The comment I did NOT post on facebook this morning...

A high school classmate posted a link to an article about France's new ban on "child beauty contests" with the comments, "Good on France" and "When do beauty pageants get banned altogether?"  This is a classmate who is a fervent supporter of abortion rights, because, "women's control over their own bodies" and what-not.

My comment, written and then deleted (as is so often the case):

Ok, I've tried to not do this, but I've got to know - how do you reconcile support for abortion (because "women must have control over their own bodies") with government bans on beauty pageants?  If women have the right to "reproductive autonomy" don't they have the right to compete in swimsuit competitions?

I don't want to debate abortion (or beauty pageants), but the cognitive dissonance strikes me as overwhelming, and I'm honestly curious as to how you would reconcile those positions.

And I really am curious.  But it's the wrong conversation for the wrong forum, so, delete.

But if anyone reading this happens to hold both of those positions (pro-choice, pro-prohibition on beauty pageants), I'd love to understand how...

Dems cheer abortion, boo God...

Sometimes the story really does speak for itself...

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the convention’s chairman, kicked off Wednesday’s proceedings by trying to clean up a mess Democrats made by omitting from their official party platform mentions of God and of Jerusalem as the preferred capital of Israel.

Villaraigosa called for a voice vote on an amendment offered by former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who chaired the platform drafting committee. Facing boos and nays, he tried again, before announcing that in his judgment, a two-thirds majority had approved the measure. He was booed again as he walked off the stage.

How 'Pro-Choice' are Democrats?

ReasonTV goes to the Democratic National Convention and demonstrates - again - that, for many Democrats, "pro-choice" just means "pro-abortion...."

Abortion, Third-Party Payer, and the Cost of Health Care

Abortion, Third-Party Payer, and the Cost of Health Care:

A major problem with America’s health care system, both before and after Obamacare, is the fact that consumers very rarely spend their own money when obtaining health care. Known as third-party payer, this problem exists in part because government directly finances almost 50 percent of health care expenditures. But even a majority of supposedly private health care spending is financed by employer-provided policies that are heavily distorted by a preference in the tax code that encourages insurance payments even for routine expenses. According to government data, only 12 percent of health care costs are financed directly by consumers. And since consumers almost always are buying health care with somebody else’s money, it should come as no surprise that this system results in rising costs and inefficiency. This is why repealing Obamacare is just the first step that is needed if policymakers genuinely want to restore a free market health care system...

I've said this before, I know, but it's the kind of thing that cannot be said often enough. I have insurance on my house, but when I need to re-shingle the roof or replace a window, I don't file a claim. The insurance is there for catastrophic events. I have insurance on my car, but if I get the oil changed or replace the battery or the tires or the alternator, I don't file a claim. The insurance is there for catastrophic events.

Well, why is health insurance different? Why, when I go in to have my yearly physical, doesn't the doctor just charge me a price that we negotiate beforehand, and have me pay it? Why is an insurance company involved? Why, when my child has strep throat and needs an antibiotic, is the insurance company involved? The insurance should be there for things that are, well, catastrophic. The stuff that requires big expenses, the conditions that most people don't get most of the time.

The disconnect between the consumer of services and the actual cost of services is one of the largest drivers, if not the single largest driver, of rising costs in the American health care system. The people who supported Obamacare due to fear of "spiraling costs" supported the worst thing that could happen to health care costs.

Kagan’s Abortion Distortion

Kagan’s Abortion Distortion - Shannen W. Coffin - National Review Online
Is this a "smoking gun"? Even if it is, does it matter with 59 Democratic Senators?

The horror!

How dare CBS show this ad! Where, WHERE, are their standards and practices people? How can they air something this offensive?



To be serious for just a moment, though, does not the uproar over this ad reveal NOW and Planned Parenthood to be be fanatically pro-abortion groups, not, as they so often claim, merely "pro-choice?" How can this possibly offend someone who is merely "pro-choice?"

Obviously, it can't. And the outrage and uproar were preposterous, but oh-so-educational for those who were a) watching and b) educable.


UPDATE: They aired a slightly different version...



...and are now getting criticized for endorsing violence against women.

Again, it reveals the moral bankruptcy of those protesting the ad...

Coakley: Emergency room jobs? No Catholics need apply...

The background: Martha Coakley has been attacking Scott Brown, because he supported an amendment to a health care bill in Massachusetts which allowed workers at Catholic Hospitals not to be required to provide contraception or abortions. The Coakley campaign has been running with this as "wants to deny emergency services to rape victims" which is unfair and dishonest (and, therefore, fairly typical and appropriate Democratic political advertising). So, asked about it on a radio show yesterday, she defends her position and then says, essentially, that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms (and Catholic hospitals shouldn't have emergency rooms.)

KP: If you're a Catholic and you believe what the Pope teaches, that any form of birth control is a sin, then you don't want to do that.
MC: No, but We have a separation of church and state here, Ken. Let's be clear.
KP: In the emergency room, you still have your religious freedom.
MC: (stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so, then, if, you can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room.

Maybe it was smart for Coakley not to campaign, as she was doing better in hiding than she is in public...

Dionne on Obama's Notre Dame address

E. J. Dionne is what he is - a doctrinaire liberal whose commentary appeals to other doctrinaire liberals by praising those that are doctrinaire liberals and criticizing those that aren't. In other words, he's a standard-issue, central-casting mainstream columnists for the mainstream media. He demonstrates competence at pounding out those tedious and stultifying bits of prose which festoon the editorial pages of the liberal-left "mainstream" newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times. And I never seek him out, but see him occasionally and virtually never agree with him. That said, his piece today,
Conciliatory Fighting Words, is either profoundly ignorant or staggeringly dishonest.

It should go without saying that Dionne is a fan and supporter of President Obama. Anything this President says or does is likely to get praise, and any criticisms of him from his right (and most of the country is to his right) are going to be dismissed as dishonest or cruel or racist or wrong.

Facing down protesters who didn't want him at Notre Dame, President Obama fought back not with harsh words but with the most devastating weapons in his political arsenal: a call for "open hearts," "open minds," "fair-minded words" and a search for "common ground."

Woo-hoo. Standard rhetorical jibber-jabber. Gosh, I didn't realize he called for "open hearts," "open minds," and "common ground." I must have been wrong about him!

Give me a break. The President can call for whatever he wants, but words have meanings. In this case, what those words all mean is, "I'm going to do it my way, and you should agree with me."

There were many messages sent from South Bend. Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn't.

If you've ever wondered how much ignorance and/or dishonesty could be crammed in to ten words, that last bit should provide an answer. It is roughly akin to a commentator looking at the D-Day invasion and saying, "Hitler's opponents seek to re-ignite the war in Europe. He doesn't."

In words that even a doctrinaire liberal like E. J. Dionne should be able to understand:

1. In order for there to be a "war," culture or otherwise, there must be (at least) two different sides.


2. The (at least) two different sides must be fighting over some idea, or ground, or philosophy.


3. The (at least) two different sides must want different results, different actions or ownerships or laws.


4. The "culture warriors" with regards to abortion range from those who want abortion illegal in all situations to those who support not only abortion, but government funding of it.


5. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere between those two extremes.


6. The President, in his days in the Illinois legislature, voted against a law that would have required that children born alive during the performance of an abortion be protected as a live baby.


7. President Obama is as far from, if not further from, the political center on this issue as any previous President of the United States.


8. In his first weeks in office, the President issued an executive order allowing foreign organizations which provide abortions to receive funding from US taxpayers.


9. In his first weeks in office, the President issued an executive order allowing federal funds to be used for the purpose of scientific and medical experiments which destroy human embryos.


10. Those actions, taken by President Barack Obama, "re-ignite[d] the culture wars."

Now Dionne could weasel out by saying that "he doesn't" refers to "seek[ing] to reignite the culture wars," and that's conceivably (though certainly not self-evidently) true. He doesn't "seek to re-ignite," merely to win. But, of course, one should extend the same courtesy to the opponents of those policies, who also don't "seek to re-ignite," merely to win. If one grants that Obama is acting the way he acts on principle, then one should grant that those on the other side are also acting on principle. The pro-life opposition that Dionne so casually slanders here isn't interested in fighting "culture wars" - it believes that abortion is murder, and wants to protect unborn children.

They would reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues.

Whatever the hell this statement means is apparently self-evident to Dionne. It is not to me. As I read it, he seems to be saying that "they" (Obama's opponents) "would reduce religious faith" (have an idea of the ideals of religion and religious faith) "to a narrow set of issues" (in which there are some issues which are actually important). How unreasonable of them!

He refused to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to certainty. He opted for humility.

Mr. Dionne, this President does not ever opt for humility¹. He does, on occasion, claim for himself a humility which he does not feel, because he intellectually understands that it would be appropriate. But one doesn't ever demonstrate humility by claiming it as a virtue. And he doesn't need "theological arguments...leading to certainty" because he's so certain of his own moral superiority.

He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the "controversy surrounding my visit here."

Just because he mentioned the "controversy surrounding [his] visit here," doesn't mean that he addressed the "controversy surrounding [his] visit here." And he absolutely skirted the abortion question. When a politician with Barack Obama's history and policy positions says "let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." well, he's skirting the issue. He's fudging. He hasn't the slightest interesting in "reduc[ing] the number of women seeking abortion" because he doesn't have any problem with abortion.

The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for asking him to appear, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited.

That may be true. But people are as frequently and as passionately rebuked for being correct in a minority position as for being wrong.

By facing their arguments head-on

Which he didn't.

and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns,

Lip service and attentiveness are not the same thing.

Obama strengthened moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself.

That's a conjecture, not a fact. It could just as easily end up strengthening conservative and traditional forces inside the church itself. The address was given yesterday. To claim to know today what the long term effects of the invitation and the acceptance are is to claim nonsense. (Well within E.J.'s capabilities...)

He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.

Notice that Dionne loved the speech but can't even follow it in paying lip service to the intentions of those with whom he disagrees. Those pro-life people aren't sincere in their beliefs, they just want to "keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end."

Obama's opponents on the Catholic right placed a large bet on his Notre Dame visit. And they lost.

What were the terms of this bet? Who placed it? How? What did they lose? What would have had to happen for them to win? The answers to any of these questions are not to be found within. Sadly, the questions themselves aren't found within, either, because Dionne is so convinced of his rightness that it apparently hasn't occurred to him that there's any question whatsoever about what took place.

Altogether, just a vile little piece of drivel.



¹ - If you think I'm wrong, or overstating, go ahead and read the address. Do you find any evidence of genuine humility there? I don't. Consider this passage:

A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”

The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that 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. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.” Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website.

And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

"I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website." In other words, "I was right, but it might cost me votes." And he's clearly not confessing here - he's boasting. "Let me demonstrate my openness by changing the language on my website in such a way as to fool some people into thinking I'm not what I have, in the past, been open about being." He considers it a virtue that he still "would fight 'right-wing idealogues'" ("I didn't change my underlying position") but he'll no longer call them "right-wing idealogues" on his website. What a guy...

Joe Trippi, you don't speak for me

Democratic political consultant Joe Trippi has penned an op-ed praising Barack Obama.

23.6 million Americans suffer from diabetes. And, for all of us, Monday was an important--and emotional--day. President Barack Obama signed an executive order lifting the nation's ban on funding research on new embryonic stem cell lines. With it, there is new hope for millions of diabetes sufferers, including me, as well as millions more suffering from other debilitating diseases.

Well Joe, I am one of those 23.6 million Americans, and let me say this as clearly as I can - you do not speak for me. I agree President Obama's actions on Monday stirred emotions, but my emotional reaction was not hope - it was dismay.

Let's start by clearing away the lie that surrounded the ceremony. There was no "ban" on embryonic stem cell research. There has never been a "ban" on embryonic stem cell research. There was, however, a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This was changed in 2001 by President George W. Bush, who announced that federal funding would be available for research involving the currently available embryonic stem cell lines.

You see, in order to get embryonic stem cells, you have to destroy an embryo. Former President Clinton apparently doesn't know what that means, but a human embryo is, in fact, a human being at its earliest developmental stage. In order to get the stem cells for research, you have to extract them from the embryo, thus destroying it and ending a potential life. Even the former President, a supporter of the policy, recognizes that people would not approve if they understood it:

If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this.

Obviously, that's the problem. These embryos could have "become little babies" - instead, they're being destroyed in science labs.

That, of course, is where George W. Bush's "ban" came into play. Bush was actually the first President to make federal funding available for embryonic stem cell research. What he did, however, was limit the funding to the currently available stem cell "lines." That is to say, there were pre-existing stem cells from previously destroyed embryos, and federal money could fund research on those, but federal funds could not be used on any more lines, thus preventing taxpayers for paying for embryo destruction. Bush's policy was opposed by those on the left who wanted no restrictions on federal funding, and by those on the right who wanted no federal funding for any embryonic stem cell research. But it was a serious and defensible policy.

Reasonable people can differ on the level of protection that those embryos warrant, but it is not debatable that it is an early stage human being which is destroyed to extract those cells. The President is, as usual, condescending and dismissive to those that disagree with him. At the signing ceremony, President Obama** said, "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."

Well, they are if one of your moral values is not destroying human embryos in medical experiments.

Many, if not most, Americans are profoundly disturbed with the idea of experimentation on human life at that level. I'm struck (as so frequently happens) by a line from C. S. Lewis' brilliant essay, The Abolition of Man: "what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument." I am not willing that my condition be treated at the expense of using human embryos, human life, as raw material for science experiments.

Barack Obama not only wants to do that, he wants me to pay for it. Joe Trippi thinks that that's a great idea. I disagree. Joe Trippi wants to thank the President. I want to tell the President, "No, Mr. President. Not in my name, not with my money. No."



* - There is no good polling available, largely because of the profound obfuscation inherent in the media coverage of this topic.

** - Keep in mind that this is a man who refused to support a law that would require that babies born alive in the case of improperly performed abortions actually be cared for as live human babies, because of the "burden" that would impose on the abortion provider.


H/T - Jonah Goldberg

Obama, born-alive infants - his own words?

In 2001, a nurse named Jill Stanek came forward and described the way that "babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in the soiled utility room." This prompted a national debate, and led to the passing and signing into law of a bill aimed at preventing the practice.

For more background, the National Right to Life Committee (obviously a partisan organization, but one apparently dealing in facts on this issue) has a discussion of Obama's actions here.

In 2001, in Illinois, a bill was introduced in the state Senate that was closely patterned on the federal BAIPA, to govern constructions of state law. It contained an additional sentence, which read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."...Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor he gave a speech attacking it and a couple of other related bills (the only such speech by any senator). Although the speech was technically made during consideration of another bill, SB 1093, Obama said that his reasons applied to SB 1095 (the BAIPA) as well. He then voted "present." Voting "present" was a tactic recommended by the local Planned Parenthood lobbyist; under an Illinois constitutional provision a bill is deemed passed only if it receives an absolute majority of the sworn members of the House or Senate, so the operative effect of a "present" vote is the same as a "no" vote.

Now the following audio has surfaced. I found it here, and cannot vouch for its provenance. It is, on its face, the voice of Senator Obama, speaking against passage of an Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infants Protection act as a member of the Illinois legislature.

"...and that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion..."

If this is what it purports to be, and if it were to actually get traction in the press, I cannot see Barack Obama winning the election. Think about the effect of Michael Dukakis' response to Bernard Shaw's question in the 1988 debate. Dukakis was a weak candidate, and wasn't going to win anyway, but the air really went out of his candidacy when he failed to react at all to the thought of his wife being raped and murdered. Enough people viscerally saw a hole in him that they couldn't abide in a US President that he had no chance of winning. Well, if this audio were to get any significant play in the press, there would be the same reaction.

There is a belief in some quarters that America is a pro-choice nation. That may be close to true, but only for some very specific and limited uses of the term "pro-choice." I do not believe that there is majority support for a national ban on most first tri-mester procedures, but there is a significant majority support for bans on partial-birth abortion. And there is overwhelming support for the proposition that babies born alive should be treated as babies. Most Americans are not going to want a President who looks at protection for infants who are born alive as a "burden" that cannot be borne.

And that, if this clip is real, is what Barack Obama did. The abortion absolutists on the left will not be bothered by that, but a majority, a significant majority, of Americans will.

If they ever hear about it, that is...

UPDATE: The evidence mounts that those are, in fact, his own words. See page 33 here...