January 2005

A few days after the Democrats’ November defeat, Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings suggested that the party needed a "come to Jesus" moment.

His colleagues seem to have taken him literally. Former Indiana Representative Tim Roemer, who is running for chairman of the Democratic Party, could be heard arguing that "Jesus talks more about the concern for the poor" than he talks about gays and abortions." [Source]

So this is who the Democrat’s tout as being pro-life. Somebody who can not properly order the preferential treatment of the poor with abortion. I guess it is no surprise that politician are not apt theologians, but to use the argument of what Jesus mentions in the Gospels as how to order a legislative agenda shows a deep misunderstanding. To go by this standard they would have to drop incest, rape, minimum wage laws since they didn’t warrant Gospel mentions either. If Roemer does become DNC chair it will probably be much like pro-life Harry Reid whose first act as Minority leader was to rip Justice Thomas, one of the few pro-life judges on the court.

Gloria Feldt has resigned from Planned Parenthood and Moloch submits his resume.

From Kathy Jean. Lopez at the Corner.

Of course, the abortion lobby shouldn’t be worried about their gal Hill. In the NYTimes piece today, for instance, there is this: "In response, two of Mrs. Clinton’s aides qualified her support for parental notification laws, saying she preferred an approach like New York’s, which does not require minors seeking abortions to tell their parents, but does provide them with information about their medical options. "

So she supports parental notification as long as it does not involve parental notification?

Wow this sounds a lot like Kerry’s statement on support for funding the war. I voted for parental notification before I voted against it.

The was a "clarification" by staffers because some pro-abortion types were concerned about what Hillary said

"I think so," Mrs. Clinton said. "I’m only speaking for myself. This is what I have advocated and believed for a very long time." She added, "I supported parental notification with a judicial bypass," referring to legal exceptions in which a judge gives a minor permission to get an abortion without informing her parents.

JoAnn M. Smith, president of Family Planning Advocates, said yesterday that she called Mrs. Clinton’s staff members after the senator’s remarks because some people within her organization were concerned. She asserted, however, that it was not a widespread feeling within her group.

Then there was this rant against parental notification.

"Parental notification is something that we are particularly concerned about in New York State," said Carla M. Goldstein, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of New York City, which works with and helps finance Family Planning Advocates. "Reporters and the general public really need to understand the dangers of parental notification. Judicial bypass can end up creating a much later-stage pregnancy."

Parents becoming aware that their child is seeking a surgery that will result in the death of their grandchild and can lead to physical and psychological complications for their daughter is so very dangerous to them. Dangerous that is to their bottom line of providing abortions. Notice also by mentioning judicial bypass they are assuming the cases where the parents would object. What an amazing society that we live in when people can openly support keeping the parents in the dark. That to circumvent parental authority is not seen as problematic in the least. Many others have mentioned the incongruities where a public school can’t give a child an aspirin for a headache and yet have no problems with packing them off for abortions.

Some abortion rights advocates expressed other concerns yesterday. Barbara de Leeuw, a Family Planning Advocates board member, praised Mrs. Clinton’s speech overall but said she was "a little disappointed" that the senator did not speak more about "abstinence plus," a term for sexual education programs that provide both abstinence counseling and health-conscious advice for sexually active people.

Abstinence plus? I haven’t heard that one before, but I am not surprised that they are working at ways to undermine what abstinence education programs there are. Maybe I will come up with a new program I can sell to the government called DARE Plus. Along with the drug abstinence program I would also promote health conscious advice for chemically promiscuous students. Hey don’t do drugs but if you do here are some nice clean needles and some chemical kits to ensure the quality of what you are buying. Teach kids to make safer drug deals and to plan ahead to escape safely if it goes bad. DARE Plus can even get a new mascot like perhaps a Lion with white powder dripping from his nose or visible needle tracks.

The Fact Is is reporting that the infamous Francis Kissling who is the president of Catholics for A Free Choice
is endorsing Sen. Brownback’s "The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act” (S.51)"
.

The purpose of the bill is to alleviate the pain of the unborn child, which is severe, and very obviously to focus the mother’s and the public’s attention on fetal pain. We truly hope that Kissling’s seeming endorsement is a positive step and not just a cynical ploy.

I have prayed each day for years for God’s blessings upon Frances and her colleagues. I have said for years that Frances Kissling would make a wonderful spokesman for the Church if only she came to accept all Church teachings. We should all pray that she comes to accept the Church and all of her teachings. Maybe this is a step.

I join with them in his hope but my inner cynic is deeply suspicious. Kissling writes:

It is hard to understand why the senator, who is opposed to legal abortion except in the most extreme circumstances, is introducing legislation that will result in anti abortion terms in tacit cooperation with an “evil” act (abortion). We thus have some concern that the bill is not a genuine attempt to alleviate fetal suffering.

The bill’s sponsors Sen. Brownback and Rep. Chris Smith are not hiding the fact that they want to move towards protecting all the unborn from abortion but in the meantime efforts like this serve the dual purpose of informing mothers of the pain that will be incurred on their child and to alleviate the pain of the child if she goes through with the abortion.

Smith called the measure a "very modest effort." He said he looks forward to a day when the unborn are protected by the law, but in the meantime, "Shame on us if we do not take immediate measures to relieve the pain" of babies who are aborted.

Abortion clinics are "not only killing mills, but they are torture chambers," Smith said. [Source]

In her statement the word "unborn child" only appears in the name of the bill and out of necessity the word fetus is used throughout. Kissling continues:

Nonetheless, Catholics for a Free Choice’s principles in regard to abortion include both respect for a woman’s right to choose abortion and a commitment to treating fetuses with respect. We support existing regulations regarding scientific experiments that codify that respect for human tissue, embryos, fetuses and human persons. And so we will take the senator at his word that his intention in this bill is not to ban abortion or frighten women, but to show compassion for the fetus.

"that codify that respect for human tissue, embryos, fetuses and human persons" This is the same old semantic game where in each category they are actually talking about a human person and try to treat them as something different. She then goes on with her objections to the bill.

We are not absolutely opposed to some form of legislation on this matter and we urge Senator Brownback to amend his legislation so that it might truly show respect for fetuses, women and health professionals. Among our suggestions are:

1. A provision for payment of the costs associated with administering fetal anesthesia. The senator must understand that if such funds are not made available, the chances that a woman can afford this service are slim. Fetuses will not receive anesthesia if the senator does not fund the service.
2. The elimination of a mandated speech to be read by doctors. Every woman is a unique person, different from every other. She should be approached by doctors and other health professionals in a compassionate manner, at a time that is conducive to her receiving information and in words attuned to her level of insight, interest and knowledge. Additionally, the senator’s requirement for intrusive forms of written acknowledgment needs modification. Written informed consent is important but also requires careful crafting.

So in effect she wants the government (meaning us) to pay the costs of a unborn child a anesthesiologist in which she knows will not happen. She is also against a mandated speech given to all women. Again she knows without a prepared statement that doctors will fudge the details. Can we really expect a doctor who is willing to be an abortionist tell the customer the details of child development and their feeling of pain? So looking at her opposition it shows that her support for the bill that will be passed is not real. Her support for a bill of this type would have to be as toothless as an octagerian with severe gum disease.

There are currently a small number of Fetal Anesthesiologists but those who are trained in this field are working toward diagnoses and treatment of children in the womb and not as executioner assistants. Though historically there have always been those who provided some form of anesthesia to those being executed. Jesus was offered myrrh for anesthesia, though he refused it. In this case though it would most likely be the abortion doctor and not a trained anesthesiologist who would administer it. It is bad enough that we have the corruption of the medical field with abortion doctors and we don’t want any more trained professional in this horrible field.

By the way, "The Thing Is" is a very good blog and online magazine covering news and opinion on social policy.