Red Envelope Project Monday, Mar 30 2009 

Have you heard about this? Tomorrow, on March 31st, thousands of pro-lifers plan to send red envelopes to the White House.  The envelopes will be empty, but will read on the back:

This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

This seems like a very simple and effective message.  Will it make any difference?  Probably not.  White House staff  likely will be instructed to collect and dispose of all such letters, and no major media outlet will devote a drop of ink (or a pixel) to covering it.  Outside of the pro-life community, it may have no effect other than a gift subsidy to the ailing Postal Service.

Nonetheless, it’s the right thing to do.  Sometimes we should take actions that we know will be futile (though not counterproductive) if for no other reason than to do something rather than nothing.  And even if affects no one outside of the pro-life community, it may serve to strengthen commitment and solidarity within the community.

So, let’s all do this.  Send your red envelope to

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington , D.C. 20500

And please remember to include your return address, as the letter will not be delivered without it.

Tiller Acquitted Saturday, Mar 28 2009 

Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller has been acquitted of all charges.  According to the AP,

Prosecutors had alleged that Dr. George Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.

I’m not as familiar with the case as others, and thus I can’t comment on the merit of the decision (i.e., whether the evidence should have been sufficient to convict, not whether Tiller morally deserves punishment).

There is, however, at least this silver lining:

Soon after the verdict was announced, the state’s Board of Healing Arts made public a complaint against Tiller on allegations similar to those at issue in the criminal case. The complaint was filed in December but not released until Friday.

The board, which regulates doctors, could revoke, suspend or limit Tiller’s medical license, or fine him.

Related Posts:

When Is Such Satire Appropriate? Saturday, Mar 28 2009 

When is it appropriate to use satire like that of the last post?  When should sarcasm, even biting sarcasm, be used?  Is it helpful?  Does it help to persuade those who disagree, or does it seem obnoxious and therefore only alienate them?

In general, I don’t think it’s the way to go.  What the pro-life community most needs right now is effective advocates able to clearly and convincingly convey the very sound rationales underlying the pro-life commitment.  To the extent opponents will listen at all, I believe they are most likely to listen to calm and careful analysis.  They will be most receptive when we first take the time to accurately and charitably articulate their reasoning before attempting to show the gaps in their logic.  Nobody appreciates when their positions are inaccurately presented as straw men only to be mockingly attacked.  It may buy you laughs and kudos from those of like mind, but it will almost never win over your ideological adversary.  It is unhelpful when dealing with those who are somewhat on the fence regarding the morality of abortion.  And it is downright destructive for those trying to come to terms with their own abortions.

Yet, there are times when sarcasm, and even invective, are not only appropriate but clearly called for.  There are certain acts that are so beyond the pale that it is not appropriate to give them even preliminary legitimacy by attempting to consider their merit before deconstructing them. 

Okay, so let me see if I understand you correctly.  In a partial-birth abortion, it’s important to puncture the baby’s skull and vacuum out the brains while the head is still in the birth canal in order to ensure that the act can be classified as an “abortion” and not as “infanticide”?  Gotcha.  And as an added benefit this measure works to collapse the skull and ensure easy passage once the baby is dead?  Okay, good.  So now, you think the right to do this is guaranteed in the Constitution because . . . .

I don’t think so.

And there are certain persons and organizations who are so responsible for promoting a culture of death, so completely convinced of the moral legitimacy of their mission, that it is beyond a waste of breath to attempt to convince them of anything.  They must instead be condemned, shamed, and, yes, sometimes even graphically mocked.

That is why Steve Hickey’s admittedly gruesome satire was so fitting.  Planned Parenthood’s “award” to Sarah Stoesz for employing deceptive advertising to ensure that laws protecting innocent life are overturned on false premises is not deserving of charitable dialogue.  The only appropriate response is condemnation and vivid description of exactly what Planned Parenthood is celebrating.

So, I just wanted to put out this apologia for those who read my previous post (or may read it in the future) and perhaps wonder if such graphic sarcasm is my general modus operandi.  The answer is no.  But when it is called for, it is called for, and I won’t shy away from using a blunt weapon, offensive though it may be, when that is the case.

Compelling Satire: Planned Parenthood gives award for defeating SD abortion laws Monday, Mar 23 2009 

Steve Hickey, over at Voices Carry, discusses the recent award presented to Sarah Stoesz for working to defeat the 2006 and 2008 South Dakota measures to ban abortion.

I won’t steal too much of his fire, but you absolutely have to read his mocking description of how he imagines the ceremony must have proceeded.  Here’s just a taste:

Cecile Richards: . . . And this years prestigious Headless Bloody Baby Doll award goes to………. Sarah Stoesz!!!

Sarah Stoesz: (Runs to the stage, clutches the award – blood smears on her hands and arms, jumps a couple times in surprise and excitement) Oh! I… Me?… But… Really?… I’m… (takes the deep breath she prevents children from taking…) This… is such a surprise. I thought for sure the award would be given to South Dakota Right to Life…

Check it out for yourselves.

If you don’t understand the dig at South Dakota Right to Life, you might want to read this from Operation Rescue.  Basically, in 2006, the South Dakota legislature passed, and Governor Mike Rounds signed into law, a bill that banned abortions in all cases except when necessary to save the life of the mother.  In the 2006 mid-term elections, voters overturned the law by ballot initiative (55% to 45%) because the law did not make exceptions for rape and incest.

In 2008, the Vote Yes For Life group succeeded in adding a ballot initiative, known as Initiated Measure 11, that would amend the South Dakota Constitution to ban abortion.  Only, unlike the 2006 law, the amendment made exceptions for rape and incest.  Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups essentially outspent Yes For Life three to one, employing rather deceptive ads that scarcely mentioned abortion at all.  But further fouling up the effort was South Dakota Right to Life, which actually joined forces with Planned Parenthood by opposing the measure and working for its defeat.

Yes, South Dakota Right to Life actually sent out mailers urging voters to reject Measure 11.  Why?  Because, they said, “it fails to protect all life from conception to natural death.”  No kidding.  Talk about head-in-the-clouds idiocy.  Because, you know, that whole ask-for-the-universe-all-at-once approach has worked so fantastically for pro-lifers since 1973.  A certain definition of insanity, prevalent in AA meetings, comes to mind for some reason . . . .

Does Motherhood Make You Smarter? Sunday, Mar 22 2009 

Does motherhood make you smarter?  Yes, says a new study by the University of Richmond, as reported by the Times Online.

The findings challenge the popular belief that having a child harms mental acuity.

While there may be a decline in powers during pregnancy, this is more than offset by improving abilities after the baby is born. This, the researchers believe, equips women for the greater demands of life with a child.

“Pregnant women do undergo a phase of so-called baby brain, when they experience an apparent loss of function,” said Craig Kinsley, professor of neuroscience at the University of Richmond, Virginia.

“However, this is because their brains are being remodelled for motherhood to cope with the many new demands they will experience.

“The changes that kick in then could last for the rest of their lives, bolstering cognitive abilities and protecting them against degenerative diseases.”

The study is also interesting because it runs contrary to a 2002 study that came to the opposite conclusion:

A 2002 study by Angela Oatridge of Hammersmith hospital, London, reported that brain scans of pregnant women showed a 4% decline in size.

I found a PDF of the entire study, for those interested.

In the debate over abortion, one thing I’ve noticed is the tendency of pro-choicers to essentially try to disparage pregnancy and motherhood. This disparagement comes in a number of forms.  During the ’60’s and the ’70’s, much of the pro-abortion rhetoric was focused on the supposed extreme health dangers inherent in giving birth.  In fact, the trimester framework set forth in Roe was crafted precisely on the premise that it was safer (at least in the first trimester) to abort a child than to bear it.

Today, it is motherhood and children, more than pregnancy, that are disparaged.  But even this comes in an indirect, almost innuendo, manner.  I’m reminded of a recent Newsweek article the premise of which was to discredit the prevalent, almost naïve, belief that having children brings greater happiness than not having them.

Children, likewise, are deemed bad for the environment or bad for the economy.

It’s important to always approach such articles and “studies” with a healthy amount of skepticism.  Pro-choicers have an obvious incentive to add as many silver linings to the blood-stained cloud of abortion as possible.  A beating heart stopped?  Well, yes, but one less carbon footprint.  One less mouth to feed in these difficult economic times.  You get the picture.

That’s why studies like this one are encouraging.  They remind us that for every allegedly disinterested study poo-pooing children or parenthood, there’s another study telling the other side of the story.

The Criminal Trial of Abortionist George Tiller Begins Tomorrow Sunday, Mar 22 2009 

The Baltimore Sun has an excellent summary of the long and twisted history of late-term abortionist George Tiller and the events leading up to his criminal trial tomorrow.

[A Kansas] law states that any physician who performs an abortion at or after 22 weeks’ gestation must determine whether the fetus is viable; that is, whether it could survive outside the womb. If the fetus is determined to be viable, then two doctors must certify that continuing the pregnancy might kill the mother or cause “substantial and irreversible” harm to a “major bodily function.” The two doctors must have no financial or legal relationship, the law states.

Although neither side will discuss the evidence, the state is expected to contend that Tiller’s relationship with Ann Kristin Neuhaus, the second doctor who signed off on the 19 abortions in question, violated the physician independence provision. Each count carries a maximum penalty of as long as a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

To be sure, Tiller has been accused of much, much more.  But this is a start.  It would be wonderful if Tiller were actually incarcerated and his clinic shut down.  But short of that, I suppose even the minutest of punishments would at least be a step forward.  It would send the message that abortion restrictions are to be taken seriously and will be enforced.

Problem is, the current Attorney General of Kansas is a pro-choice Democrat.

The Democrat whom Sebelius appointed to replace Morrison as attorney general, Steve Six, inherited the Tiller prosecution.

“The attorney general’s office is not very excited about this case,” said Joseph Aistrup, a political science professor at Kansas State University.

“If Tiller is convicted and it does lead to his clinic being shut down, the ironic twist is almost overwhelming. It would be a pro-choice attorney general that shut him down.”

This makes me nervous.  Despite the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, which require attorneys to represent the interests of their clients with the utmost competence and zeal, the prosecuting attorney could very well put on an apathetic case, resulting in an acquittal on the merits for Tiller.  This would set the pro-life cause back substantially.  Finally Tiller is brought to trial and evidence presented against him, only to be found innocent in the end.  The result?  The years-long effort to bring Tiller down would likely be seen as one big witch hunt.  And the public’s taste might be preemptively soured the next time there is a cry for another scofflaw abortionist to be brought to justice, no matter how strong the evidence against him.

Let’s hope justice is done.

First hearing held on [Texas bill to require] pre-abortion sonograms Saturday, Mar 21 2009 

From the article:

Abortion opponents said the bill by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, which would force doctors to perform the sonograms and check a heartbeat monitor at least two hours before the abortion, will remind women that they’re considering terminating a human life. They say it still gives women a choice: the bill, as it’s currently written, lets them to decide whether to see the image or listen to the heartbeat.

Pre-abortion sonogram requirements have never been challenged at the Supreme Court.  Prior to 1992, they almost certainly would have been held unconstitutional under “strict scrutiny.”  However, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court held that as a compromise under the “undue burden” standard,

To promote the State’s profound interest in potential life, throughout pregnancy the State may take measures to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed, and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.

So, a requirement to perform a sonogram that is at the same time optional for the mother to view should be a valid state measure “to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed.”  Criticisms that the measure is just an attempt to persuade women to choose childbirth over abortion are similarly unproblematic, as such a purpose is perfectly permissible (provided it does not constitute an “undue burden”).

Love this:

In the last month, flocks of women who back abortion rights roamed the halls, carrying pink Planned Parenthood bags.

And women opposed to abortion held their own news conference, where a woman who was eight weeks pregnant was hooked up to a sonogram and a video of her fetus was projected onto a screen.

Northern Ireland publishes abortion rules for first time Friday, Mar 20 2009 

From the article:

Northern Ireland’s health department published instructions to doctors Friday that for the first time explain the rare circumstances under which they can perform a legal abortion.

. . .

Friday’s government document said an abortion is permitted in Northern Ireland under two circumstances — to “preserve the life of the woman,” or if a doctor determines the continuing pregnancy would impose “a risk of real and serious adverse effect on her physical or mental health which is either long-term or permanent.”

This means a suicide threat, if deemed credible by one or more doctors, would be grounds for granting an abortion.

Northern Ireland’s main anti-abortion group, Precious Life, astutely recognized the de facto loophole in the guidelines:

“These guidelines grossly exaggerate this exception of `saving the mother’s life’ — for example, implying abortion is legal on the grounds of mental health,” said the Precious Life group, which regularly pickets the Family Planning Association office in Belfast.

Here is a PDF copy of the guidelines.  Precious Life points out another squishy aspect of the guidelines here.

I admire the work of Precious Life, especially their street outreach program.  We need a lot more of that in the U.S.

I also admire the neighboring Republic of Ireland, “where abortion is outlawed in a constitutional amendment”:

A 1992 Irish Supreme Court ruling found that abortions should be granted in cases where pregnant women were threatening to kill themselves if denied one. But Ireland’s lawmakers have refused to pass a law along those lines.

Courageous lawmakers standing firm against the courts for the sake of their principles?  Where do we find them on this side of the pond?

Mom charged with forcing daughter’s abortion, throwing baby in trash Friday, Mar 20 2009 

From the article:

A Miramar woman is accused of forcing her 16-year-old daughter to have an abortion and then throwing the baby out with the trash, according to court documents obtained by The Miami Herald.

The punishment:

Tonuya Scheniell Rainey, 38, has been charged with unlawful termination of a pregnancy, practicing healthcare without a license, child abuse and improper disposal of human remains . . . .

Presumably, the “child abuse” charge refers solely to Ms. Rainey’s behavior toward her pregnant daughter.  How sad that there appear to be no charges to punish Ms. Rainey for her acts against the aborted child.

The baby’s mother said she believed she was about 24 weeks pregnant and that one week ago she had told her sister, who told their mother.

According to the documents, she wanted to keep the baby but Rainey demanded that she have an abortion and told her to contact the baby’s father for money.

Any bets on how quickly Planned Parenthood will condemn Ms. Rainey for violating her daughter’s “choice” to have the baby?

What a terrible tragedy this is.

The 2009 March for Life Sunday, Jan 25 2009 

I count it among one of my greatest privileges that I was able to attend, with my family, the 2009 March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.  An estimated 250,000 people gathered on the National Mall to protest the annual government-sanctioned slaughter of 1.2 million children.

There were young

Pittsburgh Students for Life

2009 March for Life

and old.

Old

2009 March for Life

There were black,

Black

2009 March for Life

Hispanic,

Hispanic

2009 March for Life

and white.

White

2009 March for Life

From Maryland

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to Massachusetts.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

From Germany

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to Italy.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

From the religious,

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to the secular,

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to the agnostic.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

From those who celebrate a life saved from abortion

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to those who mourn a life lost from abortion.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

From those who mourn the loss of a dream

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to those who mourn the loss of a child.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

All differences meaningless, we stood as one.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

May we all be united in this one cause.  And may it permeate our families from this generation

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

to the next,

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

until this awful scourge shall pass.

2009 March for Life

2009 March for Life

Next Page »