Still looking for the Perfect Christmas Gift? How about an Abortion?!

Indianapolis, Dec 2, 2008 / 04:23 am (CNA).- The Indiana affiliate of Planned Parenthood is offering gift certificates for birth control and other services, including abortion. While an announcement of the program encourages customers to purchase the certificates to “give the gift of health this holiday season,” one critic characterized the effort as “lethal.”

Indiana Planned Parenthood is offering the certificates in $25 increments through its web site or at its 35 locations in the state. Prospective customers are advised that the gift certificates could be used as co-pays in conjunction with partial insurance coverage.

[ . . . ]

The certificates may be used for breast exams and Pap smears, but may also be applied to defray the cost of an abortion, the Associated Press reports.

“I certainly don’t think anyone would consider giving it for that purpose,” Planned Parenthood of Indiana spokeswoman Kate Shepherd said.

Sure, Ms. Shepherd. And no one would offer a gift certificate to a liquor store to someone for the purpose of getting him drunk. You can read the whole story, from the Catholic News Agency, here.

I wonder, Is the idea that Christmas celebrates birth, the birth of the Savior of mankind, lost on these people as they proffer abortion gift certificates as holiday gifts? Pardon my language, but What the Fuck?


Sarah Palin: NOT The right choice, not the right to choose

Senator John McCain, on the heels of Obama’s grand disquisition, announces that he has chosen Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin to run with him. I have to say, Senator McCain has impressed me tremendously — not enough to sway me away from Barr (or, maybe, Baldwin), but enough that, were I willing to vote major party if I thought that Indiana might be up for grabs, I should seriously consider throwing my vote away, that is, voting for the Republican candidate. I say this not necessarily because I find myself in agreement with Governor Palin on policy issues (although, of course, in many instances, I do), but because I think that this shows a bit of keenness on the Arizonan’s part that I haven’t seen before, keenness that, as I said, impresses me.

I read somewhere that some twenty per cent of Hillary Clinton supporters, rather than backing Senator Obama, have polled in favor of McCain; having a young, intelligent woman on his ticket, I am convinced, will help McCain to draw more of them, more women in general toward him. Despite his generally pro-life voting record, McCain’s support of ESCR and his lukewarm responses respecting Roe v. Wade have left some ardent pro-lifers skeptical; Sarah Palin should suffice, I think, to reassure voters of McCain’s anti-abortion position. Her fifth child suffers from Down’s syndrome: Unlike some eighty per cent of women who learn, pre-natal, that their child suffers from this, Palin, in April, gave birth to a six-pound, two-ounce son. Contrast that with Senator Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, who, although receiving only tepid praise from NARAL, has received a zero per cent rating from the NRLC.

As the New York Times reports, in the article linked supra, Obama’s campaign has already come out swinging

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said in a statement.

“Hey, kettle, you’re black, too!” says Barack Obama, who has no elected executive experience, is an idiot regarding foreign policy, and, well, has done little actually worthy of note other than speaking eloquently.

Finally, the former beauty pageant queen, who last year posed in Vogue, is far better looking than Hillary Clinton, as well as the first, and most recent, major-party female candidate for vice-president, who, as does Biden, and the moronic Pelosi, inter alios, tried to play the pro-choice Catholic game. John Zmirak’s mom wanted nothing to do with that.

Rod and Ross seem to agree with me that Senator McCain has chosen perspicaciously. Sarah the Barracuda may be small fish, but she has bite.

Seriously, what was I thinking? Granted, none of knew just how ignorant Sarah Palin has proven to be, but, wow, this is my worst foray into prognostication since I suggested that the Kaiser would retain power after the First World War.

Minnesota Police State: A reason to be glad it wasn’t Pawlenty?

I mean not at all to suggest even that Pawlenty had anything to do with this, or even that he approves of it (although, as far as I know, he’s not condemned it), but it happened under his nose, so to speak. Palin isn’t without (seeming) scandal, but, as far as I know, police in Alaska have not swooped into homes to arrest would-be protestors because they plan to protest.

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff’s department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than “fire code violations,” and early this morning, the Sheriff’s department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

Glenn Greenwald has it here. Scares me to death, what the police do these days.

Thanks to Kelly Vlahos at @TAC for alerting me to this.

More Culture11 goodness!

Joe Carter offers a thoughtful, lucid, important disagreement with Mr Suderman’s post on the GOP’s platform plank respective stem-cell research.

First of all, there is no real need for embryo-destructive research. Last November, scientists discovered how to create embryonic-type stem cells that can be produced directly from ordinary human skin cells, without first creating or destroying human embryos.

[ . . . ]

Second, if corporations asked the government (or even private investors) to fund research into hydrogen-fueled cars by over-hyping their potential while denigrating the alternatives (i.e., electric cars), the watchdogs in the media would be writing Pulitzer-winning exposes. Yet embryonic stem cell research, which currently consists of bad science and even worse ethics, is given a pass. The hype and outright dishonesty surrounding the support of this research instead of adult stem cell research is scandalous . . . .

Boy-howdy, I love Culture11!

The best candidate gets the job? How novel! How un-American!

The Indianapolis Star reports that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and Indianapolis Fire Department “no longer must use racial preference in hiring and promotion, prompting public safety officials to announce Friday they will more strictly adhere to a merit-based system that they say will ensure fairness.”

“People have the right to expect that in the Police Department and Fire Department, people will be evaluated in their job, that those evaluations will matter and that the best people will be promoted to positions of supervision,” said Public Safety Director Scott Newman, who oversees IMPD and IFD.

I have no idea why the U.S. Department of Justice concerns itself with racial diversity quotas, rather than, say, doing its job. I mean not at all to suggest the every, or even most, attorney generals, all but two of whom have been white males, have done great, or even good, jobs, but our nation’s two forays into “diversity” at the highest level in Justice brought us Reno and Gonzalez, who were corrupt, villainous officials. Just sayin’.

Wake up America: Another reason not to vote for Barack Obama

From the 31 July 2008 Washington Times:

Legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to hold a private ballot vote in unionization drives, which critics say would lead to harassment and intimidation, has spurred a pitched battle between powerful labor unions supportive of Sen. Barack Obama and big business in the presidential campaign.

Seen by the AFL-CIO as a way to boost union rolls by hundreds of thousands of new members, the hotly-contested bill has become this year’s No. 1 election issue for organized labor. Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised union bosses that the Employee Free Choice Act will become law in 2009 if he wins the presidency in November. [My emphasis, of Orwellian double-speak at its finest. – NPO]

“We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers,” Mr. Obama told the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2.

“I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States,” Mr. Obama told the labor federation.

Is it any wonder that the attractiveness of organized labor has declined as precipitously as it has when its leaders seek to deny could-be union members the right to vote to organize, or not to, in secret?* Really, only Obama’s support of this draconian policy boggles my mind more than the proposal’s very existence. Notice that Obama makes no claim, as quoted supra, of supporting the working man; rather, he saves his heroism for the unions. He wants “to play offense for organized labor“, rather than for organized laborers**. Accuse me of parsing to the most painfully minute degree; I stand by the importance of the difference here. Barack Obama has more interest, it would seem, in maintaining the financial support of the unions than in protecting the rights of the American working class. Change, indeed.

It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Obama has promised to enact the Freedom of Choice Act, guaranteeing further the “right” to “choose” to abort an unborn child and to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, which, in fact, severely limits the choice the American worker has. Baffling. Even George McGovern, stalwart union supporter, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says no to this egregious legislation, as Paul M. Weyrich notes

From McGovern’s opinion piece:

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA’s true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends “no” when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections. [My emphasis, for awesome truth-telling. – NPO]

Reasonable Republican words on the Act, from Congressman John Kline, MN:

It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone — your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers — knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee free choice. . . . It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is free to choose is to ensure that there’s a private ballot, so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker’s democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it “Employee Free Choice”.

For what it’s worth, as the article in the Times notes, McCain opposes this act.***

Update: Clive Crook has a good piece on EFCA, unions, and the Democrats. The comment box conversation is worth your time, too.

*For the love of God, I realize that this has come up long after the unions began to lose their luster, so, please, avoid trying to disprove my argument on such grounds. This policy, rather, I believe, is just the newest manifestation of the corruption that plagues organized labor, which perpetuates itself by positing continuously the chimera of a level of economic security that the working man can achieve onlythrough union membership.

**The reader ought not to construe this piece as indicative, at all, of my opinions on voluntary organization.

***The reader ought, of course, not to construe this piece as indicative of my support for or endorsement of Senator McCain.

****I should also note — insist, vehemently, even — that the fact that Wal-Mart and I fall on the same side of this in no way should be construed as being indicative of my support of, approval for, or interest in siding with this most evil bastard mutation of “free-market economics”.

NY _Times_ reports: “Russia Orders Halt in Georgia as Fighting Continues”

MOSCOW — President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia announced Tuesday that he had ordered a halt to his country’s military operation in Georgia, although he did not say that troops were pulling out and he insisted that Russian forces were still authorized to fire on enemies in South Ossetia.

I happily report this, having begun to fear that Russia’s initially justified(-ish) military operations, brought on by outrageous actions ordered by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, had quickly morphed into an attempt to oust the democratically elected, “pro-Western” (quasi-)tyrant. I, truly, hope that Medvedev’s call for a cessation of operations soon extends to an end to the authorization of firing (non-defensively) on enemies; whether a withdrawal is yet appropriate, I cannot say, although, I believe, troops should remain until the Georgian government can provide substantial evidence not only that it stands by its call for a cease-fire, but, also, that Saakashvili intends to terminate his terrorization of the South Ossetians.

James offers his thoughts on the matter here.

The front page of this morning’s Washington Post reports (prior, of course, to Medvedev’s order) that “Bush Question’s Moscow’s Motives”:

President Bush said yesterday that Russia’s military attacks in Georgia may be designed to unseat the pro-U.S. government there, a move he warned would represent a “dramatic and brutal escalation” of a conflict that American officials have begun to describe as a return to Cold War-style aggression.

Doesn’t rhetoric like this warm you to the cockles of your heart? When President Bush does it, despite the lack or any true national interest, it’s liberation. The Russians, in contradistinction, engage in Cold War-level aggression when acting within their “sphere of influence” and in matters directly in their interest.