Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it,” said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

So she woke up to see abortion on demand for what it was and is – not as a ‘procedure’ used to ‘help women through a difficult time’ but instead an immoral birth control method and money-making operation used to line the pockets of people who believe that an unborn baby is not a baby but instead just a ‘lump of tissue’ or a ‘parasite.’ Good for her.

Those of us who are former abortion supporters ourselves can identify to a certain degree with what Johnson feels – once it hits you, the guilt eats you alive. I can only imagine how she feels on a deeper level, thought, what with her being an active participant in Planned Abortionhood’s agenda for eight years. Whatever may be going through her mind, the good thing is that it has changed. In fact, attitudes on the whole about abortions have been changing for the better for the last few years.

There is hope for the unborn yet.

It’s interesting because so often you hear liberals – like our pro-choice President, for example (who, BTW, is an extremist on the issue) – describe the decision to have an abortion as a “painful” one that is “not made lightly,” but the reality is that most abortions are done for convenience purposes, not for “life of the mother/health of the baby” reasons, and if they are so “painful” and are not “made lightly” then the stories like Stanek documented would be practically non-existent.

Reliable statistics on abortions are sometimes hard to come by, because pro-abortion forces do not want you to know the extent of their callousness and cruelty to the unborn via their vigilant, militant advocacy of “abortion on demand,” but what we do know is that in most instances, women have abortions because they simply don’t want a child interfering with their life at the time of their pregnancy. They might be in college, or have just landed a great job, or may be in a situation where they don’t want to be single and pregnant – perhaps because they don’t think they can handle the responsibility on their own financially or emotionally or both.

These are, of course, unacceptable excuses for terminating the life of a child whose heartbeat can be heard at 6 weeks:

And for those who do agonize over the decision to have a convenience abortion? There can only be one explanation: They damn well know it’s morally wrong on so many levels. Otherwise, why agonize over what pro-abortionists describe as a merely a “blob of tissue,” a “parasite“?

And while on the topic of the heartbeats of the unborn, you have to love the way the NYT described an abortion law in Oklahoma that was recently struck down by a district court judge (via Ken Shepard):

HOUSTON — A day after a judge struck down an Oklahoma law requiring women seeking an abortion to see an ultrasound of the fetus and listen to a description of its attributes, the state said it would appeal the ruling, and Republican lawmakers vowed to pass the law again in a different form.

While advocates of abortion rights celebrated the victory in court, they acknowledged the fight against one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the country was likely to continue for months in the Legislature and before the State Supreme Court.

“Anti-abortion” law? While it’s true that the law is designed to get a woman who goes in for an abortion to have second thoughts – and possibly change her mind – about aborting her unborn child, I wouldn’t call it “anti-abortion.” More like “pro-choice.” You’re shown the ultrasound, and given the choice during the ultrasound as to whether or not you still want to go through with the abortion. Horrors.

Isn’t that what making an “informed choice” is all about? The answer for liberal feminists is a resounding “no,” and the reason is that abortion advocates only want you to be “selectively educated” about the choice you are about to make, because if you don’t know what the baby looks like in your womb, and you don’t hear its heartbeat, then you can convince yourself that it is not a human – and as a result, making the “choice” to abort your unborn child easier. And seriously – have you ever heard uber liberal feminist congratulate a woman on the choice she made to keep her baby?

And speaking of “informed decisions,” I have to take my hat of to celebreality icon Kourtney Kardashian, who recently admitted she’s pregnant and decided to keep her baby after extensive research and soul-searching:

“I definitely thought about it long and hard, about if I wanted to keep the baby or not, and I wasn’t thinking about adoption,” Kardashian, 30, who was shooting E!’s Kourtney & Khloe Take Miami at the time, tells PEOPLE exclusively. “I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want, but I don’t think it’s talked through enough. I can’t even tell you how many people just say, ‘Oh, get an abortion.’ Like it’s not a big deal.”

Scott Disick, the baby’s 26-year-old father, was supportive either way. The pair had split in November after two years of dating, but reconciled shortly after finding out she was pregnant. “He wanted me to talk about it more, but I just kept to myself,” she says. “He said, ‘I really want you to keep it, but I will support you whatever you decide to do.’”

Confused and concerned, Kardashian says, “I called my best friend crying, and I was like, ‘I don’t know what to do.’ She said, ‘Call your doctor, and at least find out the risks and stuff.’ ” So Kardashian discussed abortion with her physician, and then headed to the Internet to do further research.

“I looked online, and I was sitting on the bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion,” she recalls. “I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards.”

After scouring the Internet, Kardashian says she started to realize that an abortion wasn’t an option for her. “I was just sitting there crying, thinking, ‘I can’t do that,’ ” she says. “And I felt in my body, this is meant to be. God does things for a reason, and I just felt like it was the right thing that was happening in my life.”

Kardashian says she did some intense soul-searching. “For me, all the reasons why I wouldn’t keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn’t like I was raped, it’s not like I’m 16. I’m 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time.”

Not that rape, being a teenager, or not being financially stable make that unborn child any less of a life, but I’ll take her overall rationale for keeping her baby any day over another woman’s rationale that her college degree was more important than having her baby.

Internet reports are now circulating that Obama’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren’s writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals…especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people’s objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.

Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi’s government for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:

India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it…This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi’s government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.

Read the whole thing.  Better yet, once you’re done reading Freddoso’s article, check out Zombie’s extensive reporting, as that is where this disturbing story first broke.

The radical anti-life-as-a-way-of-saving-the-planet attitude is not a new one.  Several months ago I was exposed to this shocking, extremist belief system after getting into a very heated debate online with a fantatical greenie who actually believes that human life is less important than a “rare marsupial” or “Golden Spruces” and who in fact advocated abortion for population control purposes.  Scary stuff.   In any event, in spite of the fact that this belief is not a new one, I think this is probably the first time in our nation’s history that we’ve had someone who held those views (and, to date, he has not repudiated them) anywhere close to the WH (on second thought – what’s Al Gore’s position on forced sterilization?).  What’s worse? He’s a “czar,” which means Holdren didn’t have to answer to any questions from any bipartisan committee, and didn’t have to be confirmed or denied by the Senate.

It’s becoming quite clear that this administration is going the extreme radical route in the science and climate departments with the respective selections of Holdren and his Socialist “climate czar” Carol Browner.  In fact, it’s becoming more apparent by the minute that President Obama, for all his talk of  “bipartisanship” is saving his most radical choices for the position of “czar” so – in most cases – they don’t have to answer to anyone but  him.

In fact, Fox News reported today that yet another czar may be added soon to the Obama’s already overflowing stable of them: A healthcare czar.  How radical will this one be?  Maybe we have someone who thinks like Pete Singer to look forward to?

[Pro-lifers] may not have liked what Tiller did, but we absolutely didn’t want to see him dead. Roeder was not one of us. He was a psychopath, a man whose demented mind led him to commit a crime that is, essentially, the antithesis of what the pro-life movement represents.

But that’s not the way it’s being played on the editorial pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and our sister paper here in Philadelphia. Somehow, Tiller’s blood is on the hands of all of us who ever wore a rose in our lapel, protested in front of an abortion clinic, criticized Roe v. Wade or sent money to crisis pregnancy centers.

WHICH IS really interesting because those same opinion pages loudly lamented any demonization of Muslim-Americans after 9/11. They were appalled that a whole group of people could be blamed for the criminal acts of 19 men. They took great pains to call Islam a religion of peace and distinguish it from the violence of extremists.

And they condemned guilt-by-association.

They’ve even downplayed the fact that the killer of a soldier outside of an army recruitment center was a Muslim convert who spent time in that favorite vacation destination for budding terrorists: Yemen.

But when it comes to the pro-life movement, there isn’t the same attention to detail.

Yep. Consistency isn’t exactly a hallmark of the left, especially when it comes to conservatives and Christians.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the left put 1/100th of the effort into helping in the fight against Islamofascism that they have fighting for the right of abortion providers to do “their business” free from harassment and violence?

I’m bothered by the fact that the left considers conservatives “heartless” yet it’s (primarily) conservatives who object to the heartless procedure of abortion, which degrades and dehumanizes the unborn in ways too numerous and gruesome to cite here. I’m bothered by the fact that for all the left’s concern about terminally ill adults having the “right” to die with “dignity,” and their belief that the death penalty for murderers is “cruel and unusual punishment,” that they find some type of dignity and “rightness” in the practice of sucking and pulling an unborn baby’s body parts out of its mother’s womb, and see nothing “cruel and unusual” about it. It bothers me that the left cares more about making sure we have “plenty” of abortion providers, than about the unborn babies growing inside a mother’s body, and their right to a chance a life – a chance that our mothers, thankfully, thought we deserved.

I’m bothered by the fact that even explaining my position in the simplest of terms – by suggesting that I believe that it’s wrong to extinguish a heartbeat that you can hear at five weeks, I’m branded an “extremist” yet those on the left side of the aisle are branded the “caring, sane” ones because they want to save the whales, trees, forests, and animals … but not a breathing unborn baby inside the womb of a human being.

I’m bothered that we’re here, in the 21st century, actually still having to “debate” on whether or it’s right or wrong to abort an unborn child, as if there really is a “debate” to begin with. I’m bothered by the fact that we ALL know that our lives began somewhere – that our human development started from the moment we were conceived, yet the left consistently argues that the baby is not “human”until it is “viable.” I’m bothered by the left’s constant changing of definitions of words in an effort to sanitize what abortion really is. I’m bothered that the left finds more important protecting the “rights” of Islamofascists rather than re-examining their viewpoints on the rights of the unborn.

And that’s just for starters.

Contrast that with they do widespread reporting on acts of fringe right wing violence, case in point. We’ll be hearing about the murder for George Tiller for weeks, with hypocritical left wing pundits, politicos, and news reporters alike talking about how this is “concrete evidence” of how “crazy” all pro-lifers are. Just like Bill Clinton did after the OKC bombing, they’ll blame right wing “crazies” for being “accessories” to lone acts of violence by a few fringe nutballs.

Also, contrast that with the wall to wall coverage we received of cop killer Andrew Mickel, a far left winger who gunned down Officer David Mobilio, 31-year-old husband and father of a toddler, in 2002 in order to “bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I’m coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility.” It was a rampage he wanted to continue, but didn’t get the chance to because the cops read his confession on left wing Internet websites and caught him.

Oh – that’s right, there was no wall to wall coverage of Mickel’s heinous act. Bob Owens explains:

There are some of us in the center-right blogosphere who came down heavily on Mickel for his politically-motivated assassination of an innocent police officer, but the national media largely ignored Mickel’s conviction in a death penalty case, probably because of the fact that they helped shape the terrorist he became, and because he was a living example of the worst extreme of their ideology.

Now that a man identified as Roeder has murdered infanticide specialist George Tiller, the media finally has a politically motivated assassination it can get behind and hype. They will try to portray as some sort of representative example of a much wider group, just as noted conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan reflexively did, even though the last murder of an abortionist occurred more than a decade ago.

As I noted earlier, nobody gains from such politically-motivated murders, and I can only wonder how the powers that be will try to use this tragedy to their advantage.

I’m not wondering. It’s already started.

CNS has the story:

During Sunday’s speech at Notre Dame, Obama referred to a doctor who voted for him in the 2004 Democratic Senate primary in Illinois and who “described himself as Christian who was strongly pro-life.” The doctor objected to language on Obama’s Senate campaign Web site that said Obama would battle “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”

Obama explained that the doctor “had assumed I was a reasonable person…but if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.”

The doctor sent Obama a letter where, according to the president, he stated, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

As Obama repeated the term “fair-minded words,” the cry of a baby—that had been heard intermittently before that as Obama spoke about the issue–broke out clearly and could be heard on national television broadcasts.

The arena where the president spoke is the Joyce Center, which has a capacity of 11,418, and is where Notre Dame’s basketball team plays its home games. It appeared to be filled to capacity for the graduation ceremony.

As there continued to be outbursts of the baby’s cry audible on television broadcasts, Obama indicated that he had removed from his Web site the entry that the doctor did not like, but that he did not change his pro-abortion position.

Sigh …

Via La Shawn Barber.

A University of Notre Dame graduate displays on her mortar board her membership in the ND Response Pro-Life group, bottom right, and another graduate with a Barack Obama campaign emblem on their mortar board, top left, participate in commencement ceremonies in South Bend, Ind., Sunday, May 17, 2009.(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

In his speech to the Notre Dame graduates, President Obama called for “common ground” on the issue of abortion. But we all know Obama’s extremist position on the issue, as evidenced by his testy responses on the subject of late term abortions last year. So, exactly what “common ground” can be found with someone who doesn’t believe that a “non-viable” infant born alive after an attempted late term abortion should receive medical care – a position he said he took because he believed the law was a “back door” attempt by those who oppose abortion to chip away at Roe v. Wade “protections” – a reason that FactCheck essentially found to be bogus when they examined Obama’s voting record and statements on the issue closely?

If he is truly desiring of having the American people – a slim majority of who now identify themselves as “pro-life” – to find “common ground” on this issue, then he should lead by example and move away from the far left on this issue. Until then, his calls for “common ground” will continue to look like nothing more than “just words.”

BEIJING — A bias in favor of male offspring has left China with 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls, creating “an imminent generation of excess men,” a study released Friday said.

For the next 20 years, China will have increasingly more men than women of reproductive age, according to the paper, which was published online by the British Medical Journal. “Nothing can be done now to prevent this,” the researchers said.

Chinese government planners have long known that the urge of couples to have sons was skewing the gender balance of the population. But the study, by two Chinese university professors and a London researcher, provides some of the first hard data on the extent of the disparity and the factors contributing to it.

In 2005 , they found, births of boys in China exceeded births of girls by more than 1.1 million. There were 120 boys born for every 100 girls.

This disparity seems to surpass that of any other country, they said — a finding, they wrote, that was perhaps unsurprising in light of China’s one-child policy.

They attributed the imbalance almost entirely to couples’ decisions to abort female fetuses.

The trend toward more male than female children intensified steadily after 1986, they said, as ultrasound tests and abortion became more available. “Sex-selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males,” the paper said.

The researchers, who analyzed data from a 2005 census, said the disparity was widest among children ages 1 to 4, a sign that the greatest imbalances among the adult population lie ahead. They also found more distortion in provinces that allow rural couples a second child if the first is a girl, or in cases of hardship.

Those couples were determined to ensure they had at least one son, the researchers noted. Among children born second, there were 143 boys for 100 girls, the data showed.

Legal Insurrection, a blog that notes this is also a huge problem in India, comments:

Attempts to impose sex-selective abortion restrictions in the U.S. have met with opposition. In part this opposition is based on constitutional principles (per Roe v. Wade), but may also be based on the fact that there is evidence that there is no male-gender preference in the U.S. If government could question the motive of a woman in seeking an abortion, and deny access based on that motive, then the right to abortion would be restricted.

Supporters of unrestricted abortion, such as the Center for Reproductive Rights, support China’s efforts to ban sex-selective abortions, based on principles of non-discrimination against women. But it seems as if the CRR and other pro-choice groups are trying to have it both ways. If a woman has a right to choose, then who is the CRR or the government to decide what is the right choice? Or is this Western hypocrisy at its worst, giving women in wealthy Western countries choices of which women in poorer countries are deprived?

This is not unlike liberal gay groups who unconditionally support abortion … except in the event of people aborting babies after discovering (somewhere in the future?) that their baby has the “gay gene.”

All of this goes to show the abject moral bankruptcy of the “strongly pro-abortion” position amongst the hard left. For years, these same liberals (and those before them) have preached that a woman has the right to abort “for whatever reason” – officially, they allege that most women abort due to “health reasons” but unofficially it’s more about supporting that “right” for notably for economic reasons (allegedly can’t support the baby) or convenience reasons (they don’t want a baby around to interfere with their social lives). But when it comes to “sex-selective” abortions and “gay gene” abortions, their arguments suddenly fall flat on their faces. If it’s not ok to abort based on sex and “gay genes,” then why on earth should it be acceptable to abort over financial/convenience reasons?

At least UK “family-planning” groups are consistent. A move last year by a conservative MP to outlaw abortions based on “health abnormalities” like a cleft palate or a club foot was opposed by said groups because, ‘the move could open a legal minefield, raising the question of why other ‘abnormalities’ are not similarly ruled out.’

Let’s hope liberal feminists and other devout abortion supporters here in the US don’t become smart enough to make such arguments. Frankly, I’m not worried, as evidently their desire to see more of “their kind” outweighs their obsession over a woman’s “right to choose.” I’m still trying to determine which position is more self-centered.

Related/Flashback:

• 10/24/07 – (UK) Babies with minor disabilities aborted

Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama’s hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes a long-sought victory.

Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting “Choose Life” specialty license plates.

The revenue from the specialty plates would go to crisis-pregnancy centers, which many abortion-rights backers believe proslyetize against abortion and encourage women to keep unwanted children.

Encouraging women to keep their children? Horrifying, I know. How did far left feminist groups react? NARAL/Pro-Choice America provides the perfect – and predictable – example:

Washington, DC – The leaders of NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia expressed deep disappointment at Gov. Tim Kaine’s decision to sign into law a bill that funnels state money to anti-choice organizations, the so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.”

Kaine, who also serves as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has taken action that’s inconsistent with the strong pro-choice platform adopted by party leaders last August. This is the first piece of legislation involving a woman’s right to choose that Kaine considered since being elected chairman of the national party.

“It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women’s health,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “This action reminds America’s pro-choice majority that we must hold elected officials in both political parties accountable when they take actions that are inconsistent with mainstream pro-choice values.”

[I]nconsistent with mainstream pro-choice values”? These women are insane. Only hardcore Democrat feminists believe women shouldn’t be discouraged against having an abortion. Mainstreamers want women to have all the information at their disposal before they make their decision. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but of course to “women’s groups” like NARAL, it’s just another excuse to whip up a bunch of angry, bitter women into an frothing frenzy over an “issue” that really isn’t an issue at all. I’m sure it’s a great way to get their faithful followers to throw another check in the mail in support of NARAL’s agenda, but drumming up phony outrage like this does absolutely nothing to advance women’s rights.

You’ve also got to love the line about how Kaine allegedly “opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women’s health.” You’d think Kaine just told women to break the coat hangers back out the way radical lefist women’s groups are reacting to this. These license plates are (gasp!) optional, and the people who choose to get such a plate are probably already contributing money to pro-life causes in some way, anyway. Those who don’t want one don’t have to get one. That’s the beauty of it: being able to make a choice that harms absolutely no one.

Democrat Kirsten Powers is a feminist, but not the kind that supports the scare tactics that come from the likes of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Here’s a little of what she wrote about NARAL’s reaction:

What really seems to enrage NARAL and Planned Parenthood is when crisis pregnancy centers use ultra-sound devices, or other methods, to show women pictures of their fetuses. To say that this is a “scare tactic” would be like saying it is a “scare tactic” to show a man a picture of clogged arteries to try to get him to understand his health situation. Yes, it may scare him in a certain direction — or not — but it’s an informed decision.

If a woman is seven weeks pregnant and someone shows her this picture, what is wrong with that? How is that “scary”?

Women are not delicate little flowers who can’t handle information, despite what NARAL Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood tell us. They should have the option of having all the information presented to them before an abortion so they understand what they are doing.

I don’t think they should be forced to look at an ultrasound, but one should be offered.

Abortion-rights activists sneer about anti-abortion advocates ignoring science. But the reality is that science is not on the side of NARAL or their ilk, and they know that. That’s why they don’t want women looking at ultrasounds or hearing that what they call a “little clump of cells” has a heartbeat at 3 weeks. (I learned that at the “Bodies” exhibit).

It was learning about that current science on fetal development that first shook my strong pro-choice beliefs. (I’m now where most Americans are: not advocating overturning Roe v. Wade, but in favor of limitations on abortion).

A few years ago, I was curious about crisis pregnancy centers (to be honest I had totally bought the negative propaganda about them) so I signed up for the counselor training at one in Manhattan.

I was ready to be outraged by their manipulation but in fact all they did was present information about the development of the fetus and advice on how to counsel women seeking abortion, with most of their focus on how to be loving to women seeking counseling after having an abortion.

Another key focus was on how to help women get health insurance if they wanted to keep the baby and finding parents to adopt the child if they wanted that option.

I don’t doubt that some of the crisis pregnancy centers are deceitful and engage in harmful practices. Such places should be shut down. But as a person who cares about women’s rights, I would be enormously pleased if the people who claim to be “pro-choice” would embrace a wider array of choices for women dealing with unwanted pregnancies, rather than trying to bully any organization offering abortion alternatives out of existence.

I wish that I could say that NARAL and groups like NARAL were a joke, but jokes are supposed to be funny, and the lies and deception pushed forth by them (for examples, read “The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths“) in an effort to advance their far left agenda, whether we’re talking about abortion or “evil” men are most definitely not humorous. They’re dangerous and have cost this country the lives of millions of unborn, and have fostered an attitude of fierce resentment and hostility towards males that have hurt the American family.

Just another day, another instance of hardcore “choice” groups operating with their eyes on advancing an agenda based on faulty – and in many cases outright false – information, while hoping that other American women will buy into what they say without question. And why not? It’s worked so many times before.

Flashback:

• From pro-abortion to pro-life: My thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade
• Radical feminism: you reap what you sow
• A story about the modern day ‘feminist movement’

President Obama’s executive order to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research is coming up against legislative blockades in states around the country.

Legislators in Georgia and Oklahoma are considering bills that would limit, if not outright prohibit, scientists from working with human embryonic stem cells in their research to cure or reverse medical conditions, including diabetes, paralysis and Parkinson’s disease. In Texas and Mississippi, lawmakers are considering blocking state funding for that research, mirroring existing laws in other states.

“I just think it’s immoral to create life and destroy it in the name of science,” said Georgia State Sen. Ralph Hudgens. “In Nazi Germany they did experiments with human beings. I don’t want to see that done here.”

Were the bills to pass, they could face legal challenges, said John Robertson, a law and bioethics professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“It’s unclear at this point. It will really depend on how the statutes are written,” he said. “The courts have struck these laws down in some cases in terms of vagueness.”

For more on what the individual states mentioned in the article are doing on the embryonic stem cell research front, visit the following links: Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi.

Flashback:

• 1/22/07 – From pro-abortion to pro-life: My thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade

Guess supporting US troops as part of an overall effort to stabilize Iraq so they can eventually leave is “a waste” – an outrage, in fact, but helping a woman in a foreign country get rid of her “parasite” is “worth it.”

Hmmm …

Here’s an original holiday gift idea to help the person who may have everything, including a little something they don’t really want. A new way to mark the festive yearend celebration of life — a gift certificate for an abortion.

This year, for the first time, Planned Parenthood of Indiana is offering holiday gift certificates for that certain someone in your life who may want a breast exam, a pap smear or perhaps not want another life in their life.

Calling them an “unusual yet practical gift this holiday season,” the organization is selling gift certificates in $25 denominations, redeemable at any of the group’s 35 statewide locations for their services, including health screenings, birth control and abortion services.

A Planned Parenthood website page notes that a standard women’s health exam costs $58 while abortions in the first trimester can run from $350 to $900.

There’s even an online page to order the certificates if you know someone in Indiana who desires such services.

According to Ms. magazine, an official of the Hoosier Planned Parenthood group explained:

“People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at their bottom of their list to do.”

Next thing you know, we’ll be reading about abortion greeting cards.

Oh wait, that’s already been done.

Next thing you know, we’ll be seeing t-shirts implying pride over having an abortion.

Oh wait, that’s already been done, too.

Sigh.

But others fear Ms. Palin’s emergence as a parental role model sends a different message. As a vocal opponent of abortion, Ms. Palin’s widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same, according to André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

Dr. Lalonde said that above all else, women must be free to choose, and that popular messages to the contrary could have detrimental effects on women and their families.

“The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada,” he said.

[...]

However, the SOGC says the country’s medical professionals don’t emphasize the burden of Down syndrome to pregnant women. Giving women balanced information about the potential consequences of either decision does not mean they are being encouraged to abort their pregnancies, Dr. Lalonde said.

“We offer the woman the choice. We try to be as unbiased as possible,” he said. “We’re coming down to a moral decision and we all know moral decisions are personal decisions.”

Almost every time I get into an argument with an abortion supporter, they try and correct me by saying that they are not “pro abortion” but instead “pro choice” – as if it makes a difference in the end. Dr. Llonde is a prime example of the “pro abortion” term being right on target. His claims of wanting a womn to be fully informed are laughable, considering I don’t recall hearing or reading about his arguments on how our society promotes a culture of death where abortion at any stage of pregnancy should be ‘acceptable.’

Considering that, Dr. Lalonde should be elated that in terms of the culture war on this issue, balance is slowly being restored thanks in part to Gov. Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to her child in spite of the fact that she knew before he was born that he had Down’s Syndrome, a decision she is unashamed of, as is clearly evidenced everytime you see her son Trig.

Ever since the RvW ruling, there has been a push in this country via womens magazines, advocacy groups, liberal women in Washington, DC and all around the world to ‘legitimize’ abortion by claiming it’s simply a medical procedure that is no different from most any other you would have. Only in the last few years has there been a slight shift in the atmosphere on the issue of abortion to the point where more are questioning whether or not it’s right or wrong, so much so that leftists like Bill and Hillary Clinton have gone on record as saying that it’s their hope that abortion stay “safe, legal, and rare” – why “rare,” if it’s no different than most other medical procedures? Why “rare” if it’s only a “blob of tissue”? But I digress.

Pro abortionists like Dr. Lalonde are part of the problem, not the solution. He puts on a mask by claiming he wants women to be fully informed before making their decison on whether or not to keep their unborn baby, but he’s unhappy that counter-cultural images like the story about Gov. Palin’s baby Trig may influence mothers against having abortions.   In other words, he’s really not interested in a woman hearing both sides of the story before making her decision.  If it influences her against abortion, it’s bad info as far as he’s concerned.

Ed Morrissey sums up:

This sounds more like the abortion industry worrying over a declining demand than a physician caring for a patient. Parents of DS children manage to have fulfilling lives, and they would say because of their child and not despite the decision to give birth. The Palins do provide a role model in that manner, as do the millions of other parents with such children who get no special attention for their love and sacrifice

[...]

Given Lalonde’s primary concern as stated by Lalonde himself, the fear seems to be that abortionists might have to deal with fewer customers.

That, and a fear that (gasp) our society could someday shift back to a culture of responsiblity, rather than irresponsibility on all things – including unplanned pregnancies.