rep. Steve King sputtering that preventative medicine really means preventing a generation – like, us! – which means that even as we speak we’re “a dying civilization.” The fact that King has access to and is part of our daily political discourse suggests he may be onto something.”

        http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/08/03

        • Jay

          Contraception is the answer to abortion.

          While this may seem logical, in practice it is now clear that pushing contraception increases sexual activity at a greater rate than it increases the use of contraception. This became apparent starting in the 1960s when America’s dramatic increase in contraception use was accompanied by an equally dramatic rise in sexual activity, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.

          Despite this, the abortion lobby and the pill pushers continue to market contraception as the holy grail of pregnancy prevention. In private, however, they sing a different song. Dr. Robert Hatcher is a widely recognized expert in the field of contraception, a professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and author of the book, Contraception Technology. At a 1995 National Abortion Federation meeting held in New Orleans, Hatcher cited a study conducted at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, saying, “…half of the women put on Norplant, and half put on oral contraceptives-now listen to these numbers-at the end of 15 months, all these women not wanting to become pregnant, 38 percent of the pill patients were pregnant! Thirty-eight percent! What are we doing? We’re giving them a fertility pill!”

          Hatcher’s observation on the relationship between birth control and pregnancy rates are not new. After a 1958 Planned Parenthood conference, a report was published on its findings which included the following statement: “It was recognized by the conference participants that no scientific evidence has been developed to support the claim that increased availability of contraceptive services will clearly result in a decreased illegal abortion rate.” (The fact that this quote relates to illegal abortion is irrelevant. The question of how contraception use affects pregnancy rates is not influenced by the legal status of abortion.)

          This report was edited by Dr. Mary Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, and the Chairman of the Statement Committee was Alan Guttmacher for whom Planned Parenthood’s research branch is named. One of the participants in this conference was Dr. Alfred Kinsey. When another of the attendees continued to push contraception as the way to eradicate abortion, Kinsey responded, “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induc%d abortion in the group which, in general, most frequently uses contraceptives.”

          Another problem with this “contraception as a cure for abortion” argument is that many common methods of contraception are, in reality, abortions.

          When a woman’s egg is fertilized, a new human life is created. Within 24 hours, cell division begins and a few days later this tiny human being will have traveled to its mother’s womb and attached itself there. This new life is first called a zygote, then a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, an adolescent, an adult, etc. These labels identify the stages of human development, but no stage is any more or less human than the others.

          Anything which prevents this process from beginning could be accurately described as contraception. However, once fertilization has occurred, the only thing that can stop the process is death. The manufacturers of birth control pills, patches, injections, morning after pills, etc., say their products are intended to prevent conception, but admit that when this fails the drugs can also prevent implantation.

          In those instances, that means they did not prevent the pregnancy from occurring, they prevented it from continuing. That is abortion, not contraception. Also, even though intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are marketed as contraception, they are designed only to prevent implantation. Again, that is abortion, not contraception.

          In an effort to hide all this from American women, the abortion lobby uses the concocted term “pre-embryo” to describe the stage of human life from fertilization to implantation. Then they claim that since the woman is not pregnant until implantation occurs, destroying this “pre-embryo” or preventing it from implanting is not an abortion. That is pure jibberish. There is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” and even if there were it would be irrelevant. You could invent the term “pre-adult” to describe teenagers, but that wouldn’t mean that they are not human beings.

          • Karolyn

            Jay – It would be nice if you published your sources for everything you’re posting here.

          • Jay

            Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Prevent Abortions
            DODD · SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 2011 · 76 COMMENTS

            Planned Parenthood has been pushing pretty hard to keep federal dollars rolling in lately. Despite the fact that the battle is largely symbolic–the defunding measure won’t pass the Senate and the House will bargain it away for other, more pressing cuts–the PR effort has been intense. Planned Parenthood has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting itself a key part of keeping abortions rare, most especially by providing low-cost contraception.

            Kirsten Powers committed some journalism and discovered that the facts don’t support the myth:
            During the recent debate over whether to cut off government funding to Planned Parenthood, the organization claimed that its contraceptive services prevent a half-million abortions a year. Without their services, the group’s officials insist, more women will get abortions.
            I’ll admit I bought the argument—it makes intuitive sense—and initially opposed cutting off funding for precisely that reason.

            Then I did a little research.

            Turns out, a 2009 study by the journal Contraception found, in a 10-year study of women in Spain, that as overall contraceptive use increased from around 49 percent to 80 percent, the elective abortion rate more than doubled. This doesn’t mean that access to contraception causes more abortion—though some believe that—but that it doesn’t necessarily reduce it.

            In the U.S., the story isn’t much different. A January 2011 fact sheet by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute listed all the reasons that women who have had an abortion give for their unexpected pregnancy, and not one of them is lack of access to contraception….

            It’s unclear whether Planned Parenthood officials simply don’t understand statistics or are so accustomed to having their claims unquestioned that they think if they repeat them often enough, the facts will disappear. Obviously, you can complain of struggling with the cost of prescription birth control and also face an unwanted pregnancy for reasons that have nothing to do with lack of access to birth control. (By the way, Guttmacher was founded by Planned Parenthood; these are the numbers the group views as the most reliable….

            To preserve its federal subsidy, Planned Parenthood continues to claim that without its contraception services the abortion rate will go up. This deception smacks of a fleecing of taxpayers in an effort to promote an ideological agenda, rather than a sincere effort to help women plan families.

            Superficially, it seems perfectly logical that more access to contraception would lower the abortion rate. But the statistics make more sense on further reflection. I’ll be the first to admit I am entirely fine with the… sexual permissiveness of our culture. But it’s patently obvious that that a more promiscuous society is going to generate more unplanned pregnancies whether we make contraception hard to get or hand it out on every street corner.

            The mistake I think a lot of people make is in thinking that promoting access to contraception promotes promiscuity. There’s definitely a positive feedback loop here, but the causal connection runs in the opposite direction. As we’ve become more sexually “liberated,” we’ve demanded (and gotten) greater access to contraception. And more access to abortion, which also contributes to the positive feedback loop. In this, I disagree with my friend Stacy McCain, who believes that “contraception involves a rejection of God.”

            Continued:http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/planned-parenthood-doesnt-prevent-abortions/

          • Karolyn

            ““contraception involves a rejection of God.”

            Depends on your concept of God. Bottom line is it all depends on one’s beliefs. We should all have the freedom to make our own choices according to how we believe-PERIOD.

          • Jay

            First, abortion is not about reproduction. When a woman is pregnant, reproduction has already taken place. Abortion is about killing the child that has been produced. Second, what kind of perverted mind sees the right to kill one’s own offspring as a symbol of freedom? As pro-life feminist Frederica Mathewes-Green once observed, a woman killing her child through abortion is like an animal gnawing off its own leg to get out of a trap. Abortion, she said, is not a sign that women are free, but that they are desperate.

    • pegasis

      You’re right Sook. This actually is supposed to be covered by the 10th ammendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government is supposed to start or fund a “social” program. That right has been mandated to The States. So this liberal judge, has just upheld an unconstitutional program by stating that it is unconstitutional for the individual state to exercise its rights as per the Constitution.
      I’m not great at math, but doesn’t a double negative equal a positive? It does in the English language.

  • http://ByGeorge By George

    Well, if they must share their Federal money with Planned Parenthood, send them ten bucks. That should fulfill this judge’s order.

  • skippy

    How about this one….planned parenthood IS UNconstitutional judge!!! I don’t think I ever read anything in the Constitution that said MY tax $$$ should go to help persons get or un-get pregnant!!! If I missed that part judge…show me.

    • Dave G

      Killing people is unconstitutional. It’s a BABY, a PERSON – since conception, not a blob of tissue! Planned Parenthood claims ‘health care’. Since when is killing people health ‘care’???

      • Robert Smith

        And I don’t want to pay for the Bush wars. What can I do about my tax money going to that?

        I don’t want to pay for the war on drugs that puts so much of our youth in jail for a simple joint.

        Rob

        • Dan az

          Wo I see you think obummers wars are OK then and you don’t mind giving him our money to do it right?
          If they were to stop the war on drugs then the gumnt would go broke and be forced to close down their poppy fields,Why do think the border is still open and they supply them with the guns?makes sense to me!

          • eddie47d

            Bush’s wars have cost us billions while Obama’s wars have cost us millions.Probably none of them should be going on so how many letters did you write to Washington to stop Bush’s wars which has been a far greater sacrifice of our blood and treasury?

          • Jay

            President Barack Obama’s new budget, to be released Monday, forecasts two consecutive years of near $160 billion in war funding, far more than he hoped when elected and only modestly less than the last years of the Bush Administration.

            In 2011 alone, the revised numbers are triple what the president included in his spending plan a year ago. And the strain shows itself in new deficit projections, already hobbled by lagging revenues due to the weak economy.

            The administration appears to be projecting a deficit of near $1.6 trillion for the current year and $1.3 trillion in 2011. That is even more pessimistic than Congressional Budget Office estimates last week, and it’s only in 2012 that the projections drop to the range of $800 billion to $700 billion.

            By the end of the decade, the gap again widens, and as a percentage of GDP, the average appears above the 3% target viewed as sustainable.

            Obama has responded with a three-year domestic spending freeze impacting about $447 billion in annual appropriations. This leaves him less money to sustain the very rapid growth seen last year in clean water programs or the Great Lakes restoration initiative. The Environmental Protection Agency budget would be cut modestly, and to stretch his dollars, Obama wants to dramatically ramp up the Energy Department’s credit budget, a low-cost way to extend tens of billions in loan guarantees to the nuclear power industry.

            But on balance, the president’s plan seems less restrictive in many areas than lawmakers had anticipated. With the Senate having just passed a $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase last week, fiscal moderates in his own party may insist on even tighter limits.

            Obama’s 2010 starting point for the freeze has a built-in cushion since billions in Census spending won’t have to be repeated in 2011. He appears to count expanded Pell Grant funding for low-income college students as a mandatory cost outside the Education Department’s discretionary budget. And both Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security, two of the fastest areas of recent spending, are exempted from the freeze.

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32272.html

        • Papa

          We agree on something — the war part … so let’s shut it all down! Bring all our troops home to guard and seal our borders, THEN defund Planned Parenthood — racist organization when it was created and still remains!

          Get the Federal Government completely out of the “Social Engineering” business … both at home and abroad…

        • hicusdicus

          Robert, give it up. The para normal followers are not right in the head. The next thing after outlawing condoms will be to make choking your chicken a capital offense.

          • Jay

            Heaven forbid, what then will Robert do with all of his free time?

      • Robert Smith

        Dave says: “It’s a BABY, a PERSON – since conception, not a blob of tissue!”

        Considering for the sake of argument it is…

        So, you throw a party in your home. Everyone is invited. One of your guests decides to stay for 9 months and demands that you give them food and shelter. They DEMAND it, or someone demands it on their behalf. After all, they may not be able to take care of themselves because they stay drunk.

        Of course you would send them on your way yourself, and if they didn’t go you would go through due process and have the local law enforcement get them out, as is your right.

        In America a woman has the same right to toss a “person” out of her body. Who are you to deny such freedom and keep it for yourself?

        Rob

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Robert,
          Apples and acorns!! That guest is able to take care of its self and was not CREATED by you and your cohost!! If the woman doesn’t want that “uninvited guest” then don’t bring them into your life!!! Writing yet??

          • eddie47d

            Joe is now on SEX patrol and will monitor your bedroom habits. Please take a number and he will deal with you shortly.

          • Robert Smith

            Joe says: “not CREATED by you and your cohost!!”

            I thought it was that there brutal christian god that CREATED life. After all, the whole thing rests on something like, “Knew you before you were born.”

            So again: Who creates “life?”

            Rob

        • Papa

          One small problem with your analogy … the “woman” involved willingly participated in creating the “resident” in her body. “SEX” is also not a constitutional right, so she can face the consequences of her “CHOICE” without my financial assistance…

        • Jay

          One problem with your analogy, Robert. The person you are throwing out of your party, is just being thrown out of your party, he/she is not having their life terminated! Try again!

          • GregS

            Well said, Jay!

        • GregS

          Here’s yet another problem with your analogy, Robert, as I pointed out to you in a previous post when you brought this up:

          Pregnancy is a normal biological process. Someone overstaying his/her welcome at your house is NOT!

          As Joe H says: Apples and acorns!

  • AJ

    Funny how they refer to the constitution when it serves them and then they turn around and wipe their arse with it.

    • Robert Smith

      Please show to me in the Constitution where Bush was allowed to LIE to get us into war…

      Rob

      • Papa

        Please show us where Bush “lied” us into war, and I don’t mean by telling your own string of lies…

      • Palin12

        Robert S
        Are you talking about the war that the Hildebeast voted in favor of as Senator from NY?

  • Pat

    There should be special elections held at random for judges that uphold the murder of the unborn! Some how we the people must take back are country from the ungodly! A unborn child has not commited any crime but many blood thirsty murders in are prisions living off are tax payers dollars those are the ones that need taken on out not little innocent little unborn babies! Are you not glad your mother did nor abort you before you were born! Think about it!

    • Vagabond

      Pat that judges mom as so many others SHOULD have had an abortion. I am firmly against abortion but there are some who should have been aborted, as a matter of fact there are many who SHOULD have been aborted,

      • Karolyn

        Hypocrit!

      • eddie47d

        Vagabond is simply saying that we should have selective abortions. Their side(conservatives?) will pick and choose who they deem unfit and unworthy of their political agenda and then do away with them.I always knew there were little nazi’s lurking in their ranks and Vagabond is honest enough to come forward.

        • Robert Smith

          I can’t help but wonder if they would summiarily abort gays, pedophile priests, and liberals.

          BTW, I’ve heard that if priests could get pregnent that abortion would be a sacrament.

          Rob

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Probably heard that from your parents???

          • Dan az

            Robert
            (I’ve heard that if priests could get pregnent that abortion would be a sacrament.) If that did happen it would be a miracle let alone hurt like hell. :)

          • libertytrain

            Yes, I also am certain natural childbirth would be out as well. And, I do believe it wouldn’t just be priests. Men in general.

          • http://gunner689 gunner689

            great idea Rob. maybe it will catch on.

      • hicusdicus

        You all are a bunch of nut cases. The second world war killed over 50 million people on purpose and you are all up in arms about a few abortions. Unwanted children do not usually grow up to be model citizens. We are all animals and are not contrary to popular beliefs something special. We need more Einsteins and less Al Ca-pone’s.

        • JimH

          hicusdicus,Since Roe vs. Wade made mothers slaughtering their own unborn childred legal(not moral) in the U.S. alone there have been 50 million “known” abortions. The death count of WW2. Just what are us”nut cases” talking about?
          What makes you say that the child not aborted would become an Al Capone? You want to prove that with any facts? Did Al’s mom really want an abortion but it was illegal? So a gangster was born.
          You weren’t aborted. Are you evil?

          • Karolyn

            Thank goodness there are 50 million less mouths to feed in this country! Seriously, though, how do you know those 50 million aren’t here right now or have been here in different personas?

          • JimH

            Karolyn,How do I know there aren’t just 50 million others because of some reincarnation? I don’t. How can you be so sure that there are? You can’t. If I just came over and blew your brains out, would it be OK because you’ll just come back as someone else? I doubt it.
            I know how you can make it 50 million and 1 less mouths to feed. All you have to do is step up and do your part.

          • hicusdicus

            Since Roe versus Wade the crime rate in this country has dropped off considerably because of the abortion of unwanted children. If you doubt this just goggle it.

          • Dan az

            Karolyn
            They probably are speaking spanish!

          • JimH

            Hicusdicus, Since the early 70′s the crime rate went down(if you don’t count the 50 million murders). Prove that it’s because the babies were killed instead of adopted by loving parents. There hasn’t been a world war killing 50 million people since then either, but I doubt abortion is the reason.
            Traffic deaths have gone down. Is that because we aborted bad drivers?
            Is a fifty million death count worth a few percentage points drpped in the crime rate?

          • hicusdicus

            Jim H, I bet it would make a difference to you if it was some loved one having a crime committed against them or even you personally. The reason the traffic fatalities went down is because all the bad drivers got killed off.

          • JimH

            hicusdicus, So you’re saying the reason I haven’t been a victum of a crime is because of abortion?
            Do you just say weird stuff to get a reaction, or are you just plain goofy?

          • hicusdicus

            JimH, Its quite possible that you haven’t been attacked because your potential attacker was aborted. I wish the two armed robbers who filed me full of bullet holes had been aborted. Of course I would not have experienced the thrill of being pronounced DOA and spending 9 days in ICU. The nerve damage from all the bullets zipping around in my groin, lungs and spine have made walking a bit difficult. Abortion has been going on since somebody figured out how to stick a sharp stick where it does not belong. People are going to do what they want to do in spite of your beliefs in the para normal. So give it a rest.

          • JimH

            hiscusdicus, you just answered my question, “JUST plain goofy.”

          • hicusdicus

            I have read that the Chinese have aborted over 150 million girl babies in the last ten years. I wonder what their thoughts would be on this nonsensical forum.

        • Karolyn

          We are, each and every one of us, a unique and special spirit, and we live forever.

          • hicusdicus

            Karolyn, I say unto thee, Horse hockey.

        • GregS

          hicusdicus says:

          “Unwanted children do not usually grow up to be model citizens.”

          hicusdicus, your statement makes no sense. By definition, at least since 1973, anyone who is currently living was “wanted” when he/she was born. Otherwise he/she would have been aborted.

          • hicusdicus

            SAY What! Not really. Your comment is what proves that human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on the planet.

          • GregS

            So, are you saying that the slaughter of 53,310,843 unborn children since 1973 STILL hasn’t cleaned up all those “unwanted” children that you pro-aborts keep ranting about???

          • hicusdicus

            I am not pro abort. I really just don’t care what people do to themselves.

          • Jay

            If you don’t care what people do to themselves, than why do you care so-much as to what people believe? It seems very apparent that you put great stock into what you believe, so much so in fact, that you wish it would override everyone else’s beliefs! Careful now, one of these days you will, pull your foot out of your mouth, only to discover your missing a toe!

          • hicusdicus

            Where did you get the idea that I care what people believe. Just because people believe something does not make it true. The only thing I believe is that someday my existence will end and that will be it. You believe what you want to it won’t change anything. The only thing I know for sure is that human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on this planet and you are no exception. The whole abortion issue just highlights the fact that a stiff prick has no conscience and its going to remain that way until the sun burns out.

          • GregS

            hicusdicus says:

            “…human intelligence is the most over rated commodity on this planet…”

            That’s the second time in the same thread that you’ve used that phrase, in place of a direct response, against someone who opposes you on abortion. Clearly, you’ve just described yourself!

          • hicusdicus

            I can’t be opposed on abortion I just really don’t care what people do to themselves. How people treat their unborn or born children is on their conscience. How they treat me or mine is another story.

    • Robert Smith

      Actually Pat, abortion is legal. It is a legal lie when you offer your religious perspective on the law.

      Rob

      • Dan az

        So do you believe in suicide then Robert.Why not force everyone to kill them selves and pay for it too?To believe in God or not is your choice, and to try to convince everyone here that there is no God is futile on your part,so please stop trying.If your so unhappy with this life that you made for your self then by all means end it and prove to us that there is nothing further than this life.

        • Robert Smith

          Dan asks: “So do you believe in suicide then Robert.”

          If an adult compitant person wants suicide that is THEIR decision. They will have no interfearence from me. The people of Oregon VOTED on exactly that with assisted suicide in that state so apparently I’m not alone.

          “Why not force everyone to kill them selves and pay for it too?”

          Awwww, you are trying to say “it’s a babyyyyyy,” Aren’t you! Louzy argument. Even if it is it is NOT able to take care of itself. It must TAKE 100% of its needs (save that one sacred sperm) from the woman. FACT: Anyone who is allegedly “pro-life” should be advocating for universal health care for EVERYONE, not just what you think it is needed for in a situation where one and only one woman can support it, even against her will according to you.

          IOW, if you are going to demand that she submit to your version of socialism where you demand of her for someone else, you too should be supporting health care for those who can’t afford it.

          More from Dan: “To believe in God or not is your choice, and to try to convince everyone here that there is no God is futile on your part,so please stop trying.”

          YOUR god does not impact MY life except as YOU demand it. You can believe all you want. DO NOT obligate me to follow any of his brutal dictates. Clearly: You can believe as you want for yourself, but you do not get to run my life, or the life of any other, in the name of your god. Got it?

          “If your so unhappy with this life that you made for your self then by all means end it and prove to us that there is nothing further than this life.”

          Fact: I’m not unhappy with this life.
          Fact: It’s YOUR claim there is an afterlife. It is up to you to prove it. That’s the way it works. YOU make the claim, you support it with something more than your proclimation.

          Rob

          • hicusdicus

            If meeting Jesus in the after life is so great what are all the Christians doing hanging out on planet earth? When there is an abortion does not the murdered baby go straight to heaven and sit at the right hand of God for eternity. It gets a free ride and does not have to put up with this crappy life. What more could it ask for.

          • Jay

            Some children are forced to lead terrible lives. Isn’t abortion better than that?

            In other words, abortion is done out of compassion for the one being ripped to shreds. Using this perverted logic, slavery could also be rationalized. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, it could be argued that a person is better off as a well-cared-for slave in America, than slowly starving to death in some filthy AIDS-infested third-world dictatorship.

            Also, how do we identify which unborn children will lead these terrible lives so we don’t inadvertently butcher some who might have lived good lives? Should only women who promise to give their children terrible lives be allowed to have them killed?

            We also know that a lot of born children already live terrible lives. So why don’t we start killing them as well? After all, if it is compassionate to kill people who might live a terrible life someday in the future, surely it is even more compassionate to kill people who we know are living terrible lives right now.

            http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=70

          • http://gunner689 gunner689

            If a woman can do anything she wants with her body why is prostitution illegal ?

          • Karolyn

            gunner – Prostitution shouldn’t be illegal! Just think of all the tax money that would come in because men can’t keep it in their pants!

          • hicusdicus

            Robert, God did not create pants he created woman and all the niceties that go with her.

        • Karolyn

          There is no such thing as death! We are not physical beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience. Spirit/soul cannot die!

          • hicusdicus

            Well Karolyn based on your beliefs killing the unborn baby is doing it a favor.

          • Karolyn

            Releasing the spirit is not a bad thing. Death is a joyful event. Death is just the beginning of existence in a place of total peace and joy.

          • Dan az

            Then Karolyn
            You then admit that there is a soul in the whom is that right?Then that is murder of the first degree.Don’t try to spin what you just said just look at it and understand what you said.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            karolyn,
            Then, by all means, release your spirit and let it FLY!!!!!!!!!

          • Dan az

            jeff your killing me :)

          • Jay

            If there’s no such thing as death, then pray-tell, is there such thing as murder?

          • hicusdicus

            Karolyn, How do you know death is a joy full event have you ever experienced it.

          • Jay

            Good question, hicusdicus!!!

          • Palin12

            Karolyn
            Let’s have more joyful events by executing all the murderers on death row. Start with Manson, Ramirez, and Chapman. Oh yes, and don’t forget Maj. Nidal “Allahu Akbar!” Hasan.

          • Karolyn

            Palin – Why would you want to release all those horrific people from the hell they live in?

          • hicusdicus

            karolyn, At times your handle on things is coming close to genius level.

      • http://gunner689 gunner689

        Robert: actually most law is based upon Judeo-Christian religious teachings. You know, like Thou Shall not Kill, Thou Shall not Steal, ect., ect.

        • hicusdicus

          Gunner, that has been the law since the beginning of time. Its called natural law we are born with it.

  • Grover

    This was a win for the women of America.
    For one thing, abortion services are a very small part of Planned Parenthood. Most of their services are related to contraception and general women’s health services.

    This was a power grab by the extreme right (wrong).

    • http://naver sook young

      Grover, why do you lie about we women of America? Though the government cannot fund any abortions or abortion providers under the Hyde Amendment, but that is OK by you? You say that it is OK for an immature and irresponsible woman to force her will on her unborn child? Also, most of their services aren’t abortions or abortion related? Care to cite a source for that? I’ll bet you that you are wrong. As tax dollars go up, so do the number of abortions. Last year planned parenthood performed 330,000 abortions. This means they are guilty of 330,000 murders. How do you figure the right did this? The judge that made this bad decision was a liberal. Why are liberal judges seem to be in the pockets of planned parenthood? Why don’t you think before you post such childish rants? Thank you.

      Sook Young
      Wife of the Samurai

      • Robert Smith

        It ain’t a “child” sook. That is your religious perspective being forced on the rest of America. Keep that to yourself and not have all the abortions you don’t want to have.

        Remember, each month your god allows eggs to pass without making more human beings. Further, early miscarriages far outnumber abortions. So, looks to me like your god is the biggest abortionist.

        Rob

        • Rebecca

          Well…what is it Robert? A goat? A dog? A cat? A monkey? No it is a human child. A human female has never given birth to anything but a human being. The heartbeat begins at four weeks gestation. The brainstem begins to develop earlier than that. Roe vs Wade was the end of America being a civilizied nation. Civilized Societies do not kill each other…especially the innocent and defensless.

          Hitler justified the holocoust too. Pro-Choicers need to think on that one awhile.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Rebecca,
            Robert thinks they are acorns!!! That’s because he wants to be a mighty oak instead of a weaping willow!!

          • s c

            Rebecca, at some point, you’ll give up trying to reason with a pro-deather. Pro-deathers are without a conscience. They “feel” their way through life and rely on emotions (reason and logic get in their way).
            If you ever get a chance, ask some black friends how America can have a ‘leader’ who supports abortions and yet claims to be ‘proud’ of his heritage. If he’s so proud, then how is it possible that this “leader” and Hitler winked at the idea of blessing abortions?
            He can’t have it both ways. Either people appreciate their heritage, or they don’t give a damn. That’s how America’s glorious ‘leader’ justifies abortions. And, it nets a candidate SO MANY easy votes. Ah, yes, a conscience is a WONDERFUL thing – if you don’t have one. It makes life so much “easier.”
            Now, do you see what I mean, Rebecca?

          • Karolyn

            There is no such thing as death! There is just an ending of physical experience. My belief is just as viable as yours. You have no more “proof” than I do. When I leave this physical existence, I will be free to come back again…and again…or to continue to live in time and space forever, as I so wish.

          • Robert Smith

            From Rebecca: “No it is a human child.”

            Joe got it WRONG again. The proper statement is that what is gestating is no more a “human being” than an acorn is a tree.

            IOW, the DNA and many traits you think are important might be there, but it isn’t a human being yet any more than an egg is a chicken.

            Pregnancy is a PROCESS at which at the END a baby is born. Until that process is done it simply isn’t a “baby” unless that’s what the woman wants to call it.

            BTW, if it’s so “complete” why can’t it gestate itself? Even an acorn can do that. Why didn’t your god set things up so human beings were as robust as an acorn? Doesn’t seem like much of a god to me.

            Rob

            Rob

          • GregS

            Robert, a tree is an ADULT oak plant. A baby, even after he/she is born, is NOT an ADULT human. Therefore, as you’ve been told MANY times before, your acorn-tree analogy is NOT valid.

            Furthermore, an unborn child is a LIVING HUMAN ORGANISM, as we ALL are. Any medical textbook will tell you this!

        • Rebecca

          Misscarriage is a natural occurrance and designed by nature to end a pregnancy that otherwise would not have a good outcome. In fact, most misscarriages are the result of what is called a “blighted ovum”. Look it up. It is a circumstance where the gestational sac forms but no baby, or “fetus” forms. MY God has infinate wisdom not imparted on human beings. It is not for the human race to decide who gets to be born and live and who doesn’t.

          • eddie47d

            Good comment but that should also settle the question of not having anymore wars. ( That would be Republican and Democrat wars and I said that for Dan’s benefit).

          • Robert Smith

            From Rebecca: ” It is not for the human race to decide who gets to be born and live and who doesn’t.”

            No, it’s up to each individual woman to decide if she is going to carry what is gestating to term. It’s her choice. Nobody else from the human race should decide unless she asks someone to.

            Rob

          • hicusdicus

            Says who Gregg?

        • hicusdicus

          Good point Rob. The para normal nut cakes will never be able to follow your accurate line of reasoning. They are to caught up in their idiocy.

          • GregS

            “Accurate?” On WHAT exactly are you basing this?

            Robert’s “line of reasoning” isn’t “accurate” by any STRETCH of the immagination!

          • hicusdicus

            Greg, If I say something is accurate then it is so. You can’t disagree with me because I am always right. The reason I am always right is because I know everything. If I don’t know something its because it is not worth knowing.

        • hicusdicus

          Rebbeca, Thank you for getting Hitler into the equation. Stalin killed a whole lot more people but he did not lose the war. The tax payers can pay to abort them or incarcerate them take your pick.

      • bard334

        First thing, when the Republicans controlled Congress and held the White House, from 2000 to 2006, why did they not outlaw abortions? They had control, yet they did not.

        Second thing, regarding Planned Parenthood, only 3% of all procedures performed by them are abortions.

        Last thing: My mother had three miscarriages, does that mean that God is a murderer?

        • http://?? Joe H.

          bard334,
          Don’t tell me! She only got pregnant three times, right???

        • Jay

          There are a number of hot battles going on in Washington, DC and across the country this year. We have budgets with deficits, raising the national debt limit, getting health care under control, and an ever-changing field of people who have announced—or are about to announce—their candidacy for president. None of the fights has been hotter than the struggle over the funding of Planned Parenthood.

          In the Planned Parenthood funding fight, it appears that the figure of 97 percent has achieved a startling degree of importance among both sides of the debate.

          The figure first emerged as Planned Parenthood, feigning that the fight against its taxpayer funding is all about abortion, began publicly proclaiming that only three percent of its services were abortions. That meant 97 percent of what it does is not about abortion.

          This claim, of course, ignores the fact that the 97 percent figure is based on a mathematical formula that equates one abortion with, for example, one pap test. Ironic, of course, as an abortion takes a life and a pap test is done to possibly save a life.

          Planned Parenthood’s math is based on numbers contained in its Planned Parenthood’s Services Fact Sheet. According to that document, Planned Parenthood performs 11,383,900 services every year and 332,278 are abortions. Thus, abortions are 2.9 percent of the total services and everything else is 97.1 percent.

          Of course, Planned Parenthood could have been a bit more accurate and taken the fact that those 11.4 million services were provided to 3 million unique customers. If we take the 332,278 individuals who had abortions, it represents 11 percent of PP’s unique customers—not three percent.

          An even more accurate representation of how important the abortion business is to Planned Parenthood is that the 332,278 abortions bring in $162.8 million—which is 40 percent of its annual clinic income.

          But Planned Parenthood insists on using the three percent and 97 percent numbers.

          There is however, another 97 percent number that those opposed to Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding have seized upon.

          In the same Fact Sheet referenced above, Planned Parenthood claims to have provided the following services to pregnant women: 332,278 abortions; 7,021 prenatal clients; and 977 adoption referrals. That’s a total of 340,276 services. Thus, abortion is 97.6 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women.

          Using words like “service” and “provides” in the same sentence with abortion is really a disservice to the 332,278 tiny human beings who were killed at Planned Parenthood facilities in 2009. Nevertheless, I use the words so that we focus on the numbers instead of the horror.

          Several elected officials have tried to educate other legislators, and the public, on this number, but their wording has not always been precise and the results have created confusion.

          For example, as part of the Senate debate on Planned Parenthood funding, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl said that the abortions are “more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” This caused an uproar among Planned Parenthood apologists, but the fact is that, in order to be accurate, he simply had to add “to pregnant women” at the end of his statement.

          So, let’s be very precise. According to Planned Parenthood’s own Fact Sheet, 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women is abortion.

          That is the 97 percent number that Planned Parenthood’s opponents will agree with.

          That is the 97 percent number that shows the true nature of Planned Parenthood’s services.

          When your elected officials regurgitate Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortion is only three percent of what it does, enlighten them with the real numbers. Explain the real 97 percent number—that 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides to pregnant women is abortion.

          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2734242/posts

          • GregS

            Excellent post, Jay! I submitted a post down further below, regarding that 3% figure, before I saw your post here. It wasn’t nearly as detailed as yours. Sorry for the oversight.

          • Jay

            The more the merrier Greg. However, I seriously doubt that the left-wing posters will be convinced. For the simple reason that they suffer from a psychological anomaly known as; ABORTOPHILIA: Love of abortion. A warm, even passionate emotional attachment to abortion, especially as practiced by the Birthist sect, when it is seen as a wonderful, life-enhancing and essential option in life. Characteristic of abortionmongers and other Birthist Abortionites.

            As well, they are afflicted with; ABORTOMANIA: A form of insanity characterized by great excitement and enthusiasm for abortion. Common among abortionmongers and other Abortionites, especially those of the Birthist sect, after the process of abortionthink has run its full course.

            Additionally; ABORTIONTHINK: Doublethink with respect to the value of life, holding in the case of the Birthist sect of Abortionism that prenatal life is both inviolable under the ethic of sanctity of life and also disposable at any time for any reason. Also, the rationalizing process of devaluing the life of another sufficiently to justify destroying that life with little or no remorse based on any of the Abortionite criteria which define the various sects.

            So you see Greg, it is not about “choice” as the addicted to abortion claim, rather, it is their obsession, and love of the act of abortion itself! Very disturbed and sick puppies, are these abortion lovers!

          • Karolyn

            Jay – Because I am pro-choice does not mean I “love” or am “obsessed by” abortion. Apparently, you are more obsessed by it than I am. You keep preaching to the choir. However, I do appreciate your doggedness and have learned a few things from all of your research. If you had your way, abortion would be against the law resulting in illegal abortions and more death and complications and more unwanted babies. If you want to take it a step further, in order to force reluctant women to have their babies, you could have the government imprison them for the duration. You would have to do that to ensure that they would not go off and have illegal abortions. Then the gov. could be in the adoption business and recoup some of the money spent on keeping the women. Of course, after the births, the women could be spayed.

          • Jay

            If abortion is outlawed women will again be killed in back-alley abortions.

            Virtually every study on this subject has concluded that deaths and injuries due to illegal abortion have been wildly exaggerated and that the vast majority of illegal abortions were done by licensed doctors who were simply breaking the law.

            Not only are abortion apologists lying when they say that thousands of women used to die every year from back-alley, coat-hanger abortions, but their own research proves it.

            Figures released in 1986 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) show that in the 15 years prior to the legalization of abortion, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in the entire United States was 136 per year and dropping.

            Obviously, it is a tragedy when even one young woman loses her life in this way. However, there is a way to protect women against illegal abortions without butchering millions of defenseless children.

            The first thing to keep in mind is that pro-lifers don’t do abortions. If abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-choice. In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion – whether it was legal or illegal – was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice. In other words, when the abortion lobby says, “If abortion is made illegal, women will die,” what they’re actually saying is, “If you stop us from killing babies, we’re going to start killing women.”

            So clearly, the solution to the back-alley abortion problem is for the pro-choice gang to agree not to do them. They could also help us pass legislation requiring that, (a) people who commit illegal abortions are to be prosecuted under the same homicide statutes that apply to any other hired killer and, (b) anyone who coerces a woman to have an illegal abortion, or helps to arrange an illegal abortion, is to be charged as an accessory to homicide.

            Of course, these people are never going to agree to this because they never cared about this issue to begin with. They simply wanted to make it look like we are responsible for the pregnant women they are threatening to kill. The fact is, every time one of these radical pro-choice fanatics screams about dirty coat-hangers and back-alley abortions, the blood is on their hands – not ours.

            Also, if the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why don’t we legalize rape? After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist to keep her from identifying him to the authorities. Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away that motivation. We could also set up rape clinics where rapists could take their victims. These centers could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception, and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim. We could even issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo routine testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

            Remember, the pro-choice argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment. Those dynamics also apply to rape. Keeping rape illegal has not prevented women from being raped, so why not at least try to prevent back-alley rapes? As ridiculous as this suggestion is, if the goal is saving women’s lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.

            http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=40

          • hicusdicus

            Jay, that was some kind of windy speech I had to take a nap to get up the energy to finish it are you a shut in or just terminally bored?

          • Jay

            I suppose the same could be asked of you, hicusdicus. But no doubt you deny it, and rightly so!

          • hicusdicus

            Yes Jay, I am a shut in and I am terminally bored. I am also completely perplexed how humanity ever progressed as far as it has considering how people rationalize their bias. I bet a lot of people died falling out of trees before some one thought of using a vine.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Sook, here is some proof.. Do you know of Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)? He said in January when he introduced legislation to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding. “There’s no question that money that Planned Parenthood receives for its operational expenses from the federal government…”

        Of course he claims it frees up resources that can be used to provide and promote abortions through its abortion clinics. It’s the same old crap he brought up many times before.

        The money does NOT go for abortions. Quit lying about that, sook.

        Rob

        • GregS

          Just exactly how do you know that it’s not going for abortions, Robert? Do tell!

      • hicusdicus

        Why don’t you think before you post such childish rants. sook young please take your own advice.

    • Jeep

      So, by your logic, there should be an uninhibited flow of cash to any organization from the federal govt. And, that states have no say in what goes on within their borders (note: borders that are blurring more and more.) And, somehow this is a right wing power grab? If anything it was a return of power to the states from an oppresive federal mandate. Didn’t we already fight a civil war over something like this?

      • Robert Smith

        ” If anything it was a return of power to the states from an oppresive federal mandate.”

        Really!

        Do you support Oregon to have assisted suicide?

        Do you support medical pot in 16 states as a states’ issue?

        Rob

        • TrvlSEA

          Yes for Oregon and yes for the 16 states allowing medical marijuana.

          • hicusdicus

            Trvisea, On that subject we are on the same page.

        • Jeep

          Sure, if Oregon wants it, then fine. That’s for Oregonians to decide. You rail against states rights like its unConstitutional or something. Hmmm…

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Robert,
          no, I don’t believe in assisted suicide as alot of the people that want to commit suicide are not really able to make a clear decision!
          Medical pot?? Yup, in any state that votes it in!! Medical ONLY!!

          • hicusdicus

            The only assist I need for suicide is for some one to not hide my gun. Constant blinding pain rules in ones decision to end their life.

      • bard334

        It is a fallacy that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The civil war was about slavery.

        “Our new government’s foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery –subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy.

        • Jeep

          Your statement is moronic and simplistic. I would blow you away with history, but its not worth the time.

          Fine. The American Civil War was not about states rights (the right to the slave trade, free commerce, the right to secession, etc.) it was fought over slavery. Feel better? You may want to read what the Constitution says about federal and state responsibilities. We are only one nation because of the Constitution, not because you will it so.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          bard334,
          you may also want to check out the fact that Lincoln was only worried about slavery in the southern states, not the little that was still active in the NORTHERN states!! Check it out!! Read about the REAL Lincoln!!

          • Robert Smith

            There are many who think Linclon was gay, sleeping with guys and stuff. I don’t subscribe to it but that’s what some think.

            Rob

          • eddie47d

            The right also says that about Obama. When they don’t like someone the lies fly in every direction.

          • Dan az

            Actually Eddiee
            It wasn’t the right that said it,It was his gay lovers!Sorry!

        • hicusdicus

          The civil war was fought for the same reason all wars are fought for, MONEY.

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          The primary cause of the Civil War was an ever growing oppressive Federal Gvt. imposing it’s will on the States. Sound familiar ?

      • hicusdicus

        Hey Jeep, have you not figured out yet that the federal government does what it wants. Where ever it wants and how ever it wants.

    • Jay

      Abortion is about empowering women.

      If you want to see the weakest and most subservient women in America, just look at the faces of those entering an abortion clinic. What you will see is sadness, desperation, fear, and resignation. What you will not see is women who feel empowered or in control.

      These faces make it clear that, like suicide, abortion is a choice made by tragic people who have been convinced they have no choice. Better than anyone else, women who submit to abortion understand why no woman was ever admired for having an abortion, and why no woman ever bragged about her abortion, and why no woman ever climbed off an abortionist’s table with a higher opinion of herself than she had when she climbed onto it.

      This nonsense that women must have the right to kill their children in order to be equal to men is an invention of the abortion industry. With almost no exceptions, pioneers of the women’s movement like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were outspoken opponents of legal abortion. Alice Paul, who wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment, called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women. Even suffragist newspapers such as Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, had editorial policies which openly attacked both abortion and abortionists.

      These early feminists saw that abortion is patronizing and paternalistic and that a woman’s willingness to submit to it doesn’t free her, it devalues her. They understood that legalized abortion is nothing more than a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men. Today, after over 30 years of legalized abortion, that view has been so thoroughly proven true that some abortion advocates no longer even bother to deny it. In fact, some say it should be celebrated.

      On May 11, 1990, the PBS radio program Spectrum featured the staunchly pro-choice Ann Taylor-Flemming saying, “I came of age with the women’s movement. It has given license to my ambitions and dreams, and filled me with the fervor for equality that permeates all that I do. But this time, I want to turn the tables a bit. Take an issue that always seems like a women’s issue and pitch it directly towards the men out there. And that issue is abortion… it’s time now to invite the men of America back in, to ask them to raise their voices for choice… I dare say that many of them have impregnated women along the way, and then let off the hook in a big, big way – emotionally, economically and every other way – when the women went ahead and had abortions… the sense of relief for themselves was mixed with sympathy for and gratitude towards those women whose ultimate responsibility it was to relieve them of responsibility by having abortions… it would sure be nice to hear from all those men out there whose lives have been changed, bettered, and substantially eased because they were not forced into unwanted fatherhood.”

      It is hard to imagine that even the most bigoted male chauvinist would suggest that women have a responsibility to let men who impregnate them “off the hook” by submitting to abortion. Yet here is that very argument being espoused by someone who claims to be an advocate for women.

      Today, abortion apologists continue to push the idea that having a clean place to kill their babies is the cornerstone of women’s equality. That lie is a self-serving perversion of the basic values of legitimate feminism. As pro-life feminist Melissa Simmons-Tulin once said, “Women will never climb to equality over the dead bodies of their children.”

      • Karolyn

        “If you want to see the weakest and most subservient women in America, just look at the faces of those entering an abortion clinic. What you will see is sadness, desperation, fear, and resignation. What you will not see is women who feel empowered or in control.”

        Are you in the habit of standing outside abortion clinics? Of course, many women go through emotional distress because of their circumstances, but it’s still their choice!

        • hicusdicus

          Karolyn, aside from the fact that you haven’t got a clue to what you are talking about I bet their are a pot load of women in Africa who wish they could get a free abortion.

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          They’re still a bunch of selfish, self-serving, murdering, bitches.

          • hicusdicus

            Hey gunner, you sound like a swell guy and your terminology is so sophisticated.

    • GregS

      Grover says:

      “…abortion services are a very small part of Planned Parenthood.”

      Wrong! Planned Parenthood made that assertion several months ago to shift attention away from the following facts:

      - They are the largest abortion provider in the galaxy.

      - They have just mandated that all of their regional affiliates must provide abortions by the end of 2013.

      - They are currently pushing chemical abortions “administered” via webcam as a way of making sure any commendable declines in number of abortions are reversed.

      - They are currently in the process of building mega-abortion clinics the size of palaces throughout the country.

      - They recently tried to claim that only 3% of their “services” were devoted to abortion, but it turns out that for every abortion patient that walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic, five to ten non-abortion “services” are bundled with that abortion (e.g. the pregnancy test and the counseling that leads to the abortion, Rh testing, ultrasound, STD testing, the HPV vaccine, a take-home pack of contraceptives, etc.). These other “services” are each counted separately, even though they are connected to the abortion. Thus, abortion and abortion-related “services” account for a much bigger piece of the pie than just 3%, probably closer to 15-20%.

      The fact is that roughly one third of Planned Parenthood’s clinic-level income comes from abortions.

  • Tony

    It appears to me that this is a form of population control. Thinning of the herd so to speak. I am personally opposed to abortion. But lets face it our children seem to be maturing before their years. I have overheard kids using the f-bomb freely and talking about sex. I am pretty sure there are girls that have lost their virginity at the age 9 years old. But to get back to the abortion issue lets get to the bottom line. If a child gets pregnant and does not want it. she will get an abortion any way she can (vacuum cleaner,coat hanger etc.)
    It would be better to go to a clinic than use the other methods.
    But I have seen some very illegal and immoral behavior by the staff.
    I really resent federal funds provided to them for that reason.

    • Ellen

      I don’t believe taxpayers should be funding abortion, but look at the alternative. These abortions are mostly done on poor blacks and, if they didn’t abort, the other solution is they have the baby and we pay to support it via welfare for the next 18 years. I don’t believe taxpayers should be funding that either. The govt recently required all insurance companies to provide free birth control, but the overwhelming number of unwanted pregnancies are among blacks and they simply choose not to use birth control. The entire situation revolves around taking responsibility for your actions, but welfare relieved people of their person responsibility and made the taxpayers responsible. We’re never getting out of our financial situation or minimizing abortion or fixing education until we stop paying people to have babies.

      • eddie47d

        That is true about any segment of society who are put into the position of pregnancies. That would be willing or unwilling and that is why personal choice is a necessary legal right. You are right in saying 18 years is a long time for taxpayers to pay for welfare,food stamps,Medicaid,emergency room visits,etc. and it will happen. Unless someone out there advocates that they be left homeless and have to fend for themselves or forced sterilization for parents or some other expensive or immoral solution. Women do get pregnant and not all of them are on birth control which Planned Parenthood does provide.They are a medical clinic who provides needed services so some folks need to come out of their comfy suburban homes and put yourself in other peoples shoes. You won the big issue of taxpayer funded abortions yet some of you still clamour for interference in peoples personal decisions.

        • Song

          “put into the position of pregnancy” edie…what is that? People don’t choose to get pregnant?

          • eddie47d

            Sure they do. Millions of women try and get pregnant. Many thousands also get raped or have accidental pregnancies.To clarify even further 50,000 women get raped in the Congo each and every day and have little choice about it. That means millions of unwanted pregnancies. Life is hard enough for these women to even survive yet alone to carry someones elses child. Rapists in America aren’t as “aggressive” in numbers but the challenges of dealing with a rape pregnancy is daunting enough. To say that these women shouldn’t have the choice to go to Planned Parenthood or any other hospital to seek help is cruel. Some women can handle an unwanted pregnancy but the high and mighty who want to force women to give birth and raise this soon to be child is telling this women to be raped over and over again for the rest of her life. Sure adoption is wonderful but it is still her decision.

          • Jeep

            eddie, slow down there big boy. While I agree that even one rape is wrong, there are not 50,000 a day in the Congo. Please, try to avoid outrageous claims, they only weaken your argument.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/48-women-raped-hour-congo

            And, your mindset is 180 degrees backward. Since we all know that sex leads to pregnancy, there are no unplanned pregnancies, but there are irresponsible people having sex. I know this flies in the face of your view that no-one is responsible for their behaviour. And, I am well aquainted with irresponsible people with children. I have three adopted children and have been a foster parent for 20 years. Have you done your part to deal with “unplanned” pregnancies?

          • Song

            edie I infer from your posting that you think of yourself as compassionate when in fact, your compassion is completely misdirected and in reality you are an ignorant dolt. Nobody is saying that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy can’t seek help duh! What they are saying is that tax payers should not be forced to pay for that. Charities, churches, families…why is the assumption that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy cannot seek help or pay for that help herself? I’m expected to pay for my medical care…AS for JEEP, kudos to you…Edie and the other incessant “whiners” and “bleeding hearts” on these posts should take note: JEEP is compassion in action something I really don’t think the likes of Robert S. or Edie, for that matter with all his over-bloated rhetoric about compassion know anything about.

          • eddie47d

            You are correct in that it is 34,560 per month or 1,152 per day. Thanks for the correction.

          • eddie47d

            Song. My granddaughters rape trial was yesterday so don’t preach to me about compassion and calling me a dolt. She is 15 and was lured to this guy’s house after he called her and said her boyfriend was there waiting for her. She met this guy (rapist) the week before and apparently was too trusting. If she had become pregnant then it would have been her and her mothers decision to carry the baby or to abort not yours. This young man was convicted and will be sentenced in Sept. and this was not his first rape. I also babysit my grandson and have for 22mos of his 23mos of life. He is now sleeping on the couch next to me after 45 minutes at the park and 20 minutes of reading.

          • Karolyn

            eddie – So sorry about your granddaughter. I hope she’s receiving counseling. You should be proud that she went along with prosecution. Too many women do not, and the rapists go scot-free to keep raping. The prosecution and conviction rates are very low. I believe you know from my posts that I work for a domestic and sexual assault organization.

          • Jay

            Why should a woman who was the victim of rape or incest have to bear a child?

            When pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, the baby is not only the child of the rapist but of the woman as well. Today, it is not unusual for rape victims who aborted their children to say they have come to grips with having been the victim of someone else’s violence, but cannot accept that they inflicted violence on their own baby. On the other hand, you never hear a rape victim who did not have an abortion later say she wished she had. In fact, they often see the baby as the only good thing that came from the situation.

            There are those who argue that this baby would be a constant reminder of the rape. When adoption is suggested, the response is that many women are not emotionally able to carry a child for nine months and then give it to someone else to raise. In other words, we’re asked to believe that the kind of woman who would be traumatized by placing her child with a loving family, would be happier if her baby was brutally ripped to shreds, thrown in a dumpster and hauled off to a landfill.

            Even if we bought into that, let’s imagine that a woman was kidnapped and held for two years during which time she gave birth to her captor’s son. When rescued, the woman says the baby is a constant reminder of her ordeal but that she could not stand to give him up to someone else to raise. Would we allow her to have him killed? After all, the dynamics used to justify abortion also exist in this situation.

            Other people rationalize abortion for rape and incest because the pregnancy was beyond the woman’s control. That too is illogical. Allowing a victim of violence and brutality to inflict violence and brutality upon her own child will not return the control that the rapist stole from her, nor will it address the physical or psychological damage that was done to her.

            Finally, we must never forget that the unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love. And just as we would not discriminate against a five-year-old who was conceived in rape or incest, neither should we discriminate against an unborn child who was so conceived.

          • hicusdicus

            Song, You must be a pillar in the nut case community.

        • TrvlSEA

          It’s not a personal decision when someone else is paying for it.

    • Robert Smith

      Tony says: “But I have seen some very illegal and immoral behavior by the staff.”

      Except for criminals like Kermitt Gosnell do you have any proof?

      BTW, our soldgers have done some very bad stuff over the years. Do you want to defund them too?

      Rob

      • http://?? Joe H.

        whats a soldjer?? Writing yet??

        • eddie47d

          Before Joe was on sex patrol and now he is on spelling patrol. Is that you entertainment for the day Joe?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            eddie,
            following me again??? I told you you are NOT gonna kiss my rear cheeks!!!

    • hicusdicus

      I have seen some very illegal and immoral activity by our leaders and I resent providing them with federal funds.

  • David in MA

    Re-visit the whole program under what the federal funds are to be used for, then deturmine if the hospitals & state health departments can do without the funds which they might recieve (of course they will say they do, but do they really?) and then make a decision whether or not to accept the federal funds or refuse them completely….hopefully this will starve planned parenthood out of existance.

    • David in MA

      Another poster pointed out the unconstitutionality of the issue and I agree, how can a judge declare not funding PP as unconstitutional when there is no mandate under the constitution for the fed’s to use taxpayers funds to fund this (and other) program.
      This is a perfect example of UNELECTED and EMPLOYED persons instituting “rules & regulations” which impose on the people unconstitional requirements, they are not the elected in congress.
      AND, I have never agreed with the citizens having to be subject to these “rules & regulations”, I have always said rules & regulations are implimented to the operations of a government agency, etc. NOT OVER THE PEOPLE! WE ELECT REPRESENTITIVES TO USE LAWS WHICH TYHE CITIZENS ASK TO BE IMPLIMENTED, NOT RULES & REGULATIONS BY SOME IDIOT WITH AN AGENDA!

      • eddie47d

        Like Hermann Cain’s agenda to make it legal to ban Mosques from any community. Everyone has an agenda to keep your perfect world perfect at least in your eyes.Liberals and Conservatives both have agendas that the opposing side doesn’t like. Not every issue has a right or wrong answer although we all try and make it so.

        • hicusdicus

          Islam is not a religion it is a terrorist organization.

  • just little ole me

    Most women already made their choice when they slept with someone. The baby didn’t have a choice and isn’t funny we let women have a choice in killing someone when they already made a wrong one. Don’t make the baby pay. What ever happened to consequences from the choices we make? Many are trying to erase that part as well as risks in life. There is something called adoption and many waiting who can’t have children, who would gladly take care of the child black/or white. What ever happened to wait till you get married? We have turned something beautiful between two people into something horrible when we just flaunt it around. Doesn’t it say something if you can tell someone you were so special that I saved myself for you. If you are not a believer in God that is fine. How many women feel abandoned because they felt it really meant something when the guy slept with them and the guy up and leaves. If anything we should teach our young women that it is a very strong bond and only should be used in a situation that shows that a man is going to stay. Marriage is a pretty strong calculation that they are more likely to stay with you. Women many times thinks it means the man will stay around if they commit that bond but men don’t get attached as women do. So why take the chance in getting yourself hurt. We are not just animals who can’t control our instincts. We can reason and think.

    I do not think it is constitutional to force another group of people to pay for something they see as really wrong. Sure parenthood might help a few but they also hurt and murder many. They have also been questionable in their dealings. We should not fund such companies. If there is any question about them obeying the law.

    I also anger some of the other side because I believe also that abortion should only be allowed when someone is raped and unable to cope mentally with the situation. I also believe that if it endangers the mothers life especially when she has other little ones to tend to and she has discussed it with her church leaders, doctor and God that it is alright too. It would not be fair for her children to be raised without a mother. It is always important in my opinion to pray upon the matter. I am angered that the biggest portion of babies aborted at Planned Parenthood are black babies. Are black people again being singled out by the left as it has throughout parts of history? Instead of killing blacks through the KKK now they are doing it through abortion clinics. Yes there are documents proving the democrat party started the KKK and now they have changed the face of the KKK as being compassionate toward black mothers but killing their unborn. True there are republicans guilty as well but let us be honest the majority who support abortion are democrats/left in most cases.

    Where is the compassion. Many of these mothers who have aborted children through these clinics feel guilt ridden and have felt a great loss. There is a bond between mother and child whether they understand it at the moment. A fetus is not easily just discarded for most women. We know this because of many who have had to go to counseling and receive help for the guilt pains they feel. Asking themselves when the anniversary comes around “What would my child look like?” “What would they be doing now?” etc.

    No, we should not fund questionable clinics. If they are honest companies then let people fully investigate their companies by opening their clinics to investigators. Many companies like this say they have hired investigators to look into their companies when all they do is hire those who will help cover up what they are doing. No funding for Planned Parenthood it violates our freedom of choice by forcing us to pay for something we don’t believe in.

    • Robert Smith

      “No funding for Planned Parenthood it violates our freedom of choice by forcing us to pay for something we don’t believe in.”

      I don’t believe in the wars from Bush and Chaney. Can I get my tax money back for that?

      I don’t want to pay for bridges to nowhere that Sarah supported. Can I get my money back for things like that?

      Rob

      • Brian

        Another Liberal who thinks two wrongs make a right. No morals on the Left.

      • Song

        Maybe it’s time to lighten up on the green stuff Robert Smith and join the present which is currently the year 2011…wow

      • Jeep

        Let’s see… oh yeah, wars and their conduct are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and… let me see… no, not here… not there… gosh, I just can’t seem to find where it says, “and Congress shall have the right to fund abortion.”

        • 45caliber

          It is “implied” in the Constitution, just like everything else the left wants to do. Just like the First Amendment and the 14th “implies” that the PP has the right to all that money.

    • Karolyn

      Death is just a transition for the spirit. No one has the right to tell another what is best for her/him or his or her body. Abortion should be up to the individual.

      Planned Parenthood does much good.

      • Song

        And the individual can pay for it. We, as a nation, have bred such entitlement. The consequence of having unprotected sex is pregnancy irregardless of your religious beliefs (karolyn and Robert S.) It is pretty, darn simple but it happens to be an “uncomfortable” and “inconvenient” consequence for many people no matter how you try to “sugar coat” it (Karolyn and Robert S.) so the solution is to just get rid of it. Now isn’t that convenient. Speaks highly of liberal minds and values.

        • Karolyn

          Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s services and is not federally funded. Few enough women are versed in contraception. Without Planned Parenthood, we’d be in even worse shape.

          • Song

            Seriously Karolyn, what planet do you live on? They teach this stuff in grade school now and anyone with a THINKING brain knows how to prevent a pregnancy and birth control is cheap and in many cases free!

          • eddie47d

            If Song keeps closing down centers that give out free birth control ….then there won’t be any free birth control.I see what she is up too. I know that these products have to be purchased at Walgreens and the grocery stores which is fine. I do agree that birth control products should be made more available but conservatives don’t even want them talked about in schools. They say it is a communist plot to subvert our children. My granddaughter is now on birth control,just in case.

          • Jay

            Why do the same people who oppose abortion always fight against sex education and birth control?

            The pro-life movement has never been opposed to sex education. What we oppose are the sex education programs which have caused America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and abortion.

            In the 1960s, organizations like Planned Parenthood began pushing something they called “value-neutral contraception-based” sex education. They contended that the way to reduce the relatively small teen pregnancy rate of that era, was to isolate morality from sex and teach kids the mechanics of having sexual relationships without getting pregnant. In effect, this approach was not value-neutral at all, it simply replaced traditional values with Planned Parenthood’s values.

            Their argument for leaving values out of sex education is that teaching sexual morality is the responsibility of parents. However, they originally marketed the idea of sex education in the public schools by saying that parents weren’t talking to their kids about sex. That begs the question, if parents weren’t talking to their kids about sex before it was taught in the schools, what was going to make them start doing so afterward? Also, how is this message absorbed by children living in homes where the parents do talk about sexual morality. What do those kids think when their parents tell them that pre-marital sex is wrong, while their teachers are telling them that it is neither right nor wrong?

            Of course, when the philosophy that sex can be morally neutral is delivered to teenagers, the guaranteed result is an increase in the rate at which they are sexually active, which is exactly what happened.

            Those who defend this value-neutral contraception-based approach say that if birth control was taught and adhered to, teen pregnancy would not be a problem. This is not supported by real-world experience. After America’s public schools began introducing value-neutral contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, our relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, children are now having sex at much younger ages. Forty years ago, for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant would have been front-page news. Today, it is not even unusual.

            Despite its well-documented failures, the abortion lobby continues to push value-neutral contraception-based sex education, while arguing that abstinence-based programs are unrealistic because teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do. To understand the fallacy in that, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her.

            In such a case, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent? Should they advise her to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls?
            Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter. They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable.

            So if it is indeed realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex, then it is just as realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. The argument that kids are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie. The most that can be said is that some kids will have sex no matter what we do.

            Today, many liberal social engineers recognize that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that value-neutral contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck. So now they’re pushing “Abstinence Plus” or “Comprehensive Sex Education.” Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs. Some even grudgingly agree that abstinence can be primary.

            This is a scam. These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message. It’s no different than parents telling their teenagers, “Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, don’t spill anything on the seats” or “Don’t smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes” or “Don’t take a gun to school, but if you do, don’t point it at anyone” or “Don’t use heroin, but if you do, don’t leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them” or “Don’t drive my new Corvette while I’m out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use.”

            The fact is, America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted disease was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around. The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.

            Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don’t remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion. To some degree, that may be a valid argument. However, that doesn’t mean abstinence-only programs shouldn’t be adopted.

            When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats. For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can’t get them out of their car seats. Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat. In some crashes, children who might have been thrown from cars and survived, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.

            The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks. But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, “We’re willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat.” Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take. In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don’t live in such a world so they tried to save the most lives possible.

            That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education. No one believes it will save every child, but it will save the most children possible. On the other hand, it is sheer insanity to believe that value-neutral contraception-based sex education is a solution to the massive social problems that were created by value-neutral contraception-based sex education.

            The real question is why organizations like Planned Parenthood continue to push it. The answer is that, for them, it hasn’t failed. It has provided a steady stream of customers for their birth control pills, abortions, and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.

            To see that the real objective of Planned Parenthood’s sex education system is to create a market for their “reproductive health care” business, recall an issue from the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, Planned Parenthood types were constantly whining about what they called the “double standard.” They said it was unfair for sexually active girls to be labeled as tramps, while sexually active boys were seen as just red-blooded, all-American boys sowing their wild oats. And even though their objections to this hypocrisy were certainly warranted, it was their solution to the problem that exposed their hidden agenda.

            Once they were allowed into the nation’s classrooms, they did not work toward higher standards from boys, they pushed society to accept lower standards from its girls. They understood that higher standards for boys would reduce the demand for their products but lower standards for girls would increase it.

            In effect, value-neutral contraception-based sex education was not a social policy as much as a business plan. The “value-neutral” part would guarantee an explosion in teen sexual activity and create the foundation for a “reproductive health-care” industry which they intended to dominate.

            Unfortunately, their plan worked. Today, teenage girls are as “liberated” to be sexually promiscuous as teenage boys, and the result has been a financial bonanza for Planned Parenthood. Every year they rake in hundreds of millions in tax dollars to patch up problems that their sex education system created in the first place. America is learning the hard way that allowing amoral hustlers from the “reproductive health-care” industry to teach children about sex, is like hiring crack dealers to teach them about drugs.
            While it may be hard for some people to accept that Planned Parenthood would inflict this sort of misery on children for political or financial gain, they should keep in mind that corporations do not work against their own interests. We have all seen that alcohol and tobacco companies will target children, and it would be naive to think that these gigantic multi-national corporations would market harmful products to children, but another one wouldn’t. The reality is that teen pregnancy is a cash cow for Planned Parenthood, and their sex education system keeps it well fed.

          • Karolyn

            Jay – Well, somebody’s doing something right because teen pregnancy is at a all-time low since they started tracking 70 years ago. We still have the highest rate, but it is getting better. Looks like that sex education is paying off!

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2011/02/teen_birth_decline_back_on_tra.html

          • Jay

            Closer to the truth Karolyn, it is abortions that are keeping the number of teen pregnancies down, not the use of contraception, or sex-education. If a teen becomes pregnant and has an abortion, only the abortion is added to the number of abortions, or to the number of abortions performed statistics. But, should the pregnant teen choose to carry to term, or gives birth, only then is the birth of the child considered to be the result of teen pregnancy, and recorded, or added, to the teen pregnancy statistics. This is nothing more then clever accounting, or bookkeeping. You lower the numbers of one, teen-pregnancies, considered a drain on tax-payers, by increasing the numbers of another, abortions, very lucrative, and much profit . Since an un-married, single, teen mother with no visible means of support is an economic drain on tax-payers, and certainly no economic profit could result from such, it is then reasonable to push, and encourage the need for abortion, which is extremely profitable, while at the same time can be used to lower the statistical numbers of teen pregnancies! Brilliant! This practice, of “robbing peter to lend to paul” is dishonest at best, and purposely misleading at worst, as we are dealing not, with numbers, or commodities, but, with human beings. Shame on the pro-choice!

          • Jay

            Karolyn: Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s services and is not federally funded. Few enough women are versed in contraception. Without Planned Parenthood, we’d be in even worse shape.

            AMBITIOUS PLANNED PARENTHOOD WEB-CAM ABORTION AFFILIATE PLANS TO OPEN 12 NEW CLINICS
            April 16th, 2011 scoggins

            By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life Director of Education & Research

            So how did one PPFA affiliate celebrate the national organization’s successful effort to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal government subsidies the largest abortion provider in the United States receives every year?

            By holding a ribbon cutting facility on a new abortion clinic in Omaha, Nebraska, of course, AND announcing plans to open 12 new clinics in the next five years, part of a $11.5 million capital campaign.

            So much for the claim that abortion is a “small” part of Planned Parenthood’s business.

            The affiliate making the announcement is Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH). With 25 clinics in Iowa and Nebraska, PPH has been in the news a lot lately. PPH is spearheading a major effort to develop and promote so-called “web-cam abortions” (using the abortifacient RU486) and gobbling up two neighboring PPFA affiliates, one that had not previously offered abortions, another which had only one abortion clinic . The idea is to fatten the financial bottom line by reaching “under-served” women in rural areas.

            PPH began offering web-cam abortions in 2008. Under the webcam system, an abortionist, maybe from a clinic in a large urban center, communicates with a woman at a remote location by means of a video conferencing system.

            After a brief screening and counseling session, he clicks a mouse and triggers the opening of a drawer from which the woman takes out the two drugs that make up the “RU-486″ chemical abortion regimen: mifepristone and misoprostol.

            By January of 2011 sixteen of the PPH’s clinics in Iowa were tied into the webcam system. As of that same date PPH says more than 2,000 women have received webcam abortions.

            Continued: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/04/ambitious-planned-parenthood-web-cam-abortion-affiliate-plans-to-open-12-new-clinics/

          • GregS

            Karolyn says:

            “Abortion is a small part of Planned Parenthood’s services and is not federally funded.”

            Not true! In addition to what Jay has said above, over one third of Planned Parenthood’s clinic-level income comes from abortions.

            Furthermore, ObummerCare is riddled with language, which mandates federal funding of abortions, and, since Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the galaxy, it will receive a huge chunk of that money.

      • Jeep

        You’re so right karolyn. And, since abortions are mainly performed for viable, but unwanted babies, maybe we can apply that standard everywhere. When my parents get old and are unwanted, should they be a burden on me? I think not! Will the govt pay to have them “transitioned”? After all, its just a choice, and who are you to tell me otherwise?

        • Robert Smith

          Looks to me like it is the extreme right who doesn’t want to take care of elders.

          Not an America I’d be proud of. We take care of our own. I thinik it’s sad to see so many who want to kill so many by denying them health care.

          Let ‘em die, I don’t want to spend the money is the rant from the right, not the left.

          Rob

          • eddie47d

            Jeep should be more concerned about the astronomical costs of retirement communities and nursing homes which only a select few can afford. I have long term care insurance and so does my mother but it is increasingly becoming out of reach for most. If I live another 25 years my plan will be obsolete and I can’t afford to up the premiums. Will Jeep allow me to die with dignity or will he prolong my death on the governments dime.

          • 45caliber

            Rob:

            Really? Then why is it that the libs were the ones to put the in section on committees to decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t? If I followed your rationale, I’d have suspected the right would have put it in. It goes along with your believe that the left is more generous – but they are only generous with someone else’s money. The conservatives are more generous with their own money according the charities.

          • Dan az

            Robert
            Its times like this that save me from writing a reply because you do so much for your cause I just couldn’t add to it. Thanks

        • Karolyn

          Why would your parents be unwanted? The only way you would have a say in their life or death is if they have a living will and want it that way. The only thing I can say about that subject is if they are done with this earth and want to leave, they should be able to. There is no correlation to abortion there. Actually, I wonder if it would be more cost-efficient for the government to assist with suicide.

          • 45caliber

            Karolyn, It would be more cost effective FOR THE GOVERNMENT to assist in suicides for the elderly. That’s why we are afraid they will want to assist – whether the elderly want them to or not. And because I’m rapidly becoming one of those elderly, I don’t want someone else to decide for me.

          • Karolyn

            Ain’t gonna happen.

          • hicusdicus

            My wife is footing the bill if you would like to contribute she would not argue.

        • hicusdicus

          I sure wish I could do that to my father in-law. He is now in a 6000.00$ a month vegetable storage program. The health care industry loves it.

          • Jay

            If only we didn’t have those pesky laws, hey hicusdicus?

      • Dan az

        (Death is just a transition for the spirit.)
        Your words karolyn What doe’s that mean to the baby that you want to kill?Yes kill some times with a knife in the whom to end it quickly before it has a chance to scream.Murder is murder know matter how you spin it.And agreeing with brother satan roberta mental midget dosen’t help your cause.

        • hicusdicus

          Whats wrong with murder? Its one of humans number one ways of getting what they want.

          • Song

            And I’m the “nutcase” hic? What a joke.

          • hicusdicus

            Yes you are correct song You are a nut case and a joke. Death can be a wonderful experience as long as you’re not the one experiencing it.

          • Jay

            hicusdicus says: Death can be a wonderful experience as long as you’re not the one experiencing it.

            No doubt that, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Charles Manson would all agree with you. Does the fact that you share a common philosophy with death/murder with the above mentioned, give you any pause for concern?

          • hicusdicus

            NO it does not and you left out Henry Lee Lucas.

          • Jay

            Hmm…

    • Song

      well said little ole me.

    • hicusdicus

      Do you really think anyone cares what you think! I am not being rude I am just asking.

  • just little ole me

    Let me clarify my first paragraph when I said, “Women many times thinks it means the man will stay around if they commit that bond but men don’t get attached as women do. So why take the chance in getting yourself hurt.” That refers to when they are not married. I made it only most sound as if I was talking about when married.

  • s c

    Until you ultraliberal progressives know what you’re talking about, you’re not entitled to have an opinion concerning retarded judges and where Planned Nonparenthood got their ideas. Galloping paranoia and enforced ignorance are polite ways to describe your utter lack of knowledge.
    For those who can stand the truth, Margaret Sanger got the support of Teddy Roosevelt and Hitler with her people-hating ideas about abortion (especially ethnic groups). Hitler used those ideas in WWII. Because our education system is so bad, many people don’t know squat about abortion icons and how they find stupid people to support those ideas.
    You ultraliberal types (and that half-assed judge) need to get on your knees each day and thank God (or your mother, if you had one) and be thankful that you weren’t ABORTED. How can we have so many STUPID people in America?
    You’d be more responsible – and almost human – if you could rise to the level of being seen as knuckle-dragging, feces-throwing apes that dwell in trees.

    • Karolyn

      If I had been aborted and I wanted to be born, I would have come back as somebody else! I believe in the spirit/soul never dieing and in reincarnation. Whether Margaret Sanger had championed abortion or not, it doesn’t matter. Abortion would exist with or without laws, Planned parenthood or anybody.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Karolyn, Karolyn,
        Put down the pot pipe dear, I think the goods are treated with a foreign substance!!!

        • Karolyn

          Joe, Joe, I have as much right to my beliefs as you do to yours. I respect yours and do not speak out against ANYBODY’s religion or beliefs.

          • 45caliber

            Karolyn:

            I read his note carefully; I don’t think he said anything against your religion unless your pot pipe is part of it. And even then he just stated that the goods might be contaminated. Is pot part of your religion??

          • Karolyn

            Surely you jest, 45. He facetiously responded to my post, ridiculing my beliefs.

          • hicusdicus

            A bowl of pot is the only real religion on this planet. Remember God created it. Probably because that is the only way he can put up with all the human nonsense.

      • hicusdicus

        So karolyn you are into the paranormal, may the force be with you.

      • http://gunner689 gunner689

        Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy to ?

    • Robert Smith

      sc says: “and be thankful that you weren’t ABORTED.”

      Screw that. If anyone had asked me I would have said, “ABORT NOW so I don’t have to go through and blindly obey all those rules from the religious nuts to get into heaven. Aborted, BINGO! A straight ticket to heaven. What’s so bad about that?

      Rob

      • 45caliber

        Could you get aborted now? I’m confused.

      • JimH

        Het Robbie, How about a retroactive abortion for you since your mom missed the oppertunity?
        Go to Oregon, they’ll assist you there.

      • Dan az

        Hey Robert
        Call the kevorkian man he can if you can’t. :)

      • hicusdicus

        Right on dude! straight to heaven no questions asked.

        • Jay

          That is absolutely correct, and it applies to any person(s) who die before the age of accountability, not just the un-born, or the aborted. Thumbs up on that one, Robert!

          • hicusdicus

            Jay, that sounds like catholic doctrine right out of the Popes mouth. More paranormal nonsense. When are you going to bring up purgatory?

      • Jay

        Robert says: “ABORT NOW so I don’t have to go through and blindly obey all those rules from the religious nuts to get into heaven.

        Absolutely correct, blindly obeying religious rules, or any rules, or laws, for that matter, will not secure your entry into heaven, in fact, the Bible is clear on that. However, we do not need to exercise abortion as a way to avoid obeying religious rules, or laws, rather, we should properly understand the purpose of religious rules, or laws, and that is for the purpose of societal stability, nothing more. A person does not have to be religious to say it’s wrong to murder a child, any more than they have to be religious to say it’s wrong to steal money.  Just because many pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs does not make abortion a religious issue.  Remember, the civil rights movement was often led by pastors and headquartered in churches, but that didn’t make civil rights a religious issue.    


        To say that abortion should be off limits to the law because most pro-life people are Christians, is as illogical as saying we should do away with laws against theft because one of the Ten Commandments is, “Thou shalt not steal.”  If we are going to start rejecting laws simply because they are supported by religion, given that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have to do away with all of our laws.  

        

As for the ovary issue, we pro-lifers are as indifferent to our opponents’ ovaries, as we are to their spleens, gall bladders, and tonsils.


        • hicusdicus

          Heaven, the main reason used to fill the collection plate. Which came first Jay, God or the collection plate?

    • hicusdicus

      Speaking of knuckle draggers: How are you doing this morning? Has it ever occurred to you to mind your own business and let other folks mind theirs. There is no such thing as intelligent design if there was you would not be here.

      • Jay

        hicusdicus says: There is no such thing as intelligent design if there was you would not be here.

        That’s very clever hicusdicus, and from a literary perspective, your wit, or your clever play on words, can certainly be appreciated. But to say , if there were “Intelligent Design” there would be no life on the planet, is to contradict your self. The fact is, there is life on the planet, and a planet, for that matter! So what do you really mean by your statement? That life on the planet is the result of non-intelligence, and, since life is the result of non-intelligence, therefore, there is no intelligence, no intelligent people, including yourself? Your statement, therefore, cannot be considered to be an intelligent statement!

        • hicusdicus

          Including myself! You got that one right. Actually I meant Karolyn not you and me. We are special at least I am I wear a helmet with a nose guard.

          • Jay

            LOL!

        • hicusdicus

          Hey Jay, roll this thought around your brain cavity. What if Obama’s mother had gotten an abortion? Would you chip in to help defray expenses?

  • Brian

    How is this law unconstitutional when nothing in the Constitution authorizes these payments to begin with?

  • 45caliber

    The judge stated that his decision was based on talk by various politicians prior to the new law in which several stated that they wanted to remove the money from Planned Parenthood. This “proved” to him that the law was to target PP even though it wasn’t mentioned in the law. Besides, he said, the state can’t prevent federal money from going to those Congress says it should go to.

  • leeddog

    Abortion should not be a political issue at all. It is a personal issue that each individual has to deal with by making a decision between themselves, their loved ones and their God. Validity will come on Judgement Day. If you truly believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility you have to agree with this. So-called Republicans who are anti-choice are hypocritical; the real Republican philosophy says the government has no business being involved with this. It’s up to those who oppose abortion to win hearts and minds through persuasion, which leads to concensus that then leads to legislation. Right now, there is NO such concensus; therefore, no legislation, no government involvement and no government funding of any kind.

    • GregS

      leeddog says:

      “Abortion should not be a political issue at all.”

      The U.S. Supreme Court made it a political issue in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.

      leeddog says:

      “Right now, there is…no government funding of any kind.”

      Not true! ObummerCare is riddled with language, which mandates federal funding of abortions.

    • Jay

      To say that government should let people make all of their own choices is neither practical nor desirable.

      We cannot let people make their own choices to rape, rob or drive drunk. We cannot let them make the choices to embezzle, defraud, write hot checks, drive their cars over the speed limit, slander other people, etc. By definition, the goal of every law is to deny someone the legal ability to choose a particular activity, and many prohibited choices could even be considered “personal.” For example, it is illegal to have sexual relations with a sibling, or a child, or an animal, or a dead body.

      As for abortion, it is not the government’s role to protect one individual’s choice to kill his fellow human beings. Given the biological fact that the unborn are living human beings, the question is not whether the government has the right to prohibit abortion, but whether it has the right not to.

      http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=2

      • Karolyn

        There will never be a consensus as to when a fetus becomes a human being, so it would appear that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned as long as objective people make the decisions. It would seem logical that if it cannot live on its own, it is not yet a viable human being, so a human life is not taken in an abortion.

        • Jay

          Viability is a phony issue. The Supreme Court made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and, today, abortion clinics across America routinely advertise elective abortions past the point where it is known that babies can survive on their own.

          We also know that viability is a function of medical technology and unrelated to the question of whether the unborn are living human beings or not. This is proven by the fact that premature babies are now routinely surviving at gestational ages that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago, despite the reality that unborn children are not biologically different than they’ve ever been.

          Finally, if the argument is that the unborn are not viable because they are dependent on others to survive, then a one-year-old baby is no more viable than an unborn baby. Neither can survive alone. That could also be said about people who are severely handicapped or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are senile, comatose, unconscious, or under general anesthesia. If the ability to survive without others is what creates the right to life, these people have no more right to life than the unborn.

          • James

            Jay, Read my above comment. Until the 14th Amendment is revised, the Supreme Court will not overrule Roe v. Wade.

          • GregS

            James, I disagree. Read my response to your above comment here.

        • GregS

          Karolyn says:

          “There will never be a consensus as to when a fetus becomes a human being…”

          Not true! The unborn child is a living human organism, starting at the moment of conception. Any medical textbook will tell you this.

          You are confusing this with “viability,” which is a SEPARATE issue altogether, and which Jay has explained above.

        • hicusdicus

          Karolyn, you are really putting me in a perplexed state. I have to agree with you on this one. Maybe I agree with you on all your views and just don’t know it. My wife says I am not right in the head.

        • Jay

          Karolyn says: There will never be a consensus as to when a fetus becomes a human being, so it would appear that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned as long as objective people make the decisions.

          The pro-choice position is that abortion should be legal on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. There has never been even one poll which showed majority support for that position. The most that can be said is that a majority of people may support abortion in the extremely rare “hard-case” situations. Since even abortion industry studies show that virtually no abortions are done for these reasons, it is clear that most Americans do not support the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.

          This “pro-choice majority” lie is nothing more than political spin and the abortion industry’s own actions prove it. Anyone who believes their viewpoint has majority support will steer their battles toward the legislatures where majorities rule. But the abortion lobby has spent over 30 years doing whatever it takes to keep abortion out of the legislatures and in the courts. Only people who know they can’t win in the legislatures would do that.

          Let’s also not forget that, in 1850, there was no consensus in America for outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote. There was also a time when consensus was that the earth is flat. In fact, world history is littered with examples where “consensus” simply meant that most of the fools were on one side. Moreover, if consensus is what should drive abortion policy, that’s one more reason to overturn Roe. In 1973, there certainly was no consensus for legalizing abortion on demand.

          • hicusdicus

            Lets also not forget that there was a time in mans history when there was no God, just a lot of scary things.

      • hicusdicus

        Jay, the solution to abortion is more girls with hot lips. Spit never got anybody pregnant and gay pride does not contribute to murdering unborn babies. Maybe if we all just went homo we could drop the whole subject.

    • Jay

      Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

      But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban.

      In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

      • Jay

        Obama reverses Bush’s ban on abortion funding abroad

        Last Updated: Friday, January 23, 2009 | 4:59 PM ET CBC News

        President Barack Obama speaks to reporters during his meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders Friday in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. (Charles Dharapak/Associated Press)
        U.S. President Barack Obama reversed a ban implemented by his predecessor, George W. Bush, on funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information about the procedures to women abroad, the White House said Friday.

        “For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House. “I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”

        He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.

        It is the latest in a series of tit-for-tat executive orders surrounding the contentious issue of abortion as Democratic and Republican presidents replaced each other over the past 28 years.

        The memorandum, which Obama signed late Friday afternoon without media fanfare, was immediately lauded by pro-choice groups. Anti-abortion advocates criticized the president for what they said was a betrayal of his campaign pledge to support policies that reduced the number of abortions.

        In one of his first acts as president in January 2001, Bush, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman’s life, ordered federal funding be cut off to international groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counselling or referrals about abortion.

        The ban is also known by critics as the “global gag rule,” because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.

        Pro-choice and women’s health groups argued the ban limited the reproductive rights of women in developing countries and increased the chances of women around the world dying from high-risk pregnancies because they lacked access to family planning.

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/01/23/obama-abortion.html

        • Jay

          Obama quote and voting history on abortion.

          No litmus test; nominate to Court based on their fairness. (Oct 2008)

          1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother. (Aug 2008)

          FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush. (Aug 2008)

          1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion. (Aug 2008)

          Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions. (Aug 2008)

          Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)

          We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)

          Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)

          Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)

          GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)

          Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)

          Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

          Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

          Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)

          Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

          Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)

          Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)

          Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)

          Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)

          Protect a woman’s right to choose. (May 2004)

          Voting Record

          Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)

          Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)

          Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

          Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

          Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

          Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

          Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

          Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

          Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

          Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

          • hicusdicus

            When the US files bankruptcy and finally sinks to the status of a third world nation all this will be forgotten.

          • Jay

            True enough!

      • hicusdicus

        I hope we all know by now that Obama said what the masses wanted to hear so they would vote for him. Why refer to anything he said it is meaningless.

  • Jay

    The issue is who decides, the woman or the state. It’s about freedom of choice.

    The abortion lobby has always realized that abortion itself is indefensible. This has forced them to argue that whether abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human being or not, is unrelated to the question of whether it should be legal. In short, they have to divert attention toward the philosophical concepts of “choice” and “who decides” because they can’t afford for the public to look at what’s being chosen and decided.

    To imply that the issue is not abortion, but choice, is to say that what’s being chosen is irrelevant. That is clearly illogical given that all choices are not equal. Choosing whether to buy a new car is vastly different than choosing whether to produce child pornography, and the morality of those choices is not affected by the eventual decision. However, the pro-choice position is that abortion becomes acceptable simply by the act of choosing to do it.

    Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy. During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln- Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”

    Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice position in America today. Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ pro-choice position on slavery was, “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

    Lincoln recognized that there is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of choice, and that there are choices which a society cannot allow the individual to make.

    The fact is, before one can rightly claim that the issue is “choice” or “who decides,” he or she must first examine what’s being chosen. If it’s what color shoes to wear, that’s one thing; if it’s whether to kill another human being, that’s another. Except in self-defense, the decision about whether one human being can kill another one cannot be left up to the individual who wants to do the killing.

    Besides, this “who decides, the woman or the state” rhetoric is idiotic on its face. Laws against abortion would not let the state decide who gets abortions any more than laws against rape let the state decide who gets raped. Instead, they establish that certain behaviors are so unacceptable they must be illegal.

    Finally, as used by abortion advocates, the term “pro-choice” is both inaccurate and dishonest. In an abortion, at least three people are directly impacted: the mother, the father, and the child. The pro-choice argument is that only one is entitled to a choice. Additionally, it has never been a part of their agenda to protect any choice other than abortion. They don’t lobby for women to have the legal right to be prostitutes or use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, deny women “the right to choose” just as much as laws preventing abortion would.

    http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=1

    • Dan az

      Damn jay there you go again ;)

    • hicusdicus

      If certain behaviors are so unacceptable that they must be illegal how come we still have Obama?

      • Jay

        If certain behaviors are so unacceptable that they must be illegal how come we still have Obama?

        Because, people in high places who have been given the responsibility to uphold the law, to defend liberty, justice, and freedom, do not uphold the law, nor do they care to protect the rights of people for which the laws were written. In fact, they have changed the law to suit their nefarious purposes! Hence, Obama!

        • hicusdicus

          Hence, when people get to high places they stay high and forget their duties to us lower life forms.

          • Jay

            True enough! And, as Thomas Jefferson rightly stated; Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. As to your statement, referring to people as lower life-forms, surely you must be aware by now that the “Copernicus Principle” saturates, and dominates your view, and the value you place on human life!

          • hicusdicus

            I thought the value placed on human life was how little you can pay it to work 18 hour shifts.

  • http://aol gwen

    Are you kidding ?this is nuts.since when is this constitutional?

  • Jay

    The Consequences of Roe v. Wade

    53,310,843 Total abortions since 1973.

    • Dan az

      Jay
      I would call that genocide how sad! :(

      • hicusdicus

        I would call it less people on Obama care.

        • Jay

          Or, rather then apply all our energy, time, and efforts on eradicating abortion, we could apply same said resources to eradicating obama-care!

          • hicusdicus

            Obama care actually means no care but you won’t know it.

          • Jay

            I think what is meant by obama-care, is that obama will take care of obama!

    • hicusdicus

      That is all since 1973. Somebody needs to get cracking.

  • Public Citizen

    How about the good people of Kansas take the additional money for Planned Parenthood out of the budget for maintaining the infrastructure that keeps the Federal Courthouse open?
    No more street repairs, streetlight replacement, water and sewer repairs.
    Delay, demur, and deny any building permits for repairs or new construction on all Federal Buildings in the State of Kansas. When the Judge has to go to work in a stinking hell hole with no running water, intermittent electrical power, and a bomb cratered street from all the unrepaired pot holes maybe a little common sense will start to penetrate.
    Take the program to the next level and apply it to their personal residences too.

  • Jay

    Any rational human being considers that possibility regarding any position they take. However, this question is better suited for the pro-choice crowd. If the pro-life movement is wrong, then we are guilty of trying to deny women a constitutional right. But if the pro-choice side is wrong, then they are directly responsible for the mass murder of innocent children. So the question is, would it be better to be pro-life and wrong or pro-choice and wrong?

    • Karolyn

      Whatever the choice, it is right in that person’s mind. You are not the judge.

      • GregS

        So why don’t we just do away with ALL of our laws and leave it up to all people to decide what is right and what is wrong in their own minds???

        • Karolyn

          Don’t get me started on that! :-)

          • Jay

            Is that your way of admitting that you would rather not engage in the debate for the eradication of all laws as you would not, and could not, offer a reasonable argument to support such an endeavour?

        • hicusdicus

          Now thats a good idea.

          • GregS

            It appears that both you and Karolyn are anarchists.

          • hicusdicus

            I is! How did you ever arrive at that?

      • Jay

        The pro-life movement has never suggested that women should be required to have children. However, it is a biological fact that when a woman is pregnant she already has a child. Our argument is that this child should not be butchered.

        • hicusdicus

          Jay I don’t care what your argument is. The bottom line is that it is none of your business. Sticking your nose in other peoples personal affairs can get it cut off and start wars.

          • GregS

            hicusdicus, you’ve missed the point. NO ONE is “sticking [his/her] nose in other peoples personal affairs.” It’s a well-known fact that the “pro-choice” crowd tries to frame the abortion issue this way, but the fact is ALL laws concerning abortion are directed against the abortionist, NOT the woman. There has NEVER been a law that punished women for having abortions.

      • hicusdicus

        Karolyn, would you please stop making those kinds of comments I am really beginning to like you.

  • Jay

    I don’t want to pay for all the social problems created by unwanted children.

    The pro-choice crowd has had over 30 years to weed out all the “unwanted people,” and no one can argue that they’ve been stingy in carrying out the death sentences. So far, they’ve butchered between 45 and 50 million babies and they continue to kill them at the rate of over 3,000 a day. Meanwhile, we are asked to ignore the fact that, since this holocaust began, America has suffered huge increases in teen pregnancy, homelessness, hunger, welfare, divorce, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, deadbeat dads, gangs, illegal drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, high school drop outs, and the list goes on and on.

    The fact is, every single social problem which the pro-choice mob says will get worse if we make abortion illegal, actually became worse after we made abortion legal. Beyond that, the financial burden of these social problems is overwhelming. Any way you cut it, the American taxpayer is subsidizing the abortion industry.

    However, let’s say for a moment that instead of getting worse our social problems had been helped by killing babies. Would that justify it? Do we really want to be the kind of country that uses child sacrifice as a tool of social engineering? Is the wholesale slaughter of innocent and defenseless people justified if it solves our problems? And if that is going to be our attitude, why kill the unborn? They are the one category of human beings who had nothing to do with creating these problems and whose death would not solve them.

    The bottom line is, as a solution to social problems, abortion is ineffective and morally indefensible. It is also the ultimate example of selfishness. For proof, notice that no one ever volunteers to give their own life to solve social problems, they only insist that others do so.

    http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=68

    • hicusdicus

      Really! I did not know that. I don’t think to many others do either.

  • Jay

    Millions of children are already starving.

    Of the more than 3,000 American children slaughtered every day by abortion, the percentage who would have lived in hunger is tiny and the number who would have one day starved to death is, for all practical purposes, zero. The children who are starving in this world live almost exclusively in third-world nations with corrupt political regimes who sometimes starve their people on purpose, and in countries with inefficient farming techniques and poor food distribution systems. We could kill every unborn child in America for the next 50 years and it would not solve any of those problems or provide a single bite of food for even one starving child.

    Besides, if bloodshed is the solution to hunger, it doesn’t make sense to kill the unborn. We should be killing adults since they eat more. We could save even more food by establishing a pre-set age at which we have determined that the elderly take more calories out of the food chain than the amount of good they do for society. When someone reaches that age, we would simply “put them down” and take the food they would have eaten for ourselves. Given that abortion clinics are already set-up for this sort of thing, expanding their services to include the elderly would be easy and highly profitable. The government might even be willing to kick in a few tax dollars since killing these folks would be considerably cheaper than keeping them on Medicare and Social Security.

    http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=66

    • hicusdicus

      So does this mean we don’t have a corrupt political regime?

      • Jay

        No, it just means that abortion will not eradicate corruption, or a corrupted political regime, or crime, or war, to infinitum…In fact, how could abortion eradicate corruption, or crime for that matter, being that abortion is a corrupted, criminal act?

        • hicusdicus

          That is your opinion. Apparently at least 53 million people have disagreed with you. By the way I am a stanch subscriber to skeptic magazine. I agree with most everything Shermer and his cohorts say and know that man needs spirituality in his life to survive. My own need for the paranormal has just burned out and I don’t miss it. Maybe I am just a latent serial killer. I think you have already suggested this.

  • Jay

    What about overpopulation?

    It is debatable whether overpopulation is a problem or not. Some recent data suggests that a bigger problem is declining birth rates which do not even replenish existing populations. However, if overpopulation is a problem, why limit our options to killing the unborn? It would be easy to put a legal limit on life at the other end as well, and enforce it through mandatory euthanasia at a pre-determined age. At the very least, we should immediately outlaw any medical research that’s intended to extend life. After all, if overpopulation really is a problem, it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars every year looking for ways to make people live longer.

    In fact, whether it’s prohibitions on research or mandatory euthanasia, bumping off the elderly makes more sense than killing the unborn. The elderly use up more of our resources and they put a tremendous strain on our health care system. With our population growing older, and the baby boomers starting to retire, this plan could be exactly what we need to save Medicare and Social Security.

    http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=67

    • hicusdicus

      Jay, now that is an idea worth looking into. Is over population a problem? Don’t ever ask some one standing in line at the DMV.

      • Jay

        If standing in line is a problem, one could just as easily move to the country!

        • hicusdicus

          I already live in the country with my own 5 acre lake full of fish which I detest. I don’t kill animals and I collect stray dogs and cats and what ever needs feeding. I also think that most people are not worth the cost of the bullet it would take to put them out of their misery. That putting down the elderly sounds like a good idea until you is one of the elderly.

  • Jay

    Doctors don’t do abortions for the money. Abortions are about $300 but a doctor can make thousands for a delivery.

    First, only the earliest abortions can be bought for $300. Later ones can reach $5,000 to $10,000. But even if an abortionist only kills the youngest babies, it doesn’t require a degree in economics to figure out that $300 for ten minutes work is more than $5,000 for nine months work.

    Second, when you look at the history of most abortionists, what you find is that they are not only moral degenerates, but also the washouts and losers of medicine. When a person’s medical career has deteriorated to the point of working at an abortion clinic, the choice he or she has is not between doing abortions or delivering babies, but between doing abortions or being out of work. The fact is, without the abortion business, these people would be washing BMWs, not driving them.

    http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=89

    • hicusdicus

      I think I would rather do abortions than give proctology exam’s

      • Jay

        Between the two you mentioned, I would prefer delivering babies!

        • hicusdicus

          Jay,I bet you would. The thing I like most about doctoring is that I am not one. Even if I did have the qualifications my bedside manner would disqualify me. My main prescription would be cyanide pills. Take two upon awakening. It would leave me plenty of time to play golf and chit chat on the internet.

          • Jay

            Jay,I bet you would. The thing I like most about doctoring is that I am not one.

            Yes, yes I would! In fact, i think witnessing the birth of a human being is one of the most exhilarating, and awe inspiring experience a person can have, and so much more , for the mother, i would think! Ask any mother, who opted to giving birth, rather than abort their child!

            hicusdicus: Even if I did have the qualifications my bedside manner would disqualify me.

            That’s actually a good thing, hicusdicus. Unlike you, most people are not aware of their limitations, much less aware of their bed-side manners. Kudos!

            hicusdicus: My main prescription would be cyanide pills. Take two upon awakening.

            Ah yes, and again, those darn pesky laws. If only. But be of good cheer, as the saying goes; Bad things come to those who wait, and are patient!

            hicusdicus:It would leave me plenty of time to play golf and chit chat on the internet.

            For sure, time management skills, very important these days!

          • hicusdicus

            That thing about witnessing the birth of a human baby I have already been told by my cousin whom I lived with for a short time. He had an IQ of 190 and was a practicing physician by age 21 but could never get it together.. I have always thought that witnessing any thing give birth to a new life was magical and awe inspiring. I think that killing anything is a travesty against nature unless it threatens your existence Everything has a right to life. Now you have proof of everything you have said about me.

  • Jay

    I’ve known several women who had abortions and they didn’t regret it at all.

    Adolf Eichmann went to his execution saying he did not regret his participation in the Nazi holocaust. That does not make what he did defensible. Lack of regret relates to the conscience of the person acting, not to the rightness of the act. If some pervert sexually assaults his neighbor’s five-year-old daughter, whether he regrets it or not is irrelevant.

    Now if we really want to see what role regret plays in the abortion issue, let’s survey women who dealt with unplanned pregnancies in their past. Let’s ask those who aborted if they now wish that they had given birth, and ask those who gave birth if they now wish they had aborted. What we will find is that for every woman who says she regrets giving life to her child, thousands will say they regret killing theirs. That explains why there are now literally thousands of support groups across America to help women overcome the emotional train wreck of abortion, but no one has found it necessary to start even one support group to help women deal with the emotional toll of letting their children live.

    The fact is, after more than 30 years of legal abortion, if there is one thing we know for certain, it is that regrets about an abortion decision are only experienced by women who have them – not by those who don’t.

    http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=91

  • simian pete

    The US governments position is support for Eugenics. Women who opt for abortion are not genetically fit to reproduce. Why ? A woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy has a serious genetic mutation and is mentally ill. To allow such a woman to reproduce forcibly will keep introducing these mutations into the human gene pool. Women who have abortions usually are a burden to society and should be either 1) sterilized or 2)Euthanized…
    Their is more to the governments position ….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

    Wikipedia sanitizes alot of the argument to make it paltable to the American voter … just remember, bad genes cause a burden $$$ on society.

    So the bottom line is – Women who have abortions are genetic FREAKS !!!

    I’m personally against abortion and think it should be outlawed. Human rights should be extended from birth to conception. The science of this 21st century is almost adequately advance enough for us to correct these genetic defects …

    The question to be answered is “What mutated gene(s) are causing a woman to want to abort her child ?” . Once the genetic code is found science can resequence , preferably in utero, the baby’s mutation it has inherited from it’s mother…..

    • hicusdicus

      simian pete, you have just been awarded the Nobel nut case award.

  • Jay

    ST. PAUL — Planned Parenthood aborted more unborn babies than ever in 2010 even though the total number of abortions dropped more than seven percent to 11,505, according to the latest Abortion Report issued today by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The surge continues a trend of Planned Parenthood performing more abortions, regardless of whether the annual total rises or falls.

    Planned Parenthood increased its abortions by a stunning 64 percent from 2000 to 2010, while total abortions dropped more than 22 percent over the same period. Planned Parenthood now performs 35 percent of all abortions in the state—its highest percentage ever. It was the only provider to perform more abortions in 2010 over the previous year.

    “Planned Parenthood officials need to stop claiming they want to reduce abortions in Minnesota, because the statistics don’t lie,” said Scott Fischbach, Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL). “With its massive new abortion clinic under construction in St. Paul, which will be the nation’s third largest, Planned Parenthood is poised to further expand its already bloated business of killing the unborn in record numbers.”

    The 2010 Abortion Report shows the lowest rate of abortions since 1974. Abortions performed on minor girls fell 16.8 percent to 482, the lowest number on record (statistics for minors go back to 1975) and down to 4 percent of all abortions. Minor abortions peaked at 2,327 in 1980. Minnesota’s effective 1981 parental notification law continues to bring together parents and their pregnant minor daughters to make life-affirming decisions.

    More women are being hurt by abortion. Complications such as a perforated uterus and incomplete abortion nearly doubled, rising to 164 in 2010.

    There were other increases last year. Chemical abortions using the dangerous and sometimes lethal RU486 drug combination rose to 20.7 percent of all abortions, continuing a steady increase. Taxpayer-funded abortions increased to 33.8 percent of all abortions—the highest percentage since the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that taxpayers must pay for elective abortions. Self-funded abortions are at their lowest level since reporting began in 1998.

    The total number of reported abortions performed in Minnesota since 1973 is 567,155.

    http://prolifemn.blogspot.com/2011/07/planned-parenthood-performs-record.html

    • Dan az

      Jay Thanks for the link very disturbing.

  • Dan az

    People This is a genocide of generations of Americans that will now limit our numbers that can never be regained.This is how the muslims claim that they will inherit the world with an 8 to 1 child birth.This law is one of those that will destroy this nation from with in by way of genocide.
    The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
    53,310,843 Total abortions since 1973.This is not Planned parenthood this is Genocide plain a simple.

  • Jay

    When a woman miscarries, did God do an abortion on her?

    If a man dies of a heart attack, from a moral perspective that is quite different than if he had been shot to death by a carjacker. That distinction also exists between a miscarriage and an induced abortion. There are many things which God is allowed to do that man is not allowed to do. The refusal to accept that reality is the basis of the pro-choice mentality.

    • hicusdicus

      Come on Jay which GOD? there are so many it gets confusing.

      • Jay

        Perhaps you should ask Karolyn, she seems to be the expert on death, religion, and God.

        • hicusdicus

          I personally am an expert on being irritating and annoying I also am close to getting my official Hillbilly certification. My last merit badge was for acquiring a hillbilly porch dog.

          • Jay

            I don’t think you are either irritating, or annoying. What you are, as far as i’m concerned, cannot be defined! However, i do think you have sufficient awareness to determine that for yourself!

          • hicusdicus

            In a few years it really won’t matter.

          • Jay

            Maybe, maybe not. In either case, you will find out, or not!

  • Jay

    Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist
    BERNARD NATHANSON

    Dr. Bernard Nathanson details the deceptions, dirty tricks, and other tactics that helped make abortion legal and socially acceptable in the United States.

    Dr. Bernard Nathanson was co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — NARAL — later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League. He was also the former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, then the largest abortion clinic in the world. In the late 1970’s he turned against abortion to become a prominent pro-life advocate, authoring Abortion America and producing the powerfully revealing video, The Silent Scream. Dr. Nathanson is currently Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at New York Medical College and a visiting scholar at Vanderbilt University.

    I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth.
    How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

    The First Key Tactic was to capture the media

    We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

    We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying cfrom illegal abortions was around 200 – 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

    The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card

    We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.

    The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception

    I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a perinatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

    Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

    As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0005.html

    • hicusdicus

      My wife and what used to be her father are both scientists. What kind of a scientist are you? The most scientific thing I ever do is extract my foot from my mouth with out losing a toe.

      • Jay

        Spoken like a true scientist, hicusdicus!

  • just little ole me

    For those who say God performs abortions, yes he does. One difference though between God and us. HE KNOWS ALL. He knows when that persons progression in life is done. We can’t see all and therefore we can not make such a judgement. He created us and he takes us all from here at some point. God does it with love. We do it with hate and ignorance. We don’t have that right. When I say we please realize I am just generalizing and not pointing fingers at everyone.

    • hicusdicus

      That sure is nice thought but if God really knew all we would not be here.

      • Jay

        Actually, its because God knows all, and is merciful, is the reason why we are still here!

        • hicusdicus

          OK! I will go along with that line of thought since it is something that we will never know. If we ever do find out it most likely will not be an acceptable answer for most people.

          • Jay

            Actually hicusdicus, you may find this statement to be somewhat unusual, but I say it with sincerity. I admire, even the staunchest critics of religion, and all who are skeptical of anything existing outside of the sphere of science, or what cannot be scientifically proven. However, since science cannot prove, or disprove of such matters, one way or the other, science then, must refrain from either confirming, or dismissing the possibility that there might be something, or not, outside the ability of science to confirm! I believe for the most part, doubt and scepticism, may restrain, in part, the madness and craziness that would ensue, should healthy criticism, and scepticism ever be suspended! I thought you’d get a kick out of that…

          • hicusdicus

            After spending a few years studying under the Jesuits and Dominicans and a year in a monastery I lost all interest in religion. I have no problem with other peoples paranormal beliefs unless it entails removing my head if I don’t follow their ways.

        • James

          Jay, I agree with your reasoning, but until the 14th Amendment is revised (see my above suggestion) Roe v. Wade will not be overruled.

          • GregS

            James, I don’t agree. See my response to your above suggestion here.

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    If mothers would only teach their daughters not to spread their legs for every low-life they run into abortion would mostly go away. If “No” is not the accepted answer then it’s rape. I also believe that abortion should be followed by sterilization.

    • hicusdicus

      How about including castration. Having second thoughts now?

    • Karolyn

      There you go – blaming it on the girls. If this were not such a male-dominated society, and men were taught self-control and keeping it in their pants, that maleness need not be demonstrated by conquest, there would be less pregnancies.

      • libertytrain

        No Kidding Karolyn, if father’s would just teach their boys to keep it in their pants….. :) it’s always the girls fault!

      • http://gunner689 gunner689

        If the girl says “NO” and sex happens anyway, it’s rape and should be treated as such. Girls always have had the power to control and stop the relationship or action. The problem is that modern culture has taken away that power. And yes castration should be the punishment for overt rape and child molestation.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.