This young woman wrote about an abortion she had six years ago, and this caught my eye:

Personally my beliefs follow those of traditional Chinese - that is that a "soul" does not actually enter into the picture until after the third month. I also believe in reincarnation, which brings the whole "self-responsibility" thing into it - reincarnation applied here simply means that you would have to repay the soul you aborted in some future time anyway.

That is what a girlfriend told me, that the "fetus" ("no, no, no.. you can't call it a 'baby'") will not have a soul until after like a hundred and eighty days.... So technically it is "okay" to abort. That was what I was told. No "soul", so what? That it is merely a clump of cells with fingers and toes that you can just kill? Somehow I just find that whole rationale (no disrespect meant) ridiculous.


Via AA

They Refuse to choose

"Without known exception, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other early feminists condemned abortion in strongest terms because of their belief in the worth of all human beings.

Abortion betrays the basic tenets of feminism - nonviolence, nondiscrimination and justice for all. Abortion discriminates based on age, size, location and, sometimes, gender, disability or parentage."

- FFL's Serrin Foster

I'm hooked!

there is a stuffed elk
a head and horns
mounted above the bed
here in the guest room

i am trying carmex
for my zits
kelli swears by tooth paste
feels odd to me
i was a pimple free teen
payback is hell

that mindfreak show
hell to the no
it scares me
as much as being bobby brown

Women who hurt...

"It is shattering to find out after having an abortion that the "blob of tissue" actually had fingers and toes."

"No one explained to me that I would undergo so many emotional, psychological, and mental after effects. Those people at the clinic, though, never told me about the beginning of life, of the fetus growing. They just told me about the "blob of tissue" to be vacuumed out... They never told me about the depression, anger, anxiety, fears, and self-hatred that I would experience after the abortion. They didn't tell me I would lose sleep and my appetite for weeks or continue to be uneasy around babies, children, pregnant women and people in general because I thought I was such a terrible person. They never told me I'd hate myself, that I'd have suicidal thoughts."

"There are days when all I want to do is cry, and there are days when I say to myself that maybe it was the right thing to do. Nevertheless, I feel like a criminal. I did not give a chance to my baby to live and experience any of the things from this earth. I picture that child crawling around in this imaginary crib giggling. I picture myself nursing and caring for my baby."

Infant found in a bag -- alive

A baby girl was found abandoned in a shopping bag in front of a Brooklyn apartment building early yesterday. The unidentified infant, thought to be about 2 weeks old, was spotted by a passerby, who called 911. The newborn was rushed to Brookdale Hospital, where she was listed in stable condition.

The girl, who was clothed and covered with a blanket, was stuffed inside a black plastic bag decorated with red Christmas symbols and the words "Ho Ho Ho." The bag was hanging from a chain link fence.

"I went to look at it and I heard something cry," said Calvin Jackson, 35, who found the baby at 3:50 a.m. on Pilling St. in Bushwick while walking to a store to buy beer and chips.

"I went to take the blanket out and heard another cry and saw a small baby that looked like a doll at first," said the father of three. "I touched it, and then it started to wiggle and move."

Frist vs. W on stem cell research...

Pro-life groups to Bill Frist: Say it isn't so

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. And it's biologically human. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

Pro-life groups react...

Judie Brown, president of American Life League issued one of the most direct statements regarding the news that Senator Bill Frist now endorses the expansion of human embryonic stem cell research:

"Sen. Bill Frist's announcement that he has reversed his opinion on the expansion of human embryonic stem cell research is beyond repugnant to many in the pro-life community. What has happened to this man, who once showed promise of becoming a strong pro-life voice for the American people?"


Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, in a statement today suggested that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's announced support of embryonic stem cell research contradicts his claimed "pro-life" stand:

"A medical doctor should know better than to say irresponsible things like he believes that embryos are "nascent human life" but that it is also okay to kill those little human beings. This is the insanity that we have to face with so-called "pro-life" politicians such as Senate Majority leader Bill Frist who just announced that he is in favor of killing embryos for science -- but as long as we do it in a pro-life way of course."

The Dutch plan

A prominent Dutch aid organization which touts itself as Catholic has endorsed the Dutch government's position that "reproductive rights" are essential to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of reducing world poverty. According to a Catholic Dutch journalist, the organization also used its links to Holland's Bishops to convince the Bishops to participate in a public show of support for the Dutch approach by flying banners outside their cathedrals.

An update on Charlotte Wyatt, plus here's a home video of Baby Charlotte in hospital.


(Thanks, Hannah!)

British court rules against Leslie Burke

Britain's court of appeal on Thursday has overturned a ruling that a terminally-ill patient has the right to stop doctors withdrawing treatment when his illness reaches its final stages.

Last July, Leslie Burke, who had the degenerative brain condition cerebellar ataxia, won a high court judgment that physicians and hospitals must honour a patient's wish for life-prolonging treatment.

Burke, 45, had challenged guidelines by the General Medical Council on withholding and withdrawing such treatment.

Burke said he feared that when he lost the ability to communicate, he might be denied food and water and die of starvation or thirst.

The medical council appealed and, on Thursday, a panel of three judges overturned the high court ruling.

Ruling in Burke's case last year, judge James Munby said most of the General Medical Council's guidelines had been put in place to re-assure patients and relatives, but some were unlawful, including one which allowed doctors to withdraw treatment from terminally-ill patients in some cases.

Disability rights groups had hailed that ruling.

The Disability Rights Commission said it provided "genuine protection for disabled people with serious long-term conditions".

The General Medical Council argued that its guidelines had been misinterpreted and there was no reason for the courts to intervene.

Burke said he hoped to take the case to the House of Lords, the country's highest court of appeal. He was denied permission to appeal, but could petition the house for a hearing.


Let's continue to act and pray for Leslie.


Hat tip: Joshua

Ann Wooler at Bloomberg on Bush and John Roberts.

A group of female Democratic senators said yesterday that they will vote against Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. unless he vows to uphold abortion rights. The seven senators insist Supreme Court justice nominee John Roberts respond to questions about his position on abortion and are also demanding that Roberts clarify his position on the right to privacy, which underlies not only a woman's right to legal abortion but also to birth control and a host of other civil rights for women and minorities. The Senators include Barbara Boxer (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Patty Murray (WA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Maria Cantwell (WA). In an effort to give the public a say in Roberts' confirmation hearings, the seven women senators have unveiled a new website that allows the public to submit questions that they would like the Judiciary Committee to ask of Roberts. "The Supreme Court has the last word on issues that impact all of our lives... This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land... We want the American people to have a voice," say the women Senators in a joint statement on the website.

I just learn from my mom that that adulterous wife of my uncle who recently announced that she was pregnant had just gotten herself an abortion. A part of me want to cry for that unborn child who had to be murdered for the crime of its mother, yet at the same time, another part of me which still resented the woman (Her crime? Going along with my uncle's decision to have Tyler aborted to "protect the family name", the ultimate betrayal in my book. Really, skrew that. The aftermath of having to face the society for having an illegitimate child and being an unwed mother is well worth it I think and nothing as compared to what an abortion would have done to you) is indifferent. I guess I will never know if she feels anything at all for killing this unborn child, my would-be cousin in spite of its paternity. Still, I mourn its loss. I mourn the innocent life that was flushed down the sewage.

She's pregnant with her ex's baby, whom she now hates by the way (read the story here), and she's going to have an abortion.


I don't see how aborting the baby because of his father (see part of her reason) is justifiable at all. The baby is innocent. Why does the baby deserve to die because of what his father did, or because his mom hates his father for that matter?

Botched abortion at Central Women's Services?

According to Operation Rescue, a botched abortion may have taken place yesterday. Sidewalk counselors observed a sports vehicle with two medical personnel wearing surgical scrubs arrived at the first trimester abortion mill from Wesley Medical Center, which is located just across the street. The pair stayed for approximately one hour before returning to Wesley. Just after that, a man came out and helped an obviously injured women hobble to the car. Sidewalk counselors noted that this was not the car she had arrived in and that her vehicle remained in the clinic parking lot long after all the employees left.

Now the Irish Health Minister is saying that 11-year-olds should have access to the morning after pills

Here's an update on Susan Torres:

"Susan received another sonogram yesterday afternoon and everything looks fine. The doctors were testing the little girl for mobility and heart strength.Typically, the doctors are very happy to see the baby move around twice in twenty minutes. Little Girl Torres was moving around twice in 90 seconds. She is a fidgety little one.

Susan is still fighting hard. While the cancer has spread, the doctors are hopeful that Susan will be able to hold on longer. We have no set delivery date and will keep you posted as everything develops."


Let's continue to help and keep Susan, Jason and their baby girl in our thoughts and prayers!

Bill Frist to back stem cell research

Here's another great site on pregnancy, abortion and adoption for teens..

Teen Breaks

Nevermind his stand on abortion, his song is changing lives.

What they didn't tell you

Abortion rate in Czech Republic lowest since the procedure was legalized in 1958..

Elena has pictures of lovely Miss Rosie's baptism...

Dan Lacey made this cute little banner :)



(Thanks, Dan!)

Speaking of which, here's Faithmouse's latest...

New British abortion statistics shows a 2.1% rise in 2004

The new figures show that there were 185,400 abortions in 2004 in England and Wales, which is higher than the 181,600 in 2003 and 5.6% higher than the 176,000 in 2002.

The abortion rate in 2004 was highest for women in the 18-19 and 20-24 age groups and increased 6% for girls under the age of 14. Girls under 16 and under 18 saw their abortion rates decrease.

For all women between ages 15 to 44, the abortion rate in 2004 was 16.9%. That's the highest figure ever record in the U.K. since abortion was legalized in 1969.

The new figures show most of the abortions occurring within the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, 88%, and 60% occurring during the first 10 weeks -- higher than the 58% in 2003.

Only 1% of all abortions, about 1,900, were done because the unborn child had physical or mental disabilities. 2% were performed after the unborn child had reached 20 weeks old.

According to the British health department, the government paid for all or part of 82% of the abortions performed there and 51% of the abortions were performed by independent abortion businesses.

Meanwhile, Ortho McNeil, the manufacturer of "killer" birth control patch Ortho Evra faces class-action lawsuit...

A Brown University researcher says that the abortion drug RU 486 causes rare bacterial infections in women that are not usually seen anywhere else. An article scheduled to appear in the September issue of The Annals of Pharmacotherapy confirms the drug is responsible for the women's deaths.

(See Press Release here).

Professor Ralph P. Miech, MD, Ph.D. writes that the antiprogesterone effects of mifepristone also cause changes in the cervix that allow C. sordellii, a common vaginal bacteria, to enter the cervical canal.

"C. sordellii thrives in this low-oxygen environment and derives nutrition from the decaying fetal tissue," Miech explains. Meanwhile, mifepristone produces other hormonal effects, known as antiglucocorticoid actions.

Dr. Miech proposes two models showing how those hormonal effects prevent the woman's immune system from fighting off the bacteria and, in fact, may help it spread. That combination can result in a septic shock -- the kind that killed the women taking the Mifeprix abortion pills.

According to Miech, C. sordellii infections are "rare outside of mifepristone use" and are particularly dangerous because women do not show any telltale signs of infection or fever and tenderness upon examination.

"[I]t appears that the mechanisms of mifepristone action favor the development of infection that leads to septic shock," Miech explained.

That's the same conclusion Frank Gentle, supervising coroner investigator who looked into Holly Patterson's death, reached when he performed her autopsy.

He said "septic shock, due to endomyometritis (inflammation) due to therapeutic, drug-induced abortion," caused Patterson's death. Endomyometritis is an inflammation of the mucous membrane lining of the uterus.

In other words, "the abortion caused inflammation, which caused the shock, which caused her death," Gentle said.

Hat tip: bellevillenewsdemocrat.com, Stanek

Extreme Makeover, NARAL style...

NARAL vs. John Roberts


Hat tip: KLo

GEE... sounds so, so awfully familiar, eh?

Jenny goes down the memory lane...

For the ones who have a notion
A notion deep inside
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive

- Bruce Springsteen, "Badlands"

Is this an attack on our cause? Or does it bring us face-to-face to and make us truly examine further the consequences of our position?

This video ask pro-lifers what should happen to women who have illegal abortions (if abortion should be illegal, and is illegal, that is), and what kind of punishment should be imposed on those who have them.

I'm sure most of us feel that the abortion itself (and the aftermath) is punishment on its own, but the pro-choicers/pro-aborts did in fact made a good point: Why should abortion be illegal if we are not going to, technically, impose any punishment at all, criminalize it? So it does seem that in order for us to truly fight and win our case and achieve what we want to achieve, we may have to truly confront the concrete implications of this. Why do we want abortion illegal? Because abortion is murder. And if abortion is murder, why don't we think (those who have them) should not be punished (ie. throw them in jail)?

Time magazine has an article on Judge Roberts and where he stand on several issues, including abortion.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats want memos from the Justice Department that they say could help more accurately determine where Supreme Court nominee John Roberts stands on the issue of abortion...

A new study by British researchers finds that almost half of the unborn children who are born at 23 weeks into the pregnancy survive the premature birth. The results may prompt British lawmakers to move back limits on late-term abortions and could be used to strengthen laws in other countries.

Researchers at University College Hospital London found that 42% of the babies born at 23 weeks survived and 72% of the babies born at 24 weeks into pregnancy survived the birthing process as well.

Yet each year in Britain, more than 1,200 babies are aborted between 22 and 24 weeks into pregnancy and most of the babies were health and aborted for noncontroversial reasons.

The abortion limit is set at 24 weeks in Britain, and is legal up to nine months of pregnancy if the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.

Young and... pro-life? Feminists mourn the pro-life shift...

Here is an article snuck from a recent issue of Glamour magazine.


Hat tip: Leon H at Redstate

Who cares if it doesn't rhyme if it's true?

Rosie O'Donnell has a free verse blog here...

i have huge mosquito bites
and i cannot stop scratching them
i look like a leper
a spotted manatee

my stomach is a lot bigger
than i ever expected it 2 b
buying kahki pants is tough
spelling kahki
impossible

that dancing show is so odd
it borders on enjoyable
aaron brown
seems to be getting worse
day by day
i feel his rage
as he throws to the brunette
in atlanta

i still love tom
i always will
he doesn't get
the mental illness thing

but brooke?
come on -
she had post partum depression
she is probably med free
as i type - artifically seritonin filled
thankfully

someone who takes and needs meds
and knows it
me

Hat tip: Warren Bell at NRO

Are you funding abortions?

"Conservative groups estimate that as much as $2.5 billion has been contributed to Planned Parenthood in the past 15 years. There are many Americans who support the goals of this organization, and they should be allowed to contribute. For the millions who abhor this organization, this sounds like tyranny. As some institutes point out, as funding has increased, Planned Parenthood has decreased funding for non-abortion related services such as breast cancer awareness. They have focused almost exclusively on the extension of abortion rights.

Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations have demanded even more public funding for abortions. Such groups feel that it a woman should not only have the right to an abortion, but she should be able to afford one at any expense. We, the American taxpayers, are funding such an agenda.[...]

The rights of American citizens are being violated by Republicans and Democrats alike. We are funding abortion rights groups both in this nation and in nations abroad. For the pro-choice Americans in this nation, there is no problem. For those who religiously oppose abortion, this is a clear violation of their rights. It is time to stop the violation and demand an alteration in funding. Americans should not have to fund Planned Parenthood's anti-Bush, pro-choice agenda. Congress should pick up their Constitutions and re-read the parts on religious and political freedom."

Read the full article here

Abortion rights for 10-year-olds...

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is now recommending that abortion "rights" be granted to 10 year-olds. The UNFPA is the UN bureaucracy from which the Bush administration decided to withhold $34 million in support largely because of the UNFPA's support of China's one-child population control program. Two recent publications circulating at the United Nations, one by the UNFPA and another by a radical lobby group, both call for a greater focus on the "sexual and reproductive" rights of youth, a term that UN agencies frequently misinterpret as including abortion.

UNFPA's report, entitled "The Case for Investing in Young People as part of a National Poverty Reduction Strategy," states that "UNFPA's madate [is] to promote youth development, including recognition of their health/reproductive rights and sexual and reproductive health." Well, clearly to UNFPA, killing and eliminating the poor via abortion is the answer to fighting poverty. Hmph.

UNFPA explains that promoting abortion as a human right is advantageous because a "rights-based approach" "entails an obligation on the part of governments and other actors to realize these rights." The report applauds the government of Mozambique's program of "health services that serve the reproductive health needs of adolescents."


Hat tip: Tom

Pregnant woman killed in stray-bullet tragedy, baby saved

Doctors miraculously delivered a boy from the body of his slain mother early yesterday after the woman was cut down in the crossfire of a gunfight in Brooklyn.

Nicole Sutton, who was 30 weeks pregnant, was sitting outside the Wyckoff Gardens housing project, trying to escape the brutal heat in the building, when several shots rang out at 12:52 a.m.

One of the bullets tore into Sutton's neck as a crowd of terrified friends and neighbors who had been sitting with her ran for cover, police and witnesses said.

"My baby! My baby!" a woman screamed during the chaos.

Sutton, 33, was rushed to Long Island College Hospital, where she died at 1:09 a.m. - moments before doctors performed the heroic Caesarean surgery that brought her baby into the world.

My abortion would have spared my mother

Melbourne writer Michael Read writes about being born and growing up different.

Woman delivers baby in toilet

A Callifornia woman and her husband said they delivered their baby boy in the toilet at their home after hospital staff told the mother she was not ready to give birth. The couple, Leah and Richard Robles Jr., said they spent five hours at Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital on July 9 but went home after they were told she was not ready to deliver. Fifty minutes after arriving home, Leah had the baby in the toilet after feeling the urge to use the restroom.

The baby, Richard Robles III, is healthy.

HRC to support Bush's court nominee

Senator Hillary Clinton has confided to associates that she intends to vote FOR Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, says the Drudge Report.

Unless some unforeseen development occurs around Roberts, Clinton will throw her support behind confirmation, says a top source.

"Look, we're not thrilled President Bush is in office and gets to make these choices," said a top Hillary source, "but we have to make the best of the situation until the next election!"

With her support of Roberts, Clinton ignores pressure from the reactionary-activist wing of the Democrat party.

"She is simply doing what is right for the country, not MOVEON.ORG," the Clinton insider explained.


Hat tip: Matt Drudge

In case you haven't heard, pregnancy is the new black...



Momma Britney...

Are women simply using abortion as a form of birth control?

Christina examines the figures

According to a study published in Family Planning Perspectives: 3% of women abort because of concerns that there is something wrong with the fetus; 3% of women abort because of concerns for their own health, and 1% abort because they are pregnant through rape or incest. That totals 7%, leaving 93% of abortions being done for birth control, by this rather loose concept.

Let's look at the rate of repeat abortions. Since Roe v. Wade , the percent of abortions done on women who have already had at least one abortion has climbed steadily.

52% want to know Judge Roberts stance on abortion before he is confirmed....

"Roe vs. Wade may have been a faulty decision by some legal reasoning, but at least it put the moral responsibility where it belongs - on the individual."

Hmm.

Overturning Roe and the "right to privacy"...

Simon at The Gist of It asks, Is abortion biblical?

Brutal slaying of a pregnant Edmonton woman leads to call for Unborn Victims of Violence Law in Canada

Liana White's husband, Michael White, has been charged with second-degree murder and offering an indignity to a body for leaving it in a ditch. But he is not facing any charges in the death of their unborn child.

In Canada, children do not receive the protection of the law until they have been fully born alive. This is because the Criminal Code defines "homicide" as the act of causing the "death of a human being" and it defines "human being" as a child who has "completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."

"We cannot continue to exclude vulnerable children from the law's protection," said Conservative MP and co-chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus Maurice Vellacott. "In the fall, I plan to work with colleagues in the House to introduce a Private Member's Bill to protect unborn victims of violence."

Of course you can help by contributing to this campaign (NRLC is fighting back with a grassroots campaign to get Judge Roberts a fair up-or-down vote) to ensure a fair, dignified hearing of Judge Roberts --Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy and record indicate that he would not make up new law from the bench, as Justices did when they legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade. That is why pro-abortion groups have raised millions of dollars to pressure Senators to block his confirmation by using the filibuster to prevent a fair up-or-down vote and defeat his nomination. And you can do so by visiting National Right to Life website, www.nrlc.org to donate; or phone 202-626-8813 to donate by credit card; or mail your contribution to National Right to Life, 512 10th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20004.


(Extracts via NRLC email)

Speaking of which, Patterico links to an emerging, bizzare meme against Judge Roberts...


Hat tip: Redstate

Ed Whelan at NRO is certain that John Roberts will not be a "pro-life" justice.

The third position is that the Constitution generally does not speak to the question of abortion. Under this substantively neutral position, American citizens would have the constitutional power to determine through their state representatives what the abortion policy in their own states would be. This neutral position - which three members of the current Court, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, embrace - also happens to be the proper reading of the Constitution (as I explain more fully here).

Insofar as sensible political labels might be applied to these three positions, it would seem plain that the first (pro-abortion) position would be labeled liberal (with the Roe version of that position being radical), the second (pro-life) would be labeled conservative, and the third (neutral) would be labeled moderate.

Of course, sense does not prevail in the frenzied abortion culture in which we live. Thus, the media routinely label the radical pro-abortion position as "moderate" and the substantively neutral position as "extremist right-wing." And, of course, the media consistently understate the radical nature of the Roe regime (often pretending, for example, that Roe merely protects abortion in the first three months of pregnancy), confuse the public into thinking that reversing Roe would render abortion illegal, and then cite the public's resulting support for the imagined Roe as supposed evidence of Roe 's moderation.
[...]

John Roberts is, by all accounts, a man of deep intellect and high character who understands the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic. There is therefore good reason to hope that he will be a genuine moderate who will not read his own policy views on abortion (whatever they are) into the Constitution but who will respect the constitutional authority of the people to govern their own states and communities on this and other issues of social policy.

Dems urge to court pro-lifers...

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion. Dean said Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view.

"I think we need to talk about this issue differently" he said.

Postpartum vs. post-abortion depression

Daniel Allott of American Values talks about his study, "The Long-Term Effects of Adolescent Abortion: A Predictor of Depression", in which he compares the long-term psychological consequences of teenage abortion with those of teenage childbirth.

while at first glance early experiences of abortion and childbirth were similar as regards to their effects on women's long-term psychological health, when additional statistically significant variables were accounted for, such as pre-disposition to depression, physical health, and life satisfaction measures, early childbearing proved not to be a determinate of long-term depression. On the other hand, even after accounting for a wide-range of significant variables that affect depression, an early abortion experience was still associated with a higher level of adult depression symptoms.

What this means is that if a woman who gave birth as a teen was depressed years later, it was usually due to dire financial straits or relationship problems and not to the fact that she bore a child at an early age. Conversely, if a woman who aborted her first child as a teen was depressed years later, it was probably not due to financial difficulties, poor physical health or a negative sense of efficacy. Instead, her depression could be linked directly to the abortion experience itself.

The study can be found in the spring issue of the Georgetown Public Policy Review.


Hat tip: Emily

I'm reposting this:

YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO TRACE WHAT HAPPENED TO "JOHN" BORN 15TH AUGUST 1939!

We have been asked to help with tracing if the baby mentioned below is dead or alive. Friends of the lady below have approached us for help. If you are able to help in anyway please contact us and we will forward the information to her.
Email here

We also ask your prayers that the search for the answer as to what happened to "John".


Mrs Violet Cameron is a lively independant 97-year-old living alone in Wallington, Surrey. She had a very poor start in life. She never knew her biological father. Her mother took another partner who was hostile to Violet. When only eighteen months she was throw full into a burning fire and sustained severe burns, was hospitalized, and bears the scars still.

Unable to return to the family home, Vi was brought up by a series of aunts. When she became "of age" she entered into "service".

She was married in the mid 1930's, however, her husband was most unkind to her and made it quite clear he did not like nor did he want children. Vi, however, became pregnant and gave a live birth on 15th August 1939 at what is today:

Carshalton War Memorial Hospital
The Park
Carshalton
Surrey
SM5 3DB

The infant was taken away from Vi who claims she didn't even get a glimpse it! Her husband then informed her that the baby was dead. She was approached by the staff and asked if she would give the baby a name, she replied "John". Vi is unaware of any funeral arrangements and knows of no grave.

Later around 1944, Vi was unable to continue living with her husband due to his violent behaviour. She expelled him from her home.

Vi has fostered the thought over many years, What if the baby lived? Did her cruel husband sell the baby for adoption?

Clearly, this is a major gap in her life, and although belated, Vi is asking for some kind of answers and/or fulfillment, at least one way or the other. This may cause many questions - even heartache, however, perhaps before she leaves this earthly life, she may yet learn the truth.

The finer points of vulgarity

Well, if we allow people like NARAL to continue to compromise abstinence education and challenged our efforts in educating young people about healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors, screaming on top of their lungs "Screw Abstinence", then we as a society is, simply put, skrewed!

Erh...



All-U-Can-Abort Sale? Hmph.

"For me, abortion is not horrible, it's a godsend."

Fascinating.

JivinJ links to Pinko Feminist Hellcat who says that "Abortion is wonderful."

If I was pregnant today, I would make an appointment at the nearest clinic. I would have an abortion with no regrets, no guilt, and no shame. I would not tell every other person I ran into about it, since I don't tell people about my private medical matters anyway. But I'd have one, and I wouldn't hang my head in sorrow if anyone were to find out. I'd sing with relief. This probably makes me a selfish, cold woman since I don't get weepy over a fetus. Fine. I don't care. Get this straight--moralizing about the fetus will do nothing to change my mind. For me, abortion is not horrible, it's a godsend.

Nor will providing more services for single mothers and their kids. Those services should exist for poor kids and people in crisis, period , because helping people in need is the right thing to do. A larger cut of the food stamp pie is not going to induce me to have a baby. More childcare will not induce me to have a baby. I do not want to have one. I do not want to be pregnant. Period.

Jill Stanek blogged about it here, and I thought I'd repost and share it here.

Journalist Helaine Olen wrote a story on NYT about the impact her nanny's blog had on their working relationship. She wrote how the blog brought "odd similarities to the fore"

we had enough in common - if I took her statements at face value - to make me uneasy. In my 20's I, too, felt passionately about 19th-century English literature but had long since let it go, barely able to concentrate on The New York Times, let alone Henry James. I, too, had an abortion back then. And trouble with depression? Check. Self-righteousness and inflated self-regard? Affirmative.

She further wrote:

In part I felt empathy and sadness for this younger version of myself. But I also feared she would judge my life and find it wanting.... As I read her words I was transported back to my own youth and those feelings of awkwardness, fear, false bravado and self-importance. I could have told her that I understood her life more than she realized, that I had not always been the boring hausfrau she must see. I could say that I, too, once stayed out late, drank too much and slept with the wrong people. I, too, once found my work obligations a tedious distraction from creative pursuits and thought myself superior to my surroundings, just as she appeared to.

The nanny responded on her blog with this

The place in the essay where she actually has the audacity to compare us has been a sore spot since I knew this essay was going to be published. In particular, I take issue with how she flippantly mentions my abortion. I did blog about my abortion, please read my entry here. I think if you compare the vulnerable and humble way I talk about that painful experience, you might find that Ms. Olen and I are very different. I for one would never reduce another woman's abortion to a fragment defaming her in a self-serving essay.

This is what the nanny wrote of her abortion and abortion:

really, to change the political discussion about abortion in this country, we need women who have had abortions to talk about it. One in three American women between the ages of 15-44 have had or will have an abortion. About 1/3 of the childbearing women of this country. What do they have to say? What would it mean for the people who have this experience to actually inform the public discourse about it? For all the fervor surrounding this issue, there is a marked silence of note from the women who have had this procedure, made this choice.

And I am one of them. Next Tuesday will be the four year anniversary of my abortion. And I too was incredibly reticent to discuss both getting pregnant and having abortion. I think during the first year, I maybe told 6 of my closest friends. In fact, there are still people who are incredibly important to me who I have not shared this information with. And why? Yes, I was ashamed of getting pregnant. Though, I had used birth control, had been as responsible as someone can be. But I felt stupid. Also, I was deeply saddened by the whole experience. I am one of those odd woman who has always known she wants to have a child. And to not want that pregnancy, to know that I was not ready to be the mother I want to be someday, was so sad. And then there is the very precarious emotional position of learning how to mourn your own choices. I did mourn. I did feel the loss of that baby even as I was choosing to end the pregnancy. How do you explain that to other people when you have trouble understanding it yourself?

Yet sad as it is, these two women continue to remain pro-abortion. *sigh*

Are Ralph Neas and Coulter wrong about John Roberts?


Check this out too!

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill wants FDA to pull out RU 486 off the market...

"RU-486 is a deadly poison that is killing pregnant women," said Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC). "This drug should never have been approved, and it must be suspended immediately."

Maryland Congressman Roscoe Bartlett said it was "disturbing" that the manufacturer of the Mifeprix abortion drug, Danco Laboratories, "buried in a news release" information about two more women who have died from using the abortion pills.

"Clearly labels and letters to doctors are not protecting the life and safety of young American women from this dangerous drug," Rep. Bartlett said. He referred to letters the FDA and Danco are sending to doctors warning of possible infections leading to death resulting from the mifepristone pills. Bartlett is the sponsor of HR 1079, which would remove RU 486 from the market while the FDA launches a thorough review of its safety.

Wow... Annie has a post on the ABC (abortion/breast cancer) study that the National Cancer Institute funded but did not want us to know about:

...because it means that as many as 4,262,500 U.S. women (who had 3 or more abortions between 1983 and 2002) likely have increased our risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by about 60 to 70%...

...and of the 6,500,000 U.S. women who've had only two abortions in that same twenty year period, we have either a 60% increased breast cancer risk (if we had our second induced abortion [IA] under the age of 45), or a 70% increased BC risk (if we had the first of two IAs at or above age 35).

...and among the 13,850,000 U.S. women who've had only one abortion, of those having that abortion prior to our (last) live birth (FTP), we may have increased our BC risk by 40%.

Read more here

Brain damaged woman gives birth

According to the AP report, the severely disabled, brain-damaged woman was discovered to be pregnant while living in a nursing home and has given birth to a healthy baby girl.

A lawsuit filed last week claims the woman was raped in the home in suburban Bloomingdale. The woman has cerebral palsy and is so severely disabled she must use a wheelchair and be fed through a tube.

The woman was scheduled to have a Caesarean section in mid-August, but she had the procedure Wednesday evening at Rush University Medical Center here because she was suffering from a dangerous complication of pregnancy called pre-eclampsia.

The baby, a girl, appears healthy, but is in intensive care, a family member said.

Dawn Eden links to this site of an aspiring abortionist who recently performed at least 5 abortions at Planned Parenthood, "was actually fascinated by it. Until I saw one with a face."


Via Tim

Apparently Sen. Boxer is sticking by her false, unsubstantiated numbers...

"You have to know that it is estimated that there were up to 1.2 million illegal abortions every year, so this 5,000 is four-tenths of 1 percent. I think it's actually an understated number," Boxer told the Associated Press Tuesday. "I personally believe it's higher than that, given the fact that these were back-alley, and a lot of them done in unsanitary situations."

Sen. Boxer aides counter that the 5,000 figure was cited in the 1968 book "Septic Abortion" by Dr. Richard H. Schwarz, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Many abortion-rights advocates also cite a 1982 article written by three scholars in Family Planning Perspectives, a publication of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which favors abortion rights. The scholars' conclusion: "As many as 5,000 to 10,000 women died per year from illegal abortions" during some stages in the pre-Roe era.

And the people at NARAL are backing the bogus figures. Ted Miller of NARAL said that "the 5,000 number is one we've always been comfortable with."

But well, they should know better than to piss BanAnnie -- because the press is listening. YAY! You go, girl!

Christina has a good commentary on this too, so check it out!

Aborted baby graveyard discovered in Kansas.

"Sidewalk Counselor Jennifer McCoy encountered couriers from Engineered Recovery Systems, Inc. (ERS) on Monday, July 18, 2005.... she witnessed one of the couriers removing a box labeled as infectious waste from the abortion mill. The courier indicated to Mrs. McCoy that he understood the contents of the box to be the remains of aborted babies."

She saw her aborted child..

Warning: Graphic contents

This is Sabrina's testimony.

FDA issues warning on abortion drug RU 486 Mifeprex...

Well, it's about time, isn't it?

Ann Coulter on John Roberts

"The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one."

Reality TV Show to Seek Political Talent

From Drudge:

"Reality television has generated American idols, top models and business apprentices. Now, some political types are hoping that a Washington D.C.-based reality show can deliver the next great political consultant!

The WASHINGTON POST reports on Thursday: A proposed eight-part series titled "Red/Blue" which its creators aim to get on the air next summer, places 12 or 14 aspiring political consultants - divided into two teams of liberals and conservatives - inside a Georgetown townhouse that's wired with cameras and microphones a la "Real World" and "Big Brother".

The participants engage in a series of challenges, both in and out of Washington, that test their political skills. Two hopefuls, one of each political stripe, will be eliminated each week. The last man or woman standing wins $1million to spend on a cause or candidate in the 2006 election."

Wow weee. Did he mentioned where you can apply?

Just what is Judge Roberts position on abortion?

Well, at least we all know where his wife, Jane Roberts (of FFL) stands...

Some good reads (thanks, Redstate) on Judge Roberts..

A great conservative sigh of relief

Why I'm not worried that Judge John G. Roberts will become "another Souter"

Enjoy!

Do you just hate how some people can be so ungrateful? It makes me so mad sometimes. If I can put aside our differences and humbled myself, why can't you? Sometimes I don't know if it's even worth to give a damn anymore. If people, if human beings in general is even worth it. Which just makes me wonder really, if my child is better off away from this stinkin' world. Well, one thing is certain though: I will not let my hatred nor my resentment get in the way of my head. To the moonbat concerned, I say, just so you'd know, I offered my concern and compassion from the goodness of my heart, for the sake of the ones that I love. But I will not stoop to your level and let my hate get the better of me. So skrew you, bitch..

Thanks to Kin for lending an ear and let me let off some steam earlier. I just earn myself the cartoon-of-the-month title by the way, thanks to your chubby-bubby daughter. Maha.

Shannen Coffin at NRO has an article on Judge John Roberts, and KLo calls for no destruction during the upcoming Supreme Court hearings in the Senate.

Heads up, Mommies-to-be..

If you are pregnant, you should avoid taking multi-vitamins unless they are certain that the supplement does not contain vitamin A. A new study found that Vitamin A, present in liver, has been shown to damage the development of cells in foetuses, leading to conditions like spina bifida, hydrocephalus and urinary tract malformations. Read more here

A new study has revealed that overturning Roe will not impact legality of abortion in most states..

Simply inhuman if you ask me.

A day after the maker of the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug admitted five women had died from using it, including one recent death, the father one of the women who died says he suspects more women are dead because of the pills. Monty Patterson's 18 year-old daughter Holly died from an infection brought on by the Mifeprex abortion drug in September 2003. Her death came one week after taking the RU 486 abortion pill.

As if abortion is not bad enough....

Two owners of an abortion business in Miami have been arrested for using two people without a medical license to perform abortions at their facility.

It's Judge John Roberts!



-- See bio here, here and transcripts of remarks by President Bush and Supreme Court Justice Nominee John Roberts here.

Blogs for Bush and Ian at The Political Teen has lots of links.

More reactions at Redstate, Stanek, here

Roberts nomination highlights upcoming cases on PBA, Parental Notification, says NRLC

A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.

Here's an article on Susan Torres

Susan could deliver her baby in the next three to five weeks says her family.

MAP may be banned from Wisconsin University campuses

Rumours has it that ... it is Joy Clement...


See bio and resume here.

Courtney Love meanwhile, credits the judiciary for her turnaround. She had been drug and alcohal-free for nearly now..

Joshua at SaveCharlotte has an update on Baby Charlotte...

"Last Friday, for the first time in her life, Charlotte was taken outside (on the hospital grounds) for about half an hour. The Daily Mail has taken some pictures of this event, and those of you from England can see it in the paper news. [...]

Darren and Debbie are very happy with how she is doing, and last Saturday, although Charlotte had slipped out of her oxygen for about five minutes before Darren came by, she was still fine, and it was a great encouragement to them. He then played with her for a long time, blowing in her face, and watching her gurgle and smile at him. For about an hour she was on the nasal prong machine (which the hospital has started using again!), and then she was for about fifteen minutes with the oxygen mask."


Meanwhile, let's continue to pray for Baby Charlotte and the Wyatts. By the way, you can see pictures of Baby Charlotte here.


(Thanks Joshua!)

Vatican condemns vaccines made with tissue obtained from abortion

The Pontifical Academy for Life under the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued an "approved" study regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines. In the document published in Medicina e Morale by the Center for Bioethics of Catholic University in Rome and titled, Moral Reflections On Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses, Vatican officials put the burden of guilt 100% on the pharmaceutical industry, comparing their moral complicity to that of the abortionists themselves.

The 8-page document, which has been anxiously awaited for several years by pro-life parents and physicians nationwide states that, doctors and families "have a duty to take recourse to alternatives, putting pressure on political authorities and health systems... They should use conscientious objection and oppose by all means " in writing, through various associations, mass media, etc, - the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus..."

The document also supports parents who refuse to use the vaccines, citing that those who have been forced to vaccinate experience "a moral coercion of the conscience... an unjust alternative choice which must be eliminated as soon as possible."

RU 486: How many more women and children must die before FDA removes damn drug from market?

Another woman dies from taking RU 486

Admitting that abortion "can result in serious and sometimes fatal infection," Danco announced Monday that it "is modifying the labeling for Mifeprex to include updated safety information."

Hello? Do they really think changing the label is going to make any difference at all? Women are going to continue die unless they take the bloody drug off the market, dammit!

Hat tip: Dan Lacey

Aborting the disabled...

Each year in America fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.

"It is nice that a small number of Democrats in Congress are willing to talk up the pro-life cause. I only wish they would do it more boldly and intensely. A few decades ago more Democrats in Congress were adamant defenders of innocent life. Groups like NARAL and Emily's List helped to put pro-life Democrats on the endangered species list but, fortunately, have not wiped them out. That being said, as welcome as a reinvigorated pro-life movement is within the Democratic Party it is far from dominant. The Observer headline was wrong. It should have read, "A Few Liberals" are ready to let their movement abandon a strict litmus test in favor of legalized abortion."

A somewhat less adversarial view of abortion

Adult, or post-natal, stem cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply

A ground-breaking study at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh revealed that adult, or post-natal, stem cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to multiply, a previously unknown characteristic indicating that post-natal stem cells may play an important therapeutic role.

Adult and post-natal stem cells are often overlooked in favor of embryonic stem cells in the national debate over the therapeutic use of stem cells. Until now, it has been generally believed that embryonic stem cells had a greater capacity to multiply than post-natal stem cells, making them more desirable to research as a potential treatment, according to Johnny Huard, PhD, director of the Growth and Development Laboratory at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

"Scientists have typically believed that adult or post-natal stem cells grow old and die much sooner than embryonic stem cells, but this study demonstrates that is not the case," said Dr. Huard, senior author of the study. "The entire world is closely following the advances in stem cell research, and everyone is interested in the potential of stem cells to treat everything from diabetes to Parkinson's disease. But there are also many ethical concerns surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells, concerns that you don't have with post-natal or adult stem cells. My belief is that this study should erase doubts scientists may have had about the potential effectiveness of post-natal stem cells."

Researchers from Children's and the University of Pittsburgh in Dr. Huard's laboratory were able to expand post-natal stem cells to a population level comparable to that reached by researchers using embryonic stem cells. Previous research has found that embryonic stem cells could undergo more than 200 population doublings before the cells began to die. A population doubling is a method of measuring the age of a population of cells.

Bridget Deasy, PhD, a scientist in Dr. Huard's laboratory, was first author of the study. Dr. Deasy, a research assistant professor in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, discovered that a unique population of muscle-derived stem cells was able to undergo more than 200 population doublings, as well. These post-natal cells were able to undergo population doublings while maintaining their ability to regenerate muscle in an animal model, a key finding indicating that they could maintain their treatment potential.

This ability to self-replenish is significant because in order for stem cells to be used for treatment, a large quantity of the cells would be required.

The findings are published in the July 1, 2005, issue of Molecular Biology of the Cell, published by the American Society for Cell Biology. The paper is under consideration for Molecular Biology of Cell paper of the year. Read more here


Hat tip: Tim

The day Hillary called abortion "tragic", she's aborting her principles, you think? Well, think again.


"You would think that a true "pro-choicer" would stand firmly behind a woman's right to abort everything, including her principles.

It's clear Hillary has charged somebody with softening her image, which must be like being handed a hunk of granite and instructed to "make this into a pillow." This is sure to give the left a rash, but that's where Bill Clinton and his tube of Destin come into play.

Bill is out calming the natives, assuring them that his wife isn't abandoning her principles, she's just leaving them at home without a babysitter for a while.

During this, Hillary continues to try to fool moderate to right voters by telling them to believe her instead of their eyes, ears and Senate voting record.

But it's usually at about this point in the journey that leftists trying to disguise themselves as anything but leftists turns into politics' answer to the Donner Party crossing, something that has plagued Democrats since they lost congressional control.

Democrats are obviously suffering from, and being treated for, extreme anxiety. I don't even want to think about how much Paxil you'd have to swallow to make you have faith that Howard Dean was the right man to reel in red-staters.

While Hillary fakes right, Bill Clinton is out there pulling left. Dudley Do-Wrong, the world famous intern Mountie, is actively speaking out, notifying anyone who will listen, and even some who won't, not to panic - Hillary's still a leftist.

Every dry cleaner's worst nightmare spoke to a campus group recently. The speech began with a discussion of issues of the day and ended with a panty raid at Sigma Gamma Rho sorority. Somewhere in the middle of the speech, Bill said Republicans have defined the abortion issue in a way that boxes in Democrats. Clinton also defended Hillary, who recently called abortion a "sad, even tragic choice."

Bill says the woman he loves isn't moving to the right at all, and neither is Hillary."

Fallen angels at my feet
Whispered voices at my ear
Death before my eyes
Lying next to me I fear
She beckons me shall I give in
Upon my end I shall begin
Forsaking all I've fallen for I rise to meet the end

Heh.. here's where you should go for all things Hoff.

Here's why you should give birth..

Is the President for or against contraception? Les Kinsolving finds out...

Kelli Hollowell on the evil liars who's pushing the embryonic stem cell research

In anticipation of a presidential veto on just such legislation, 58 U.S. senators signed a letter to George W. more than a year ago urging him to expand his stem-cell policy. The most irritating parts of the letter include deception and a passive aggressive voice - a combination of tactics that may be common in politics but makes me want to vomit. I just can't stand people who smile while they lie and lob insults. I think they're evil.

In this case the letter says, among other things, "Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat... Alzheimer's and many other [diseases]." The truth is stem cells will never provide a cure for Alzheimer's. This is simply a ploy to tug at the heartstrings not the head of Americans by invoking the memory of Ronald Reagan. However tragic, stem-cell therapy offers no hope for a cure of this disease.

Sure, stem cells can morph into any cell type. And researchers hope that by guiding them into specific cell types they can be used as a "universal patch" to treat diseased or injured tissue. But Alzheimer's is a whole-brain disease. It doesn't affect a subset of cells that could be replaced to produce a cure. But why let the truth get in the way of such a good promotional opportunity to capitalize on the illness and subsequent death of a beloved national hero?

Randy Townley at The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy talks to the Volunteer Coordinator at NARAL on the Screw Abstinence party. Check out Randy's post here.

It's sad, really, to think of how misguided these people are who believe that taking of human life is ok in the abortion clinic, but when it comes to freeing millions of people from the tyranny of awful dictators they throw their hands up in the air and wonder why we some people have to die.

Minnesota doctors question "Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act"...

Check out Emily's post on an ER nurse's comment from a post by Brian Crouch at Sound Politics on NARAL's Skrew Abstinence Party -- must read.

One quarter of city's unborn aborted

1 in 4 pregnancies in Norwich is terminated and totalled 444 in just one year, according to public health figures. Of the women from the city who had abortions during 2002, 19% were aged 19 or under, with the bulk - almost 70% - being between the ages of 20 and 34.

The story of Baby Mandy


Hat tip: The Squamata Report via Extreme Truths

I found this essay at Redstate by Mary Ann Geldon, a Harvard professor which I think is worth sharing. This essay, on women and abortion, was adapted from a speech given at a Boston College School of Law symposium:

"To understand fully the incalculable effects of Roe v. Wade it is necessary (though of course not sufficient) to understand the historical and legal context in which it occurred. When the decision came down in February 1973, the nation was embroiled in the Vietnam War and President Nixon had just begun his second term. Just around the corner, but unforeseen by any of us, were the fall of Saigon and the President's resignation. Nor did most of us perceive how, all around us, the social environment was being transformed by a sudden breakdown in traditional norms governing sexual behavior and a sharp rise in family disruption. It would be years before professional demographers took the full measure of that cultural revolution, and when they did, even they were startled. Here is how one of them, looking back on the period, summarized what happened: "It is exceedingly rare in the history of populations that sudden changes appear across the entire set of demographic indicators. Yet in barely fifteen years, starting in 1965, the birth rate and the marriage rate in all the industrialized countries tumbled, while divorces and births outside marriage increased rapidly. All those changes were substantial, with increases or decreases of more than 50 percent."

With hindsight, we can now see that in February 1973, the U.S. (along with other affluent nations) was a few years into a massive social experiment. No society was prepared for that experiment, and no society has yet adjusted to its consequences. It was in that time of social and political turmoil that a pair of cases involving abortion were presented to the Supreme Court. The better known case, Roe v. Wade, challenged an old Texas statute that banned abortion except where the mother's life was in danger. The other, Doe v. Bolton, challenged a more modern statute patterned on the Model Penal Code drafted by the prestigious American Law Institute. The statute in Doe permitted abortion under certain conditions, but subjected it to regulation.

Though Roe got all the attention, I think it is fair to say that Doe, decided on the same day, was the more ominous of the two decisions. It was Doe that signaled the doom of legislative efforts to provide even modest protection of unborn life--statutes of the type that are in force in most other liberal democracies (where the regulation of abortion has largely been left to be worked out in the ordinary democratic processes of bargaining, education, persuasion, and voting). And it was Doe's broad definition of "health" as "well-being" that the Court would later use to strike down even bans on the cruel procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Among legal scholars, what attracted the most attention about Roe and Doe were the separation of powers and federalism issues. Leading constitutional lawyers such as Paul Freund and Archibald Cox were critical of the Court majority for striking down the statutes of all fifty states with so little warrant in constitutional text or precedent. Even Court watchers who favored legislative liberalization of abortion law were inclined to agree with dissenting Justice Byron White that the case represented an extraordinary judicial power grab. As for pro-life lawyers, most of them did not foresee how far the Supreme Court would extend Roe and Doe over the years--even to the point of striking down laws designed to protect late-term, healthy, viable babies. For years, the pro-life movement poured much of its energy into litigation, confident that Roe and Doe would eventually be limited, if not expressly overruled.

To be sure, there were a few visionaries, but their fears were generally dismissed. Who but a madman or a prophet would have imagined, as novelist Walker Percy did, that a whole industry of profitable "Qualitarian Centers" would spring up, where, as one of Percy's characters explained, doctors would respect "the right of an unwanted child not to have to endure a life of suffering"? Who but a madman or a prophet--or an artist who sees more deeply into things than the rest of us--would have imagined, as Percy did in a 1971 novel, that state governments might recognize a right to die, and that arrangements would be made for the sick and elderly to push a button that would waft them away into a "happy death" in Michigan, a "joyful exitus" in New York, or a "luanalu-hai" in Hawaii?

It's something of a puzzle why the public has never really grasped how extreme the legal treatment of abortion is in the United States. (Even Sweden, the poster country for women's equality and liberal attitudes toward human sexuality, strictly regulates abortion after the eighteenth week of pregnancy.) Two factors, I believe, combined to obscure the degree to which the U.S. has become careless about protecting human life at its fragile beginnings and endings. First, journalists and other opinion leaders have persisted in misdescribing Roe v. Wade as a case that permits abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, but permits regulation thereafter. That is a flagrant misstatement, for Roe permits no regulation in the interest of protecting the unborn child for the first two trimesters. Moreover, when Roe is read with Doe, third-trimester restrictions are effectively ruled out as well--for Roe's dictum that such restrictions might be permissible if they did not interfere with the mother's health was negated by Doe's definition of "health" as "well-being."

The second factor that enabled the radical character of these decisions to pass under the radar is that most people just couldn't believe the Supreme Court would do such a thing. When I have explained the extreme permissiveness of American abortion law to people, one of the most common reactions is: "That can't be right." I've found that most people--including many law professors--have a great deal of difficulty wrapping their minds around the idea that the Court would permit the intentional destruction of a healthy infant who was capable of living outside his or her mother's body, when the mother's health (in the ordinary meaning of that word) is not in serious danger. That's why polls show that the same people who say they approve of Roe v. Wade also say they believe that abortion should not be permitted except for grave reasons, and that it should never be permitted after viability except to save the mother's life.

What finally helped to raise public consciousness was the most shocking decision thus far, Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Court struck down a state statute that would have banned partial-birth abortion. By 2000, technology had advanced to the point where many parents proudly displayed ultrasound photos of pre-born babies. Thus, Justice Stephen Breyer's callousness about something so close to infanticide highlighted as never before the discrepancy between the rigid, lethal logic of the Court majority and the more complex moral sentiments of most Americans.

One other aspect of the history of the 1973 decisions demands comment. When reading Roe and Doe, it is surprising to see how little they have to say about protecting women and how much they have to do with protecting doctors. That is because much of the pressure for these decisions came from the medical profession. By 1973, with the sexual revolution well underway, licensed doctors were increasingly performing elective abortions for their patients, but they were worried about criminal and civil liability. Justice Harry Blackmun, who had been counsel for the Mayo Clinic, wrote much of the majority opinion in Roe at the Mayo Clinic library. As is well known, he grounded the decision on the supposed "right to privacy" in the physician-patient relationship. It was not until years later that the Court majority described abortion as a woman's right, and then shifted in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) from the much-criticized privacy ground to treating abortion as an individual liberty.

Part of what emboldened the Court majority to go as far as it did in the line of cases extending Roe and Doe was the embrace of unlimited abortion rights by the peculiar form of feminism that took shape in the 1970s. To earlier feminists who had fought for the vote and for fair treatment in the workplace, it had seemed obvious that the ready availability of abortion would facilitate the sexual exploitation of women. Women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton regarded free love, abortion, and easy divorce as disastrous for women and children. They would have regarded women who actively promoted those causes as foolish or deranged.

What made 1970s feminism such an anomaly was a puzzling combination of two things that don't ordinarily go together: anger against men and promiscuity; man-hating and man-chasing.

I remember that it was around this time that some of my students at Boston College Law School began to ask me if I was a feminist. My answer, then and now, is yes--if that means I am specially concerned about a range of issues that disproportionately affect women. But, as the mother of three young children in those days, I had to admit I was baffled by the groups that were purporting to speak for women. Organized feminism had almost nothing to say to women like me who were trying to juggle work and family obligations. In fact, many of its spokeswomen went out of their way to denigrate marriage and motherhood. Moreover, as a lawyer, I could see that the chief beneficiaries of the divorce reforms they backed so enthusiastically were ex-husbands and second wives.

The feminism of the 1970s was decisively shaped by a demographic phenomenon that brought heartbreak and disappointment to two large groups of women. The first group was the cohort of women born in the early years of the post-World War II baby boom. These young women were caught in what demographers call the "marriage squeeze"--the shortage of potential mates that resulted from the sharp jump in birthrates that began in 1947. There simply were not enough baby boys born during the war years to provide husbands for the bumper crop of girls born in 1947, '48, and '49 (given the then-custom for women to marry men a year or two older than themselves). When these girls started dating (in the 1960s), there were 1.7 million more of them than there were men in the age group where they ordinarily would have expected to find husbands. Just imagine what a painful experience that must have been for young women who had been socialized for domesticity, girls who had grown up in the 1950s to expect life as it was portrayed in the Ladies Home Journal and Good Housekeeping. They had no idea why things weren't working out the way they were supposed to.

The increased competition for mates, coinciding with the arrival of the birth control pill, helps to explain a number of things, such as the collapse of sexual taboos as young women began to offer free samples and to pursue men previously considered off limits (such as other women's husbands). The ripple effects were vast and affected nearly everyone. Inevitably, there were abuses by men of their suddenly dominant position in the mating market. Many women of Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug's generation found themselves alone and in difficult circumstances when their husbands divorced them to marry younger women. That created a second large group of angry women, and 1970s feminism was off to the races.

The unusual conditions that gave rise to that particular form of feminism have long since passed, and thus it is hardly surprising that most women today are looking for something more responsive to their needs and aspirations. Betty Friedan, the smartest of the old guard, was the first of their number to see the writing on the wall. In a 1996 piece for the New Yorker, she warned organized feminism that "as a number of recent polls have made clear, the urgent concerns of women today are not gender issues but jobs and families." Two years later in Time, she again advised official feminism to get over its fixation with gender, saying, "All the sex stuff is stupid. The real problems have to do with women's lives and how you put together work and family."

Friedan was right that problems of work and family are central concerns of many women, and there are signs that she and others have succeeded in moving the feminist establishment to pay closer attention to those matters. But old-line feminism still has a tin ear for listening to women with children, as evidenced by their main solution to the problem of combining work and family life: the socialization of child care. Ironically, the old feminism brought to light how much of women's work has been undervalued, but then bought into that very same disrespect by acting as though the only work that matters is market work.

It's no wonder that four out of five young women today are so turned off by these negative attitudes toward men, marriage, and motherhood that they reject even the term "feminism." The title of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's book Feminism Is Not the Story of My Life, taken from her interviews with dozens of women in all walks of life, says it all.

It is now apparent to nearly everyone that what Betty Friedan calls the "sex stuff" does matter, and that it matters very much. As the bills for the sexual revolution pile up, it looks as if the late nineteenth and early twentieth century feminists were closer to the mark. The price for the nation's prolonged bacchanal has been high, especially for women and children. There's been a high cost in terms of women's health, including an epidemic of infertility caused by sexually transmitted infections, and a startling rise in cervical and oral cancers among young women from the same cause.

Most women have understood all along that Roe v. Wade would not, as Friedan once predicted, "make women whole." For the past thirty years, all three leading polling organizations have consistently told us that a large majority of Americans, women even more than men, disapprove of the majority of abortions that are performed in this country. In recent years, that disapproval has increased significantly. The latest Zogby poll, reported in November 2002, reveals not only that Americans in general are becoming more conservative in their views about abortion, but that young people are significantly more pro-life than their parents. The strongest supporters of abortion rights in the United States, as any nineteenth-century feminist could have predicted, are not women--but men in the age group of eighteen to twenty-five. Nevertheless, the most pro-life part of the population is people under thirty.

Why, then, a curious person might ask, has that widely shared sentiment not tempered the extremism of American abortion law? In part it's probably because the Supreme Court has left so little room for expression of popular will through legislation. In part it's probably also because so much confusion exists about what the law really says. But there may be other, deeper reasons. With almost a million-and-a-half abortions a year for thirty years, we have become a society where nearly everyone has been touched by abortion, if not personally, then through friends and family members. When we speak about abortion today, we are speaking to women who have had abortions; to men who have asked women to have abortions; to young people who have lost brothers and sisters to abortion; and to the mothers and fathers, friends and neighbors of those women and men. That knowledge often leaves us tongue-tied, at a loss for words, for what to say and how to say it.

That knowledge has made it tempting for countless women and men to take refuge in slogans like: "Who am I to be judgmental?" and the famous "Personally, I'm opposed, but I can't impose my opinions on others."

I have to admit that, back in the 1970s, I was rather uncritical of such phrases. I remember asking the former dean of Boston College, a Jesuit priest, "Father, what do you think about this abortion issue?" He said, "Well you see, Mary Ann, it's very simple. According to Vatican II, abortion is 'an unspeakable moral crime.' But in a pluralistic democracy, we can't impose our moral views on other people." "Oh," I said, "OK."

I know this story doesn't reflect any credit on me, but I mention it to show that many of us just didn't focus on the issue all that closely. I know now that I should have questioned the word "impose." But it took some time before growing numbers of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews stepped forward to point out that when people advance their moral viewpoints in the public square, they are not imposing anything on anyone. They are proposing. That's what citizens do in a democracy--we propose, we give reasons, we vote. It's a very strange doctrine that would silence only religiously grounded moral viewpoints. And it's very unhealthy for democracy when the courts--without clear constitutional warrant--deprive citizens of the opportunity to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work, and raise our children.

It was only after I started to look into how controversial issues like abortion and divorce were handled in other liberal democracies that I realized how my dean's slogan has been used not only to silence religiously grounded views, but to silence all opposition to abortion. I should have asked the dean why citizens should have to withhold their moral views on abortion but not on other issues where he did not hesitate to advance religiously grounded moral viewpoints--the Vietnam War, capital punishment, civil rights, and relief of poverty. Years later, I put a related question to the former dean of Harvard Law School. In the mid-1980s, after I had given a talk to the Harvard faculty comparing American abortion law unfavorably with the approaches taken in several other liberal democracies, Dean Al Sacks took me out for lunch and said, "You know, no one in that room agrees with you." Since he had put the point in a friendly, avuncular way, I asked him about something that had long puzzled me. "Why," I asked, "did you and so many other constitutional lawyers stop criticizing the Court's abortion decisions after most of you had been highly critical of Roe v. Wade?" He sighed and gave me a very candid answer that had the ring of truth. "I suppose," he said, "it was because we had been made to understand that the abortion issue was so important to the women in our lives, and it just did not seem that important to most of us."

Today, thirty years after Roe and Doe, polls tell us that the abortion issue is still more important to women than to men. But they also tell us that women's and men's views have changed. For one thing, many of the unintended consequences of the cultural revolution of which these decisions were part have come into clearer view. There is growing awareness that the moral ecology of the country has suffered something like an environmental disaster, and that we are faced with a very complicated clean-up operation.

What makes that task especially difficult now is that the social changes of the past four decades have taken a heavy toll on the nation's human capital. We now live in a culture in which about half of all marriages end in divorce; in which nearly half of all children spend part of their childhood in fatherless homes; in which women and men who put their families first are falling behind economically and professionally; in which many of the nation's youngest citizens are starving for parental time and attention, and often for basic material necessities.

Moreover, though old-line, hard-line feminism has little appeal for today's women, its ideology lives on in law and policy--like light rays from a dead star. The cohort of women most captivated by that ideology now holds influential positions, and the organizations that promote the worst ideas of 1970s feminism continue to be handsomely bankrolled by its chief beneficiaries--the vast, profit-making abortion industry, the sex industry, and the organizations that promote aggressive population control.

Fortunately, however, the times are changing. There are signs that new forms of feminism are emerging to tackle the challenge of renewing the culture. We are hearing more voices of women who are in touch with the real-life needs and aspirations of a broad range of women. We are hearing more voices of women who regard men and women as partners rather than antagonists in the eternal quest for better ways to love and work. We are hearing enough to give us hope that a collaborative, creative effort is underway--an effort to promote a moral ecology that is in keeping with American traditions of welcoming the stranger, caring for the weak and vulnerable, lending a helping hand to the needy, and giving a fresh start to someone who got off on the wrong track.

Skeptics might say that that hope is misplaced. Perhaps so, but hope may be all that we have in an otherwise daunting time."


... and Peggy Noonan bites back :

Ms. Glendon,

With all due respect Madame, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the D&X procedure. I would steer you to our Web Site Issue paper which other anti-abortion people have said they have found most helpful when trying to get the truth and facts about the D&X procedure and when it is used and under what circumstances especially in the 3rd trimester. http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_partial_birth_abortions .html Also our issue paper on 2nd trimester abortions:
http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_not_afraid.html

Your statement: "...striking down laws designed to protect late-term, healthy, viable babies," is wholly on its face an erroneous inaccurate statement. So is this statement: "the idea that the Court would permit the intentional destruction of a healthy infant who was capable of living outside his or her mother's body, when the mother's health (in the ordinary meaning of that word) is not in serious danger."

Do you know Madame what Roe vs. Wade says? Apparently not. It says that in the 3rd trimester, AFTER VIABILITY states may step in to protect fetal life. 42 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the books that make abortion ILLEGAL except to protect a woman's health and life.

Do you know how many abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester and why? First 88% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. After 21 weeks only 1.4% and in the third trimester .04-.05 percent occur after viability. (Alan Guttmacher Institute) That would be approximately - out of 1,300,000 abortions a year in this country - 650. 650 doesn't sound like women are having and doctors are performing abortions for any reason after viability, including for a prom dress or depression - it sounds like what it really is, serious threat to a woman's health and life. Read our fact sheet I referenced above. The women who had very wanted pregnancies but faced very tragic circumstances would find your description of what they faced unfair, immoral and reprehensible.

Regarding this statement: "That's why polls show that the same people who say they approve of Roe v. Wade also say they believe that abortion should not be permitted except for grave reasons, and that it should never be permitted after viability except to save the mother's life." The fact is that's the reality of what is occurring today. The stories of why women have 3rd trimester abortions and the number that occur tell the truth - you just need hear the truth and then tell the truth.

I'm shocked that a woman with your listed credentials is so terribly ill-informed of the facts.

Peggy Loonan, founder and executive director, Life and Liberty for Women
peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org