Quote of the Day: “Abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself”


From Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic’s Politics Power Sex blog (bolded emphasis added by me):

During my first week as a Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic employee, I was given a tour of one our comprehensive health centers, where we do surgical abortions (we provide medication abortions at all of our health centers). The then-director of the center said to me, “We change women’s lives every day here,” and he was smiling as he said it. It made me feel safe. I immediately understood that this was a place where every woman’s life was valued, and where her decisions would be honored.

The majority of health services we provide are preventive. But it seems to me that what is truly life-changing is having an abortion, precisely because, for so many women, having an abortion means your life does not change. You do not become a mother. Or, you already are a mother but you won’t lose your job when you begin to show. Or, you can finish school – high school or college or any kind of school – without worrying that child birth and parenting will interfere with midterms, or finals, or graduation. You simply continue your life without being pregnant, and without having to face the decision to parent or place your child for adoption.

Abortion has value. It is not just the lesser of two evils, but abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself. And I am not talking about cases of rape or life endangerment. I’m talking about everyday women – you, maybe, or your mom, friend, sister, wife, girlfriend, roommate – who simply know that they do not want to be pregnant, and do not want to parent this child, at this time.

me. mE. ME. Did you get that? Abortion is all about “me.” It’s not about anything or anyone else. Not the unborn child whose life you are sustaining inside the womb, whose heartbeat can be heard and seen in as little as five weeks. Frankly, I’m surprised the post above wasn’t gleefully titled “Abortion is like an eraser” due to the way the writer, someone named Gina, focuses on how the life of the busy pregnant woman can simply “go on” business as usual after having a surgical abortion. It’s like you can erase that little ‘clump of cells’ out of your life, and never look back. I’m sure some do, because they’re deceived and deluded about what they’re doing, or they know exactly what they’re doing and don’t care. But for others, the regret and guilt lasts forever.

In any event, it’s refreshing to see someone from a militantly pro-abortion outfit like Planned Parenthood inadvertently be up front about the primary reasons both used for abortion and supported by abortion proponents. Usually when abortion becomes part of our national discussion (as it often does), the focus of pro-aborts is on the emotional arguments surrounding the “health of the mother/baby” “rape/incest” rationales in attempts to imply that the vast majority of abortions are done in this country because the mother could have died if she’d attempted to give birth, that the baby had a life-threatening defect, or the woman was pregnant as a result of incest or rape. These radical pro-aborts know from one of their very own major sources of abortion information that the vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience purposes – like the ones the author mentioned above. But they don’t talk about it much on Good Morning America and the like because those rationales aren’t emotion-based, and thus won’t tug on the heartstrings of the American people. They know that poll after poll (examples here) shows that a majority of Americans oppose abortions in cases other than those involving the health of the mother and/or baby, and those in which the pregnancy was as the result of rape or incest. The best way for radical feminists to get around this fact is to center their arguments around the rationales that are least used by women who have abortions.

Yet, they’re supposed to be “all about the facts.” Right.

It’s interesting that later on in the author’s piece she writes “Women deserve easy access to high-quality, affordable abortion care, without waiting periods, and without biased counseling.” In other words, whenever, for whatever reason – no questions asked. And you have to love the “unbiased” part of that sentence. Is there such a thing as an “unbiased” Planned Parenthood employee when it comes to the issue of abortion? I don’t think so. Follow ANY Planned Parenthood feed on Twitter, for example (start here), and you’ll see that’s the primary issue on which many of them devote their time.

Also – can someone explain to me what “abortion care” actually means? It’s certainly not related to “care” for the unborn baby being aborted …

And speaking of that, here’s a refresher once more as to just what happens during the types of surgical abortions performed at abortion clinics like the Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic clinic. From their own website (WARNING: GRAPHIC):


During an aspiration abortion

  • Your health care provider will examine your uterus.
  • You will get medicine for pain. You may be offered sedation — a medicine that allows you to be awake but deeply relaxed.
  • speculum will be inserted into your vagina.
  • Your health care provider may inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix.
  • The opening of your cervix may be stretched with dilators — a series of increasingly thick rods. Or you may have absorbent dilators inserted a day or a few hours before the procedure. They will absorb fluid and get bigger. This slowly stretches open your cervix. Medication may also be used with or without the dilators to help open your cervix.
  • You will be given antibiotics to prevent infection.
  • A tube is inserted through the cervix into the uterus.
  • Either a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus.
  • Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check that the uterus is empty. When a curette is used, people often call the abortion a D&C — dilation and curettage.

An aspiration procedure takes about 5 to 10 minutes. But more time may be needed to prepare your cervix. Time is also needed for talking with your provider about the procedure, a physical exam, reading and signing forms, and a recovery period of about one hour.


During a D&E

  • Your health care provider will examine you and check your uterus.
  • You will get medication for pain. You may be offered sedation or IV medication to make you more comfortable.
  • A speculum will be inserted into your vagina.
  • Your cervix will be prepared for the procedure. You may be given medication or have absorbent dilators inserted a day or a few hours before the procedure.  They will absorb fluid and grow bigger. This slowly stretches open your cervix.
  • You will be given antibiotics to prevent infection.
  • In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.
  • Your health care provider will inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix.
  • Medical instruments and a suction machine gently empty your uterus.

A D&E usually takes between 10 and 20 minutes. But more time is needed to prepare your cervix. Time is also needed for talking with your provider about the procedure, a physical exam, reading and signing forms, and a recovery period of about one hour.

After reading that, that anyone in their right mind could think that abortion is a “good, moral decision” absolutely positively boggles the mind.  What’s good about aspiration? What’s moral about a D&E? The fact that in the vast majority of cases the abortions happen before the baby is supposed to be able to feel pain? Does the possibility that the unborn baby can feel no pain make these abortion procedures any less immoral? What about for those babies who do feel pain?  We’re supposed to oppose the death penalty for violent murderers on the grounds that it’s “cruel and inhumane” yet we’re supposed to support procedures on the innocent unborn which are much, much worse?

The answer to all of the above from the standpoint of pro-aborts is, to put it bluntly: “Who cares? Woman’s body, woman’s choice.”  It doesn’t matter to these diehard feministas that fetal organ development starts within just a few weeks of conception, that you can hear and see their little rapid heartbeats at five weeks.  If that doesn’t tug on the heartstrings of staunch pro-aborts, then – quite frankly – they have no heart.  Or not a warm one, anyway.

“Unbiased counseling.”  Hmm.  Takes a lot of nerve to say something like that when you consider that your average abortion clinic prides itself on a “no questions asked” policy, and when there are questions and doubts expressed, there are countless stories out there of women who’ve tried to talk to an abortion “counselor” only to be told that abortion was their best (read: “only”) option.  “Unbiased counseling”? Not at most abortion clinics, including PP.  It’s not just a way of life.  It’s also a business.

Abortion advocates oppose parental consent laws.  They oppose laws that would ban abortions on the basis of sex or race.  They oppose waiting period laws.  They oppose fetal pain laws.  They oppose fetal heartbeat laws. They oppose any law that would require the doctor to show the pregnant woman the ultrasound of the baby.  They oppose any law that would criminalize violence or murder against an unborn baby (while in the act of abusing or killing a pregnant woman).  They oppose partial birth abortion laws.   Strange, isn’t it, how they’re so against protecting the unborn, even in cases where you’d think there would be mutual agreement – like the criminalization of violence agianst the unborn. But no.  They don’t.  Why? Beyond the fact that most dyed-in-the-wool pro-aborts view the unborn child as a “parasite” or a “clump of cells”, most of them will admit that they oppose these laws not so much because they’re ok with things like violence against an unborn baby or aborting a baby on the basis of its race or sex.  They oppose them because they believe that they will be used over time to incrementally ban abortion in all but the most extreme instances.

So abortions on the basis of sex or race must continue (Margaret Sanger would be proud), and violence against pregnant women should be considered a crime against the woman only, 2nd trimester babies who are about to be aborted must continue to feel pain, the heartbeats of the soon-to-be-aborted should still be stopped, the body parts of the unborn must still be allowed to be sucked out of a woman’s body,  all primarily because her mother simply doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of having to juggle college and/or a job  and/or existing motherhood with a (another?) baby.  Life, interrupted? Not an option for pro-aborts – at least not in terms of the mother, anyway.  The life of the baby, well – that’s another story altogether.   They don’t get a say.

Which is why it’s imperative we speak for them.  Because if we don’t, who will?

Fundraiser favoritism you can believe in?



When the White House announced the federal government would loan $465 million to Tesla, a California start-up company with plans to develop an all-electric sedan, President Obama called it an “historic opportunity to ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America.”

The loan also represented a lucrative opportunity for Steve Westly, a major investor in the car company who had raised more than $500,000 for the president’s campaign.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy lent more than half a billion dollars to companies backed by Westly’s California venture capital firm. In 2010, the White House tapped Westly for a seat on a special energy advisory panel that gives him regular access to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Westly boasts on his website that his firm is “uniquely positioned” to take advantage of the Obama administration’s interest in green energy.

Congress has given the Energy Department authority to distribute billions of dollars in public funds to help stimulate the economy and seed a new generation of clean energy firms. A joint investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity that will air on World News with Diane Sawyer tonight has found that Westly is just one of several political allies of the president who have ties to companies receiving chunks of that money through loans, grants, or loan guarantees.

CLICK HERE to read the Center for Public Integrity’s story on Steve Westly.

The White House’s response? Pretty typical.  In other words, lies:

“Grants and loans are competitively awarded on the basis of merit,” said Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman.

Top energy officials told ABC News the loan program took time to get rolling, but is now overseen by 175 professionals who rigorously scrutinize applicants, and attempt to get behind companies with the best hope of creating sustainable jobs.

But efforts to analyze the criteria the Energy Department has used to select the companies that have received federal loans or loan guarantees have proved challenging, even for government auditors. Last summer, the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department’s loan program. The report concluded that the department had “treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others.”

The author of the GAO report, Franklin Rusco, told ABC News that Energy Department officials used an opaque process to select loan recipients. He said the agency could not, or would not, explain why some companies were given a quick green light for approval, while others waited years for a response.

Oh, I think we know why, GAO.

This from the administration that was going to “change” business as usual in Washington, DC.   I sure hope like hell that  the eventual GOP nominee for president makes sure to repeatedly point out the many shady business as usual deals like the ones reported in the ABC/CPI investigative piece while on the campaign trail and at the debates.  The American people needed to be reminded close to election time just how much of a fraud our slick, polished celebrity President really is.

1 Gurkha vs. 30 Taliban: guess who didn’t stand a chance?


Sergeant Dipprasad Pun unloaded 400 rounds of ammo and 17 grenades at the Taliban. He detonated a mine. But they kept coming. So, when the grenades ran out and his weapon wouldn’t fire, what did he do? He grabbed a makeshift club and charged:

Sgt Pun told yesterday how he was on guard duty at the base near Rahim Kalay in Helmand Province on September 10 last year when he heard a digging sound in the darkness in front of him.

Grabbing two radios, a GPMG (general purpose machine gun), his SA80 rifle, a grenade launcher and an arsenal of hand-held grenades he climbed onto the rooftop and opened fire.

With rocket propelled grenades and gun fire flying over his head from all directions he defended the position for more than 15 minutes, killing three Taliban and forcing the others to flee.

At one point the diminutive soldier turned around to see a “huge” Taliban fighter approaching him on the rooftop, a few feet away, having silently scaled the wall, and shot him.

While the mass of Taliban fired from an area of open ground, another crept into the compound and tried to climb the wall but he spotted him.

“I tried to fire my SA80 but it wouldn’t work,” he said.

“I don’t know if there was an obstruction or the magazine was finished.

“I threw my SA80 down and grabbed a sandbag but it wasn’t tied and all the sand dropped out.

“As I tried to jump into the sentry post I found a metal rod from the GPMG tripod and pulled it round and hit him.”

As he ran towards the Taliban fighter he gave a shout of “Marchu Talai” Nepalese for “I’m going to kill you”.

No word on whether the brave jihadi wet himself as he ran off into the night.

Sgt. Pun was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross for his actions that night, Britain’s second-highest military honor. Somehow, I’d say he earned it.

Meanwhile, back at the Taliban camp, they’re probably still looking at each other and asking, “And they think we’re crazy?”

Moral of the story? Never, ever, tick off a Gurkha.

More at The Himalayan Times and The Blaze.

RELATED: Another Gurkha one-man-army.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)