Category: Abortion

The way Supreme Court rules work, you need five of the nine justices to decide a matter.

We therefore need five justices willing to overturn The Evil Decision in order to allow the process of ending abortion in America to begin.

How many do we have now?

At least two (Scalia and Thomas). Possibly four (Roberts and Alito).

We need five.

Number five could arrive if Darth Kennedy flips back from the Dark Side, as some have suggested he might. (I’ve heard it rumored that he was unhappy with the way the Webster decision came out.) But I’m not holding my breath for that. He’s too enraptured of European liberal elites that he wants to read the American law in terms of what they do with their laws, which is as far as I am concerned an Impeachable Offense for a Supreme Court justice. (The Founders who had just fought and bled for American independence would have been aghast at the idea that European law should constrain American law in any way whatsoever.)

The most likely way to get five justices is through the retirement of John Paul Stevens (who’s eighty six) or Ruth Bader Ginsburgh (who has had health problems). One of these two retirements is probably probable in the next three years.

With the fifth anti-Evil Decision vote hanging in the balance, the forces of darkness will be doing all they can to MoveOn.Org their senatorial meat puppets into full obstruction mode, so we are likely to be looking at confirmation armageddon in the Senate.

Or not.

HERE’S A PIECE ARGUING THAT THE DEMS WILL HAVE TO GET A NEW STRATEGY BECAUSE THEIR CURRENT ONE OBVIOUSLY ISN’T WORKING.

What I find interesting is how really badly the Dems shot themselves in the foot with their current strategy, and I’m not just talking about the Roberts and Alito confirmations.

As soon as Bush got into office the Dems started stonewalling his judicial nominees, and they started doing the unprecedented thing of using the filibuster as part of their obstruction efforts.

They did this to send a warning shot across Bush’s bow and convince him not to nominate originalists when it came Supreme Court time, because they would fight tooth and claw if he did that, as shown by their willingness to go filibuster when the stakes were even smaller.

But in reality this was a HUGE strategic miscalculation.

What using the filibuster that early in the process did was blog off the Senate Republicans enough to make them willing to ELIMINATE the filibuster for judicial nominees.

Now, barring a truly Miers-level miscalculation on Bush’s part, any SCOTUS nominee he sends up to the hill is basically unfilibusterable, as shown by Kerry’s recent disgrace of himself on the Senate floor.

The thing is: The filibuster strategy COULD have worked–IF the Dems hadn’t sprung the trap too early. If they had waited until Bush’s first SCOTUS nominee to use it then the Republicans would have been caught off guard and would not already have had time to get angry enough to eliminate the judicial nominee filibuster.

Bush then might have been cowed into sending up judicial rag dolls like Harriet Miers.

But–thanks to the powers of goodness–this fact was hidden from their eyes, and they brought about the effective end of the filibuster strategy before it could be deployed when it would matter the most.

As a result, the Dems need a new strategy (like winning control of the Senate) if they want to ensure that the Evil Decision remains firmly in place.

A young man whose life was saved as a child has returned the favor by saving his rescuer’s life:

"Kevin Stephan always wanted to find the right way to thank the off-duty nurse who got his 11-year-old heart beating again after a baseball bat struck him in the chest in 1999. Nine days ago, the now-17-year-old Kevin found the perfect way to thank Penny Brown.

"He returned the life-saving favor, rushing out of a Depew restaurant kitchen to administer the Heimlich maneuver as Brown choked on her lunch.

"In a sense, Brown saved Kevin’s life — so he could help save hers."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to the friend who sent me the link.)

The story is heartwarming indeed, but it reminded me of a passage in Randy Alcorn’s book ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments in which he describes the It’s A Wonderful Life-effect of abortion.

<SPOILER ALERT!>

In the movie, George Bailey falls into despair and wishes he had never been born, so God sends an angel to show him how much worse off his family and friends would have been if he had never existed. Perhaps the most haunting moment is when Bailey realizes that his having rescued his brother as a child meant that his brother would live to rescue the lives of a shipful of sailors during World War II. George’s life affected the destiny of strangers he would never meet. As Clarence the Angel tells George, every life touches every other life and the loss of one leaves a terrible hole.

</SPOILER ALERT!>

Alcorn cites this movie to make the point that those whose lives have been cut short by abortion may have grown up to affect the lives of countless others. We don’t know this side of eternity just what those children would have grown up to do, to be.

But we sometimes get hints in stories like that of Kevin Stephan. As a child of the Roe v. Wade era, Kevin had up to a one-in-three chance of not having made it to birth. Because his family chose life for him, Kevin could grow up to save the life of another woman who chose life for him.

"But [Kevin Stephan] thinks it’s more than a coincidence: ‘It’s one of those things you can’t explain. It was meant to happen. I’m Catholic, and I believe the Lord kind of set things up. They say things happen for a reason, and nothing is a coincidence.’

"[Kevin’s] mother added, ‘I believe both of these lives were touched by the hand of God.’"

Michelle here.

It seems to be a given of human nature that, sooner or later, the choice to break God’s law will become a commandment to break God’s law. Taking B16’s Dictatorship of Relativism as an inspiration, we might call it the Dictatorship of Choice.

Exhibit A: The European Union is on a trajectory to declaring that doctors do not have the right to refuse to provide abortions.

"Every year one in three pregnancies worldwide ends in an abortion. A total of 40 million abortions are performed each year, which means that since 1980 one billion children have not been allowed to be born. Contemplating Baby Jesus in the crib one may wonder whether the fact that there are 6.5 billion of us today instead of 7.5 billion is a human achievement or not. Some think it is, some think it is not. But why do those who consider universal legalised abortion to be a sign of progress want to force those who regard abortion as a crime to be a part of it?

"A European Union advisory panel has issued a statement saying that medical professionals are not allowed to refuse to participate in abortions. According to the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights doctors should be forced to perform abortions, even if they have conscientious objections, because the right to abort a child is an ‘international human right.’

"The Network, which consists of one expert per EU member state, assists the European Commission and the European Parliament in developing EU policy on fundamental rights. The Network wrote a 40-page opinion stressing that the right to conscientious objection is not ‘unlimited.’ The opinion was given in connection with a proposed treaty between the Vatican and Slovakia. This treaty includes a guarantee that Catholic hospitals in Slovakia will not be legally obliged to ‘perform artificial abortions, artificial or assisted fertilizations, experiments with or handling of human organs, human embryos or human sex cells, euthanasia, cloning, sterilizations, [and] acts connected with contraception.’"

GET THE STORY.

In reading through this article, my brain momentarily stuttered to a halt at the mention that there are forty million abortions every year and that one billion children have been murdered since 1980. Pro-lifers are so used to the figures of 1.5 million abortions a year and 45 million children killed since abortion was legalized that we sometimes forget that these are national figures. The figures cited by the columnist are worldwide totals.

"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?’" (Rev. 6:9-10).

Okay, so I’m surfing the web and I find

THIS ARTICLE ABOUT A NEW BOOK THAT’S SUPPOSED TO SHAKE UP THE ABORTION DEBATE.

Here’s what the article says:

An American scientist is set to publish a crucial new book on the pre-natal behavior of babies that is expected to have a profound impact on the issue of abortion.

“The Theorem: A Complete Answer to Human Behavior” by Douglas M. Arone is set for release in the United Kingdom by John Hunt Publishing Ltd.  The book has already provoked reaction among scientists, such as Dr. B. Abolade, psychiatrist for children and adolescents in Montgomery, Alabama, who calls the theory, "A discovery of great genius that will advance mankind’s march towards progress".

"I specifically wanted The Theorem to be published in the U.K. to avoid the focus on the abortion debate that seems to consume America. It was, and still is my hope that over here the work can be appreciated for the other equally important aspects such as; why we talk, the purpose of sleep and the identification to the possible origins of autism, and not just focused on identifying exactly when the fetus gains a limited consciousness", states Mr. Arone.

The publisher has prohibited any pre-release and review copies, which has fueled interest in the book on the part of both pro-life and pro-abortion groups.  The Theorem is scheduled to be released on December 26.

First, notice the hype in the opening sentence. It’s a "crucial new book" expected to have "a profound impact" on the issue of abortion. Really? How many individual books have been released in the last 32 years that had a "profound impact" on the abortion juggernaut? Not many. Now, this could just be the publicist’s hype and may not be reflective of the views of the scientist who wrote the book, so let’s keep reading.

The next graph gives us the name of the book: “The Theorem: A Complete Answer to Human Behavior.” Now, I work for a publisher, and I participate in product titleing meetings all the time, and while titles are the ultimate purview of publisher (they’re part of the marketing of a book), a significant degree of deference is shown to the author. At a minimum, you want the author to be "on board" with the title. If he hates it then it can hurt sales of the book (even if he never says so in public).

You don’t want to give a book a title that will cause the author to freak out, regret ever signing a contract with you, and refuse to promote the book with enthusiasm. So there’s a great degree of mutual agreement in coming to a title, and it is reasonable to assume that the author of this book–Douglas M. Arone–is on board with this title.

That’s a problem because any scientist worth his salt would FREAK OUT at having a book published with a title like that under his name. The pretentious title "The Theorem" is going to draw the ire of the scientific community. (Every scientist works with theorems. What makes Arone’s so special that it qualifies as THE theorem, compared to everyone else’s?)

And the subtitle will send other scientists INTO ORBIT. "The Complete Answer to Human Behavior"? What? Really? One guy has mastered all the manifold areas of psychology, neurology, embryology, pediatrics, medicine, anthropology, sociology, economics, and the host of other disciplines needed to provide THE COMPLETE answer to human behavior? Just how many doctorates does this guy have? Where is the research team that provided him with all this data? What billion-dollar fund is funding his research team?

Grand unified theories are extraordinarily hard to come by, and when someone tries one, it usually fails. Physics hasn’t come up with a settled Unified Field Theory after decades of trying, and the squishy sciences like psychology are lightyears behind in terms of being able to rigorously explain their subject matter.

What REAL scientists do is publish MODEST claims that offer TENTATIVE proposals to explain SMALL areas–usually in scientific journals–and then slowly, over the course of time, let these build up into big picture proposals.

The title of the book and its subtitle are screaming "AMATEUR PHONY!" to anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see.

Then we’ve got some (apparently clinical, not research) psychiatrist referring to this as a work of "great genius" and saying it will "advance mankind’s march toward progress." Huh? What kind of overblown 19th century progress rhetoric boat did THIS guy step off of?

Actually, what boat did he step off of, because it turns out that the guy’s from Nigeria, where he did his residency. Since then he’s practiced in a number of different FIELDS of medicine (can’t settle on a specialty for some reason? legal or ethical review board troubles in one or more maybe?). And, although his bio says he’s licensed to practice medicine on three continents, there are enough stories in the press about problems associated with doctors educated in the third world to raise suspicions about this guy’s qualifications with regard to recognizing theories of "great genius" that will "advance mankind’s march toward progress."

Then we’ve got a quote from the author saying that–for some reason–he’s hinky about publishing the book in America–his homeland–but hopes that "over here" in England "it can be appreciated" properly. As if truth isn’t truth regardless of which side of the Atlantic you’re on? As if Americans will be denied the benefit of all his stunning research? As if (upon checking his web site) you don’t see them advertising that it will be available IN EVERY MAJOR BOOK CHAIN IN AMERICA?

This smells.

And what it smells like this this: The guy COULDN’T FIND a reputable American publisher who was willing to do this book and now he’s spinning why he’s gone to an overseas publisher.

Now, just from this piece (which is essentially a press release
rewritten as a news story) there are multiple warning bells going off.
(NOTE: I have no idea if his British publisher, O Books, an imprint of
John Hunt Publishing Ltd. is respectable or not. I do know that I’ve
never heard of them.)

And then note the way the author "scientist" is referred to at the end of the graph: as MISTER Arone.

What? Not "Doctor"? This guy’s got no PhD? No MD? No nothing? Does he even have a masters degree?

Is this guy QUALIFIED to tell us ANYTHING regarding "The Complete Answer to Human Behavior"?

And then note the sensationalism and secrecy of the last graph: No review copies sent out, which is standard industry practice to build buzz for a book. Again, this stinks. Real scientists don’t go in for this kind of showmanship. And why wouldn’t the publisher send out review copies? It’s not like anybody’s been waiting with baited breath for this book by MISTER Arone to come out. This wasn’t the script for Episode III: Revenge of the Sith or anything (which at least had die-hard Star Wars fans waiting for it).

Is the real reason that the publisher didn’t send out review copies just to engage in cheap showmanship so they could CLAIM that interest was being "fueled" among pro-lifers and pro-aborts, when in fact nobody in the abortion debate even KNEW about the book until this press release was put on the PR wire?

The last line in the article says to go to the book’s website, www.thetheorem.com, for more info, so let’s do that.

What do we find when we get there?

Is there a bio of Mr. Arone telling us his qualifications as a "scientist"? Nope. Not that I could find.

Okay, is there a phone number for his publicists so you can call and ask for a bio? Nope. They want everything through snail mail, e-mail, or faxes. They seem to be averse to giving you a telephone number for some reason. (And the author publicist is listed as having a P.O. Box in Jackson, Wyoming of all places–apparently the new hotspot for New York and L.A. publicists wanting to get out of the city).

Now there’s a page of FORTY ONE "Endorsees" one can look at, and it’s basically a bunch of psychiatrists and sociologists and PhDs and MDs around the country, BUT WAIT! Down at the bottom of the page of "endorsees" we find THIS statement:

These individuals are currently reviewing The Theorem: The Complete Answers to Human Behavior for endorsement. We will post the specifics of the endorsements on this Website when received.

So these people aren’t endorsees AT ALL! The publisher has simply sent them review copies hoping for endorsements. I wonder how they feel about the fact that their names are being used as "endorsees" of a book that they’ve only just got in the mail and have, in fact, issued NO endorsement for.

I know I’d be hopping mad if one of the publishers I occasionally get books from looking for endorsements did that to me!

There’s also a Q & A page on the site where, no matter what the question(s) is (are) the answer is:

After reading The Theorem:
No More Questions – Only Answers!

And there’s NO CLUE what "The Theorem" itself actually is.

If you check Amazon’s US and UK websites, you find out that this is
the ONLY book Arone has ever authored, and if you Google his name and
start subtracting out references to "the theorem" then the number of
mentions of him on the web shrinks towards zero. In fact, I couldn’t
find ANY mentions of him on the web that weren’t connected with this
book. There are no research papers by him in scientific journals.
Nothing. His entire web footprint is this one thing.

The capstone of all this is a LONG LETTER in which MISTER Arone agonizes about how, like a parent, he birthed and raised The Theorem and is now, regretfully, letting his child leave the nest and go out into the world (all the while giving the reader NO CLUE what The Theorem is).

The freaky thing is that he sounds like a character in a Lovecraft story:

While the discovery was born unto me, I never really owned it, as I was not responsible for its greatness, for this grand design. No, all of the honors went to Nature herself. I was just a witness at an indescribable moment in time, seeing a part of her that I am convinced no man was ever meant to see.

No, this discovery never belonged to me, but I must confess that I treated it as though it was mine. I did everything I could to nurture and support it, for while I never owned it— Nature’s secret into mankind’s behavior— it certainly owned me. I surrendered entirely to the obsession it undoubtedly deserved, and then gave more. If it swallowed me whole, well, that mattered little, as it quenched any and all intellectual curiosity that I, any one man, could generate.

Then I went back through history, and the model answered all of those questions as well. Deeper and deeper, day upon day, I began breaking through levels of consciousness that no drug could provide, no religion could promise and no meditation could silence. This model simply possessed the answers. There were no more questions, only answers, some as complex as Nature herself seemed to be, others were more basic, but nonetheless important.

Yes, for the first time in my life I was free
from the intellectual chains that had bound not only me, but
had bound all men since the beginning of time.

Of course not all of the answers were a joyous discovery,
as a few I would rather not have known, for they challenged
my long held beliefs. The facts were the facts however, and
I was very grateful for the peace and the freedom.

The best
part of it all was that whenever I felt uneasy with my findings,
whenever I feared drifting into some abyss of consciousness
or any level that I was uncomfortable with, I could quickly
ground myself with the scientific evidence that proved the
validity of the original model. And ground me it did, for
unlike all theories that fear scientific evidence, (this of
course because they are incorrect and fear being exposed),
this model, on the contrary, embraced it.

Oh, man! This thing is TOO FUNNY! I’ve never read a real-life example of mad scientist/horror story scientific megalomania before!

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Oh yeah, and he explains that once he got hooked on his theory he realized that he didn’t want to be distracted by things like going to med school and becoming a doctor.

Shades of Charles Dexter Ward!–who "refused to qualify for college on the ground
that he had individual researches of much greater
importance to make."

Let’s hope he comes to a better end than young Mr. Ward did.

But in the meantime, pro-lifers should take warning: This guy is NOT a scientist, he is a quack. Do not WASTE your time and money reading his book. If you’ve pre-ordered it, go back and cancel the order. And, whatever you do, DO NOT give him positive publicity. Rely on stuff from this guy and pro-aborts will eat you alive.

Some indication from the L.A. Times that the absurdities of "choice" are beginning to be understood, even by some of those who support it.

What the writer of the article, Meghan Daum,  is trying to figure out is – in these days of absolute equality in everything, for everybody – why should killing your unborn children be the exclusive purvue of women? Shouldn’t men have "choice" too? What is sauce for the goose…

She does an admirable job of beginning to lay out objections to this proposal, and finds none that hold water. All objections to the idea of a man having the right to terminate his child in utero (or at least legally terminate his parental responsibilities) also apply to women.

From the article:

"The way the law is now, a man who gets a woman pregnant is not only powerless to force her to terminate the pregnancy, he also has a complete legal obligation to support that child for at least 18 years.

In other words, although women are able to take control of their futures by choosing from at least a small range of options — abortion, adoption or keeping the child — a man can be forced to be a father to a child he never wanted and cannot financially support. I even know of cases in which the woman absolves the man of responsibility, only to have the courts demand payment anyway. That takes the notion of "choice" very far from anything resembling equality."

So the liberal dragon has again turned on itself and bitten it’s own tail. What is being suggested would require, not just spousal notification for an abortion, but the legal permission of any male sex partner, be he spouse, boyfriend or the guy you hooked up with one weekend.

I only hope the new thinking being manifested on the far left will result in a continued disillusionment about abortion and it’s supposed benefits. If not, and this warped logic is followed to it’s conclusion, we can expect more abortions, rather than fewer.

Thanks to Eric Scheske (The Daily Eudemon) for the link.

GET THE STORY.

Pro-life advocates were doing too well by comparing abortion to chattel slavery of the antebellum United States. It must have worried Screwtape to see such a powerful analogy on the pro-life side, so he put out a memo to Lower Management and the R & D department Down Below has finally come through with their spin. Their Father Below must be proud.

"I volunteer with a local group called the Haven Coalition that offers free overnight home stays to women who come to New York for late-term abortions. Adeena, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy, is 24 years old and 24 weeks pregnant. She’d caught a Greyhound from Pennsylvania earlier that day, and spent the afternoon at a clinic in midtown getting part one of an abortion that will be completed tomorrow.

[…]

"’Can I ask you something?’ she inquires. ‘Why you doing this?’

"’You mean sharing my place with you?’

"I tell her I’m upset that people like her have such a hard time getting abortions, and besides, I remember being young and being (more than once) in a similar fix. I don’t tell her about the differences: how I always had Blue Cross Blue Shield and never went past seven weeks."

GET THE STORY.

Surprisingly enough, since most groups like this take pride in their activities, I wasn’t able to find a web site for the Haven Coalition. (Screwtape and his minions must be getting better at instructing the hairless bipeds under their thrall to disguise some of their activities, although the guardian demon of the writer of the article for New York Magazine is probably in for a roasting later.) I did, however, find this tidbit about the group on a site that bills itself as protecting "choice":

"Haven Coalition: Haven Coalition is a network of volunteers who open their homes to low-income women forced to travel to New York City for abortion procedures. To find out more information or learn how you can volunteer, send an email here."

Oh, and be sure to check out the logo of ProtectChoice.org: an angry woman with an upraised fist. Says it all.

Sometimes when you read articles about abortion, you forget exactly what is at stake. When I read the following article about an Arkansas abortionist with a messiah complex — he believes that with abortion he destroys life but that by doing so his patients are "born again" — I noted that this abortionist "draws his own moral line" at 26 weeks, or the end of the second trimester.

I went to Google Images and searched out an image of a 26-week-old fetus to accompany this post. I was jolted when what I found was an image of a premature baby who had been born between 25 and 27 weeks gestation. That is the image I chose to include.

"The 17-year-old in for a consultation this morning assures the nurse that she does not consider the embryo inside her a baby.

"’Not until it’s developed,’ she says. ‘That would be about three months?’

"’It’s completely formed about nine weeks,’ the nurse tells her. ‘Yours is more like a chicken yolk.’

"The girl, who is five weeks pregnant, looks relieved. ‘Then no,’ she says, ‘it’s not a baby.’ Her mother sits in the corner wiping her tears.

"[Dr. William F.] Harrison draws his own moral line at the end of the second trimester, or 26 weeks since the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period. Until that point, he will abort for any reason.

"’It’s not a baby to me until the mother tells me it’s a baby,’ he says."

GET THE (FRIGHTENING) STORY.

Just got a note from Katelyn Sill’s mom, who says:

Katelyn and I will be on the Heart, Mind, and Strength radio show tomorrow, Tuesday at 11am Pacific time.  It broadcasts live on the internet at www.avemariaradio.net and also offer podcasts of their  daily show which can be downloaded to IPODS or MP3 players.  You can find out more information about this at the podcast page on their website at www.exceptionalmarriages.com

I’ll be interesting to hear if any new facts emerge on the situation on the show.

Tune in or download if you can.

A reader writes:

Dear Jimmy:
      

As I read the email exchanges at the link you posted between Katelyn
Sills’ mother and Sister Helen Timothy, I was appalled at how this nun
abused her authority.  I did a Google image search for her–and this IS
her–and found this picture.  I think it explains everything.

Yes, you’re right. This IS her (PROOF HERE) and it does explain a good bit.

I’ve never understood those orders in the habit of habitually having habits whose style is best described as "office frumpy."

Over at her weblog, Open Book, Amy Welborn and her commenters are discussing an article written by a woman who chose to abort her child when prenatal tests indicated that the child had Downs Syndrome. The conversation there is well worth reading. But what struck me most forcefully about this article was how it opens.

"’So when do you go for the abortion?’ my friend asked, her voice sympathetic.

"’Wednesday,’ I replied, and then hurriedly got off the phone. I called Mike, my boyfriend, in tears, complaining about how inconsiderate people are, how no one thinks before they speak. The truth was, until I heard the word ‘abortion,’ it hadn’t occurred to me that I was actually having one.

"I was, of course. But we’d been using euphemisms for days, ever since my doctor called to say my amniocentesis results ‘weren’t good.’ We’d say ‘when we go to the hospital’ or ‘the appointment’ or ‘after the procedure, we can try again.’"

GET THE STORY.

And this one of the ways in which abortion has gotten so embedded into our society. A woman doesn’t choose to kill her child, she simply "chooses," as if all choices were created equal and a choice for abortion were no more consequential than a choice to have her hair trimmed. An abortion isn’t an abortion, except to "inconsiderate" people who don’t think before speaking. No, an abortion is an "appointment" or a "procedure." Just get through this nasty little "procedure" and you’re free to "try again" for a "perfect" child.

The first step toward an abortion-free society may be educating people what an abortion is and stubbornly refusing to let it be redefined to mean anything that allows its practitioners to keep a clear conscience.