Safe

Pro-abortion folks like to say that they want abortions to be safe (for the mother, anyway). "Safe" abortions in "safe" abortion facilities: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Especially in light of Kermit Gosnell, or Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt.

Two Day, Two Decisions

The Supreme Court of the United States has made (or sustained) two anti-life decision in the last two days. The more widely publicized decision was declared on Monday, striking down the Texas laws placing restrictions of abortion mills in the state. That law would have closed most (though not all) of the mills in the state--though it would not have prevented new mills from opening which met the restriction in the law.

The second decision was made on Tuesday, and was in fact a decision to decline to hear a case. This was a case which also have direct bearing on the rights of conscience, which are at least hypothetically protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution (a document for which the Left has had no use in general of late). This is a case whose decision should have been obvious from the get-go. The State of Washington insists that all pharmacies must be made to dispense (abortifacent) morning-after and week after "contraceptive" pills; some pharmacists--and indeed, some entire pharmacies--have declined to do so, because it violates their consciences to do so. This is a religious liberty issue to the extent that many of these consciences are religiously formed. The teaching of, for example, the Catholic Church in this matter is pretty clear, especially with regard to week-after pills after which fertilization has almost certainly occurred if their is to be a pregnancy at all.

In this case, the Court did not impose a new law by judicial fiat, but rather refused to hear a case which has been wrongly decided (by the always suspect Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). There were three dissenters form this refusal: justices Alito, Thomas, and Roberts (the only three remotely objective justices left on the court). They wrote:

This case is an ominous sign. At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern…. Ralph’s has raised more than ‘slight suspicion’ that the rules challenged here reflect antipathy toward religious beliefs that do not accord with the views of those holding the levers of government power. I would grant certiorari to ensure that Washington’s novel and concededly unnecessary burden on religious objectors does not trample on fundamental rights.”

Also worth noting are the background to this case and the circumstances under which the law was passed:

Margo Thelen, Rhonda Mesler, and the Stormans family have worked in the pharmacy profession for over seventy years. When a customer requests an abortion-inducing drug, they refer the customer to one of over thirty pharmacies within five miles that willingly sell the drugs. For decades, this has been standard pharmacy practice, has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, and has been legal in all 50 states.

But in 2007, Washington adopted a new law making referrals for reasons of conscience illegal. The law was passed in a cloud of controversy, with then-Governor Christine Gregoire threatening to terminate the State Pharmacy Commission and replacing Commission members with new ones recommended by abortion-rights activists. The law leaves pharmacies free to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of reasons related to business, economics, and convenience—but not for reasons of conscience. Because of the law, Margo Thelen lost her job, Rhonda Mesler was threatened with losing hers, and the Stormans family faces the loss of its pharmacy license.

The burning times continue apace.

Unfettered Access

Unfettered access to murder: that seems to be what the Left in general, and their puppets on the Supreme Court of the United States in particular--are pushing for.

Meanwhile, across the pond, Britain has voted for the right thing, and Brexit won in referendum. People in Texas have again begun with the "Texit" talk--what we need is not so much a Texit (which would be especially bad news for every other red state) as a more limited federal government in general, and this includes the courts.

Throw in a roaming capital (rather than one anchored in and thus perpetually diverting the nation's wealth to Washington D.C.) for good measure. It would be a nice change for state and local laws to actually matter, and for decisions to be made more locally and by people who will have to live with these decisions rather than by presidential or judicial (or bureaucratic) fiat.

Dear Bill Nye

I was originally going to write a longer sequel to my previous post, "Dear Lawrence Krauss." It was going to be a bit longer than the original, because I can only do so many terse and dismissive posts in one week. However, it looks like Robert George and Patrick Lee have already written something which is more worthwhile than what I was going to write.

I'm a bit sick of seeing celebrity scientists of all stripes prostituting the field out to various bad ideologies. They only wreck the endeavor of science as a means of increasing knowledge and understanding--and with it awe and wonder--in the process. Indeed, they are subverting what may be the most important qualities of a true scientist: humility and reverence.

CMP's Editing

The Alliance Defending Freedom has a post about the "editing" of CMP's videos. Are the videos edited? Yes. Lots of stuff is cut from them. But "editing" is not the same as "doctoring". You can cut a lot of material without changing the meaning of the video. Editing is what CMP has done. Doctoring is what Planned Parenthood does with its abortion services statistics (though not to its patients).

Jindal vs Planned Parenthood

I don't think that Governor Bobby Jindal will be the Republican nominee, nor that he will likely win election for president if he is. But this has certainly made him move up a few notches in my book:

Louisiana governor and GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal will counter pro-Planned Parenthood protests today with a protest of his own -- in the form of a continuous video loop of the seven undercover videos showing illegal abortions and fetal harvesting by Planned Parenthood clinics.

The videos, some of which include graphic footage of abortion workers sorting through the dismembered arms, legs and other body parts of aborted babies as old as 20-weeks gestation, will show on an outdoor movie theater outside the Louisiana governor's mansion....

Jindal, who was one of the first governors to pull funding of the abortion giant, said in a statement earlier today that, "Planned Parenthood has a right to protest...but Governor Jindal’s office will ensure that anyone who shows up will have to witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting."

Give props where they are due. They are definitely due here.

Update: To no one's surprise, a) the protest was paltry, and b) the protesters refused to watch the videos. Reality isn't their strong suit.

What's the Difference Between Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnell

What's the difference between notorious abortionist (and criminal) Kermit Gosnel and Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion committer? Well, Gosnell was caught red-handed a few years back, and ultimately lacked the resources to keep the story buried. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, is a giant in the industry, and thus will be radically protected at every step of the way. They've now been caught--this is video 7 of something like 12 to be released by CMP--delivering an infant alive, then killing the infant to remove his brains for profit.

Shocking, yes. Surprising, no.

Remember: when it was Gosnell, the media talking point quickly became that this is why we need Planned Parenthood and others--that they run "high-class" operations which follow the laws, and all that. If they're breaking this law in such a grotesque and obvious manner, what other laws might they be breaking?

A full-fledged investigation should be following, but Obama and his cronies are too closely linked to Planned Parenthood to allow for this. The investigation should go beyond the show-trial (meant to prove no wrongdoing) given to Louis Lerner. A real investigation might just find even more damning evidence of criminal activity, and perhaps also criminal negligence. Gosnell was no better than the worst terrors of the so-called "back alley abortion," and that perversely became a defense for the other abortion providers. I think a real and honest investigation may show that the defense is base don a lie (the whole industry is, after all).

Planned Parenthood et alia delenda est.

----
Update: My friend Chelsea Zimmerman makes some good points about this being just the tip of the iceberg--in more than one sense.

Update 2: Also worth a read, since I basically am on the side that says that lying is itself evil. Key passages:

I have neither said nor do I believe any of that, just as when St. Thomas Aquinas said that all lying was sinful, he did not mean the Hebrew midwives were culpable for sin or that lying was worse then killing the firstborn of Israel. I think it is obvious that all these parties are trying to honor God, and I reckon they will hear “Well done” at the Pearly Gates.

1. It is consequentialist thinking to argue “Let us do evil that good may come of it.” It does not matter to the Church that the evil is a small one and the good end a large one. Because once you grant the premise that you can do evil for a good end, you have given away the farm and granted the very premise that ultimately makes abortion thinkable in the first place. After all, as any number of people will tell you, a fetus and a zygote are just teeny tiny things too. What are they compared to a lifetime of poverty and suffering for a teenage girl who just made a mistake?

2. It is what the Church means by “scandal” to try to get somebody to agree to commit grave evil for the sake of a photo op. And, indeed, it is more serious to do this when you know that they are likely to agree to it due to habits of sin, just as it is a sin to press a drink into the hands of an alcoholic when you *know* he is an addict, while there is no sin to offer a friend a beer.

This is a pretty good summary of my stance here, too.

Back in 1952

Back in 1952, even Planned Parenthood would openly admit to (and be repulsed by) a claim which they deny today: namely, that abortion "kills the life of a baby." They were still a generally bad organization in 1952, but since then they've basically become worse. Nor should this be surprising. As Chesterton notes, man may keep at a sort of level of good, but he cannot keep at a level of evil: that road just goes down and down. This observation is also true of organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Sometimes It Really Is That Simple

Cutting funding for places which commit abortions will reduce the number of abortion committed. It's that simple. Ross Douthat has a nice rebuttal to those who say otherwise. And his conclusion is spot-on:

But to concede that pro-lifers might be somewhat right to be troubled by abortion, to shudder along with us just a little bit at the crushing of the unborn human body, and then turn around and still demand the funding of an institution that actually does the quease-inducing killing on the grounds that what’s being funded will help stop that organization from having to crush quite so often, kill quite so prolifically – no, spare me. Spare me. Tell the allegedly “pro-life” institution you support to set down the forceps, put away the vacuum, and then we’ll talk about what kind of family planning programs deserve funding. But don’t bring your worldview’s bloody hands to me and demand my dollars to pay for soap enough to maybe wash a few flecks off.

Planned Parenthood does not exist to provide social services. These are just one more cover for their real purpose, which is to kill babies. They are certainly content to also make money, and the other services (many of which they only claim to provide) are mostly there as a mask. Sometimes the mask slips a little. Sometimes it is yanked off. Often, it does not matter, because many people are convinced that the mask is the real face, and still others (perversely!) believe that the real face is a good face which is meant to be adored.

Some Good News

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld some of the key provisions to Texas' anti-abortion law. Apparently, a large number of abortion clinics will close down as a result. This is excellent news, though it is also likely very short-term, even assuming that this ruling is confirmed by the Supreme Court. The reason why it is so short term is that it's only a matter of time until a number of newer abortion mills are opened which meet the current requirements.

And this assumes, furthermore, that Texas doesn't have a political shift from the moderately pro-abortion position of allowing abortion for up to 20 weeks to a more pro-abortion position of removing these few and frankly very weak restrictions.

The Media Sure Does a Good Job...

...of using facts to obscure the truth. Headline: "Woman outside Planned Parenthood says flaming object was thrown at her." The headline reports some facts, while obscuring what was actually happening. The headline, as read by the casual observer, the low-information viewer (a substantial number of people reading the headline) will be interpreted to mean that some anti-abortion protester has thrown a flaming object (incendiary device? it was a Molotov cocktail) at a random woman who was approaching Planned Parenthood to use its "services."

But that's not actually what happened. Instead, it was a hit-and-run incident in which somebody threw this Molotov Cocktail at a group of peaceful protesters, a group who was praying in front of the Planned Parenthood, praying for an end to that evil organization. This group was with Central Texas Coalition for Life--I know a few people who are involved with that organization--and was almost certainly marked as such. So, in actuality, this was an example of pro-abortion violence against a peaceful pro-life protests--such things are actually quite common and at times even deadly--and not of anti-abortion violence against a pro-abortion victim (such occurrences are rare but typically receive saturation coverage).

There is a saying that God can write straight with crooked lines. Our media seems to strive to do the opposite feat, which is writing crookedly with straight lines.

Archbishop Cordileone Nails It

His Excellency the Archbishop of San Francisco has come under fire recently for a set of proposed morality clauses to be used in employment contracts at the Catholic schools in his diocese. There is little surprise as to what the morality clauses contain, and perhaps even less as to what the reaction is from the Left. And to nobody's further surprise, several lawmakers have gotten involved, mostly by sending him a "disapproving" letter.

Oh, but the good bishop has written a response to the lawmakers. And it is quite good. After noting that there is a bit of misinformation concerning this morality clause--such as "the falsehood that the morality clauses apply to the teachers’ private life"--he writes that

The next thing I would like to mention is actually a question: would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general? On the other hand, if you Letter to Legislators knew a brilliant campaign manager who, although a Republican, was willing to work for you and not speak or act in public contrary to you or your party – would you hire such a person? If your answer to the first question is “no,” and to the second question is “yes,” then we are actually in agreement on the principal point in debate here.

Now let’s say that this campaign manager you hired, despite promises to the contrary, starts speaking critically of your party and favorably of your running opponent, and so you decide to fire the person. Would you have done this because you hate all Republicans outright, or because this individual, who happens to be a Republican, violated the trust given to you and acted contrary to your mission? If the latter, then we are again in agreement on this principle.

Yes, this is all quite reasonable, and so I suspect that much of it will be lost on both the lawmakers and the general public, including dissident catholics and busy-body non-Catholics alike.

Abortion Barbies

A few years ago--around the time that this blog was started--the state of Texas attempted, in a special session of the legislature (and why wait for a special session?) attempted to pass a ban against all abortion after 20 weeks (among other things). At this point in a pregnancy, the unborn child is approximately viable--recall that the Roe v Wade decision stated that states lacked a "compelling interest" to regulate abortion until the fetus becomes viable (apparently, the fetus hits viability, and then magic occurs, and abracadabra, he is a person). Be that as it may, the courts originally set viability at around 24-28 weeks, but noted that as technology improves, that age would lower (these days, it's commonly 23-24 weeks, but the record is just under 22 weeks).

Of course, we know how that first attempt in Texas went: Wendy Davis attempted a filibuster, and when that failed an unruly mob prevented the vote from being properly taken in time. Fortunately the state of Texas was not so easily bullied by the mob, and held a second special session in which the law was duly passed.

The media, for its part, could not stop talking about what a wonderful person Wendy Davis was, up to an including praising the fashionable running shoes she decided to wear during the day of the filibuster. For all this, Wendy Davis earned the nickname "abortion Barbie," and eventually went down to ignoble (and much deserved) defeat in the Texas Gubernatorial race this last November; that is of course cause to celebrate (apparently, with 4 tons of beef brisket).

Unfortunately, "abortion Barbies" are not limited to the Democratic Party. The GOP has one of its own in Rep. Renee Elmers, and she helped sink the nation-wide ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Hopefully she'll be gone in two years, preferably by taking a sound beating in the primaries to an actually pro-life candidate (and one who is not basically a liar, at least not above and beyond what is to be expected of a politician). And, in typical fashion, we find that although she has sold her soul, and attempted to sell the GOP's to boot (as if they needed help with that), she has gained nothing from the pro-abortion side, while likely alienating a large portion of the pro-life side. Hopefully, this will become a cautionary tale to others of her ilk.

National Day of Death

Today marked another anniversary of one, actually two, or the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. Wise men mourn and pray, and work as they are able to end the slaughter. Evil men celebrate it. We're fast approaching 60 million dead since Roe vs Wade and Doe v Bolton, to say nothing of the millions more dead before those decisions made abortion legal and common nationwide.

In another of those decisions which competes for the title "worst", the court ruled that we ought to keep abortion legal because it had been legal for 20 years. Solid reasoning, that. They reasoning might as well be, "who could it hurt?" Whom indeed. The answer comes from a cemetery which would hold as more bodies as the living population of most European countries. It is small comfort that some 85% of these abortions are sought by single women--as if the fact that they were only ending the lives crating in fornication makes the murder an act of mercy. And still we struggle to so much as pass a bill banning the tenth part of these nationally, and even this is only brought up under a Republican Majority under the auspice that is it to prevent fetal pain. Trust not in princes, I suppose.

And in other news, and without a note of irony or self-awareness, Huffington Post publishes an article which complains about how American companies treat pregnancy and birth as a disease, to the point of having new mother burn sick days instead of granting maternity leave. Sure, some of that is because the people running corporations are looking for ways to increase profits. But our culture, or a substantial part of it, treats pregnancy as a disease which need not run its course--is it any surprise then, that many companies do the same with regards to their maternity (let alone paternity!) leave policies?

He's Still Got It Somtimes

I've long enjoyed Mark Shea's blog--the short funny headlines, the "sin makes you stupid" posts, the honest and winsome rebuttals to anti-Catholics of both secular and fundamentalist Protestant stripes.

However, I've been reading less of Mr. Shea lately, not so much because I disagree with a lot of what he's been posting (though I do disagree with more of his recent posts) as because many of these posts have been actually disagreeable. He's been continuing to pick a large fight with the Republican party (which is fine in and of itself), but this has gone overboard to the point of practically saying that if Republicans are for it, then it must be bad. A lot of it is, but there are still quite a few "good" Republicans, and "good" Republican policies: they just tend not to be prioritized. His assessment of the modern political milieu is starting to look a lot like the revolutionary which Chesterton decried, who knows all about what's wrong with the world but not what's right or how to actually fix it.

He's also walked a very fine line between going after Cardinal Burke's supporters* and going after Cardinal Burke, again uncritically. There's a lot I don't see in the ongoing disputes between Shea and the "uber" traditionalists, so I largely let that pass--but I also find it to be largely uninteresting. And his posts on gun control usually have me doing at least one *facepalm*, if not a *headdesk*, upon reading them, not so much because I disagree with his argument that we should do something to limit shootings**, but because I don't think his proposed solutions will solve the problems which he claims they will solve***

With that long preface aside, he still does put out some good articles. A case in point is this recent one about radical Islam and radical secularism as two heresies which ignored opposites of the two New Commandments:

Both radical Islam and radical God-hating secularism are diseased spiritualities. They represent a chemically pure and primal form of schism and heresy in the Christian tradition, since both ultimately trace their roots back to that. Whereas the Christian tradition unites two commandments that are often hard to reconcile (“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself”) and incarnates them in the God-Man Jesus, Radical Islam and radical God-hating secularism demand we choose one and hate the other. It is the quintessence of heresy to do this....
This schism between the love of God and the love of man is a war that is now drawing blood. The work of bringing peace in this civilizational conflict is, therefore, like all works of peacemaking, going to require blood. But in the Christian tradition, that means not so much shedding somebody else’s blood, but our own in union with Christ.

"For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."(Col 1:19–20). 

Does this mean we must be pacifists? I don’t think so. There is room in the Tradition for Just War Theory. But Just War Theory, never forget, is a concession to human weakness, not some kind of ideal. It is a stopgap, a crude tourniquet for trying to stanch the flow of blood from the severed limb of the Fall. It is battlefield triage and treatment with a wad of rags, a gulp of whiskey and a bullet to bite on. 

The goal is not Just War, but Just Peace, the peace of Christ. To win that, Christ did not, as Patton famously said, make the other poor dumb bastard die. He threw himself on the grenade. And he did it for the Nazi, the terrorist, the sadist, and above all, for me who would have been the first in line to shout “Give us Barabbas!” 

And while he is obviously frustrated in tone, he makes a good point when saying that all of Catholic social teaching cannot be boiled down to opposition to abortion, or (more realistically), to the "Big 5" issues. In particular, this passage is spot on:

Now, some Catholics will complain that this is unfair and that there are not enough hours in the day to oppose abortion and euthanasia *and* run around doing stuff about unjust war, gun violence, torture, poverty, the death penalty, desperate refugees, the environment, and the many  other things the Church teaches are part of a fully prolife ethic.  I have no problem with that objection.  We can’t all be everywhere doing everything.  So if your anti-abortion commitments are where you put your limited time, talent, and treasure I have no objection to that at all.  Do what you can with what you have and the Lord be with you.  

Where I object is when anti-abortion Catholics manage to find lots of time and energy to sink into directly opposing and fighting *against* the obvious and clear teaching of the Church and who insinuate or say that concern about the rest of the Church’s teaching is somehow an act of support for abortion.

Both posts are good reads (especially the former). I suppose that the endless frustration which comes through in many of the other posts might be a consequence of having too many disagreeable readers, which is a danger faced by anyone who becomes a big name blogger. Lord knows that I get frustrated enough with the one stubborn fool who I suffer (elsewhere). I can't image what it would be like have many of them, constantly.


----
*By whom I mean those who complain about Burke's removal from his curial position by Pope Francis, and who moreover insist that pope Francis is a bad pope who is out to "get" traditionalists. FWIW, I actually really like Cardinal Burke, and would overjoyed if he becomes Pope Francis successor.

** Despite the media's narrative, gun crimes have actually been declining in frequency.

***Biometric scanners, for example, will not prevent a gun's legal owner from taking it on a rampage. Nor would they prevent any person who has the owner's authorization to use them take them on a rampage. They will, however, prevent some gun accidents if used correctly, and probably also some thefts.

Then They Came for the Churches in California

This is kind of old news, but it's apparently starting to get reported enough for me to notice it. We have to be reminded that the homosexualists--while the most militant group seeking to ruin the Church and anyone tenuously connected to her--are far from the only group. The abortion lobby is just as happy to go for the jugular, though they only seem to have traction under the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate. Except, that is, in far leftists states like California, where abortion--including elective abortion--has been placed in in the category of "basic health services," and thus its direct coverage in all insurance plans is demanded by the state.

This includes insurance plans bought by churches (emphasis added):

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections. 

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.... 

Several other California churches have received similar notices from their insurers, and others will follow. While California (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) exempts churches from its contraceptive mandate, there is no exception to this bureaucratic abortion mandate. This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage. 

To no one's surprise, one of the chief instigators of this brazen trampling of actual rights and civil liberties is the now-ironically named American Civil Liberties Union. And while I breathe a sigh of relief that I avoided having to relocate to California (or Massachusetts, or new York, etc which I am sure will contemplate following suit), it's only a matter of time before this kind of evil is forced on even the so-called "Red States."

America was once land of the free and home of the brave. As these kinds of laws take place, this reputation will be eroded under we are all naught but chattel to the state. And the state will serves it new gods, which are really very old demons: Moloch, or Isis, or Baal, or even Satan.

Safe Legal Abortion: A Hypothetical

Good (if short-term) news out of Texas: the federal appeals court has allowed the state to immediately begin enforcing the restrictions which it passed last summer. This is short-term good news only because the appeals court is allowing enforcement to continue while it considers the overall constitutionality of the law. This should be a no-brainer (the law is clearly constitutional, even in light of earlier Supreme Court rulings), but in principle the appeals court could decide to uphold the circuit court's original ruling.

Well and good, and that news is certainly blog-worthy. But actually, what got my attention was this little passage from The Monitor's coverage of this news (my emphasis added):

"Today's ruling has gutted Texas women's constitutional rights and access to critical reproductive health care and stands to make safe, legal abortion essentially disappear overnight," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The phrase "safe, legal" is always used by those who call themselves pro-choice whenever talking about abortion. It is their current call sign (I guess "Safe, legal, and rare" was either too long or too obviously a lie), an unreflexive statement uttered like the various sleep-hypnosis phrases of Huxley's Brave New World, and because not reflexive, meaningless, a sort of verbal soma.

I suppose that the idea is to link the two terms in the mind, and thus to link their opposites: "legal = safe, therefore illegal = unsafe." Let us set aside for the sake of argument the morality of the issue, that is, the fact that if abortion means the deliberate taking of an innocent human being's life--in a word, murder--then it is never "safe" under any circumstances. I do this, because even though the procedure is obviously unsafe for one person, it may yet be relatively more or relatively less safe for another.

Which begs the question: what makes "legal" abortion so safe, and what proposals (read: laws, regulations, etc) would the "pro-choice" crowd in general, and the pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and their abortion-profiteering ilk in particular back to actually make abortions "safe"? Because, from what I have seen, any proposal, no matter how minor or major, is always opposed by them if one result is fewer abortion (read: loss of profit, loss of support, etc.). What makes legal abortions "safe," if there are no actual regulations of those who commit them legally? Nicer and cleaner conditions of the clinic? The current round of regulation exist to specifically require this. Easier access to a hospital if the procedures should go south? Again, that should be a no-brainer.

So what, if anything, should be done to actually make "legal" mean "safer"?

Quote of the Day and a Few Good Links (vol. 13)

"Apparently devil worship can only get you a win at the district court level" (Tony McDonald).

We can only hope so.

A few more quick links in the same vein:

1. A very good discussion of the four key questions which underlie any attempts at defending the Obama Administration's tyrannical HHS mandate. That it is a burden against the rights of religion and conscience are obvious, but there are sometimes legitimate reasons for a government to place limitations on these things. However, the HHS mandate fails to satisfy any of these criteria, and thus is naked tyranny.
2. In related news, some (many? most?) people who support the Obama Administration in this tyrannical exercise of power do so not because they think he is doing the right thing, but rather because they want to see conservatives and Christians suffer. Some go so far as to openly wish that we would all be murdered (or castrated), which is I suppose consistent with their ideology in general. Why stop at murdering babies?
3. At what point does the analogy to Nazism cease to be hyperbole? One does not need to wear a swastika to plumb the depths of depravity and monstrosity which were the Nazi ideology, or to carry out atrocities which rival (or exceed) those of Hitler and his followers, or to add the extra inhuman touches which make onlookers really recoil.
4. The runner-up bonus quote of the day: "The leader of the free world met with the president today." Apparently, he talked about abortion and religious freedom; income redistribution, not so much. Bonus for the pope gave President Obama a copy of his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. Nicely done, your Holiness.

That's about what I have time for right now.

Quick Link: Some Good News

Here is some good news from Texas: 38 of 44 abortion mills which were open in 2011 in Texas have closed, are in the process of closing, or will likely close by September. Of those, 19 will close assuming that the law which was passed last summer isn't overturned in the courts.

Unfortunately, 6 abortion mills will remain open. Also, I'm sure a few more will eventually open under the newer, "safer" (well, physically safer for the women anyway) conditions. But this is largely a good trend to see many of these houses of murder close their doors forever.

It's hard to Believe that Anybody Takes the Famous Violinist Seriously

Some people apparently still think it epitomizes an unanswerable argument. Instead, it is a sophomoric attempt to argue via emotion based on a number of flawed premises which nobody applies consistently to any other situation, and which even fails as a simple analogy because in the end, it is nothing like an actual pregnancy.