Harry Reid Says Mormons Being Led Down Wrong Path By LDS Leaders

No doubt you haven't heard about Harry Reid attacking Christians last week because the media doesn't dare smear him. However, it is even more unlikely that you've heard about Reid smearing his own church leadership for being right-wingers.

Reid said people often question how he can be a Democrat and a Mormon, but called the social responsibility Democrats espouse a good fit with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He questioned the guidance of some LDS Church leaders, though.

In remarks to the media following his address, Reid said that, "In the past years we've had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people.

"Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path," he said.

Then there is this little tidbit from the AP:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mormons were ill-served by the conservative politics of past church leaders.

Then after insulting past LDS leadership for being to conservative ... Reid politely tells LDS members that their values are all screwed up.

He said Mormons must recognize there are more important issues than abortion and gay marriage. Reid opposes abortion.

"We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn't know how to pronounce the words," Reid said, referring to President Bush.

Harry, ever the hypocrite, thinks it is the "wrong path" for LDS leadership to uphold their traditional conservative beliefs, but he deems it ok to alter those beliefs to better coincide with the liberal agenda? For crying out loud ... he told LDS members they should be more concerned with global warming than abortion!

When I spoke of this last night on my show, I received several calls from outraged LDS members who explained how the church goes out of its way to not endorse any candidate. Something that was stated very clearly in the RJ's article.

The church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms. Spokeswoman Kim Farah said church officials would not comment on Reid's remarks.

To attack other faiths is bad enough, but to attack your own.

Is Fred Thompson Anti-Abortion ... Part Deux?

I was the first to tell you all this about Fred Thompson's abortion history. You can read about that HERE.

Now a video providing more evidence that Fred may have flip-flopped a little on abortion has surfaced.

Is Fred Thompson Anti-Abortion?

Hotair has a link to a new Fred Thompson video outlining his pro-life positions, but it seems to contradict his previously held stances somewhat.

I would like to preface this post by saying that I support Fred Thompson, and would likely endorse him for president when he makes it official. I just found something in his background that didn't quite gel.

Project Vote Smart is a great site to research candidates both on the national, and local, levels. They have a question and answer sheet that they give to candidates to outline their positions on various issues. Most candidates take the time to answer the questions, and then Vote Smart publishes those answers on their site. That way you and I can look up a candidate to see where they stand on issues that are important to us.

Thompson has not answered one for this upcoming election yet, but he did answer the questions a few years ago. Vote Smart still has his answers on their site, and there was an interesting response from Thompson regarding abortion.


As you can see from Thompson's answers above ... he believes abortion should be legal. Now that doesn't mean that he supports abortion by any means, and his voting record on abortion is clearly pro-life. However, this may hurt Thompson's attempts at painting himself as a staunch pro-life candidate ... as he seems to be doing in the video link above.

1 In 30 Aborted Babies Is Born Alive

I ran across this on Fark today, and was stunned that this was possible.

Daily Mail:

One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found.

They lived between 80 minutes to 6 hours. Keep in mind we are talking about aborted babies here.

Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004.

It showed that 102 - or around one in 30 - aborted for reasons such as Down's Syndrome and heart defects, were born alive.

Check this out ... this little one refused to die.

While there is no suggestion that any of the babies documented in the West Midlands study lived for more than a few hours, doctors in Norwich are currently treating a toddler born at 24 weeks after three botched terminations.

He was born three years ago and is still alive.

I wonder if the mother sued the doctor for failing to abort the child like this mother did.

Have You Ever Wondered How Developed A Baby Is At The Time Partial-Birth Abortions Are Done? Meet Roben ...

Partial-birth abortions are performed on pregnant women after being 20 weeks pregnant ... Roben was born at 26 weeks.

As you can see Roben is a fully formed baby ... just a little smaller than normal.

Roben's mother was at risk of losing her life when Roben was delivered, but a partial-birth abortion was never discussed by the doctors. A c-section was performed to remove Roben in 45 minutes to save both her, and her mother.

This is me with Roben, and her mother Helen, when she was one year old. As you can see she is alive, and beautiful, with a smile that can melt you heart.

Helen has been a long time listener of my program, and has been giving me pictures of Roben since the day she was born. I finally met little Roben in person when I was doing a live broadcast remote to benefit Opportunity Village.

I was discussing the Supreme Court ruling on my show yesterday, and received a call from Helen to tell Roben's story. Helen had literally just come back from the hospital after delivering her second child. I asked for her permission to put these photos of Roben up for all of you to better understand how fully formed the baby is when a partial-birth abortion is performed.

Having a tough time imagining a doctor aborting a fully formed baby? These diagrams of the procedure will allow you to better visualize how a partial-birth abortion is done.

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times in 1997:

"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

Yesterday I wrote that I would like to see a provision to allow partial-birth abortions if the mother's life is in jeapardy, and she consents, but new medical technology is making the need for such a procedure completely unnecessary. It would also have to be written to be very specific, and not provide loopholes for women who are changing their mind because they are starting to see stretch marks. I also wrote in my previous column that the number of abortions affected by the Supreme Court ruling were between 0.17% - 10%, but the numbers in the year 2000 were only 1.4% of abortions in the US were partial-birth abortions (about 2,800) according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Most of those 2,800 partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy babies with healty mothers who simply chickened out, and changed their minds.

I also got a call from my Grandma during my show yesterday. She had just got off the phone with my Great Grandma to confirm that in 1917 my Great Grandpa was born early. He weighed in at 2lbs., and they used a washcloth for his blanket. He would later go on to father 5 children. That's back in 1917!

If you are still interested in taking the poll I put up about the Supreme Court's decision yesterday ... go here.

Poll: Ban On Partial Birth Abortion Is Not Unconstitutional ... What Do You Think?

Scroll down for the poll ...

Drudge is breaking this, and has the reactions of the top presidential candidates. It's very telling to see where they come down on this issue, and should sway at least a few votes.

AP:

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law also will allow up to two years in prison if a doctor chooses to ignore it.

Of course, Planned Parenthood is upset with the ruling.

Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

This law will affect less than 10% of abortions in the US (0.17% according to some) ... so Planned Parenthood's profit margin is still pretty solid. There isn't a provision to allow for the procedure in case of the mother's health, and I would like to see that included, but this all or nothing attitude is the reason why nothing gets done in this country. There is no argument outside of the mother's health that can justify partial birth abortion ... that is murder by all definitions. Once the fetus develops beyond a certain point ... it is a child.

I headed over to Planned Parenthood's website, and found a pop-up asking for donations to fight the Supreme Court's ruling.

Pretty interesting huh?

At the end of the news story on their site was this paragraph:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 860 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.

Contacts
Erin Kiernon, 202-973-4975

I guess the "when" part includes killing a fully formed child in some circumstances. Notice they didn't oppose the Supreme Court's decision based on a lack of a provision for the mother's health. Actually, they didn't even mention it. It seems they are taking the old, tired, asinine argument that it's a woman's body. Also keep in mind that in 2005 Planned Parenthood got $272 million in tax funds, 2x the money it made from its 255,000 abortions that year. H/T: Stop the Aclu

I figured I would hop over to the ACLU's website to see what they have to say. I knew I was in for a treat because the ACLU fought for the rights of a pregnant woman to do crack while pregnant no matter what the damage was to the baby without fear of prosecution. After clicking past a rather humorous pop-up that was asking where the Constitution was (very funny considering the ACLU opposes the Second Amendment) ... I wasn't disappointed.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.

It's nice to know that the ACLU is actually looking out for someone's health ... even if it isn't the baby's. The ACLU also has a history of protecting pedophiles instead of worrying themselves with the health of the children.

Hillary said:

"It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

Obama said:

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

Edwards said:

"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women."

They all talked about a woman's right to choose being violated with this decision which is what is going to hurt their numbers. If they just stuck with the health of the mother provision they would have been ok. Truth is, they don't distinguish between partial-birth abortion and abortion here, and they are two very different things.

Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all agreed with the decision. What do you think?

Do You Agee With The Supreme Courts Ruling On Partial-Birth Abortions?
	I completely agree with the entire ruling.
	I agree, but would like a provision to protect the mother's health.
	I completely disagree with the entire ruling.
	I would disagree with the ruling even if there was a provision to protect the mother's health.
pollcode.com free polls

Poll: Should Women Be Required To View An Ultrasound Before Getting An Abortion?

Should women be required to see an ultrasound before getting an abortion
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Ultrasound Won't Be Required Before Abortion

South Carolina was looking at making this a law, and it had broad support.

S.C. Senators Drop Mandatory Ultrasound

By SEANNA ADCOX Associated Press Writer

A legislative panel on Thursday dropped a measure from an abortion bill that would have made South Carolina the only state to require women to review an ultrasound images of the fetus before terminating a pregnancy.

"It's not forcing a woman to do something against her will," said Sen. Linda Short, the only woman in the Senate and a member of the subcommittee that dropped the measure.

Short, a Democrat, expects the new version of the bill to easily pass the Senate, leading to a showdown with the House, whose members have passed a version that includes the ultrasound requirement.

The bill's sponsor in the House said the Senate version was unacceptable.

Proponents believe women would change their minds after seeing an ultrasound and choose to keep the child or offer it for adoption. Critics consider it a way to intimidate women who already have made an agonizing decision.

Last week, the attorney general told lawmakers it would be illegal for the state to force a woman to view an ultrasound image against her will.

Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone if it mandated women see the images.

The Senate subcommittee unanimously approved the amended bill, which now heads to the Senate Medical Affairs Committee.

Doctors should have an obligation to go over all possible side effects of a procedure. If the pro and anti-abortion crowds don't come to a compromise the situation will continue to deteriorate.

Self Abortion Is A Misdemeanor?

An abortion is a-ok as long as you have a government subsidized company (Planned Parenthood) do it for you, but you can't do it yourself without it being a crime?

This is too weird:

The woman is accused of trying to kill her unborn baby, Oswego County Sheriff's deputies said.

The woman was arrested Monday. Deputies say that on April 4 the woman ingested several over-the-counter and prescription medications. Deputies say the woman was in her 13th week of the pregnancy at the time.

There are several comments on this story at the site, but I plucked this one for its accuracy.

tines28 says...

The problem here is the woman did not continue to make the drug companies, stores and doctors richer by participatig in the system. As a means to force people to engage the system, laws are made to criminalize personal actions. However, when money flows in the right direction it is not a crime, its business.
Posted on 04/10/07 at 11:32AM

Sounds about right to me.

Woman Sues For Failed Abortion

Personal responsibility has been dead a while now, but it doesn't make this any less ridiculous.

BOSTON --A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.

This is just as stupid as suing a condom company, or birth control company, for allowing you to get pregnant. At best she deserves her money back for the procedure.

No word yet on who can sue her for being a dumb whore who spread her legs open.