What the numbers tell us

TheCollegeConservative.com

What The Numbers Tell Us

The Guttmacher Institute, another pro-choice advocacy center, researches issues of reproduction thoroughly, and it provides some analysis regarding why women get abortions.

The numbers are overwhelming: 74% of the women surveyed had abortions because having a baby would dramatically change their lives. 38% said a baby would have interfered with careers or educations. Other high-percentage answers were related to relationship statuses, and many of the women provided more than one answer.

By contrast, health and rape scenarios were vastly in the minority. The Guttermacher Institute found that only 12% of the women had abortions for personal health reasons, and only 1% aborted because they were victims of rape.

These numbers are from 2004, but the Guttermacher Institute notes that they have stayed consistent since 1987. Further, these numbers have been supported elsewhere in more recent years.

The women that Guttermacher surveyed simply didn’t want to have a baby because it would have changed their lives, not because their lives were threatened or they had been assaulted.

Carly Fiorina: Planned Parenthood Debate Comments Spark Backlash | National Review Online

Carly Fiorina: Planned Parenthood Debate Comments Spark Backlash | National Review Online

The question is, "Who won last week's debate?"
The answer is, "Whoever's drawing the most fire from the drive-by media."

Who's the Real Hobby Lobby Bully? - Bloomberg View

Who's the Real Hobby Lobby Bully? - Bloomberg View

Cards on the table: I think that institutions Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor are obviously correct -- they are being forced by the government to buy something that they don’t want to buy. We can argue about whether this is a good or a bad idea, but the fact that it is coercive seems indisputable. If it weren’t for state power, the Little Sisters of the Poor would be happily not facilitating the birth-control purchases of its employees; the Barack Obama administration has attempted to force them to do otherwise. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this coercion violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it must therefore cease.

I think a few things are going on here. The first is that while the religious right views religion as a fundamental, and indeed essential, part of the human experience, the secular left views it as something more like a hobby, so for them it’s as if a major administrative rule was struck down because it unduly burdened model-train enthusiasts. That emotional disconnect makes it hard for the two sides to even debate; the emotional tenor quickly spirals into hysteria as one side says “Sacred!” and the other side says, essentially, “Seriously? Model trains?” That shows in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, where it seems to me that she takes a very narrow view of what role religious groups play in the lives of believers and society as a whole.
The second, and probably more important, problem is that the long compromise worked out between the state and religious groups -- do what you want within very broad limits, but don’t expect the state to promote it -- is breaking down in the face of a shift in the way we view rights and the role of the government in public life.

All of us learned some version of “You have the right to your beliefs, but not to impose them on others” in civics class. It’s a classic negative right. And negative rights are easy to make reciprocal: You have a right to practice your religion without interference, and I have a right not to have your beliefs imposed on me.
This works very well in situations in which most of the other rights granted by society are negative rights, because negative rights don’t clash very often. Oh, sure, you’re going to get arguments about noise ordinances and other nuisance abatements, but unless your religious practices are extreme indeed, the odds that they will substantively violate someone else’s negative rights are pretty slim.
I’m not saying that America ever perfectly hewed to this sort of ideal. (Blue laws, anyone?) I’m just saying that the statement of this ideal was perfectly consistent with the broadly held conception of what government was for, which was to provide “public goods” in the classical economics sense,1 but otherwise mostly to keep other people from doing stuff to you, not to do things for you or force you to do them for other people.
In this context, “Do what you want, as long as you don’t try to force me to do it, too” works very well, which is why this verbal formula has had such a long life. But when you introduce positive rights into the picture, this abruptly stops working. You have a negative right not to have your religious practice interfered with, and say your church forbids the purchase or use of certain forms of birth control. If I have a negative right not to have my purchase of birth control interfered with, we can reach a perhaps uneasy truce where you don’t buy it and I do. But if I have a positive right to have birth control purchased for me, then suddenly our rights are directly opposed: You have a right not to buy birth control, and I have a right to have it bought for me, by you.
....
1 Public goods are not “goods provided by the government”; they’re goods that have to be provided by the government, because no one without taxing power can efficiently provide them. Police service is the classic public good because it is nonrivalrous (multiple people can enjoy it) and nonexclusive (you can’t keep other people from enjoying the benefits). If crime goes down, all of us enjoy lower crime, even if we don’t pay taxes. Defense of the borders is another classic public good, and other items such as roads and lighthouses are usually included.

MercatorNet: What the Supreme Court did (and didn’t do) to religious freedom last week

MercatorNet: What the Supreme Court did (and didn’t do) to religious freedom last week

In Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), applied to the case, and that it covered “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” The only question that government could consider was not the truth or reasonableness or centrality of the religious belief, but only whether the belief were sincere, which was not doubted in the case of these companies. Interestingly, RFRA had passed in 1993 by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress. This is because religious freedom, like free speech, is a vital part of our legal heritage and until recently, viewed as axiomatic.
The Court said that companies were legal persons within the meaning of RFRA, an unexceptional view dating back to the Middle Ages, when the Church, as the Body or Corpus of Christ, was viewed as a corporation with legal personality. Citing William Blackstone, the authoritative expounder of the common law at the time of the American founding, the Court recognized that there were two types of corporations, ecclesiastical and lay, and that lay corporations could also have eleemosynary and religious purposes. (The amicus brief I filed in support of Hobby Lobby for four non-profit corporations made the same point, also citing Blackstone.)
Because of the political firestorm that erupted several years ago when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of corporate free-speech rights in the Citizens United case, which President Obama had denounced in his State of the Union address, this question of the First Amendment rights of corporations, and specifically whether for-profit corporations were legal persons, has become politicized. Even so, two of the liberal justices, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan, did not join that part of Ginsburg’s dissent that said that for-profit corporations were not legal persons.
As Justice Alito pointed out for the majority, “it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction [that corporations are legal ‘persons’] is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organizations used by human beings to achieve desired ends … When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”
Since corporations, or at least closely-held family-run companies, can claim to exercise religion, the law requires that if their religious exercise is substantially burdened, then the government must show both that it is seeking to achieve compelling government interests, and that it is doing so in the least religiously restrictive way possible: a demanding ends and means test. If the government passes the test, the matter belongs to Caesar. If not, then it belongs to God and the religious conscience of believers.
Justice Kennedy concurred by saying that while free contraceptives for women was a compelling government interest, the government had a lesser restrictive alternative in that it could either provide the contraceptive coverage itself or extend the accommodation HHS was already giving religions non-profits, to for-profit closely-held companies with religious objections. Because he was the swing vote, the majority had to assume for the sake of argument that there was a compelling interest in free contraceptives, though the prevalence of exceptions in the regulation for grandfathered companies, companies with less than 50 employees, and Churches and other religious organizations, makes that very questionable. If it’s so important to government, then why is it handing out exemptions like party favors to all those except for-profit companies with religious objections?
And so the majority ruled that the huge fines the families faced for not covering the abortifacient contraceptives did constitute a substantial burden on their religious practice, and that even assuming a compelling government interest in support of the regulation, the government had failed to show that cost-free access to these contraceptives was the least-restrictive means of achieving its desired goal. Either the government could assume the cost itself, or extend the accommodation it already was giving non-profit employers with religious objections to the mandate.
The Court went on to say that its ruling did not necessarily apply to vaccinations or blood transfusions, not did it provide a shield to employers illegally discriminating on religious grounds. Those matters will have to wait for another day.

I was struck by how over-the-top much reaction to the Hobby Lobby case was, as if, all of a sudden, applying a law intended to protect religious freedom to the facts of a particular case were a threat to civil liberties.
Justice Ginsburg, for example, calls it a “decision of startling breadth,” and demonstrates that she is opposed to RFRA, in spite of the careful hedging of the majority’s opinion. In front of the Supreme Court building the Monday that the decision was issued, there were contending demonstrators. The pro-government contingent had a slogan, “My birth control is none of your business.” Precisely. That’s what the companies were saying: Get your hand out of my pocket.
As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal pointed out, the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s full-page ad in the New York Times asserted, quoting retired Justice John Paul Stevens, “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” Taranto retorted: “Then shut up.” But of course corporations, like the people who comprise them, can be hypocritical too.

No, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision is not based upon a scientific mistake - The Washington Post

No, the Supreme Court’s <em>Hobby Lobby</em> decision is not based upon a scientific mistake - The Washington Post

There are reasonable arguments to be made against the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, but the charge that the decision is based on science fiction is not among them.  The scientific soundness of a religious objector’s beliefs is not at issue in religious liberty cases and, even if it were, there was a reasonable (if not uncontroversial) basis for the specific factual claims upon which Hobby Lobby’s claim was based.

In Hobby Lobby, the Greens and the Hahns (the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, respectively) claimed that providing insurance coverage for four forms of contraception would violate their religious beliefs.  They claimed that this is because they believe the four forms of contraception at issue (“Plan B,” Ella, and two types of IUD) are capable of terminating a pregnancy.  In making this claim, the Greens and the Hahns embraced the view that a pregnancy begins at conception, rather than at implantation (which is how pregnancy is defined by most medical authorities and under federal law).  This is not relevant, however.  They could have also claimed that pregnancy begins when a woman is visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that the challenged forms of contraception chase the Spaghetti Monster away.  Under RFRA, a religious adherent’s beliefs are taken as a given precisely because many religious claims will strike non-believers as strange or incredible.  There’s no scientific evidence for transubstantiation, but that would hardly matter to a RFRA claim that imposed a substantial burden on those who wish to partake in communion.

As Bagley notes further, the federal government accepted the plaintiffs’ characterization of the scientific evidence, if not their conclusion that preventing implantation of an egg is the equivalent of an abortion.  The Food & Drug Administration’s website notes that all four forms of disputed contraception may prevent implantation, as do the FDA-approved labels (as noted in footnote 4 of the government’s brief).  An amicus brief submitted at the certiorari stage on behalf of medical organizations disputes whether it is proper to label these contraceptive methods as “abortifacients,” insofar as they all act before the start of a pregnancy (implantation). Yet, as Ed Whelan notes, the brief also concedes the possibility that these contraceptive methods may prevent implantation.
Assuming, as the weight of current scientific evidence suggests, that it is exceedingly rare for any of these methods to prevent implantation or otherwise cause the termination of a fertilized egg, it is not unscientific to adopt a more precautionary position due to religious or moral concerns, and it is hardly “anti-science” for the courts to accept such a religious belief when evaluating a RFRA claim.  The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby advanced a claim based on religious belief, and that is how all nine justices on the Court treated it.
Science retains substantial authority in our political discourse.  This makes it appealing to tar one’s political opponents with an “anti-science” brush. Yet in their zeal to affix the “anti-science” label to the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby critics have gotten ahead of themselves.  Whatever the merits of other critiques of the Hobby Lobby opinion, this one falls apart.

Hobby Lobby wins before the Supreme Court - The Washington Post

Hobby Lobby wins before the Supreme Court - The Washington Post

Text of the decision

Hobby Lobby: The Left Is Weeping Hot, Bitter Tears, and It Should | National Review Online

Hobby Lobby: The Left Is Weeping Hot, Bitter Tears, and It Should | National Review Online

Andrew’s and Molly’s post reflecting the hysterical reaction on the Left to theHobby Lobby decision makes for both entertaining and instructive reading. It’s entertaining because — regarding the issue they claim to care most about, access to contraceptives — the decision blocks exactly no one from obtaining the drugs they choose to purchase. There’s just slightly less free stuff on the market. This is hardlyHandmaid’s Tale territory.
It’s instructive because it demonstrates the extent to which the Left is emotionally and ideologically committed to the power of the regulatory state. For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights. In effect, your business is not “your” business at all, but instead all aspects of its operations exist at the whim of the state, and if the state wants to draft you into its child-killing abortion crusade — or wants to muzzle you during political campaigns – then you best salute and fall in line.
By holding that RFRA protects closely-held businesses, the Supreme Court upheld not just the plain meaning of federal statutes but also common sense.

The Hobby Lobby majority, summarized in (relatively) plain English - The Washington Post

The Hobby Lobby majority, summarized in (relatively) plain English - The Washington Post

1. Congress has decided that religious objectors may go to court to demand religious exemptions from federal laws, when the law makes them do things that they view as religiously forbidden. That’s not required as a constitutional matter under the Free Exercise Clause; the Court decided that in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). But in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Congress chose to give religious objectors a statutory right to such exemptions, at least in many cases:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, …

[unless the Government] demonstrates that application of the burden to the person …

is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.

2. RFRA doesn’t exclude laws which impose a burden on closely held religious corporations. To be sure, a corporation is a legal fiction; it cannot itself practice religion, or for that matter do anything else. It acts only through people.

But — precisely because a corporation is just a legal fiction — when a law requires such a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself. “[P]rotecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”

3. The owners of Hobby Lobby sincerely believe that it’s wrong for them to buy their employees insurance plans that they see as supporting abortion. They have no objection to contraception as such, but they view contraceptives that prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg as tantamount to abortion drugs.

The government acknowledges that its regulations require businesses to pay for such contraceptives (on pain of substantial monetary penalties). Therefore the law substantially burdens the owners’ religious practices, by requiring them to do something they think religiously forbidden.

To be sure, the law doesn’t require the employers to personally get abortions or perform abortions. But the employers sincerely believe that even buying insurance policies that pay for such abortions is religiously forbidden complicity in abortion.

It’s not for courts to second-guess the reasonableness of such judgments about how to define religiously forbidden complicity. “[T]he Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

4. Of course, the legal system has many rules that require people to do what they think religiously wrong (or, the legal equivalent, to not do what they think religiously required). Not all religious exemptions can be granted. RFRA provides that, if denying the exemption is really the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest, a court should indeed deny the exemption.

But “[t]he least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.” Under RFRA, if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.

And here, the government can indeed both provide free contraceptives (as the regulations under the Congressionally enacted Affordable Care Act provide) and exempt religious objectors (as the Congressionally enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides).

First, the government could pay for the contraceptives directly. Though that would cost taxpayer money, religious exemptions sometimes do cost money, and the extra cost would be a tiny fraction of the ACA’s $130 billion expense per year. Indeed, RFRA’s sister statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, provides that it “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.”

Second, the government has already exempted some religious nonprofits from the law. Under this exemption, insurers would (1) exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer-paid health plan, and (2) separately pay for contraceptive coverage that the insurer would provide directly to the employees. (The government has concluded this is fair to insurers because the cost to them of contraceptives would be balanced by the savings from lower pregnancy costs and other health costs.) A similar plan is available for self-insured religious nonprofits.

These exemptions could easily be extended to for-profit religious objectors such as Hobby Lobby. Such an extension would mean the government can still ensure that contraceptives are provided at no cost to patients, but Hobby Lobby and similar objectors wouldn’t be required to do what they think their religions forbid.

5. This sort of accommodation is what Congress has mandated. When both the government’s compelling interests and religious objectors’ religious beliefs can be adequately accommodated, Congress said (in enacting RFRA) that they should be accommodated.

But Congress also said that these decisions must turn on the facts of each exemption request, and the options available for accommodating such accommodation requests. In future cases — for instance, ones involving race discrimination in employment, or insurance coverage for vaccination or blood transfusions — the result might be different.

It might not be possible in those cases (as it is in this case) to adequately accommodate both the government interests and the religious objections. If that’s so, then those religious exemptions would not have to be granted. Wisely or not, Congress has required courts to sort through religious exemption requests, granting some and denying others. This is what the Supreme Court has done here.

Abortion Rights Community Has Become the NRA of the Left - The Daily Beast

Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/06/abortion-rights-community-has-become-the-nra-of-the-left.html

What should we learn from the Kermit Gosnell trial?
Abortion rights advocates have argued that there is nothing to see here. Move along. This is what illegal abortion looks like, they say.
But Gosnell’s clinic was not illegal. It was a licensed medical facility. The state of his clinic was well known: there were repeated complaints to government officials and even the local Planned Parenthood. He wasn’t operating under the radar but in plain sight, and he received referrals from abortion clinics up and down the East Coast. Gosnell performed plenty of abortions within the 24-week limit in Pennsylvania and worked part time for a National Abortion Federation–accredited clinic in Delaware.

Media Excuse Themselves on Gosnell Trial Coverage

Link: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-themselves-on-gosnell-trial-coverage/?utm_source=AIM - Daily Email&utm_campaign=d06a070427-email041913&utm_medium=email# (via shareaholic.com)

The Media After Gosnell - John Fund - National Review Online

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345564/media-after-gosnell-john-fund

"It's not as if there isn't good reason for pro-choice journalistic sleuths to pursue the story for simple muckraking purposes. It's a stunning tale of bureaucratic neglect and incompetence. Despite its law against partial-birth abortions, Pennsylvania stopped regular inspections of abortion clinics in 1993. But regulators still received frequent — and credible — complaints about unsanitary or horrific practices taking place behind Gosnell's clinic door. And they did nothing."

Sweet Liberty

Sweet Liberty

Let's suppose you were born with an inheritance, something that accrues to you by virtue of being born and being human.
It's something you can spend, but not directly, like a lot of cash.  But you can trade for it.  Let's say it is a beautiful, rare, exquisitely cut diamond.  You can wear it, but it's not quite suited for display.  It's just something you've always had, more precious than anything else you have except life.  And if you keep it, lifelong, your kids will be given equal ones when they're born, and then your grandkids too.
How would you go about safeguarding such a jewel?
Would you keep it always under your control, where you are the only one who has a say on whether it's kept or taken away?  Or would you trust politicians – politicians who btw are telling you they can keep your jewel for you by taking other people's jewel away and trading it to keep yours safe – to safeguard that jewel by putting yourself, your life and everything you own in their power?
I'm very afraid for a number of people the answer is the second.  And that the answer is the second for even one person scares me beyond reason.
I was watching Bill Whittles's excellent video Cannibals, which details our fiscal and cultural troubles.  I wanted to leave a comment (ended up not doing it because youtube drives me nuts on registering to do so) so I looked at the comments.
Comment after comment, with names like "proudfree American" said things like "I voted for Obama because I don't want to have to bear a rapist's child.  My body is mine and no one else can make decisions about it."
(A friend pointed out these are pathetic comments both in search of approval of like minded people, and sticking one in the eye of what they imagine to be the opposition. Let that stand for a moment.  I'll come back to it in the end.)
Abortion is, of course, one of those complex things.  It is not a natural right.  It can't be a natural right because a human woman in a state of nature who tries to abort will more often than not end up offing herself along with the child.  You could say infanticide is a natural right, as it has been practiced by most civilizations throughout the ages, less so in Judeo Christian lands, but impossible to stamp out just like murder is impossible to stamp out.  Of course it violates another person's natural right to life, but in the case of infants that is always iffy as "natural" as they require someone else to defend them.  So, it is a very complex thing, not from a moral but from a NATURAL point of view.
Let's leave aside for a moment that no one in this election – not even Todd Akin – ever said a woman BY LAW should bear a rapist's child.  What Akin (who is an idiot for the way he expressed himself and for walking into the matter at all) and the other guy said was based on their own moral judgment, involving "if it happened to someone I love."  Let's leave aside, also, that my answer would be rather similar to theirs, and it's more germane, since I CAN get pregnant.  (In theory.  Well, it happened once naturally.)  "If I got pregnant by rape, it's impossible to know what I would do, but it would be hard to get over the fact that the child DIDN'T commit the rape, and that what causes a man to become a rapist is not necessarily genetic otherwise every man and woman born would be a rapist, because we're all descended from rapists several times over.  Though I can't say for sure what my state of mind would be, there's a good chance I'd decide the moral thing is to keep the child.  Because I like children, because it would still be mine, and because it's not the child's fault."
That is not important.  It's also not important that while Mitt Romney made noises about abortion, the MOST he could do – and he wouldn't, any more than he would abolish the department of education.  That's not how DC works – is sent the matter back to the states.  And he NEVER said anything about outlawing abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Let's instead assume that it is right and just, always, for a woman to abort a rapist's child.  This right to "not carry a rapist's child in MY body" is not only NOT a natural right – it is one that depends on an advanced enough technology, a functioning economy, and no one being able to regulate what kind of medicine is practiced upon you.
There is an English proverb "He who pays the piper calls the tune."  Same thing.  Updated "you buy your CDs, you buy whatever music you want."  However, if the government is giving you free music, then you will listen to whatever they want you to listen to.  And it can change.
So, let's suppose that for these young women the most important thing in the world, truly is that if they should get pregnant  from rape – unless you extend rape to "changed my mind afterwards" a small enough chance – they should be allowed to abort the child.
Very well.
To secure this non-natural (because it requires functioning high tech) right they voted for the man who promised them this AND contraceptives for free.  I.e. they voted for someone who said they'd pay for what these women consider a need, so that the women can "control their own bodies."  Further, to secure this, this man – this party – is trying to make people against whose conscience it is to pay for such things… pay for them.  That is, they are willfully violating what is a natural right of other people: the right to not pay/endorse things that violates their conscience.
And these women think giving these group of people the right to pay for/decide what is done to them gives the women control of their own bodies.
It never occurs to them apparently that those who give them contraceptives/free abortions today can also deny them tomorrow.  Or that the fiscal mess Bill Whittle is talking about in the video means a diminishing level of wealth and therefore of tech.
What I mean is even if the government isn't lying to you – and frankly, after Benghazi how can ANYONE believe these people won't lie to you and with a straight face – their policies are almost guaranteed to make doctors flee the country in droves, or go into retirement.  They are also guaranteed to add a layer of bureaucracy that will delay everything.
The end result might be that you did in fact get raped – I understand in countries where law breaks completely down this is a risk women run from eight to eighty – and you got pregnant.  (Or you had a night of sex with your boyfriend and didn't take precautions, so you're being "punished with a baby.") You have a right to your free abortion.  Great.
Only the nearest hospital is chock a block with more urgent cases and the nurse practitioner who could have done it is full up for six months.  In six months it will be a high-risk abortion, and gee, we just don't have the equipment.  Maybe if you go to Mexico?  I hear they can do these same day, for ten thousand dollars.
Think this is unlikely?  This is almost guaranteed.
Other nightmare scenarios include the government running out of contraceptives.  (No?  When something is free, people get it.  And when it's free there's no incentive for companies to research better stuff OR to make it cheaper or more abundant.)  I once heard an – hilarious, because it wasn't me, and because these people had escaped – interesting story by a group of Russians, at the end of the USSR, discussing how this group of ten men shared a condom which they washed after sex and which, btw, the one of them who worked in a rubber plant patched more than once.  If you think that can't happen here, you have missed the fiscal mess we're in to which we're adding an unimaginable amount of debt for an "entitlement" that can't be secured without enslaving doctors and other health professionals to serve at the pleasure of the government.
So, suppose you run out of contraceptives and your ONLY contraception is abortion.  But the birth rate is going through the floor and our lords and masters become aware they won't have enough of a next generation to bear the massive burden of debt.  Think they won't forbid abortion?  Or they decide you're from a non-favored group and they don't want you reproducing at all, so they mandate that you be sterilized and your existing children killed.  Think it won't happen?  It's happening in China.  Google "dying rooms" China and children, and I hope you have a strong stomach.
You think it won't happen here?
Why do you think that?  Show your work.  Is your body any more sacred than other people's convictions?  Why?  Why should a government that has the power of life and death over you, a government that can literally decide that you're too expensive to keep alive and send you home with palliative care (no?  It happens practically everywhere the state runs medicine.  Maybe everywhere.  Reporting on these things is iffy) NOT make you bear a child because it suits the state's needs?
You were born with this special, priceless jewel: Liberty.
You can keep it – that includes covering the costs of it, both monetary and in informed citizenry – and get to decide what to do with it, and in which circumstances to apply it.  OR you can entrust it to people who lie and whose very nature is predicated on having power over you.
Whether the liberty is freedom of religion, of assembly, the right to bear arms – no matter what those rights are, entrusting them to the government is a bad idea.  All the more so when those "rights" require a complex, functioning civilization to be effective.  (For instance, I would not vote for a government that promised me free weapons, because I know how bureaucracies work and in the end I'd have the right to a chipped bit of flint.)
No, you do not have a right to your own body.  No one does.  You can't say "I won't bear this child" any more than you can say "I won't die from this cancer."  Both of them involve a complex civilization and other people's skill and knowledge to avoid.  And neither can be granted to you by a tyrannical government who HAS to control other people's work, intelligence and freedom of thought to grant you this.
You do have a right to your own mind, and that so many people have chosen to give up their natural right to inform themselves and make informed decisions makes me seethe.
My friend was right, on the people who commented on that video being special snow flakes in search of social approval.  Of course why they think that idiotic statement makes them sound "correct" is why we must speak out.  For too long we've let the idiots own the air and the soundbites, because we didn't want to rock the boat.  And what we've created is sort of a state religion, in which young people repeat platitudes that don't make sense, in the sure certainty of social approval.
It's time to start taking back their minds.  And then maybe they'll understand how to keep control of their bodies.  And maybe they'll understand the meaning of liberty.

You can't enslave a free man.
Only person can do that to a man is himself.
No, sir—you can't enslave a free man.
The most you can do is kill him.  Free Men by Robert A. Heinlein

Saving Savita from Gravely Misleading Abortion Politics - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333543/saving-savita-gravely-misleading-abortion-politics-kathryn-jean-lopez (via shareaholic.com)

"The lack of precise medical details included in media coverage of the Savita Halappanavar case does indeed make it difficult to offer a cogent moral analysis of what transpired," Reverend Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center cautions. "If it were the case, for example, that she suffered from a serious placental infection unable to be controlled by other remedies, it would have been allowable to induce labor under a proper application of the principle of double effect. Such an action would not constitute a direct abortion, but maternally directed therapy to remedy the infection, with the secondary, unintended effect that the life of the child would be lost."
As is so often the case in tragic situations, one family's tragedy has become a cultural one too, leading to misrepresentations and pouring salt in painful wounds. In being a leading defender of the lives of the most vulnerable, the Catholic Church does not insist on the forgoing of medical treatment to suffering women. We do no one any good by adding a myth-based debate over the Catholic Church to an already awful situation.

Savita’s tragic death could have been avoided – UPDATED

Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/11/15/savitas-tragic-death-could-have-been-avoided/ (via shareaholic.com)

Was it because an abortion was refused?  Maybe not.

10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked by the Media – Trevin Wax

Link: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/10/24/10-questions-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/ (via shareaholic.com)

These really deserve some thought, and where the question admits to a yes/no answer, justify the answer.

1. You say you support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?
2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on "the war on girls" and the growth of "gendercide" in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?
3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?
4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?
5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the "eugenics" movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate "weeding out" of those our society would deem "unfit" to live?
6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?
7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "abortion is the white supremacist's best friend," pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?
8. You describe abortion as a "tragic choice." If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?
9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?
10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

Richard Mourdock, the consistent Christian

Richard Mourdock, the consistent Christian

via Secular Right by Heather Mac Donald on 10/24/12

"I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Ummm . . . what's not theologically accurate about that statement?  Whether we construe Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's statement generously and limit it to his obvious intentions—that the life that results from a rape is a gift that God intends to happen—or construe it less favorably to what Mourdock meant to say but faithfully to Christian theology—that God intended the rape that impregnates the victim—either interpretation is required by the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent God.  Given the nonstop stream of prayers that believers send God's way every second, seeking favorable dispositions of, inter alia, their home foreclosure, their bypass operation, the election, the aftermath of an earthquake and every other natural disaster (belatedly),  it's clear that believers rightly reason that there is not a single aspect of life invisible to the all-powerful God and over which he fails to exercise utter control (even if he sometimes seems to get a little distracted).  I mean, if he can perform such Iron Age miracles as ventriloquizing through a burning bush , he can sure as heck prevent a rape if he chose to do so.  His will has no option but to be done.

Non-believers are supposed to respect belief as something deeply thought-out.  But it turns out that Christians are actually closet Manicheans, unable to live with the unpalatable consequences of their theology:

"As a pro-life Catholic, I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape," said Dan Parker, chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party.
"Victims of rape are victims of an extremely violent act, and mine is not a violent God."

So if there are aspects of life that God does not control, he is not omnipotent, but just one magical force among many.
The Mourdock faux pas in airing the ineluctable implications of Christian belief will cost the Republican party.  That belief itself, of course, will escape unscathed.  

Desperate Left tries to Akin-ize Richard Mourdock

Desperate Left tries to Akin-ize Richard Mourdock

via Michelle Malkin by Michelle Malkin on 10/24/12

These word-warping Democrats and lying liberal War on Women manufacturers make me sick.
Especially looking at you, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Tea Party candidate Richard Mourdock defended life last night in his Indiana Senate debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly. Watch the whole statement:

What he said: "The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."


For the comprehension-challenged, Mourdock repeated again after the debate: "God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick."


Wasserman Schultz and her #LADYPARTS gal pals immediately tried to Akin-ize Mourdock and turn his comments into an endorsement of rape.
Never mind that pro-life Democrat Donnelly was an original co-sponsor of one of Akin's abortion funding ban bills:

Democratic Senate candidate Joe Donnelly and Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence twice sponsored legislation that would separate out 'forcible rape' when it comes to federal funding of abortions." (Tom LoBianco, "No running from social issues in election battles," The Associated Press, 8/26/12)


"Donnelly, Pence And Akin Joined 224 Other House Lawmakers, Most Of Them Republicans, On A Bill Last Year That Would Have Cut Off Federal Aid For Abortion-Related Services For Statutory Rape And Incest. The bill established a separate category for 'forcible rape' and allowed the services to continue for those. Following a massive outcry, lawmakers backtracked and restored the original language that did not differentiate among the types of rape." (Tom LoBianco, "Indiana pols distance themselves from Akin comment," The Associated Press, 8/21/12)


"'Joe Is Pro-Life And Supports Legislation To Ensure That No Federal Dollars Go Toward Funding Abortion-Related Services. That Was The Original Intention Of The Bill, Not To Redefine Rape,' Said Donnelly Spokeswoman Elizabeth Shappell." (Tom LoBianco, "Indiana pols distance themselves from Akin comment," The Associated Press, 8/21/12)


"In 2011, Donnelly said he was not initially aware the measure could have limited the eligibility of some rape victims for abortion coverage – and once that issue was raised, he was glad to see it amended. 'Rape is a violent and despicable act in every circumstance. It is my firm belief that our laws should always reflect that fact,' he said then. His campaign's spokeswoman, Elizabeth Shappell, said Donnelly's position has not changed. 'Joe is pro-life and supports legislation to ensure that no federal dollars go toward funding abortion-related services,' she said. 'That was the original intention of the bill, not to redefine rape. As he said at the time, he would have voted against this bill if it had not been amended to remove the word "forcible."' (Eric Bradner, "State candidates steer clear of Akin," Evansville Courier Press, 8/22/12)

Mourdock made a statement of faith.


Akin made a Magical Uterus mess and blamed everyone but himself.


Indiana voters are smart enough to see the difference. Too bad the establishment GOP types cutting and running from Mourdock don't have the guts to stand up to the lying liars. But then, the establishment was never with Mourdock.
Good thing the election is not up to them.
Stand tall, Richard.

Why Planned Parenthood Wont Provide Mammograms

Why Planned Parenthood Wont Provide Mammograms

via First Things | On the Square by ft@firsthings.com (Keith Riler ) on 10/23/12

President Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and countless supporters have claimed again and again that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. President Obama did so in the second presidential debate, describing the millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for . . . mammograms."

The problem is the mammogram claim is untrue, as was just cleverly highlighted by Schedule Your Imaginary Mammogram Day," a phone campaign that found no Planned Parenthood clinics capable of breast cancer screening. Planned Parenthood has neither the license nor the machines. The most the abortion giant has ever done is refer women to outside mammogram providers, filling the role of the Yellow Pages or Google.

Yet the claim is persistently made, despite its falsehood, in order to rebrand Planned Parenthood not as the abortion business it is, but instead as a health care provider.

Key to that health care narrative is the claim that Planned Parenthood provides substantial cancer-screening services, such as mammograms. (Apparently the pap smears Planned Parenthood really does administer are insufficient fodder for the narrative.)

Why doesnt Planned Parenthood just offer mammograms? Doing so would do real good while saving their public defenders from credibility diminishing lies.

The answer may lie in what economists call the contribution margin." The contribution margin of each procedure is the marginal profit per unit of sale and thus the amount each procedure contributes to the coverage of fixed costs (such as executive compensation) and to profits.

The problem for Planned Parenthood-which thinks and acts much more like a business than most people realize-is that mammograms are much less profitable than the relatively lucrative procedure of abortion.

In his article Mammography: Is its success threatened by low reimbursement rates?", radiologist Dr. James Youker highlights the problem of low reimbursement rates for mammography and the high cost of complying with the increasingly complex regulations." A more recent article by Dr. Gillian Newstead documents the problems persistence:

The American College of Radiology (ACR) conducted a survey that . . . found that the actual cost to perform a screening mammogram was $93.98. With the typical reimbursement rate of approximately $80, it is clear that the hospital lost money for each screening exam performed.

In the outpatient setting, where the costs can be more controlled, the survey found the cost per mammogram to be approximately $59.00. Nonetheless, it is clear that there are no large profits to be made from screening mammography.

Another economic study . . . found that in all practices mammography had a negative profit margin. The loss for physician full-time equivalent (FTE) was variable between the practices studied but was between $50,000 and $100,000 per year.
Since Dr. Newstead penned her article, digital mammography has replaced older technology. Although digital reimbursement rates are 1.7 times greater than film rates (at $140 per screening), digital machines are three to five times more expensive. Thus, mammography economics have improved little to none.

RadNet, the countrys largest imaging and diagnostic company, comments in its most recent presentation that mammogram volumes have been adversely affected by the economy and a government taskforce changing the recommended age from 40+ to 50+." RadNet also comments that it expects continued pressure from Medicare" on reimbursement rates.

If Planned Parenthood were to perform mammograms, we could assume a contribution margin-that is, contribution to profit-of $3.51 per procedure. This is reflective of the average of Dr. Newsteads hospital and freestanding center margins of a $13.98 loss and a $21.00 profit, respectively. Even this may be generous, particularly given Dr. Newsteads comments about mammography losses and the fact that many industry experts describe the modality as unprofitable.

How profitable is abortion? Two scenarios can be used to estimate Planned Parenthoods abortion contribution margin, Scenario A and Scenario B. In both scenarios, 330,000 annual abortions were assumed.

The retail price of an abortion is $500 to $900. The $500 floor was documented some years ago, and is the price that was used in Scenario A. Planned Parenthoods Hudson-Peconic clinic quotes an online price of $900 for a sixteen- to seventeen-week in-clinic abortion. A $900 price was used in Scenario B.

Regarding costs per abortion, data is available from Planned Parenthoods most recent annual report. In that report is a line item entitled Expenses - Medical Services," which should reflect the variable costs associated with procedures like abortions.

These medical service expenses totaled $699 million in the most recently reported period. Two methods are used to allocate that expense to Planned Parenthoods abortions. In Scenario A, Planned Parenthoods own estimate of abortions as 3 percent of services is used. In Scenario B, a 5 times higher expense allocation of 15 percent is assumed.

This 15 percent expense estimate is conservative because abortion doctors use low-cost vacuums and garbage bags; forceps and scissors are reused; and (unlike a mammogram) an abortions result requires little in the way of interpretation or follow-up. Planned Parenthood makes about $400 to $600 per abortion. Scenario As $500 sale price and 3 percent cost allocation results in a contribution margin of $436 per abortion. Scenario Bs $900 sale price and 15 percent cost allocation results in a contribution margin of $582 per abortion.

Abortion is 125 to 165 times more profitable than mammography. Given a choice between 330,000 mammograms or 330,000 abortions, cancer screening will lose every time. Life, love, families, faith, concern for our most vulnerable, presidential credibility: Abortions altar demands many sacrifices. There is no reason to believe mammograms are exempt. Mammograms were invented over forty years ago and Planned Parenthood still doesnt offer them because, in comparison, abortion is a gold mine.

In 2009, a government task force recommended regular mammograms only for women fifty years and older. Planned Parenthoods target audience is young-75 percent of abortions are by teens and twenty-somethings. Planned Parenthoods demographic is unlikely to ever demand breast care.

Mammograms are an unprofitable imaging modality, requiring a cross subsidy from technologies like CT, PET, and MRI. Likewise, Planned Parenthood mammograms would require a similar cross subsidy; requiring a reduction in abortion profits, executive compensation, or both.

On that point, President Obama once argued that health insurance profits were driving up the costs of health care and suggested that eliminating those greedy companies profits and fat salaries would improve health care.

The same could apply here. Cecile Richards earns about $400,000 per year, her directors and top lieutenants are clearing $200,000 to $300,000 each, and ten clinic administrators make over $260,000 each. For forty years and counting, these executives have shown no inclination to offer mammograms. The simple reason is that economics have prevailed.

Keith Riler is a financial analyst who has written for the American Thinker, Faith magazine, Texas Right to Life, and LifeNews.

RESOURCES

Thousands call Planned Parenthood for mammograms after Obamas claim

Oops! Obama Accuses Planned Parenthood of Breaking the Law

Schedule Your Imaginary Mammogram Day

James Youker, Mammography: Is its success threatened by low reimbursement rates?"

Gillian Newstead, Digital mammography: Cost and workflow issues"

The Mammogram Hustle

2012 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Payment Rates: Mammography

Digital Mammography Now?

RadNet Investor Presentation

New Planned Parenthood Annual Report Confirms Abortions Total 91% of Pregnancy Services

How much money does an abortion cost?

Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic Cost Calculator

Planned Parenthood Federation of America: Annual Report 2009-2010

Planned Parenthood" on FactCheck.Org

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Obamas Profit Problem

Planned Parenthood and the Demand for Abortion

Are Fingernails Equivalent to an Early-Trimester Unborn Child?

>

Are Fingernails Equivalent to an Early-Trimester Unborn Child?

via The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog by David N. Bass on 8/24/12

Political columnist Froma Harrop makes the odd and offensive suggestion in this column (entitled "Akin's Consistency is GOP's Real Problem") that fingernails are equivalent in human value to an early-trimester unborn child:

I believe that abortions should be easy to obtain early in a pregnancy and progressively harder to get as time goes on. The issue isn't when life begins, but when "personhood" begins. Sperm, unfertilized eggs and fingernails are all life and human. The point of development at which the fertilized egg should be considered a full-fledged person is determined by theology or philosophy, not science.

Basing when human life begins on the nebulous idea of "personhood" leads to the kind of fallacious thinking that equates a fetus with sperm, eggs, and (weirdly) fingernails. Yes, a sperm and egg constitute the ingredients of human life, but taken separately they aren't human life. Combined, at the moment of conception, the ingredients form a human being.
Where do fingernails fit in? No idea.
The chief ethical challenge for supporters of abortion-on-demand is defining when "personhood" begins. For pro-lifers, that decision is easy. It begins at conception. Abortion supporters, however, must choose another arbitrary date, at which point basic human rights and constitutional protections are conferred.
From the paragraph I quoted above, it's obvious that Ms. Harrop struggles with that decision. Why should an abortion be more difficult to obtain as the pregnancy progresses? Is an unborn child becoming "more human," while not fully human until after birth? From a moral standpoint, is a third trimester abortion wrong (or more wrong) than a first trimester abortion? If so, why?
Those are the challenges of abortion-rights advocates. Most in their camp feel comfortable defining "personhood" as beginning at birth, when the baby can be sustained apart from the mother's body. The trip down the birth canal makes the difference. (The reality, of course, is that a newborn baby is just as reliant for survival on the mother as he or she would be while still in the womb.)
Pro-life conviction based on the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death is the most consistent position to take in the abortion debate. Those who fall into the other camp are routinely reduced to comparing unborn children to fingernails.

Does This Really Read Like a Declaration of War on Women to You? - By Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner - National Review Online

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314723/does-really-read-declaration-war-women-you-kathryn-jean-lopez (via shareaholic.com)

Seriously, Americans ought to read the Republican party platform's explicit language on life instead of read about it: 

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the self-evident truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form – and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a revision of federal law 42 USC 289.92 to bar the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take conform in the tremendous increases in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.