“With his shaved head, jeans, and steel toed boots, he’s OUR kind of guy right?” said Palin to a resounding cheer from
the overwhelmingly WASP crowd. (At which point I cringed for her husband, Todd who is nothing like Joe the Plumber).

In what country are shaved heads, certain brands of jeans and especially steel toed boots not associated with radical
Neo-Nazi skinheads? And how do you suppose those Neo-Nazi skinheads feel about Jews, African-Americans, Catholics, and anyone else who does not fit the narrow description of a
“real” American according to the right wing conservatives?

Wake up Children of Israel!
McCain/Palin is a vote for those who despise us. Remember this: they protect Israel for Christianity, NOT Judaism.

Response:
If I understand you correctly, poverty leads to abortion; though I cannot discern from what you’ve written whether you believe in a direct or indirect connection. (I trust that you’ve covered this connection in other posts. I just recently started reading your posts.) I would argue the opposite – that abortion indirectly leads to poverty.

I’ve always read that there exists a strong correlation between the presence of a family unit and an individual’s ability to rise out of poverty. I submit that the “right” to abortion represents the single biggest contributing factor toward the breakdown of the family unit – because the woman, absent the man, chooses whether to birth or abort, the man feels no obligation toward marriage or fatherhood. Therefore, abortion, because it impairs the call to a family-oriented life, encourages a society that experiences more poverty, not less.

If we agree on this point, shouldn’t we seek before all else, policies that support and promote the family structure? Can we truly promote a family culture, and therefore pursue the most effective anit-poverty policy, while viewing abortion as permissible?

I love to be believe it is just a law against false advertising; however, it feels like the death by a thousand cuts or cooking a lobster by slowly warming the water. We do not see the bigger implications of the actions of OUR elected officials and judges.

Apparently in Utah, standing outside an abortion clinic with a baby in one arm and a diaper bag flung over the other, as you peacefully protest and offer leaflets to clinic victims is disorderly conduct. And that’s now and in utah! What’s going to happen when FOCA is passed?

If FOCA is passed and abortion is declared to be a “fundamental right,” putting it on the same legal footing as free speech, then one’s fundamental right to free speech will not be protected if one’s free speech is seen as interfering with someone else’s fundamental right to an abortion. Can we really take the chance that Obama won’t deliver on his promise to NARAL with a democrat led congress??

Dear Worried,

What are the burdensome regulations? Name one or two.

As far as I can see, if they make clear in their advertising that they do not provide abortions or abortion referrals, they would have nothing to worry about. It’s just a law against false advertising.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey reintroduced the bill in April in the Senate and issued a statement alleging that pregnancy centers mislead women by giving them information on abortion’s risks and alternatives. The so-called “Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act” would place burdensome regulations on pregnancy centers.

I don’t think it’s that unlikely a scenario. Pregnancy centers are a huge factor in immediatly, effectively reducing the incidence of abortion in this country. They are, morever, in the eyes of Planned Parenthood and professional abortion providers – “competition” in the reproductive services market.

I don’t want to get into the arguments either, but I just want to point out that Obama did not “allow it to happen.” The Born Alive Infant Protection Act did not address the issue of how born-alive infants were to be treated. It simply declared that all born-alive infants were persons under the law.

In speaking against the law, Obama said that if born-alive infants were being mistreated, they could have compromised on a bill dealing specifically with that. Instead, they chose to promote a bill that said nothing about how born-alive babies were treated. The bill not only said nothing. It apparently did nothing, since none of Obama’s critics have been able to point to what changed in Illinois since a version of the law did pass in 2005.

I just believe you are misinterpreting Obama’s opposition to BAIPA, but were you to interpret it the same way I do (as an opposition to any encroachment, real or imagined, on abortion rights), you would still find it a good reason to oppose Obama.

I’m not going to get into those arguments. This issue is that Obama voted to allow it to happen and has pledged his support for unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion. That tells me all I need to know about him.