Snakes for a Reason?

In Connecticut, a teenage girl is mature enough to obtain an abortion without parental consent.  Apparently, she's mature enough to end any life but her own...

Connecticut forces 17 year old with Stage 3/4 Hodgkin's Lymphoma to undergo chemotherapy against her own will, and that of her mother who supports her daughter's choice.  

“Following a hearing at which Cassandra’s doctors testified, the trial court ordered that she be removed from her home and that she remain in DCF’s care and custody,” read court documents.  “The court also authorized DCF to make all necessary medical decisions on Cassandra’s behalf.” 

After Cassandra had a portion of her lymph node surgically removed at the hospital, mother and daughter left "to seek a second opinion." Fortin said they were going to consult with doctors in another state — but the local doctors, who are mandated reporters, called the DCF and raised an issue of parental medical neglect. The DCF went to Superior Court and won temporary custody and permission to proceed with the treatment. Courant

What do you think?  You may not agree with her decision, but do you think she has the right to make it?

Do you think the state is inconsistent with its application of medical maturity?

The Ultimate War on Women

Republicans played politics with the abortion issue last week, putting to an unsuccessful vote a law that would have criminalized sex-selection abortions...

Groups opposed to abortion rights are turning charges of a GOP "war on women" against Democrats who are opposed to legislation meant to ban sex-selective abortions.

Democrats hoping to grow a gender gap among female voters tilted toward their party have repeatedly hammered Republicans for engaging in a war on women over issues such as contraception rights.

Now opponents of abortion rights used the phrase ahead of a House vote Thursday imposing fines or imprisonment on doctors who perform abortions they know are motivated in part by the fetus's gender. The bill would also require medical professionals to tell law enforcement if they suspect an abortion has been performed for that reason. (Ultimate War on Women)

I’m torn. This is horrible law, based upon emotionalism and supposition rather than material fact, but I always enjoy it when republicans can hoist democrats on their own petard.

You can kill your unborn baby for any reason in the world except because she’s a girl

The law and the arguments surrounding it leads to a swampy quagmire. Abortion is OK, but not if you do it because the fetus is a female, but you can abort a female fetus as long as you don’t say that is why you’re doing it. 

Doctors must report to law enforcement if they think the abortion is sex-motivated, but only for female fetuses. Under the proposed law, a woman can storm into her nearest abortion mill and demand they rip the paternalistic, woman-subjugating male chauvinist piglet from her belly and she will continue to enjoy the favor of the state.

Whatever happened to Liberty?

We find ourselves in legislatively-created swamplands because there is no logic there, and without logic, it’s all up to the whims of whoever has the power. So we end up with contradictory and capricious laws that inevitably lead to thought crimes where the state of mind of the “criminal” is more important than the damage he has done.  This is not lawmaking.  It is issuing decrees and commands based upon the whims of the rulers.

Politics aside, we should pause to consider that abortion has led to the largest legalized slaughter of women and minorities in human history.

Ultimate War on Women
House Rejects Bill

The Heart of the Matter

Weasel words and specious argumentation cloud the abortion debate

When discussing abortion the concept of rights gets especially abused, and noisy side issues crowd out the key issue: Is a fetus human life?

The pro-abortion people throw around euphemisms like "choice," but particularly cowardly are evasions that dismiss the issue by impugning the character of those who hold the anti-abortion position. Worst of all is when someone cites a poll, as if enough of us voting to kill Hollywood stars for sport would make it ok...

Another troubling line of argumentation is "the life of the mother," which any medical doctor can tell you is a one-in-a-million given today's medical technology, and it is highly contingent given the variance in the technological advancement of the medical equipment available at different geographical locations.

Human Beings are Superior to Beasts

(I can't believe I actually have to make this argument... But here goes...)

The other troublesome aspect is that some attempt to conflate all life, human, animal and plant. They are clearly not equal.

Monkeys are not human, although it's cute when one smokes a pipe in a tv commercial, and the sight of dogs shooting pool is amusing, but it's only an artistic fantasy. Animal behavior is determined by instinct and rote conditioning; human beings reason, philosophize, ask questions and engage in what philosophers call transcendental activities. We possess "an awareness of and a desire for unconditional truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being." Put more simply, how many libraries have baboons built? We are complex beings, not bound by "algorithmically finite structures." (Spitzer, Robert J.)

I'm Anti-House Fire, But I Support the Arsonist's Right to Torch the Place...

My all-time favorite is "I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice." So you're anti house fire, but you support the arsonist's right to torch the place... It's not logical. You either believe abortion is morally ok (pro-abortion), or you do not (anti-abortion). You can't have it both ways. You can mumble out of the side of your mouth about the sanctity of life as the abortion counter competes with the debt clock, but whoever is not against it is for it.

The First Question: Is it Life?

The root of the issue is, "is a fetus a human being?" Is it a Life? A person? Before Roe v Wade, these words were synonymous and they all share a common etymology, with each word referring to the others in dictionary definitions.

So before proceeding to the question of whether it's OK to snuff it, when we can snuff it, and who is entitled to snuff it, we first have to define it. Is it life? Yes or no. It can't be two things at once.

If No...

Is it life, yes or no? If no, then have a ball and snuff the wad of tissue before she can get her cute little baby hands on a social security card.

If the being inside the mother is not life, then why jump through the justification hoops? Just kill it and walk away with a clean conscience. So at the root, even all but the most stone-cold pro-abortion people know it is taking a life, even though the act may be deemed legal. I can at least accept that distinction, with the caveat that what is legal is not necessarily moral.

If Yes...

If yes, it becomes more complex, which is why so many people fudge on the question, saying "yeah, it's life," but them damn this small life by demeaning it as just a blastocyst, embryo, zygote, non-viable life form, etc. All of these are distinctions without a difference, because all of these medically-defined entities proceed from human procreation and can be classified as either living or dead.

We argue over euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and other legal actions that result in the taking of a human life. I believe that is where abortion belongs. It's a life. The question now becomes, how, when, why and who may legally take it? Let's at least begin the debate by banishing the weasel words and honestly facing unpleasant facts.

Even then, when we say this particular action is OK but that one is not, we construct a slippery slope, where abortion for the right reason is ok, but wrong for gender selection:

So we really shouldn’t be a bit surprised if this particular slippery slope leads from guilt-free annual terminations – three for two, anybody? – to a “gender-balancing” service, which helps you plan the perfect family by vacuuming away infants of the wrong sex. There is a moral coarsening here that should concern us all. How desensitised have we become when an act of life or death – literally – is used as a tool to satisfy a curious desire to have one that you can dress in blue, as well as pink? (Allison Pearson-Gendercide)

That was not written by a moralizing rightwing Christian fundamentalist from Alabama, but rather by a liberal British columnist who two paragraphs earlier forthrightly declared "I support abortion."

* - For a much better more intelligent treatment of this issue, and some great back and forth in the thread, see Why There's no Point to Arguing about Abortion

Watcha Gonna Do When They Come For You?

"If liberals want to keep the Rick Santorums of the world out of their bedrooms, all they need to do is renounce the idea that even people they agree with have the right to sniff around in private quarters." (Nick Gillespie)

I keep hearing from big government leftists that the constitution is outdated, it was written by old white men way back in the 18th century, how can you look to them to solve our 21st century problems? The answer is, I don’t. The constitution is not a solution, it is a framework in which we work to solve those problems. It was meant to restrain government when it gets the urge for a final solution.

Two Side of the Same Statist Coin

Progressives have created a clanking soulless monster, piddling down their little legs with giddly glee as it tramples conservative and libertarian projects. But oh, how they scream like schoolgirls when those most sinister of figures, "old white men," grab control of it! The horror!

State-Sponsored Rape and other Abominations...

Ducky mewls about Virginia mandating sonograms for all women wanting an abortion, with the left elevating it to a civil rights issue, practically comparing Governor McDonnell to a modern-day Orville Faubus barring the abortion-house door. As if that were not enough, in a cute play on our emotions, the left equates the mandatory sonogram to state-sponsored rape. I wonder if language policewoman Shaw Kenaw has ordered her fellow libs to stop it, since it trivializes real rapes?

When you cry that everything should be collectivized and run by the state, and you acknowledge no overarching philosophy and no constitutional controls to bind it, you can't then complain when "old white men" seize the levers of power and do what they see fit.  In a world where there's no such thing as natural rights, might makes right, right?

So, my progressive friends, when your Frankenstein's Monster turns on you, please excuse the rest of us a schadefreude-induced chortle.

There is a way out of this.  It's called personal responsibility and personal liberty. Do what you want, when you want, on your own dime. Take these decisions away from the purview of the state. Government has no business in our private lives.

Abortion and Contraception: A Humanist Approach

Contra Abortion and Birth Control: Making the case for making the case

I don't expect to convert anyone here on the subject of birth control or abortion, but I do hope to convince you that those who stand in opposition are not just making stuff up and being hateful about it, but that they approach the debate firmly rooted in history, charity and a coherent moral philosophy.

The case against abortion is simple:

It takes a human life. Even the humble one-cell zygote (a human cell, human life! Hello!) has a complete unique human genome.  We didn't know that back in 1973, but the Roe ruling did stipulate that if personhood could be established, the case would be closed. A fetus would be legally considered a human being entitled to constitutional protections:

If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX A)

The majority also admitted in it's Roe v. Wade ruling that it did not know when human life begins, so it erred on the side of "who cares?"

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. (Cornell LII - Roe v Wade, IX B)

So the pro-abortion argument rests upon the tenuous hope that a fetus is not human life, and it takes a narrow legalistic view instead of a broader prima facie and ontological one. It ignores legal precedents set in various state supreme court decisions as well as historical English jurisprudence, as cited in William Blackstone's Commentaries.  This is the foundation of our law:

I. THE right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.

1. LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.

An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. (Commentaries - Book 1, Chapter 1)

So the anti-abortion position is not a recent invention; the pro-abortion one is. For those who spread the lie that abortion used to be ok; that Christians just recently started "making it up as they went along," I suggest you go read The Didache, a first century Christian document that specifically prohibits abortion.

Defending contraception is much dicier...

...so I won't even try to make the argument.  I will point out that everything the contraception foes predicted would happen if it became ubiquitous has indeed come to pass:  Family breakup, out-of-wedlock births, venereal disease, dehumanization and sexual objectification of women and all the moral rot and societal decay that goes with it.

The simple fact that unwanted pregnancies have exploded in this era of the miraculous birth control pill should give everyone pause.  It that doesn't do it for you, contemplate Europe's below-replacement fertility rate.  A people that refuses to biologically propagate itself commits slow societal suicide.

I leave it to The Catholic Church to argue that artificial birth control is evil.  I am merely pointing out that the moralists are not full of it.  Their morality is grounded in reason, religious self-discipline, and a profound respect for the intrinsic value of each human being, which as Kant explained should always be treated as ends unto themselves and never merely as a means.

Then there's the more sinister side of abortion and contraception...

Jonathan Freedland explores the left's Eugenics Skeletons in the Closet. The original progressive aim was to abort and contracept the "inferiors" into extinction. Thankfully, the left has given up their sinister plans that included "lethal chambers" and have now progressed to merely enslaving and imprisoning the poor in fetid inner cities to more easily harvest their votes.

So although you may not agree with them, can you at least acknowledge that people who argue against artificial contraception and abortion do so from a firm historical and philosophical foundation?

Blackstone's Commentaries on The Laws of England (Avalon)

Blackstone's Commentaries on The Laws of England (LONANG)
Legal Issues of Roe v Wade

Supervillain Sunday! Foster Freeze vs Abortion Man!

"It's Rick Santorum's misfortune that his main moneybags has a name that sounds like a Batman villain." 

Yesterday we were treated to another of Jersey's wretched and vulgar outbursts.


Most of it is incoherent and unprintable, but I will provide a few counterpoints.

Jersey ignorantly blurted...

"In fact, until the mid-19th century, most of you Cafeteria Christian Conservatives didn't believe that. And not until the mid-20th century did it become a focal issue for the right wing Protestants among you."

Wrong-O, angry and intolerant one.  I refer you to The Didache, a first century Christian document written by men who knew Christ...

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.  (Didache)

You can disagree with the teachings, but it's authenticity is universally accepted by historians.

Jersey continued with some more gay bathhouse profanity, then closed by defending abortion as legitimate because "abortion has been around for at least all of recorded history."  Well, so has murder and theft, so I can't imagine what his point could have been...

Selective Outrage on the Left

It's Rick Santorum's misfortune that his main campaign moneybags has a name that sounds like a Batman villain.  Foster Friess had the temerity to tell women who didn't want to get pregnant to keep their knees together and liberals everywhere collapsed into hysteric vapors.

This is the same left that...

... Gleefully mocks and dehumanizes conservative women, from Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter to Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, to include cheering when liberal men make "jokes" about them that include their children and the prospect of them being raped

... lionized lady-killer Ted Kennedy and his fellow carouser and serial sexual-harasser Christopher Dodd.

... batted not an eye when Bill Clinton abused his power by seducing a star-struck, barely-legal intern into performing sexual favors on him in the oval office

Illiberal, Intolerant Left

And the left dares to sling charges of hypocrisy? Not living up to one’s beliefs? Has anyone checked out the “tolerant,” “diverse,” and pro-choice” left’s illiberal, intolerant gang rape of the Komen foundation for making the choice to not hand free money to abortionists at Planned Parenthood ? It was the very antipathy of true classical liberalism.

Yeah, they're pro-choice, so long as they are the ones choosing what the rest of us will pay for:

In a society that thinks itself free, how dare the government force employers to provide health insurance? How dare it mandate that coverage include contraception—or any particular service? How dare it mandate that any coverage be free? (It can’t really be free; the coverage necessarily reduces employees’ cash wages.) How can contraception use be insurable when it is a chosen act, not the kind of low-probability, high-cost event that insurance was designed to protect against? (Obama’s Big Government Mandates)

So yeah, get your freak on, but do it on your own damned dime.

* - If you had fun today, tune in tomorrow.  This was just a warm-up...

Other fun links:
Birth Control Yes, Government Control No
The Audacity of Power
Explaining Conflicting Poll Data
Commerce is the Culture War
Birth Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal
Careful what you wish for

Collectivization Leads to Mob Rule

Pope Obama of the Secular Church of State (click to embiggen)

"But I'm not anti-religion...  Some of my biggest admirers are Catholic!"

Despite the toady nun marched out by Obama to declare that all was now good, the US Catholic Bishops rejected Obama's economically ignorant and transparently tendentious sham offer. I will admit that trotting out Sister Carol Keehan was a nice touch by the president, but why did it remind me of the racist who when cornered defends himself by saying that he has black friends?

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. – Benjamin Franklin

The standard liberal/left argument in favor of Obama dictating to church-run organizations can be boiled down to tyranny of the majority:  Over 50% of citizens think businesses should give away birth control pills and abortafacients, therefore all women have a right to it.  Period.

This is an insidious line of argumentation:

The pivot point is how you see this. Is it a battle over birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives -- or over government intrusion into the right of religious organizations to live by their teachings?

58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics. (USA Today)

This contradicts more authoritative, less agenda-driven polling, but we’ll ignore that for now.

Stated another way, “If half the Catholics don’t care, then why is this an issue?”

The logical outcome of this would be that the government can overturn any lawful religious belief or practice that a majority of adherents don’t agree with. It’s an ad populum argument crafted to skirt the more fundamental constitutional issue.

This is an unconstitutional infringement on the free exercise of religion, but that is drawing the issue too narrowly. Remove “Birth Control” and replace it with “Iced Tea” and the larger problem would be the same: The government usurping the freedom of individuals by telling them what to do in their personal lives.

"A resolution to this issue cannot only cover 'religious' employers," Pavone said. "Religious freedom, which includes freedom of conscience, does not belong only to religious entities but to every American. There are many non-religious reasons to object to the administration's policy." (USA Today)

Yes! And that cuts to the issue. Government is binding your conscience, in an age and place where religion no longer can.  How the worm has turned.  It is one thing to take your tax money and spend it on wars, or abortions or wasteful green schemes. Elections revolve around such issues. It is quite another for the government to put a gun to your head and demand you buy something and give it to someone else, regardless of whether it violates your moral beliefs.

Here’s another line of liberal argumentation along the same line…

More generally, as Kevin Drum points out, one price for engaging with secular society is living by the rules of secular society. (Cohen)

Sounds good, but it is fraught with error. Who sets “the rules?” Where do they come from? What is the arbitrating authority when there is a dispute over “the rules?” What rule is the Catholic Church violating?  Is the rule valid when measured against the US Constitution?

Collectivizing our Rights 

This is really about the relentless march of collectivism. Throw all our money and liberties into the public pot so that state panjandrums and public policy poobahs can dole them back out.  As a state-sponsored bonus, it all belongs to the federal government now, not you, so the wolves have a right to vote to eat the sheep.

When health care is thus “collectivized,” when we’re “all in this together,” we’re forced to fight for every “carve-out” of liberty. (CATO)

USA Today reports that Obama’s Retreat is not enough. The article details the tangled nest of thorny problems this has opened up. What about a small-business owner who objects to providing insurance covering the morning after pill?

It’s a snarled up mess because government doesn’t belong in this arena. It has chained businesses and organizations to itself, insisting they provide services to individuals. This sets up a situation where a person is beholden to their employer for not just medical, but dental and other services that used to be the purview of the individual.

The easy solution is for the government butt out

The federal government need to get its fat, intrusive ass out of this private issue and turn its attentions to creating a clean, well-policed space for a free marketplace of health insurance to bloom, independent of employer participation. Americans will be able to shop for what they want, and if a majority want birth control pills, sterilization and morning after drugs, the free market will set up a competition to see who can provide them at the lowest cost.

Women who work for Catholic organizations can be free to choose their health insurance without the church snooping on them.  That respects the liberty and consciences of all, and that is what America is all about.

Catholic Bishops: Don’t Revise; Rescind
Cartoons
WaPo - “Compromise”

Abortion is Infanticide

Religious, pro-life Mississippi voted down a ballot initiative that would have declared personhood for a fetus at the time of conception.  We are conflicted on the issue of abortion.

Herman Cain had a rough time explaining his abortion stance a few weeks back and has come under some pretty stiff criticism from all sides. He earned it with his one-man verbal ping pong match and inarticulate crab walk followed up by blatant pandering and backpedaling.

However, his cognitive incoherence and apparent contradictory beliefs speak for a broad section of America. Fellow Coloradoan Ross Kaminsky explains…

As heretical as this will sound to the GOP faithful, Herman Cain's true position, as I read the man, is perhaps the best possible position for a candidate in an American presidential election. […]

...although Americans respond that they are pro-choice and pro-life in roughly equal proportions, there is a large subset of both groups -- but a larger subset of pro-life -- whose position is supportive of allowing abortion in certain cases. […] 

Putting all this together: A statistically significant 12 percent more of the American adult population believes abortion is morally wrong than believe it is morally acceptable. Yet Americans also believe by an enormous 3-to-1 margin that abortion should be legal at least sometimes.
 
In other words, Americans, including a majority of those who call themselves pro-life, have an essentially libertarian view on abortion: it may be undesirable or wrong, but it is not the government's role to enforce what most American believe to be a particular moral view rather than murder.

Kaminsky also points out that Cain can hardly be accused of being soft on abortion. He has spent one-million dollars of his own money on anti-abortion causes. Has Bachmann or Santorum done that?

I’m not quite so libertarian on this issue. I believe taking an innocent life is wrong. A fetus in a mother’s womb is an innocent life; therefore abortion is wrong. If this were a private issue between a woman and her doctor, it would be no one else’s business, least of all the state’s, but that’s not the case. Planned Parenthood runs for-profit abortion mills with taxpayer dollars, and I have a big problem with that.

Abortion is infanticide

(Reuters) - Two employees of a Philadelphia abortion clinic where live, viable babies were allegedly killed and a patient died after being given on overdose of painkillers pleaded guilty on Thursday to murder.

Seven more defendants face charges in the case, including Gosnell, who a grand jury in January said, "killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors."

These gruesome acts in that Philadelphia charnel house did not just happen. Our society conditioned these murderers to view a baby in the womb as just a piece of tissue. Indeed, we codified into law the rights of the killer over those of the victim. What they did to those babies once they were out of the womb was just a logical extension of what a sick society already told them was OK.

Live and Let Die: The Creepy Side of Progressivism

With progressive screams of “Palin is an accessory to murder!” still fouling the air, a story emerges from Philadelphia of a macabre chamber of horrors sponsored, funded and championed by progressives. 

The gory details of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s charnel house read like something out of a Wes Craven movie. Sadly, it’s all real, right here in America.

A Twisted Idea of Morality
The morality of a woman’s right to choose trumping human life is twisted and repulsive. It is important to recall that this dubious concept was developed by the likes of racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. A progressive hero, Sanger’s work was referenced by Nazis as justification for killing not just Jews, but gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, the elderly and generally anyone else who was unwanted by society or deemed undesirable.




Think I’m being harsh? Let’s try out one of the abortion advocates’ favorite thought exercises, The Fireman’s Dilemma:

You’re a fireman rushing into a burning building with only seconds to spare. You spy a three-year old girl on the right, and a petri dish containing 20 fertilized human embryos on the left. You only have time to save one, which do you save? One life or 20?

It’s a ridiculous hypothetical trap set to spring on pro-lifers. Its purpose is to suck us into the depraved world of "moral" judgments where we weigh the value of one human life against another. Questions such as this are employed by philosophers to plumb the depths of a thought or idea, but treating it as if it has relevance in real life is absurd. And when has something like this ever really happened? Even if the hypothetical fireman had time to discern that the dish contained fertilized ova, his natural instinct would be to grab the fearful, crying girl and go. In real life, you do what you can.

The Devil’s Dilemma
Here’s the creepy, progressive eugenics part of this thought experiment: What if the choice were between an old person and a young person? Do you save a severely handicapped man or the beautiful and healthy young woman? Does a Chinese research scientist with a 180 IQ get saved instead of a cute little Mexican boy who is illiterate and struggles in his special ed classes?

See where this leads? Human beings have no right to evaluate the worthiness of other human beings and decide who lives and who dies. It is a slippery slope to hell greased with the blood of “undesirables.”

To the pro-choice crowd I ask, how can you condemn this man? 
How can you call this murder, but killing the baby inside the mother OK? Do your morals really hinge on such a thin legal distinction?

Based on pro-abortion logic, this man should not be tried for murdering the babies because the mothers wanted these children dead and he ran a legal practice that did just that.

This is the legal fiction (as Rick Santorum calls it) we have in this country: If the mother does not want the baby, he is tissue and can be aborted. If he is fortunate enough to be wanted by the mother, the law confers person-hood on him and it is murder to kill him.

Pro-abortion advocates cannot call for Gosnell being charged with murder without contradicting their own stance.

Safe, Legal and Rare
The Margaret Sanger Eugenics wing of the Democratic party likes to repeat over and over how abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” warning us of the dangers of illegal, back alley abortions that harm and kill women if we outlawed the practice. Well, abortion is legal. So tell us how this house of horrors happened?

http://www.slate.com/id/2281812/

Margaret Sanger, Sterilization and the Swastika

Black Genocide – How Planned Parenthood duped America

A Dark Past – Jonah Goldberg

Philly.com – Gruesome Details