Abortion Kills Black and Hispanic Babies

I don’t know how liberals justify their support of this:

The new report from the Centers for Disease Control had good numbers across the nation when it came to abortion — with abortions declining three percent in 2010 after a five percent decrease in 2009. But they also contained shocking figures showing abortion targets blacks and Hispanics.

The CDC Abortion Surveillance Report dated November 29, 2013 reveals that in 2010, 56.7% of abortions reported to the CDC nationwide were done on Hispanic and Black women.

According to the report, there were 415,479 abortions for known ethnicity reported for selected states in 2010 and 153,045 (or 36.8 percent) were non-Hispanic white babies, 148,261 (or 35.7 percent) were non-Hispanic black babies, 87,240 (or 21.0 percent) were Hispanic babies, and 26,933 (or 6.5 percent) were babies of other races or ethnicities.

The report reveals that a majority of Black or Hispanic babies were aborted in New Jersey (55.9 percent), the District of Columbia (64.8 percent) and Georgia (73.2 percent).  In New York City alone 81.9 percent of the babies aborted were Black or Hispanic while in the state of Texas 63.7 percent were Black or Hispanic an increase from 2009.

One leading pro-life activist tells LifeNews the CDC report confirms what many pro-life groups have been saying about abortion and the founder of the Planned Parenthood abortion business, that a eugenics-based racial discrimination is involved.

Also there’s this:

The report from 2011 showed Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry in the United States target black and Hispanic Americans by placing abortion facilities in communities with high minority populations.

It is awful that so many black and Hispanic people vote for liberals who so energetically support the murder of black and Hispanic babies.

Read more on the Patheos Faith and Family Channel, fan me on Facebook and follow this blog on Twitter!

 

Buy our books!
  • Choice

    “It is awful that so many black and Hispanic people vote for liberals who so energetically support the murder of black and Hispanic babies.”
    Yeah, that’s the ticket Bristol. You will have millions minorities joining the teaturds after this oh so insightful post. You are disgusting. Shame on you.

    • PocahontasProud

      I’m not sure you can criticize people who don’t know what a true slum is. I wouldn’t consider her to be overly privileged. Paris Hilton she is not. Like you say, when you have never lived in a community where these “hispanics and blacks [and whites] live,” you can’t imagine things. Just because there are people who make it out and do well doesn’t mean that’s possible in all cases without help from the outside.

      I have another friend who grew up in the Bush in Alaskam embroiled in alcoholism. Little education, couldn’t diagram sentences until college and still makes 6th grade grammatical errors occasionally. She went on to a decent college in the states and even did a lengthy study abroad based on merit.

      • Choice

        I don’t know what a true slum is. I don’t know what it’s like to grow up in a drug infested slum with guns going off day and night. I don’t know what it’s like to be afraid to walk down a street at night. And for darn sure Bristol Palin will never know. Yet she throws out statements like this:

        It is awful that so many black and Hispanic people vote for liberals who so energetically support the murder of black and Hispanic babies.

        That is absolutely disgusting.

        • PocahontasProud

          Eh, it’s just taking prolife and anti-abortion to an extreme. Your opinion isn’t going to change people who believe a fetus is 100% human. Sorry, and mean no disrespect to you. If it matters, I do see your point and do agree with you.

  • Choice

    There will never be one day in your petty privileged life that you could comprehend the life of a minority in a drug infested poor community. Yet it is people like YOU and your mother who want to shut down planned parenthood. I dare you to spend a week in the shoes of one of these women. You wouldn’t last a minute.

    • PocahontasProud

      it is very sad. I lived in Chicago for 3 years and not of the privileged set. My best friend is from Detroit and has been independent and thriving since she was 18.

      But many have so many ties that keep them from leaving, things never evolve.

      Even failing to recognize that here in this post doesn’t give you the right to name call though.

      • Choice

        Bristol hurts more than helps. Crap like this does nothing to elevate the conversation. As I’ve said before, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Bristol and Sarah give no solutions. They just throw out red meat for their angry, bitter supporters..

        • PocahontasProud

          Talk about being bitter 😉

          And posts like yours attacking someone for an opinion on the value of life doesn’t help. How many people do you think actually read this blog? You’re giving one person, and not a very influential one, a lot of Godly power here.

          Here’s something to think about. Roseanne Barr ran for President because she feels, with cited evidence, that not one person in DC is on women’s side. She calls Obama out constantly on policies.

          I’ve never read bitterness here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It’s not like people claim theirs are that much more important.

          Why don’t you take up your beef with people who’s opinions actually matter, and not a girl with a blog she rarely writes on herself?

          In the end, life matters and people have got to start taking responsibility. All I am saying.

  • Choice

    And P.S. It would be YOU and your mother who would be screaming from the rooftops about these women sucking from the government teet after birthing these kids. It is YOU and your ilk who scream and bitch and moan about welfare queens with 8 kids all on welfare. It is YOU and your kind who don’t want low income women getting subsidized birth control. It is YOU who preaches abstinence as an alternative to birth control and education (how’d that work out for you, Sally, your brother and your mother?).

    • PocahontasProud

      A. abstinence is a good form of birth control.
      B. Neither Bristol nor Sarah speak against contraceptives .Sarah has said this candidly on camera. Don’t group them with the catholic right.
      C. This post makes the point of people needing to THINK before acting. Think, hmmm, babies come from sex? hmm, I don’t have a job? Maybe I will abstain or be REALLY careful so I don’t bring a baby into the world. THAT thought process works wonders for so many. I had my first child at 28, having being married 3 years. And even before marriage, I enjoyed a good love life. Never got pregnant.

      These posts are to illustrate babies as living beings, not curses placed upon people who fail to use BC effectively or it simply fails them, as sometimes happens.

      And I’ve never heard Bristol act ignorant of needy children around the world. This blog is maintained on a site run by staunch christians and I would guess that person blows a simple prolife statement from Bristol out of proportion.

      • Choice

        Go back in this blog and read her gloating happiness regarding the closures of some Planned Parenthood offices. Planned Parenthood is more than abortion counseling. It helps poor women with all sorts of health problems and provides birth control. She was ecstatic about the closures.
        In a perfect world with perfect people, abstinence is 100% effective. But, that is not reality. It wasn’t for Bristol, her mother, her grandmother or her brother.

        • myintx

          I’m sure Bristol would be OK with Planned Parenthood staying open if they stopped killing unborn children.

  • Peter Paul

    A little harsh on her? Even if you had a point you don’t need to degrade her.. Should be a whole reform on adoption infrastructure

    • Choice

      She needs more than harsh. She needs an education. What was degrading? Everything I said was the truth.

      • Peter Paul

        What education would that be on minorities in drug infested neighborhoods?? 4 dope houses in my surrounding area and I’m white.. I see welfare queens selling ebt to the Arabs for 100$ cash.. Not all but a portion.. Second they are more self aware of others than you realize.. She’s gone to community homes and seen it she made an attempt to see what it was like for these girls…

        • Peter Paul

          But you are right Bristol should get rid of money she earned move to inner city Chicago get some crack get hooked and learn what it is like… Come on suggest what she should do to “learn”…

          • Choice

            You are as ignorant as she is.

          • Peter Paul

            Lol I’m ignorant? You moron my food stamps are cut off me and my neighbor were hungry last night.. You have no idea

          • Choice

            Bristol, Sarah and Rush Limbaugh would be cheering that.

          • Peter Paul

            Uh no wrong again they have said people who need them temporarily should get them.. My neighbor was so hungry he wanted to punch a hole through the wall..

          • Choice

            Who cut off your food stamps?

          • Peter Paul

            They do stuff backwards and gave me a card with benefits last month and sent a letter saying I had to interview before they’d send me a card after they sent the card loaded.. So I figured it was all good.. So did my neighbor

          • Peter Paul

            So they won’t review us for 30 days to go through all the tape you know what that means? No food

          • Peter Paul

            Went to help out the homeless today.. Snagged a bag for us.. What would you do

          • Choice

            I wouldn’t vote for the Tea Party. People should never go hungry. All you can do is go to a food bank in your community. That is sad if you are being truthful.

          • Peter Paul

            If I was lying.. You wouldn’t feel how you do.. So that’s enough to know that’s the truth.. I’d vote all day because I’m not self entitled like the libs.. Got up and got a job..

          • Choice

            So everyone who takes food stamps is a lib? Everyone on welfare is a lib? Wow. I don’t feel sorry for you anymore. Hope your job works out for you. It’s funny that you have internet but not food.

          • Peter Paul

            Yep yep use the free iPhone I got because at one time I had perfect or very good credit check out your local sprint store iPhone 4S special.. Hmm felt bad for me because I was a possible lib?? Simply said I don’t feel self entitled like most libs.. Changed my life based off conservative principles.. Besides the snag in food it works out

          • Choice

            No, I felt bad because you are a human being. But…your attitude made me change my mind. “Entitled, like most libs.” Most people I know, left or right work hard and pay their own way. The CEC, which includes Bristol and Sarah would like you to believe, with their hateful rhetoric that at least half of the population are evil takers. And you believe it. No more pity for you.

          • Peter Paul

            Hmm thought I replied to this.. You mistake me as someone who wanted your pity. Check out @pauipeter on twitter.. 500+ strong for SP and growing everyday.. A majority of I’ve layered to actually be effective when the time comes.. I know first hand that SP is a good lady and we won’t go into that story.. The irony of it all isn’t it amusing? I’m amused

          • Choice

            When what time comes? Palin running for Pres? Never going to happen. Although I wish it would. If you didn’t want pity, you wouldn’t have given your sob story.

          • Peter Paul

            Aww simple minded you must think I want SP to run for pres like “palinistas” only gave the “sob story” to prove you are ignorant but you have no problem attacking Bristol for her pro life stance.. Last post another post it matters not.. Palin for pres funny you thought that.. Hmm if the course stayed well 2016 for that would prove promising wouldn’t it.. Oh no choice I’m much more diabolical and a little sharper to think I’m doing this for a palin 2016 run

          • Choice

            Ok, now I know who I am talking too. Goodbye. Last post to you.

          • Peter Paul

            Please in my ignorance let me know what I should do I got a job tomorrow I work and didn’t go get dope and sell it instead I talked to a girl from my past about even further in the past to distract myself.. What would you do if you had 2 slices of bread with some cheese in the middle and some cheez itz.. Inform me of my ignorance

          • Choice

            You do know, that the Tea Party would call you a leech and tell you to get off your lazy arse and get a job.

          • Peter Paul

            I did get a job start tomorrow.. Ran all over town and someone said they’d give me a shot..

        • Choice

          She has gone to community homes. Lol.

          • Peter Paul

            Yeah sadly that’s not hearsay that’s well documented..

          • Choice

            Much different than living the life. Pull up in your limo and pop in to a community home, all for the cameras. Lol.

          • Peter Paul

            Hmm idk I like them and all but have never seen life’s a Tripp.. So what happened?

    • Choice

      BTW, Every post she makes on certain subjects has a nasty, divisive tinge to it. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
      Today she could have posted about President Obama making a statement regarding the Pastor being held in Iran. She has blamed him for not speaking out about it in past blog posts. Even though he has before and again today. She could have been happy about that. But…she won’t. She and her mother will never give credit when credit is due.

      • Peter Paul

        Interesting I didn’t know Obama did that today.. Ever hear of pivoting? Or political games? Maybe it was sincere maybe not.. That alone is enough to them to stay silent and not give Obama “praise”

        • Choice

          You certainly are in the bubble. You are a good student of the CEC.

          • Peter Paul

            Unfortunately I don’t know what that means so let me know what I’m a student in

        • Sacfat

          Yet Obama did EXACTLY what they criticized him for not doing before.
          How could he ever win with these types of people.
          They hate him when he doesn’t and they hate him when he does.

          • Peter Paul

            Ever read audacity of hope?? I have and I’m “those people”.. Good guy actually a moderate it’s the others who use the veil of ignorance to push it extreme left… Look up in a black’ slaw dictionary that legal term… It’s a legalism active process called the veil of ignorance

          • Peter Paul

            Legislative process.. Phone auto types

          • Sacfat

            I’m no fan of Obama but I’m even less of a fan of people who promote ignorance and mis-information as ‘fact’.
            eg. Bristol spends all this time attacking ‘liberals’ for their pro-choice stance – and spends ZERO time trying to help abandoned and orphaned children around the world.
            She claims to care about kids – but she really only cars about promoting her political agenda.
            Otherwise she wouldn’t spend so much time hating others and would spend more time HELPING kids who need help!!!!!

          • Peter Paul

            She went to Haiti dude to see first hand…

          • sodakhic

            My son and family(tea party folks)are adopting two boys from the Congo, what are you doing? Bristol is right. And Gosnell proved it.

          • Peter Paul

            Also Bristol regardless of the popular opinion of her is heavily Christian.. In her type of Christianity and in Catholicism inidividuals takes on causes, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, feeding the poor, fighting for the unborn.. She chose that for right now.. And she uses the platform she has and fights for the unborn.. That’s what she’s comfortable with.. She was a medical assistant for a bit to maybe do healing the sick.. She visited Haiti to see the hunger and naked.. It’s her choice her private revelation her apostolic tradition

  • Sacfat

    So much anger and personal attacks on this blog.

    I recently got back from Uganda where I was working with thousands of children under the age of 10 who live in the streets of Kampala, Mbale, Jinja etc.

    I find it EXTRODINARY that people like Bristol spend all their time worrying about Abortion – yet are utterly INDIFFERENT to the suffering of LIVING Children!!!

    Simple rule – lets take care of the tens of millions of un-wanted children already ALIVE (and abandoned) on our planet first. Then, after we’ve taken care of all of them, we can start worrying about aborted fetus.

    • myintx

      You gonna tell PETA folks to quit worrying about fur and worry about children first? You gonna tell people that help elderly folks on their death beds to quit wasting time helping the elderly and focus on the kids?
      There are people that care about born and unborn children. Both should have a right to life.

  • Harry Johnson

    Bristol, you’re an overprivileged idiot. Stay away from politics, you have NO idea what you’re talking about. Your claim of eugenics is witless. Please stop reading biased craptrap like LifeNews.

  • Bob Cooley

    I am so glad my mother chose to carry me to term and make the ultimate sacrifice of giving her child up for adoption.

    • myintx

      Apparently some people think you should have been killed :(

  • Sue Lynn

    Great article Bristol…sad…every child is made in the image of God!

    • Sue Lynn

      Or people like you with no heart…..

      • myintx

        Is an unborn child who has it’s own heartbeat a ‘mass of cells’?
        Is an unborn child with all of it’s arms, legs, fingers and toes a ‘mass of cells’?
        Is an unborn child at 22 weeks a ‘mass of cells’?
        pro-aborts are idiots.

  • Tim

    The demographics of who chooses abortion is not the fault of any clinic that performs them. Blog next about how your statistics line up with percentages of poverty among those demographics. And then remember that it’s your precious mommy’s side that has fought to keep those demographics poor.

  • 1MiddleRoader

    To quote your Mom, Bristol, “in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card.”

  • Guest

    Bristol. Hoe you will tell the world about Maafa21 a powerful film exposing this very topic and Planned Parenthood’s racism http://www.maafa21.com

  • Saynsumthn Blog

    Bristol. Hope you will tell the world about Maafa21 a powerful film exposing this very topic and Planned Parenthood’s racism http://www.maafa21.com

  • June M Harding

    seems like 1 person who has all the negatives down. keep up your chin Bristol. We aren’t all as negative about everything as NMM. Abortion kills babies and hurts moms. I am a nurse doing sonography for a crisis pregnancy center. I hear from some of those moms who have such pain AFTER the “choice”

  • Michelle Erb

    In other words minority women are more likely to live in poverty. Impoverished women are far more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy and to realize that if they go through with that pregnancy they risk becoming trapped in abusive relationships, losing their jobs for missing even a day of work, and being unable to care for the children they already have..

    Part of the reason many fight so hard to get woman access to birth
    control and sexual education is to prevent unnecessary abortions. Expand programs like Head Start, improve inner city schools, raise the minimum wage and give everyone access to healthcare and abortions will actually become rare.

    Instead republicans try tactics that actually risk the lives of women and children by closing clinics that provide life saving healthcare in an effort to discourage abortions that will probably occur anyway.

    Republican leaders do not really want abortion to become illegal because then voters would notice all the harm that their party is doing to real live human beings, and the environment, and would vote differently. Even the Pope can see this.

  • Michelle Erb

    The Bible does not say “life begins at conception” and does not describe the ending of fetal life as murder, so there is nothing particularly “Christian” about putting this cause above the welfare of actual living humans.

    • Richard Smit

      ANd you are Putting that “welfare ” above lives of unborn babies!

    • Richard Smit

      Go Attack Sarah Palins viewpoints somewhere else! this is a pro Sarah Palin site!! and there is nothing wrong with Palins views on abortion!

      • Michelle Erb

        The Palin’s have facebook pages where they can post their propaganda and delete every liberal post while keeping the racist ones and even the ones threatening the president with violence. Not sure how anyone can support that.

        However this site is supposed to be for discussing spiritual matters not for posting hate propaganda. As a relative of Holocaust survivors there is no way I will stand back while someone tries to foment race based hate. I will keep speaking up. Thank you very much.

        • Richard Smit

          no one here is promoting race based hate!

  • Michelle Erb

    Now who is “playing the race card”? And after your mother tried to sound so sincere on MLK day.

  • Michelle Erb

    If we are going to make laws that put the welfare of the fetus ahead of the liberty of the woman, then your Mom could have been prosecuted for risking miscarriage by having an amnioscentess to diagnose Trig, and for actually bragging that she put her full term baby’s life in danger by getting on a plane when she was already in labor even though she had been told that his delivery would be high risk and he would need treatment immediately upon birth.

    Fortunately we live in a world where none of this should be any of our business. So any time you hypocrites want to stop dishing it out.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton John Dalberg-Acton

      So your view is…

      That a woman’s Liberty gives them the absolute right to abort their pregnancy. Therefore the unborn does not have the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness until the mother chooses to birth it. The logical conclusion that follows then is that women are the source that endows these rights.

      But The Declaration of Independence states these rights are unalienable to every individual and endowed by their Creator not by men or women.

      • Michelle Erb

        If a fetus was a living being capable of breathing on their own (as life is defined in the Bible) there would be no issue, but unless you are a communist that believes we all completely responsible for each other, at our own potential detriment, your Constitutional argument does not hold up. Anyone who is capable of living on their own has the liberty to do so. Which is why the U.S. Supreme Court focused on “viability.”

        We are not going to force women to carry fetuses no matter what the circumstances. We are not going to require that a rape victim forgo the morning after pill, and keep her uterine lining to remain intact, just in case conception occurs in the future. We are not going to require that a woman change her eating and drinking and give up smoking and prescription drugs at risk of criminal prosecution. We are not going to require that a woman give up medicine she may require for her mental or physical health, and, we are not going to require that a woman postpone cancer treatment in order to remain pregnant with a fetus that would become horribly deformed if she keeps having the treatment she needs to save her life

        Many pregnant women become very ill and miss work or have to stop their education. For some, living at the edge, missing even one day will cost them their jobs and may lead to homelessness and even the loss of the actual living children they are already raising.

        Studies show that many women become stuck in abusive relationships because of pregnancy.. Once the baby is born they also face pressure from their family to keep what now is a living and breathing fully formed child.

        It is an especially slippery slope because forced birthers also try
        to make many forms of birth control illegal as well. Where would it
        stop?

        I do not understand how you can call yourself prolife and support politicians who are cutting healthcare to real live women and children in an attempt to stop abortions that will occur anyway. Not to mention all of the other Republican policies that cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of real live human beings.

        You can try all you want you will never stop abortions, and in the
        meantime you are causing a hell of a lot of collateral damage in your
        wake.

        • myintx

          If a woman decides at week 25 she doesn’t want her unborn child, in most states she cannot have an abortion unless she meets one of the exceptions (e.g. her life endangered), and I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t be able to find a doctor to deliver the baby either. She HAS to carry it to term. Is that ‘forcing’ a woman to carry her unborn child?
          Unless a woman’s life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, she should not have a ‘right’ or a ‘choice’ to kill an unborn child. There are better choices out there – women just have to stop thinking about ‘me, me, me, me, oh, and me!’ for a few minutes and think about the other human being involved in the pregnancy. Most pro-aborts are fighting for the right to be selfish.
          78% of people who identify as pro-life are not opposed to birth control. Many just don’t see it as a cure for not getting pregnant. In fact, it could lead to a false sense of security and people having more sexx because they think they cannot get pregnant and then ooops…
          Slave owners and then bigots said that slaves and then black people would never have full rights. Took a long time, and a nullified Supreme Court decision, but they did get the rights they deserve. The right not to have their fate decided by an evil person. Unborn children deserve a basic right to life – they do not deserve to be killed for lame reasons like “cannot afford a child” or “not the right time for a child”.

          • myintx

            I cannot think of a single politician that wants abortion illegal in all cases. They all want an exception if the life of the pregnant woman is truly endangered. And, some will support exceptions for rape or fetal defects.

          • Michelle Erb

            The problem being with the definition of “truly endangered.” Read some horror stories of what women who desperately want children go through when a pregnancy is no longer viable and letting it go to term could make them infertile etc. These decisions need to be made between women and their doctors not politicians.

            But congratulations on your willingness to let a woman have an abortion if it looks like the pregnancy will “truly” kill her. You are all heart!,

          • myintx

            Yes, they can be made between a woman and her doctor – if her life is truly endangered. Those cases are rare though.
            “Cannot afford a child” and “not the right time for a child” do not truly endanger a woman’s life. Those 2 excuses account for almost 1/2 of the senseless killings of unborn children in this country. Those are great reasons to abstain or use multiple forms of contraception and great reasons to ask for help or look into adoption. Those are horrible reasons to kill an unborn child.

          • myintx

            ‘in the early weeks’? Up until… what.. viability?
            how about if the mother didn’t realize she was pregnant and gives birth… is ‘in the early weeks’ of having a newborn OK to kill it if she was convinced by pro-aborts that adoption is bad and it’s ‘not a good time’ to raise a chilld?
            Abortion kills a human being.

          • myintx

            A newborn baby is completely different from an elderly person – doesn’t mean we can kill either one because you cannot afford to take care of it (yes, sometimes adults take care of their elderly parents). Both a newborn and an elderly person are human. Just as an unborn child is.
            zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teenager, adult, elderly – ALL stages of the life of a human being.

          • Michelle Erb

            So do you think embryos in an ivf lab are the same as infants?

            You do realize that children cannot be forced to take care of their elderly parents right? Just as with the newborn, society steps up. And the moment a baby is viable, meaning that society can step in, it is alive in the eyes of the law and can no longer be aborted except in extremely rare circumstances.

            So we agree when an actual “unborn baby” is involved there has to be a health need to have an abortion.

          • Michelle Erb

            They do not even value the very things that make us “human,” that is why they also fight to keep the braindead alive. It seems like they do not actually believe in their “god,” since in there eyes a fully formed human can be created in a lab, and whether it has consciousnesses or a soul is irrelevant.

            I will never forget when the other forced birther, who seemed like a very sincere lady, actually said she would consider saving embryos in a lab over a two year old child.

          • myintx

            It doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong (eg: http://www.Secularprolife.Org). Take a look at a fetal development chart – it shows the continuous development of a human being. By 5 weeks, the unborn child has it’s own heartbeat. By 12 weeks an unborn child has all its fingers and toes and organs in place. It just takes common sense to know that killing an unborn child is wrong. Unfortunately for some, selfishness overrides common sense.

          • Michelle Erb

            It just takes common sense to know that when 75% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and they have neither hearts nor souls, they are not the same as fully formed human beings.

            When someone actually says they would consider leaving a two year old child in a fire if it was more efficient to save embryos first, common sense has gone out the window. When you see things so black and white and lack any empathy toward the living, or even the ability to see what makes us human, you cannot be reasoned with.

            Pro-choicers admit that at some point in the pregnancy it becomes more of a gray area. But we cannot enslave women by forcing them to carry a fetus regardless of the circumstances. Everyone agrees that once it really is a baby (even unborn) that it does have rights and we have to conduct a balancing act between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus. But in almost all cases the women and their doctors are far more likely to know what is best than a bunch of male legislators who are terrified of vaginas.

          • myintx

            Every innocent human being should have an equal right to life. One’s ‘convenience’ or ‘happiness’ should not result in the death of another human being.

          • Michelle Erb

            Saying it over and over does not make a zygote into a human being.

          • myintx

            Scientists say an unborn child is a human being.

          • Michelle Erb

            The same 3% of scientists who say there is no global climate change?

            Seriously wtf are you talking about? It would be great if a fetus was a human being than a woman could just take it out of her womb and these imaginary scientists could tell us how to keep said “human being” alive?

          • myintx

            A 22 week old preemie is a human being isn’t it? Even if its hooked up to life support? That SAME 22 week old baby inside it’s mother is a human being too. Location of that being has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is a human being.
            I sure hope you’re not dumb enough to think that 98% of scientists believe in man made global warming.

          • Michelle Erb

            No only 97% of scientists admit there is global climate change. The other 3% work for oil, gas, and coal companies. Even many scientists from studies that were funded by oil companies have come around to the overwhelming evidence of climate change. These extreme weather events are killing human beings but you do not care about them I guess.

            I have admitted that a viable fetus is a baby whether it is still in the womb not. Before that it is a human zygote or fetus etc. Which is of the human species and is a being but is not the same as a living human. That you can look at an embryo and say it is the same as a living person, but you could care less about people dieing in extreme weather events and women with young children being denied healthcare and milk, says you are not worth any more time.

          • myintx

            An unborn child IS a living human being. If you KILL it, you are killing a human being. if your mom had killed you at 6 weeks or 36 weeks – guess what – YOU WOULDN’T BE HERE. Doesn’t matter when she does it! You were a zygote, embryo, non-viable fetus and viable fetus once…
            Just because someone fights for life for unborn children does NOT mean they don’t care about anything else. Do people who want to save the whales not care about people? Do you go on PETA’s website and tell them they should care about young children or people dying?
            There is climate change, but 97% don’t believe it’s man-made.

          • Michelle Erb

            If my father had ejaculated 5 seconds later I would not be here either. Doesn’t make it murder.

          • myintx

            Sperm is not a human being. An unborn child IS.

          • Michelle Erb

            Circular reasoning. You said you can prove an embryo is a human being because if the one that became me had been removed I would not be here. In fact you thought that argument was so great you put it ALL IN CAPS.

            But there are so many other reasons I would not be here. If my parents had not had intercourse, or had used protection, or if my mother’s uterine lining was not in tact, or she were already pregnant. In all of those cases I would not be here.
            75% of embryos never implant for natural reasons., Those are not deaths.

            An embryo has no blood, no heart, no brain. Yes if everything goes right it can become a baby. But that does not mean it is a human being with rights that supersede the woman’s.

            The Catholics think it is a sin to “waste semen” would you fight for a law banning masturbation?

          • myintx

            An unborn child is a human being. It’s human, it’s a living being, it’s a human being.
            I never said an unborn child’s rights supersede a woman’s… They are EQUAL. They both should have a right to life. One’s ‘happiness’ should not result in the death of the other.
            I don’t really care what the Catholic’s think. it doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong.

          • Michelle Erb

            “Human being” you keep saying those words. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Maybe you need MORE CAPS!?

            You have done nothing to explain why an embryo that has not yet implanted that has no consciousness no blood, no heart beat, no brain is a ‘HUMAN BEING.”

            Of course you are implying that the embryo’s rights supersedes the woman’s because you are saying that a woman has to make any necessary sacrifice even before the embryo has implanted in her womb. You wont let a woman take a morning after pill, even though it does not directly harm embryos it just makes the woman’s body inhospitable, so if they really were human beings they could leave that body and go elsewhere.

            you do not even have any sympathy for a woman who needs chemotherapy. If you had any idea how ill chemotherapy makes someone you would realize it would be unsustainable while pregnant. They would not be able to keep down enough nourishment for themselves much less a fetus.

          • myintx

            Science backs up the fact that life begins at conception (fertilization), so Christians are right anyway.
            There are many non-religious people that are against abortion (secularprolife.org)

          • myintx

            The American College of Pediatricians an abstract titled, When Human Life Begins, states that it concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at fertilization.

            “this definition (when human life begins) has been expounded since prior to Roe vs. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973.
            Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct,
            individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. . .
            The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development.”

            http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

          • Bfgtr

            Myintx, the ACP is a conservative, Prolife advocacy group. This is more junk science from them. There is no consensus amongst scientists as to when life begins.

          • myintx

            So, if there is no consensus on global warming, there is no global warming?

            http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

            Even a Salon writer has admitted abortion takes a human life. “It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina.”

          • myintx

            There might be consensus on global warming, but not MAN MADE global warming. Many scientist believe the earth warms and cools on it’s own over the years.
            The infant mortality rate is higher than the death rate for children. Can we kill newborns now? Just because many zygotes don’t make it doesn’t justify killing them. They are human beings. And, they aren’t zygotes for long. Very often, by the time a woman even realizes she is pregnant, her unborn child’s heartbeat has started (or is within days of starting).

          • myintx
          • myintx

            The link I provided proved the 97% claim was bogus.

          • myintx

            Not man made global warming…

          • Bfgtr

            Wrong myintx, there is consensus amongst climate scientists on man made global warming. You are uninformed.

          • myintx
          • Bcgf

            Again myintx, you’re using the John Birch Society? Thats as bad as using the ACP to try to show consensus aming scientists as to when life begins. Do you not realize who your sources are????

            And your second reference doesn’t refute that there is consensus among climate scientists that there isman made global warming. Dyd you even read it?

            You’re uninformed.

          • myintx

            When we have hot days you cry man-made global warming (mmgg), when we have cold days you cry mmgg… The earth hasn’t warmed in about 17 years. They said the Arctic ice cap would be gone by now according to some mmgg cryers. Instead they are growing. I’m sure they’re spinning the growth to make it look like mmgg… idiots

          • Bcgf

            Myintx, you are so uninformed. Scientists and people who are informed understand that there are natural fluctuations in climate , both short and long term, and man made effects on climate all working at once.

            Careful of using the word idiot.

          • myintx

            All those man made global warming ‘experts’ said the Arctic would by ice free by the summer of 2013. LOL.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

          • Bcgf

            Myintx, you are so out of your league. All???? Did you even read that article? It reports on one model’s prediction. One model. And it also notes that this prediction is well ahead of other researchers’ predictions.

            Myintx, you are uninformed.

          • myintx

            It certainly didn’t DISAPPEAR like predicted – DUH. MM Global warming is a crock.
            Why did you change your name Vgf?

          • Bcgf

            That’s right, it didnt disappear by 2013 as that one very aggressive model predicted. But that’s not what you were claiming. You were claiming all climate scientists said it would.

            Myintx do you know anything about scientific research? Modeling? Anything about climate science even? No need to answer. It’s obvious

          • myintx

            never said all scientists said it would disappear. If the scientists didn’t believe the model, they would have thrown away the data and never reported it or said that the data was flawed. Instead they claimed it was within range. A false claim we now know because instead of shrinking, the ice cap is growing. It doesn’t appear that any of their so-called models predicted growth.
            why did you change your disqus name?

          • Bcgf

            Yes you did say ” All those man made global warming experts”.

            Clearly you know nothing about scientific modeling. Nor do you even understand scientific research and publication. You don’t even know enough to be embarrassed by what you write.

            Since it matter so much to you why my name changed…… I broke one of the two rules that apparently the blog writer has in place ( Either her own rules or Sarahs. Who knows. ) I mentioned that Sarah Palin often stuffs her bra for public appearances. (The other thing that’s verboten is writing the real blog writers name. )

          • Michelle Erb

            This has nothing to do with “god” The Bible is very clear that life begins with the ability to draw breath, and if a man causes a woman to miscarry and “no harm is caused” it is not murder.

            These people fetishize homosexuality and abortion because they are obsessed with sex. (which explains why so many turn out to be sex offenders themselves).

            . Jesus never mentioned either issue, and the old testament portion about homosexuality is in the same chapter that forbids eating shellfish etc. Yet they put it above the health and well being of the living, issues Jesus supposedly cared about.

            Many of them are jut followers who mean well, but a lot of the leaders are sick sick people.

          • myintx

            IVF embryos deserve protection too.
            Children cannot be forced to take care of their elderly parents, but they should (that R word again – RESPONSIBILITY). However, a parent does have a responsibility to take care of their child. They cannot leave a newborn at home alone while they go out and party. They cannot kill their newborn baby. A parent’s responsibility should start the moment their offspring is created – at fertilization.
            Society cannot step in the moment an unborn child is viable. The woman HAS to carry it to term (boo freakin’ hoo!) If she has to wait from week 24 to 38 or 40, what is a few more months when it means the possibility of a full and productive lifetime for another human being?. The unborn child is a human being one day before viability and one day after viability. At 12 weeks it has all of its limbs. it has fingers and toes. You really support ripping that unborn child apart? sick!

          • Michelle Erb

            They do not all have all of their limbs. FYI. Some will be born with such horrible defects that they would ultimately just suffer and die. But you will put a woman through more hell if she makes a difficult but loving decision.

            Yes anyone who chooses to parent has responsibilities for that child, since they have the alternative of giving the child up for adoption. A woman who has a positive pregnancy test, if denied the right to take the morning after pill, or end the pregnancy early, is than placed in great difficulties. Pregnancy is not always a cake walk. Some women become very ill or are bedridden. Some have jobs that can not be done while pregnant. Many will be stuck in abusive relationships, have to end their education, or even become homeless, or not be able to provide care for the children they already have. Until Obamacare came along many could not even buy maternity coverage for their prenatal needs. (But I am sure you opposed the ACA as well, since that only helps the living)

            When you have to oversimplify you know there is an issue.

          • myintx

            I said ‘all of their limbs’ – they have all the limbs they are going to have by 12 weeks.. I didn’t say 2 arms and 2 legs… You want a mother to be able to kill her unborn child simply because it may not have 2 arms and 2 legs?
            A pregnant woman has lots of choices too – she can see what kind of government benefits are available. She can get prenatal care. She can visit a food bank if that’s an issue. She can ask friends and family for help (including her partner’s friends and family) – e.g. to take care of her other kids, help with housework, etc. She can ask her church for help. She can visit an adoption agency (sometimes they help with financial issues). LOTS of choices. Killing should not be one of them. A few short months means an opportunity for an ENTIRE LIFETIME for another human being. Some of you are all for making her wait after 12 weeks (unless her health is an issue). What’s a few more weeks? Again – an ENTIRE LIFETIME for another human being. What kind of sicko would kill because their education or career path might be affected?

          • Michelle Erb

            When a fetus does not have all of its limbs it means there is a lot more wrong as well, limbs do not just randomly fail to form.
            I do not think it is “selfish” to choose not to go through with a pregnancy so that you can provide a decent life for the children you already have. That is making a tough choice and being responsible.

            The resources you discuss do not currently exist for pregnant women, and Republicans just voted to cut the WIC programs that provide for women with infants (while at least ten Republican congressmen voted to give their own family owned farms millions in subsidies).

            Instead of trying to be holier than thou and telling women with cancer they cannot have abortions, why not work with liberal women to help provide the very kind of programs you speak of that would help women choose to remain pregnant. Before you tell women they must go through with pregnancies at least make sure every single one of them has full access to prenatal care, and is given money to live on if they cannot work while pregnant.

          • Michelle Erb

            Well neither the Bible nor the Supreme Court agrees with your comparison between a fetus and newborn. You well know that newborns have the protections of the law as well as every ethical human being on earth..

            Huge difference between a living breathing conscious newborn which a woman can hand over to someone else and trying to enslave a woman by taking control of her body because some cells may have met up with a sperm

          • myintx

            Slaves didn’t have protections for a long time either… guess what!? LAWS were changed to give them protections they deserved. LAWS should be changed to give unborn children a basic right to life.
            In a pregnancy, it’s not just ‘her body’ its the bodies of an unborn child AND a woman. BOTH should have a right to life.
            Encourage COEXISTence! :)

          • Michelle Erb

            How will it be “between a woman and her doctor” if she has to prove that her life is “truly endangered?” In your effort to stop the abortions that will keep happening unless we actually work together to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the firstplace, you are causing untold pain and suffering. Did you know that some teaparty law makers have actually proposed laws requiring an investigation every time a woman miscarries? The cruelty knows no bounds.

          • myintx

            The woman won’t have to prove. If it’s a qualified doctor, he should be able to determine if her life is truly endangered. duh. (The qualified doctor should not be affiliated with a killing clinic – he should work for a real hospital).
            People generally discourage smoking (much more than in the past). The number of people who start smoking has gone down. If pro-aborts encouraged responsibility (abstaining if not in a committed relationship and using multiple forms of contraception) and peaceful COEXISTence between a mother an her unborn child for 9 short months, the number of senseless killings would go down too.
            YOU support killing about 1 million unborn children a year and you have the nerve to call pro-lifers cruel! wow! your ignorance knows no bounds.

          • myintx

            You can encourage people not to smoke… doesn’t mean everyone will listen. Encouraging responsible behavior, especially to the younger generation, is a good thing.

          • Michelle Erb

            And abstinence only education leads to abortion. It is proven. So now who is the “baby killer?”

          • myintx

            I never said I support abstinence only education. Besides, the group that gets the largest number of abortions are in their 20s. A group that knows about abstinence and contraceptives. What they lack is a sense of responsibility.

          • Michelle Erb

            Well I congratulate you for your willingness to let a woman’s doctor at least be the one to say whether her life is in danger. The people you elect do not share that generosity, since they claim that doctors will lie for women.

            Now what do you define as her life is in danger?. The pregnancy itself does not threaten her life, but no doctor will give her the chemotherapy or medicine she needs as long as she is pregnant because of the horrendous birth defects that would result? She needs psychiatric drugs so she does not became a danger to herself or others (Andrea Yates), pregnancy will strain her heart and ultimately shorten her life…

          • myintx

            Sometimes doctors will encourage abortion for chemo patients because they don’t want to be sued if something happens. It’s a cop-out on their part. There are studies that say chemo wont harm an unborn child.

            Pro-life physicians had this to say: “When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary”

          • Michelle Erb

            So no abortion if you have cancer?

          • myintx

            Again, there are studies that say Chemo won’t harm an unborn child: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2189026/Chemotherapy-wont-harm-baby-Cancer-treatment-pregnancy-safe-says-study.html

            Pro-life physicians had this to say: “When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary”

          • Michelle Erb

            Obviously you have never cared about someone going through chemo if you think it would be no big deal for them to be pregnant at the time.

          • myintx

            Parents make sacrifices for their kids. They lose sleep taking care of a sick child – EVEN IF they are sick themselves. Yes, it sucks if a woman is pregnant and has cancer. KILLING sucks even more.

          • myintx

            If a woman ‘feels’ its OK to kill her unborn child at 28 weeks are you OK with that?

          • Michelle Erb

            It is scientifcally impossibe for there to be a reputable study claiming that chemotherapy wont harm a fetus. Chemotherapy is not just one drug, it a combination of drugs, many of them brand new . If you had any concept of the damage it does to adult cells you could not with a straight face claim that a fetus would be safe, or that any reputable doctor would give a pregnant woman these drugs.

            You are so sure of your extreme positions that instead of letting a woman abort a pregnancy before the embryo/fetus develops into anything resembling a live being, you would let it become a child who will suffer horrible abnormalities and most likely live a short painful life.

            A woman who is further along in her pregnancy is the best person to decide for her family whether it it best to risk delaying chemotherapy to let her baby continue to develop. She may reach a compromise and deliver the baby sooner than would otherwise be recommended. She and her doctor are the best ones to make these decisions, not an ignorant person like you who thinks embryos are people and being pregnant while having chemotherapy, or giving up psychiatric drugs because you got pregnant by rape, are no big deal , because “COEXIST.”

            You do not even realize that trying to pass insane laws that would stop morning after pills and IVF, and close health clinics, actually creates a pushback that causes more people to support abortion rights in general. VGF and I are honest and admit that there are grey areas, and that sometimes there are difficult questions. You are a simpleton and you hurt your own cause. If you people would get off your high horses we could all get together to make sure that there are less desperate women in the first place.

          • myintx

            On the one hand you say ‘trust doctors’, but on the other hand you don’t trust doctors who say in most cases chemo will not harm the baby.

            An unborn child IS a living being. You cannot justify killing it because it might die or be disfigured. If there is a fire in a building with 2 people in it and you can only save one, can you shoot the other person you were not able to save on the way out? Or do you hope that somehow the other human being finds a way to make it out on his own?

            This couple did the right thing even though they knew their son wouldn’t live long: http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/08/zion-isaiah-blick-video-captures-sick-boys-10-days-with-parents-4295824/

          • Michelle Erb

            So now you are asserting that people who are not in a stable relationship should be abstinent. When you know very well that contraceptive are far more effective than abstinence (look who’s blog you are posting on).

            In your “sex is dirty” world, can married couples who can not afford a child have sex or do they need to be abstinent as well?

          • myintx

            If you don’t have sex there is ZERO percent chance you will get pregnant. Abstinence IS more effective than having sex…
            I never said sex is dirty. But, I do think abstinence should be encouraged… I’d tell my daughter, its best not to have sex until you are in a committed relationship, but if you feel the need to have sex in an uncommitted relationship do plan ahead and use multiple forms of protection… That’s teaching RESPONSIBILITY (oops. I know you hate that word).
            Married couples who cannot afford a child should use multiple forms of protection to minimize the chance of an unwanted pregnancy (e.g. to less than 1% per woman per year as opposed to about 18% with just a condom). And, if they want to abstain during the time of the month were the wife might be ovulating, that might not hurt either (as long as they use multiple forms of protection the rest of the time). If the multiple forms of birth control fail, they need to step up and take responsibility for their offspring. That means they can put the child up for adoption when it is born. That way it has a chance at a full and productive LIFETIME. What kind of selfish person would deny that to their own offspring?

          • Michelle Erb

            The only people i know personally who have had abortions are evangelicals. It is because they do do not plan to have sex.

            In states where abstinence only is taught more pregnancies occur.

            Moreover, it does not help that forced-birthers are actually lying to people about birth control, many even claiming that it does not work and is dangerous. The worst offenders are the so-called crisis pregnancy centers.

            I would prefer a child not marry super young than stress abstinence until marriage.

          • Michelle Erb

            I call denying healthcare to living women and children cruel. If you could get off your high horse we could all recognize that women will always get abortions, but if we could prioritize the things we can change (the kind of things Jesus is alleged to have cared about) we can all make the world a better place, and guess what? there will be less abortions as a result.

            Even the Pope thinks you people have gone off the rails.

          • myintx

            Unless the life of the woman is truly endangered, abortion isn’t ‘healthcare’, it’s the intentional killing of a human being.
            Woman wouldn’t get abortions IF they were raised in a society where killing is discouraged and RESPONSIBILTY is encouraged.
            The Pope is against abortion.

          • myintx

            The people of North Dakota wanted to ban the senseless killing of unborn children after 5 weeks. That’s a good start. Since a majority of people disagree with Roe V Wade it needs to be overturned so that states can make their own laws restricting the senseless killing.

          • myintx

            A majority of American’s under 30 don’t even know RvW was about abortion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/16/most-americans-under-30-dont-know-roe-was-about-abortion/
            How do you expect 7 of 10 to know that RvW allows a woman to kill her unborn child after the 1st trimester?
            A majority of people want abortion generally illegal after the first trimester. And, surely you remember seeing numerous polls about Americans wanting abortion after 20 weeks restricted (even the liberal Huffington post had to admit it). That means a majority of people disagree with Roe V Wade.

          • myintx

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx (scroll down to the near the bottom).

          • myintx

            Yes it does – 64% said it ‘Should be illegal” in the second three months of pregnancy

          • myintx

            You said that in the 2nd trimester a woman should only be able to kill their unborn child for medical reasons. That is not the kind of restriction supported by Roe V Wade unfortunately.

          • myintx

            The Gallup Poll shows that people disagree with Roe V Wade in the 2nd trimester. Time to overturn that p o s ruling.

          • myintx

            Yes, they favor restrictions that RvW doesn’t allow.

          • myintx

            My guess is that the majority don’t even realize RvW allows women to KILL their unborn child in the 2nd trimester for any lame reason they want. But, a majority want abortion generally illegal In the 2nd trimester – which means they fundamentally disagree with RvW!

          • myintx

            What part of 64 percent want abortion generally ILLEGAL in the 2nd trimester is hard to understand?

          • myintx

            Yes, “Generally illegal” – that means a majority of people would NOT let a woman kill her unborn child for a lame reason like ‘cannot afford a child’, but, unfortunately, RvW WOULD.

          • myintx

            But NOT any restriction…. A state CANNOT ban abortion for reasons like ‘cannot afford a child’ in the 2nd trimester.

          • Michelle Erb

            When I refer to the “healthcare” that Republicans are taking away. I am talking about the clinics in Texas that served rural and poor areas providing life saving wellness and prenatal care. Texas closed all of them because some performed abortions, it is estimated that thousands will die as a result. Hundreds of thousands of women, many of whom would never have an abortion themselves, got behind Wendy Davis, and stood up against the Komen foundation, when Planned Parenthood was attacked because they knew what kind of healthcare planned parenthood has provided for them.

            Moreover, just to oppose Obama, Republican governors are refusing to accept federal money (paid for with all of our tax money) to exand medicaid. If you live in those states you will be paying for medicaid in other states and paying higher bills when the people who did not get preventative treatment end up in the hospital (and in many cases die anyway). It is estimated that in Florida alone, 6 people will die each day because Rick Scott will not allow the program.

            Of course the Pope opposes abortions. Catholics even oppose masturbation because the Bible says to “be fruitful and multiply.” however, he has spoken out against the Republican policies that harm the poor. He says you people need to stop emphasizing abortion and homosexuality while ignoring the issues that Jesus is actually alleged to have cared about.

          • myintx

            All the clinics had to do was STOP KILLING and they could stay open and provide their other services. They closed because apparently killing is a big moneymaker for them. It would cut into their profits to stay open and provide free contraceptives to women.
            LOL.. Obamacare’s faults are because of the Republicans… “If you like your doctor, blah blah blah” – LIE of the year! I assume you heard the CBO’s damaging report about Obamacare? People will still not be covered and more people will be unemployed.
            The popes message applies to you too – stop obsessing over a so-called ‘right’ to kill unborn children.

          • myintx

            Obamacare isn’t anywhere near perfect. The bad things FAR outweigh the good things in that p o s. There are quite a few LIES associated with that p o s (‘If you like your doctor’ (lie of the year!), TAXES (a broken campaign promise), etc). Companies have already laid off people because of Obamacare.

          • myintx

            LOL… Obama just delayed implementation of part of that p o s – AGAIN. Democrats are distancing themselves from obamacare. Someone in Obama’s own party called it a ‘train wreck’. More Republicans were elected into office at the last mid-term elections because of Obamacare.

          • myintx

            RH Realitycheck… lol

          • myintx

            Haven’t found a politician that wants to ban abortion even if the woman’s life is truly endangered…

            A majority of pro-life politicians do not want to ban all birth control either.

            My stat was not sneaky. It was the truth. Your definition of prolife is false…. Not all prolifers want abortion banned in all cases. Besides, Michelle was the one implying that all pro-lifers want birth control banned – that’s sneaky.

          • myintx

            Actually there is no clear line between pro-life and pro-choice. Are people who want abortion banned after 5 weeks (first heartbeat) pro-life? How about 12 weeks? 20? Viability? Is pro-life for absolutely no abortion and pro-choice for killing until 1 second before delivery?

            http://thecontrarian1012.blogspot.com/2012/11/pro-lifers-birth-control.html

            Even Guttmacher says 98% of Catholic Women have used contraceptives. Many pro-lifers are Catholics. If they were all against contraception, the 98% number would be a lot lower.
            Its a myth that all prolifers are against contraceptives. What we are for is RESPONSIBILITY – take responsibility for your actions. Take responsibility for your offspring – from the moment they come into existence (fertilization). Don’t KILL innocent children – born or unborn.

          • myintx

            Those are OPINIONS. Not fact.

            But, hey, if you want to take an opinion as fact, a majority of people identify as pro-life in a gallup poll… Guess that means they want to OVERTURN the p o s known as ROE V WADE. :)

          • myintx

            I’m sure that most people who support abortion up to 5 weeks identify themselves as pro-life…

            If you’re really pro-choice, you support ANY ‘choice’ a woman makes.. Killing her unborn child at 38 weeks.. well, that’s her ‘choice’….

          • myintx

            It’s pro-choice for 5 weeks, pro-life for A LOT longer than 5 weeks.

          • myintx

            I don’t agree with that position. I’m sure you’d get an earful if you went on a pro-choice site and said that abortion after the first trimester should be limited to medical reasons only.

          • Michelle Erb

            You know who does not want to overturn Roe v Wade? Republican leadership. How else would they get you to turn a blind eye on their polices that create corporate welfare, starve the poor and give to the rich, destroy the environment, and oppose any regulations that would stop our water from being poisoned, chemical plants from exploding near schools, or medicines from containing deadly contaminants?

            They keep passing laws that they know will be overturned so that you keep voting Republican and ignoring the fact that the very last thing that party cares about is “life.” When they do appoint judges the only real test is whether they will rule in favor of large corporations and rich donors not how they will rule on abortion.

          • myintx

            define ‘early’? is more than 1/2 way through the pregnancy ‘early’?
            KILLING an innocent child – born or unborn isn’t taking responsibility – it’s taking the easy way out. It’s selfish and wrong.
            Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape / incest.. Most abortions are done for lame reasons like ‘not the right time for a child’ or ‘cannot afford a child’.

          • myintx

            If you’re against abortion after the 1st trimester you’re with the majority that want it restricted after the 1st trimester and you’re fundamentally against Roe V Wade. Time to repeal that p o s :)

          • myintx

            If you feel abortion should be restricted after the first trimester to medical reasons only then you fundamentally disagree with Roe V Wade. REPEAL :)

          • myintx

            I wish it was, but it’s not.

          • myintx

            I wish you were right… The ruling says the state can regulate, but not outlaw abortions in the 2nd trimester. Regulate to ‘preserve the mothers health’.. e.g. say all unborn baby killing clinics must qualify as an ambulatory surgical center before they can do their killing for profit.

          • myintx

            No it is not…You support restricting abortion after the first trimester to only ones for medical reasons… Roe V Wade says anyone can kill their unborn child in 2nd trimester but states can regulate the killing to preserve the health of the mother (e.g. say that the doctor must have admitting priveleges or something.. but they CAN still kill for any lame reason they want)

          • myintx

            A woman can STILL kill her unborn child in the 2nd trimester for lame reasons like “cannot afford a child” and “not the right time for a child”. States cannot pass a law saying you cannot abort for those reasons…

          • myintx

            My point is that a majority of people want abortion generally illegal in the 2nd trimester – meaning they fundamentally disagree with RvW.

          • myintx
          • myintx

            64% want it “Generally illegal” in the 2nd trimester – that means they disagree with RvW

          • myintx

            I know that ‘generally illegal’ does not mean illegal in all situations, but it DOES mean illegal in situations like ‘cannot afford a child’ – which means 64% of people fundamentally disagree with RvW.

          • myintx

            I wish you were right, but you are not. If you don’t believe me, ask Michelle.

          • myintx

            No it’s not…

          • myintx

            The restrictions allowed by Roe V Wade unfortunately do NOT include allowing a state to ban abortion because a woman cannot afford a child. The “Generally illegal” poll means that people do NOT want a woman to kill her unborn child in the 2nd trimester because she cannot afford it. Do you see now how 64% of people have issues with RvW now?

          • Michelle Erb

            You do not “repeal” Supreme Court opinions. It is their interpretation of the constitution not a law you can “repeal.”

          • myintx

            Overturn, nullify, whatever…
            Supreme Court decisions have been overturned or nullified before.

          • myintx

            At least I am honest. Still waiting for you to admit you’re (unfortunately) wrong about RvW

          • myintx

            It does allow for SOME restrictions in the 2nd trimester, but states CANNOT tell women they can only kill their unborn child in the 2nd trimester if their health is endangered. The restrictions they allow are ones like clinic restrictions to ensure that at least the women are safe while they have their unborn child killed (e.g. doctors must have admitting priveleges, etc). Hope that helps you understand it better.

          • myintx

            I never said that it said that in the poll.. and, no, you’re not understanding the poll. You are one of the 64% from what I can understand. A state cannot make a law saying that, in the 2nd trimester, a woman cannot kill her unborn child because she ‘cannot afford a child’. This would, unfortunately, violate Roe V Wade. Therefore, 64% of people disagree with Roe V Wade.

          • myintx

            I wish you weren’t wrong, but you are. Arkansas tried it. It was blocked. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/arkansas12-week-abortion-ban-blocked-for-now-91590.html

          • Michelle Erb

            That 1% rape/incest statistic came out of your ass. I would love to know why forced-birthers have to resort to lies and distortion, such as this blog, if they are so sure they are right.

            Oh unless of course you are using the Todd Akin definition of “legitimate rape.”

          • myintx

            That 1% stat came from a pro-abortion group (Guttmacher).

          • Michelle Erb

            That was a very old study from a small group answering the single question of why they were having an abortion. Few people volunteer to strangers that they have been victims of rape or incest. It does not include minor girls who were impregnated by adult men which is statutory rape. Less than 1% of incest victims are going to tell that to a stranger, and most people still do not report date rape.

            It also does not include victims who were given the morning after pill at the hospital – something you refer to as “killing babies” when all it really involves is making the woman’s body inhospitable so that pregnancy does not occur in the first place.

          • myintx

            The study was from 2004.. it’s not that old. Got any other proof?

            Even if it was underreported by 1/2 that’s still less than 2%.

            Average number of rape cases reported in the US is about 89,000 a year. They say the percentage of rape never reported is 60%. So, lets bump that up to 142,400.

            Studies I’ve read say 5% of rapes result in pregnancy. That’s 7,120 pregnancies. Many women who become pregnant via rape don’t kill their unborn child (perhaps they realize the unborn child is a victim of the crime too). Even if they all had abortions, 7,120 is a small percentage of about 1 MILLION.

            Your hero Wendy Davis went higher and said “Among them: “Each year, about 25,000 American women … become pregnant through rape or incest,” (rated 1/2 true by Politifact)

            The National institute of health says 50% of rape victims who get pregnant have abortions. Even if we take Wendy’s high number, that’s still 12,500 abortions. about 1.25% of 1 million.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

          • Michelle Erb

            The Guttmacher study was 1987, and it was a written survey of 1800 women. Nearly 30 years ago women were far less likely to write on paper that they were a victim, of date rape or incest. We blamed date rape victims even more back then. And a sample of 1800 is nothing, not even close to statistically valid.

            They were not even asked if they were rape victims but instead why they were having an abortion. So someone who was a victim of rape could honestly answer one of the other reasons why she could not go through with the pregnancy without mentioning rape.

            Even if your numbers were right, although again you are ignoring the morning after pill, you would force 12,000 rape victims a year to carry pregnancy, even deny them the morning after pill.

          • myintx

            The survey was redone in 2004 (and the number of abortions for rape actually went DOWN). Even without the survey, the number of abortions from rape would be much less than 2%… Why are you focusing on that very small number? Too embarrassed to admit you support killing for reasons like ‘cannot afford a child’ and the ever so lame ‘not the right time for a child’?

          • myintx

            So, 11 weeks 6 days is OK to kill, but 12 weeks – not so much?

          • myintx

            Not all the time…. When is it OK?When the unborn child has a beating heart (about 5 weeks)? When it can move (about 10 weeks)?

            When it looks like this: http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/what-my-baby-looks-like/week-10/

          • myintx

            cop out… if there is something you don’t think is right, you can fight to change laws.

          • myintx

            All of a sudden on the first day of the 12th week it does become ‘right or wrong’? Really? why? because a bogus SC decision said so? SC decisions have been wrong before.

          • myintx

            If she cannot afford a child she can put the child up for…oh wait, what’s that word? oh yea- ADOPTION. Or, she can see what kind of benefits are available.. or she can ask for help from friends, family, her partner, his family, her church, etc. Plenty of options available.

          • Bfgtr

            And that choice is hers, not yours, to make.

          • myintx

            No one should have the ‘choice’ to kill an innocent child – born or unborn .

          • Bcgf

            Sorry, not everyone equates a zygote with a born child as you do. Not your choice.

          • myintx

            Not everyone equates a born child with an elderly person… :)

            zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teenager, adult, elderly – all stages of a human beings life.

          • Bcgf

            Actually they do myintx. Or almost everyone does. But as fir a zygote and a born child…….. Not so much.

          • myintx

            A newborn is young.. An elderly person is old.. many people don’t equate them until they think.. hm.. they are both HUMAN BEINGS.. just like a zygote, embryo, and fetus. If a fetus at 38 weeks is a human being, so is a fetus at 12 weeks.. and 9 weeks.. You support killing human beings.

          • Bcgf

            Seriously? People fail to recognize the elderly and babies are both born humans with a right to life? And that its wrong to kill either? Sorry, but that’s simply not true. Now, when you are talking about a zygote, now that’s different. Sure some people, largely those with a strong religious conviction that God creates life at conception, believe zygotes have the same right to life as born humans, but the large majority of us do not.

          • myintx

            Well, if you’re only OK with killing zygotes, you’re only OK with abortion for what, about a week? I’m sure lots of pro-lifers would settle for changing laws to just allow abortion while the unborn child is a zygote and then banning it after.
            It’s not a ‘religious conviction’ – it’s scientific fact that life is created at fertilization.
            YOUR DNA was created at fertilization…. That’s when you came into existence.

          • Bcgf

            No it’s not a scientific fact. There is no consensus amongst scientists that life begins at fertilization. And don’t bother trying to quote the ACP again myintx.

            Who said anything about only zygotes?

          • myintx

            You mentioned zygotes in your last post…

            Many embryologist know that life begins at fertilization.

            http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

            There’s no consensus on man made global warming, yet you believe in it.

          • Bcgf

            I did not say ” only zygotes”. Read more carefully.

            Myintx, that link you have is from a Prolife club at Princeton. Just as bad as your ACP reference. Junk science. There is no consensus amongst embryologists that life begins at conception.

            And yes, there is consensus amongst climate scientists on man made global warming.

          • myintx

            There is no consensus on man made global warming.
            And the quotes were from real books. They didn’t make them up.
            Life begins at fertilization, not 12 weeks.

          • Bcgf

            Ooh…. Real books!!! Seriously myintx, you have no idea how much you don’t know and understand. You are the perfect target for junk science fed to you by others, including Prolife groups and the John Birch Society.

            And yes, we know you believe life begins at fertilization. But there is not consensus amongst scientists that life begins at fertilization.

          • myintx

            You’re the one who fell for junk science… Arctic ice caps – NOT MELTING. In fact, they are GROWING… lol.

          • Bcgf

            Fell for junk science? Myintx, that was the prediction from one, very aggressive model. It was not junk science. Clearly you are completely unaware of how scientific modeling and research work. You are making a fool of yourself and don’t even realize it.

            My suggestion is to either go get an education and experience conducting research or, at the very least, doing critical reviews of literature. Or just stop trying to argue things scientifically. You are out if your element and your league. Seriously.

          • Michelle Erb

            Even if they are not personally opposed to birth control does it make any difference if they vote for candidates that are?

            Polls do show that most conservatives (albeit not the hard core forced-birthers) think birth control should be legal, but the candidates they vote for do not care. Just like they ignore it when their constituents want reasonable gun laws such as limiting the size of extended magazines or raising the minimum wage.

            A lot of these candidate are all war on women all the time. Should we pass laws to create jobs? Nope lets just pass another law restricting women’s access to healthcare that we already know will be overturned by the supreme court and cost our constituents a fortune in legal fees, but hey if we can make people suffer while we distract everyone’s attention from the fact that we are corporate shills…

          • Michelle Erb

            White Christian men used to say that women could not own property or vote and they certainly did not want them to control their own bodies by having access to birth control.

            The Bible was the main argument used to support enslaving blacks. Now you are using the same arguments to keep women trapped in poverty, abusive relationships etc. Your side is the one that is still in the dark ages.

          • myintx

            I’m not an expert on the bible, but I do hear pro-aborts saying the Bible supports abortion…. I’m not using the Bible to support anything. I’m using common sense and science. Science tells us that an unborn child is a human being. Common sense tells me that it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being. A woman cannot kill her newborn to get out of an abusive relationship. She should not be able to kill her unborn child either.

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton John Dalberg-Acton

          YOU SAID “If a fetus was a living being capable of breathing on their own (as life is defined in the Bible) there would be no issue”

          Answer: Since you refer to the Bible I will respond with the Bible on this matter. God said, “I knew you before I formed you in the womb”. Jeremiah 1:5

          I find no where in the Bible where it says a human life begins when a baby can breath on its own.

          YOU SAID “Anyone who is capable of living on their own has the liberty to do so. Which is why the U.S. Supreme Court focused on “viability.”

          Answer: I take it you meant to qualify the term viable with able to breath on its own outside the womb, since a baby is not “viable” to live on their own for many years. That as it may be, is still an arbitrary point, a decision that you or the Supreme Court makes based on a point in time when it becomes an inconvenient reality that what you wish to destroy is visibly and demonstrably the human baby it always was, only now it can breath on its own in its biological development. It is a very superficial weak construction which has no basis in historical mores or science or logic. It simply serves as a self delusional justification for abortion on demand.. And I am not sure what it means for premature babies or elder humans who need ventilation to survive for a time…but I digress..

          YOU SAID “We are not going to force women to carry fetuses no matter what the circumstances…”

          Answer: I agree in that a women whose life is endangered by her pregnancy has a right to self defense and thus to terminate. The same goes for a women who is raped forcefully, as the carrying of a pregnancy brought about by force is involuntary and therefore a continuing assault which the women has a right to end. That is a moral concept accepted nearly universally. Additionally, statutory rape of a minor should be given consideration as the child may or may not be ready physically or be mentally mature enough.

          However, sexual intercourse which occurred through voluntary adult choice has responsibility attached to it as do all choices in life, and in this case, it is the most important responsibility one has in their lifetime, a matter of life or death of another human being.

          Continuing on that same theme…
          YOU SAID “Many pregnant women become very ill and miss work or have to stop their education” and you gave a list of various circumstances of personal hardships.

          Answer:There is no moral basis for ending the life of a child simply because that child will be an inconvenience to others. That fails logically since having children is inconvenient at a number of different times through out their whole life. So when does the childs right to life outweigh its inconvenience to the mother? That leads you back to the arbitrary point of “viability” once again. What’s to stop the notion that viability should be when they can feed themselves?

          YOU SAID “I do not understand how you can call yourself prolife and support politicians who are cutting healthcare to real live women…” and so forth.

          Answer. First off that is a straw man argument to throw up a different issue and conflate the two as one. Second I never made any statement about the subject of health care so you do not know my position. Third, assuming I am a Republican politico because I do not accept the argument that a woman has the right morally or constitutionally to have an abortion on demand for reasons of inconvience, is a miscalculation.

          YOU SAID: “You can try all you want you will never stop abortions, and in the meantime you are causing a hell of a lot of collateral damage in your wake.”

          Answer: You are correct, I will never stop all abortions…but that is not the goal I have. There is an ancient saying “And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world”.

          Finally: Thank you for responding, it was interesting to read your response. I have gathered from your arguments that you are a young woman as your arguments are very contemporary.
          If you would take a suggestion, I believe you would agree with me, if you think about it a little while, that Life is not contemporary, Life is ancient. I would encourage to you search the phrase “And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world” and read about the philosophy that produces such a statement. I promise you it will someday soon make sense to you and you may save a life and in doing so, you may save your own.

          • Michelle Erb

            I cannot possibly read and respond to all of that, yet again.

            What I did read, I have already addressed repeatedly.

            For example, the Jeremiah quote. It applies to the concept of souls. That man has a soul before he is even conceived and after he dies. Do you really think embryos in petrie dishes have souls?

            When the majority of embryos fail to ever implant for natural reasons, do you really think each had a soul that never got a chance to live?
            .

          • Michelle Erb

            “And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world”

            Please pass that sentiment on to Republican governors such as Scott and Perry who are refusing to accept the fully paid for federal medicaid expansion. It is estimated that in Florida alone 6 people will die each day. Also, please petition Republicans to stop blocking all efforts to slow climate change, the number of people already dying in extreme weather events is staggering.

            Also please ask them to stop blocking life saving scientific research, regulations that prevent deadly mold from entering prescription medications, toxins from entering the water supply, and explosive materials being stored near schools. I am sure you must already agree with Ronald Reagan that there should be a limit to the type of firepower civilians can legally own.

            We may disagree about when life begins, but when it comes to the life that is already here, I make an effort to always vote “prolife.” Do you?

  • Michelle Erb

    I wonder how many fetuses will be aborted because your family pushed for abstinence only education even though it failed every adult member of your family.

  • Michelle Erb

    You are becoming quite the propagandist.
    First the lie that 92% of down syndrome fetuses are aborted, when the actual statistic only referred to a very small sample of cases where there had been a definitive diagnosis via amniocenteses. And since amniocentesis carries a significant risk of miscarriage usually only women who would consider abortion have that test in the first place.
    Next was the fairytale story about a 6 week twin abortion. Which even a moment of rational thought would reveal to have been scientifically impossible. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2014/01/her-mom-aborted-one-baby-not-realizing-she-had-twins/
    And now this outright race baiting.
    Not to mention all your misogynist lies about Wendy Davis and the religiously charged attacks on the President and on Jewish Children who objected to being forced to praise Jesus in public school.

    You are well on your way to becoming the leader of your very own hate group.

    • Michelle Erb

      Oh and I forgot your support for the Duck Dynasty guy. Who was NOT asked his opinion on homosexuality. But rather was asked about “sin.” Most people when asked such a question would focus on themselves, or talk about the true horrors in the world, but his hateful heart chose to focus first and foremost on homosexuals. Not to mention his racist claims that blacks were better off before they had any civil rights.

      But once again you tried to propogandize by claiming that Christianity itself was under attack, when Biblical Jesus would not have recognized anything that came out of that man’s mouth. Moreover most liberals were not even calling for him to be banned in the first place.

    • Michelle Erb

      In her defense, since Sarah Palin is such a bold-faced liar, the “flying while in labor” story may not be true.

      • Michelle Erb

        Fortunately now that there is no longer a danger of that Grifter ever being a heartbeat away from the presidency we do not have to try and figure out when she was and was not telling the truth about personal matters.

        I am trying to stay focused on the damaging propaganda and racially charged discord she and Bristol are now perpetuating. For them it is about narcissism and profit but this stuff can cause real damage.

  • Michelle Erb

    If 56.7% of abortions were conducted on a COMBINATION of black and Hispanic women doesn’t that mean that the largest individual group seeking abortions is still white women? I suppose even a propagandist such as yourself would not (yet) dare to post a headline stating that “abortion targets white ‘babies.'”

  • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

    There are quite a few news sources that indicate the higher rate of abortion in minority communities.
    http://blackdemographics.com/health-2/abortion/
    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-racial-statistics-of-abortion-cannot-be-ignored/

    • Michelle Erb

      You mean poor communities? Do you know what ethnic group has the highest percentage of the abortions in this Country? It is whites. Bristol had to add blacks and Hispanics together to make the numbers come out larger than the percentage of abortions being performed on white women.

      Not that it matters. The bottom line is that if we improve education and access to contraception, expand healthcare and raise the minimum wage, we can lower the rates of abortion in all communities.

      • Michelle Erb

        I refuse to refer to anyone who opposes sexual education and access to contraceptives and actually takes healthcare away from living women and children as “prolife.”

        I am prolife.

        • Michelle Erb

          Yup. I only do it if I have had ample opportunity to explain what I mean.

          • Michelle Erb

            It all depends on how its phrased. People also like to identify as “pro-choice” No one wants to self identify as being against “life” or “choice.”

  • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

    Look at the articles. They explain it better than I can, and I don’t have to type it all out.

    • Michelle Erb

      Denise we went through this when you kept cutting and pasting pieces of an article that you were told would prove that ‘life begins at conception” comes from the Bible. Not a single passage actually showed that, many showed just the opposite.

      If you can’t explain it in your own words, than you do not understand it.

      Health clinics that serve impoverished women locate themselves in impoverished communities. You do not put free clinics in wealthy gated communities. They are not targeting minorities,

      • Michelle Erb

        Many of the problems in this country were caused by depriving children of a good education, keeping them trapped in poverty and restricting their access to effective contraception..
        For hundreds of years Southern whites broke up black families, forbade black children from learning to read etc.. If we could focus on things like Head Start,better schools, and raising the minimum wage, the abortion rate would go down exponentially..

  • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

    “The second article ignores the facts.” Ok , I’ll just let you go with that. (Yes, the first article was NOT supporting the point. I’m busy with other stuff and trying to illustrate how the minorities are not being helped by abortion and acted in haste.)

    As for the Biblical support for life beginning at conception, if you read all of the answers in genesis carticle, you would see at the end that life beginning at conception is supported by Scripture. But when you look for a biblical ulnderstanding of life, you need to look at all of Scripture, and how scripture interprets Scripture. You can’t just pull a random verse from Leviticus or another Old Testament verse that deals with moral and ceremonial law, and take it out of context. You need to include how God created man and made man unique. If you are interested in seeking further guidance in seeking what God’s Word says, I would suggest find a Christian church — ( I would suggest a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church which holds to the inerrancy of Scripture.). I know that when Christ returns, all (even the current naysayers) will know Him and claim that He is God. I lovingly hope that you come to know that before He comes. I say that not as a “holier than thou,” but as someone who like to see you in heaven.

    I suspect that I will be mocked for this, but that,s just par for the course.

    • Michelle Erb

      No one is going to mock you for for this which amounts to wishing others well.

      The problems start when anyone tries to legislate for others based on their own “faith,” or even worse uses their “faith” to attack others, usually by cherry picking passages from the Bible/Koran etc.

    • Michelle Erb

      The problem with your “man is unique” argument is that a zygote does not have any of the properties that make man special. No “soul”, no consciousness etc. When you tell me that a bunch of cells in an IVF lab are exactly the same as a living child in your eyes, I think there is something about humanity that you fail to appreciate.

      Before our earlier conversation I always assumed that when fundamentalists fought to keep Terry Schiavo’s body alive along with others who were verifiably brain dead, it was because they thought there was a possibility of a “miracle” that would change things, now I wonder if it is because they do not value the very things that actually make us “alive.”

    • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

      Yes, when i screw up, I figure I might as well admit it. ( kinda liked farting in class as a teacher. Yup that’s happened! Own up!) for the second article, you really need to read it againbeciuase itches support my stance as does the answers in Genesis.
      I’m leaving this blog as it takes up too much time, and I tire of rephrasing and repeating.
      Blessings–

      • Michelle Erb

        Well I hope after all this you have at least come to realize that those of us who think medical decisions should remain between a woman and her doctor are not “evil baby killers.”

        • myintx

          ‘medical decision’, lol.. You cannot say the ‘choice to kill an unborn child’ can you? why is that? afraid to admit the truth, so you hide behind terms like ‘medical decision’, ‘termination’, and ‘clump of cells’.. sick

          • Michelle Erb

            The morning after pill is a “medical decision.” Conception is not simultaneous with intercourse. At that point, a victim may have semen inside her that has not even met up with an egg yet. She is not “killing” anything, she is making her body inhospitable. So if conception does occur there will be no implantation. If it really was a live independent being it could go live somewhere else.

            But since it has no blood, no brain, no heart and no consciousness, it is only potential life. Taking the morning after pill creates the exact same result as not having sex or using a condom in the first place.

            I can’t call it murder of a baby, because it isn’t.

          • myintx

            So, once an unborn child gets ‘blood’ you’re against killing it? it has it’s own heartbeat at 5 weeks. Is that your cutoff?
            Take a look at a 4D ultrasound of an unborn child at 20 weeks. Can you say loud and proud “I support killing that”?

          • Michelle Erb

            I am saying that you have absolutely no case for claiming that the embryo stage is a “person,” even though you keep repeating it over and over.

            Once there is a heartbeat I am personally uncomfortable with selective abortion. But I am uncomfortable with a lot of choices other people make and rather than trying to control other women’s bodies, I prefer to focus on contraceptive education and showing women other options. Prior to viability it is legally the woman’s choice. We could not stop abortion even if we wanted to, and I think forced birthers are causing so much damage by the policies they pursue attempting it.

            In the case of the 20 week, I am with Wendy Davis, in that we do need to revisit viability, in light of medical advances. I think there has to be a good reason at that point, such as a horrible prognosis for the fetus, however women and their doctors are in a better position to make that decision than male legislators who are terrified of vaginas. I think the AMA should probably step in and advise physicians regarding their Hippocratic oath.

          • myintx

            It’s not just ‘her body’ though. At 24 weeks its not just ‘her body’ right? It’s not just ‘her body’ at 20 weeks right? 19? 18? 17?…guess what – its STILL the same body of an unborn child in her womb. Just at a different stage of development. An unborn child doesn’t automatically become a person at viability. At least we treat it more like one though. If it shouldn’t be killed one day after viability, it shouldn’t be killed one day before, 1 week before, 1 month before, all the way back to when it was created (fertilization).

            Showing women other options is great (many pro-aborts are against adoption). But promoting killing as an option says you support the killing and that the killing is OK. Society in general discourages smoking. There are some smoking restrictions. Because of these 2 things the numer of kids that start smoking has gone down. Therefore if pro-aborts encouraged peaceful coexistence instead of promoting the so-called ‘right’ to kill, the number of senseless killings would go down too.

            “Prior to viability it is legally the woman’s choice” – so? Just because something is legal, it doesn’t make it right. It was legal to own slaves once (they weren’t considered people!).. Then the SC said it was legal to discriminate against black people. Wasn’t right. A SC ruling was even nullified to give blacks people the rights they deserve.

          • Michelle Erb

            Liberals always understood that blacks were people. It was southern, mostly Christian, whites relying on the Bible, who argued that they knew what was best and that not every living person had the right to control their own destiny and bodies. People like you I would wager. Certainly people like Bristol who is once again trying to tell blacks what they can and cannot do with their bodies, under the guise that she is helping them.

            Guess what? Christian Southerners also argued that blacks were better off as slaves. Bristol even backs the Duck Dynasty guys who says that blacks were happier before they had civil rights. He called them “godly.”

          • myintx

            But it’s not ‘their bodies’ they are doing something with. It’s the body of an unborn child. No one should, black, white, Asian, etc should have a ‘right’ to kill an unborn child.
            Slave owners were selfish and thought of themselves over the lives of other human beings. Sounds EXACTLY like a woman who kills an unborn child. EXACTLY!

  • Rudnick David

    the Nixon tapes prove that his strategy of population control and an all out covert war against minority communities is still succeeding. Thanks Republicans.

    • myintx

      Pretty sure more Democrats are pro-death than Republicans…

      • Michelle Erb

        With Republicans lack of concern about global climate change, “preemptive” wars for corporate profit, lack of health care, lack of regulations to prevent poisoning of the water supply, and ecoli in the food, not to mention blocking reasonable laws about the amount of people you should be able to kill in under a minute, blocking medical research, and preventing innocent death row inmates from having fair appeals or even DNA tests before they are executed, It should be obvious who is “pro-death.”

        Anyone who would consider saving embryos in an ivf lab and leaving behind a two year old child, if it is faster to save the embryos, is about as far from “prolife” as you can be. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2014/01/her-mom-aborted-one-baby-not-realizing-she-had-twins/#comment-1236353110

        • myintx

          Did I say I wasn’t concerned about anything else other than reducing the number of unborn children senselessly killed every year? A person can have more than one ’cause’. Do you go on PETA’s website and say ‘stop worrying about fur and worry about ecoli in your food!’? How about you? the ‘right to kill’ is more important than ecoli or global warming?
          I never said I would pick IVF embryos over a 2 year old child… If you’re in a burning hospital and in one room is your mother and another room a 99 year old man with dementia, who would you save? Does it make the other person less human? How about if Obama was in one room and Putin and Castro in another room – which room would you go to in order to try to help? If you pick your savior Obama, does that mean Putin and Castro shouldn’t have an equal right to live?

          • Michelle Erb

            I was talking about Republicans – not you specifically. The Republican platform is far from “prolife.”

          • myintx

            Doesn’t mean one is less human than the other…
            And, in an abortion, we’re not choosing whether to let a woman OR an unborn child DIE… The choice is to kill the unborn child for lame reasons like “not the right time for a child”…
            All human beings should have an equal right to LIFE. One’s happiness should not result in the death of a child – born or unborn.

          • myintx

            Not in the 2nd trimester… that means they disagree with RvW and that p o s should be overturned. Arkansas and North Dakota have both tried to pass laws restricting abortion past a certain time point. that means the people of those states wanted those laws (they voted in the legislators).

          • Michelle Erb

            At one point majority of people did not want blacks to have civil rights or be able to marry white people. We do not get to vote on other people’s constitutional rights, and the right to control ones own body is a constitutional right. How would you like if we all took a vote and said everyone has to be a wiccan? Or you can only marry the person that we choose for you?

          • myintx

            Abortion is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. And, ‘ones own body’ – the body of the unborn child is a separate body – so your ‘control ones own body’ argument goes right out the window.
            Row V Wade misinterpreted the Constitution. It should be overturned.

          • Michelle Erb

            If it was truly a separate body, it could live on its own. You know that is not true, but in your extremism you cannot view issues in anything but the most smug simplistic terms.

            For you to have the gall to say that even a woman who needs chemotherapy has to go through with a pregnancy, and should not even take a morning after pill, because of your baseless opinion that chemotherapy will not harm a fetus, and complete failure to understand how unbearably ill a pregnant woman on chemotherapy would become.

            It is scientifically impossible for there to be a reputable study claiming that chemotherapy wont harm a fetus. Chemotherapy is not just one drug, it a combination of drugs, many of them brand new . If you had any concept of the damage it does to adult cells you could not with a straight face claim that a fetus would be safe, or that any reputable doctor would give a pregnant woman these drugs.

            You are so sure of your extreme positions that instead of letting a woman abort a pregnancy before the embryo/fetus develops into anything resembling a live being, you would let it become a child who will suffer horrible abnormalities and most likely live a short painful life.

            A woman who is further along in her pregnancy is the best person to decide for her family whether it it best to risk delaying chemotherapy to let her baby continue to develop. She may reach a compromise and deliver the baby sooner than would otherwise be recommended. She and her doctor are the best ones to make these decisions, not an ignorant person like you who thinks embryos are people and being pregnant while having chemotherapy, or giving up psychiatric drugs because you got pregnant by rape, are no big deal , because “COEXIST.”

            You do not even realize that trying to pass insane laws that would stop morning after pills and IVF, and close health clinics, actually creates a push back that causes more people to support abortion rights in general. VGF and I are honest and admit that there are grey areas, and that sometimes there are difficult questions. You are a simpleton and you hurt your own cause. If you people would get off your high horses we could all get together to make sure that there are less desperate women in the first place.

          • myintx

            A preemie at 22 weeks needs machines to keep it alive… Guess it’s not a human being in your world then eh?
            A woman can control ‘her own body’, she should not KILL another body that just happens to be inside of her (unless her life is truly endangered by the pregnancy). There are 2 (occasionally more) human beings involved in a pregnancy – both should have a right to life.

          • Michelle Erb

            But it can be sustained without taking control of a woman’s body. If you find a way to keep zygotes or embryos alive outside the womb than we can pursue that. But right now, it is not an independent life, and we cannot force women to be the vessel no matter what her circumstances .

          • myintx

            It’s not ‘taking control’ it is COEXISTING with a woman. Encourage peaceful COEXISTence and a new human being gets a chance at a full and productive lifetime.
            The law says a woman cannot kill her unborn child after viability in most states in this country. Sounds like you disagree with those laws (no doctor will induce a baby at 24 weeks if the woman changes her mind).

          • myintx

            SC decisions have been overturned before.

          • myintx

            With 64% wanting abortion generally illegal after the first trimester it means they DON’T support Roe V Wade.

  • Michelle Erb

    Please excuse the title. It is an interesting piece: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/religion-and-politics_b_4764865.html

  • Eric V. Emmert

    As a man I’m staying out of the whole thing. Unless the woman has my baby inside her, I have no place saying a damn thing to her.

    As far as tax payer dollars going to the cause of killing babies (which is what I believe abortion is). Get over it, I would rather not have an over population problem like in India, China and Cambodia.

    Watch the movie 300 again, in the beginning there is a whole mountain of baby skulls.

    It might disgust some people but at the end of the day it’s not my business because these kids are not mine so I do my best no to think about such matters.

    • Stephanie

      Yes, you do have a right to an opinion. Just because you’re not a woman doesn’t mean you can’t be against child-murder (abortion). That’s like saying nobody can criticize the President’s policies unless they are or have been President.

      We do not have an overpopulation problem. On the contrary, people are having too few children. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. We are currently at 1.88 and the only reason we’re “replacing” ourselves is because of immigration. Many European countries are at around 1.7. This means that our population will age and die off, and we will not have enough people working to support the number of retirees. People will have to work until they die and won’t get to relax and enjoy the last years of their lives like they did in the past.

      Although pollution can be a problem, we have done a lot to fix the problem (L.A.’s air quality is better now than it was in the 70’s when it used to be physically painful to breathe in deeply). And a lot of the global warming “facts” were based on lies to push their population control (especially eugenics against minority groups) agenda.

      We aren’t running out of food, either. There is actually a surplus of food produced each year. Look at how much food is thrown away that is not sold at the supermarkets. How many people don’t pick off or use all the fruit on the tress in their yards. The reason people are starving is political: governments not giving the donations to their people, and not educating them on how to farm land or bring in water to their crops.

      China’s birth rate is 1.5 children per woman. They are also experiencing problems. Too few people in the work force. And a lot of narcissism from people growing up without siblings. That’s not to say that all only children are narcissists, but it’s a cultural thing where they have one child and spoil him/her.

    • HuntingMoose

      The question is when life begins and although many have believes, nobody knows for a fact.

      In case of abortion, are you killing a life or terminate a bunch of cells? But with all these questions, don’t you want to be rather err on the good side than err on the evil side?

      That question is valid for anyone unrelated, man or woman. If you are related the stakes are higher and it is no longer a monday morning quarterbacker outsider opinion.

      How to judge as an outsider is difficult but someone who is willing to err on the safe side no matter what the personal implications has earned my greatest respect .

      And as an outsider, you don’t have to stay a passive outsider. You can help those that made that decision

  • Michelle Erb

    If 56.7% of abortions were conducted on a COMBINATION of black and
    Hispanic women doesn’t that mean that the largest individual group
    seeking abortions is still white women? I suppose even a propagandist
    such as yourself would not (yet) dare to post a headline stating that
    “abortion targets white ‘babies.'”

    • myintx

      If I’m reading census data correct, the population of the US is about 63% white (non-Hispanic), 16.9% hispanic, and 13.1% black. If black women are getting 35.7% of all abortions but blacks are only 17% of the population then blacks are getting a disproportionally large percentage of abortions. Is it just a coincidence that many killing clinics are in black neighborhoods?

      • Bcgf

        What you should be looking at is the correspondingly high percentages of unintended pregnancy amongst blacks and Hispanics. Coupled with lower incomes, this explains the higher percentages of abortion amongst blacks and Hispanics. Thus us not about targeting. This is about demand.

        • myintx

          Unborn children don’t demand to be killed. They are targeted.
          PP kills over 300,000 unborn children a year. At about 450 a kill they make a lot of money. Of course they want more money. But, of course it’s only greedy CEOs that want more money… not PP.. oh no…. lol

          • Bcgf

            They are targeted? Well then that would have to be by the woman seeking the abortion. I doubt very much that’s the case. .

          • Michelle Erb

            So black women are aborting because they do not want to have black babies? Really? You are going with that?

            Or are you aligning yourself with the former slave owners who thought black women were not capable of thinking for themselves or making decisions about their own bodies.

            When black women have abortions it is because they choose to do so. Society may be partly responsible for the fact that many are in desperate circumstances, but when it comes to how best to deal with the hand they were dealt, black women make their own decisions.

          • myintx

            When a woman is pregnant and is considering abortion, she is not making a decision about ‘her own body’, she is making the decision on whether to kill another human being. Not all decisions are good ones. Planned Parenthood being right next store and the encouragement of pro-aborts with the ‘your body’ carp just increases the senseless killing – killing that YOU support. You want to reduce the number of abortions then quit supporting the killing of unborn children.

          • Michelle Erb

            So do you agree with this blog that it is all a racist attempt to “target black babies’ because of their skin color?

          • myintx

            I agree that Planned Parenthood is targeting because of skin color.

          • Michelle Erb

            So why do they still perform more abortions on white women?

            Have you ever heard liberals say you “should” or “must” have an abortion? As opposed to you have the “right to an abortion”?

            If you really think black women are not capable of making decisions on their own, why would they be more influenced by a clinic that tells them all of their options and does not pressure them in any way then they have been through the forty years since Roe V. Wade that you guys have been yelling and screaming at them, setting up so called pregnancy crisis centers where you actually lie to them about the dangers of abortion, and bully them to carry the baby to term.

            Why doesn’t your strategy work?

            Maybe it is because black women know what is best for them, and they are not “targets.”

          • myintx

            As a percentage of their population blacks and Hispanics have more abortions than white women.
            No one should have the ‘right’ to kill an unborn child.
            You can try to lay a guilt trip on me, but someone who doesn’t want to get pregnant who has consensual sexx without using multiple forms of protection is NOT making a good decision… .And someone who kills their unborn child for convenience because they don’t want to put in the effort to put their child up for adoption is NOT making a good decision. It’s pro-aborts like you and lines like ‘clump of cells’ and ‘termination’ that convinces women that killing is OK. And, it’s not. If we all encouraged women to be responsible and abstain (if not in a committed relationship) or use multiple forms of protection and that KILLING is wrong (coexist!), there would be a lot less unplanned pregnancies and a lot fewer abortions in this country.
            lol.. you think PP doesn’t pressure and lie… lol

          • Bcgf

            “As a percentage of their population blacks and Hispanics have more abortions than white women. ”

            And guess what? They also have more unintended pregnancies.

          • Michelle Erb

            You seriously think people are getting rich over a $450 medical procedure? With all the regulations they face, it is not about profit. I pay more to take my dogs to the vet.
            That you could actually think it is about getting rich and killing blacks, shows how dark your heart really is. Not everyone feels the way you do about black people.

            If you really want to convince people that you are a serious person, step one would be to at least acknowledge how difficult things were for women before they had access to contraception. Then you could begin to understand the true mission of planned parenthood.

          • myintx

            Do the math. $450 a kill times over 300,000 kills a year. LOTS of money. PP does make a profit. I don’t kill blacks. PP does.
            Things are difficult for women (and men too in this day and age). Doesn’t mean they should be shirking responsibility and asking for sympathy when they are too irresponsible to use multiple forms of contraception when having consensual sex. Doesn’t mean they should be able to kill to get out of their duty to be parents should an unexpected pregnancy result. I have responsibilities, you have responsibilities. If things get tough we still have responsibilities. We can’t start killing because, boo hoo, something bad happened to us. LIfe stinks sometimes, get over it and try your hardest instead of whining and taking the easy way out (e.g. killing your own offspring).
            If Planned Parenthood wants to stop the killing and hand out all the free contraception they want, go for it. They can stay open. Just stop the killing.

          • Bcgf

            Others don’t believe sbortion is murder myintx. We get that you do though.

            And how much do you think it costs PP in expenses per abortion? Or did you think they are no expenditures?

          • myintx

            It doesn’t matter what they ‘believe’ – abortion KILLS an unborn child. That’s a fact. They can be in denial all they want. If they are in denial its because pro-aborts convinced them they are just ‘getting rid of a clump of cells’ or similar b s.
            Planned Parenthood makes a revenue that exceeds their expenses. You can look it up in their annual reports. They pay their executives and killers well.

          • Bcgf

            Myintx, it is not a fact that life begins at conception. That is your personal belief. And that’s okay. It’s just not everyone’s.

          • myintx

            Yes it is. A new life, a new being, is created at fertilization.

            Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

            Professor Micheline Mathews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

            http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/stemcells/viewpoints.mathews.html

          • Bcgf

            Fertilization is just one of five stages of development at which it can be argued scientifically that life begins. There is no consensus amongst scientists as to when live begins. So you, and others, can believe it begins at fertilization but its not a scientific fact. It is your personal belief.

            You can’t change this no matter how many times you try and try and try here myintxz

          • myintx

            The new being comes into existence at fertilization.. viability, birth, etc are just stages in the life of the new human being that is already in existence.
            You just want to justify killing unborn children. Sickening.

          • Bcgf

            We are well aware that is your belief myintx. But to be honest, it really doesn’t matter to anyone but you. And so it should be.

          • myintx

            It’s scientific fact. :)
            Many people with voting power share my belief. We vote for politicians that will pass laws restricting the senseless killing of unborn children – however it can be done. One day, one of those laws will make it up to the Supreme Court to overturn the mistake known as Roe V Wade.

          • Bcgf

            It is a scientific fact as much as any of those other stages is a scientific fact. One can argue scientifically that any of them is when life begins. That is why there is no consensus amongst scientists as to when life begins.

            There simply are not enough of you to make abortion illegal in this country. And with the country becoming less religious, it’s a good guess there never will be. That why your feelings about abortion don’t really matter to anyone but you. And do it should be.

          • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

            Myintx, it is refreshing to read your posts. I commend you for continuing to stand up for life. It is exhausting to dialogue on these blogs. Thanks for your voice here!

          • myintx

            Thanks Denise :) I’ve read some of your posts too. Keep up the good work.

          • Michelle Erb

            Because with 850 locations that provide contraception and cancer screenings to millions of people, it is not possible that planned parenthood has any overhead. Abortion only constitutes 3% of the services they provide. That 450 must be pure profit, even when each abortion requires a doctor and other medical professional on staff.

            You have left no room for doubt. You are not in any way a serious person, and you really do not care to address any of the problems that women face, or actually reduce the number of abortions.

            You are just a bitter person who enjoys judging others. If women stopped having abortions, to whom could you feel superior?

          • myintx

            Don’t forget that PP gets money from the government. Their annual report shows an excess of revenue over expenses. And, that’s after they’ve paid the board of directors their salaries (they are part of the 1%), their killers, etc.
            And, of course I care. I never said PP had to close, they just should stop killing unborn children. And, I want a government that will work to put people back to work, not encourage them to stay home and write poetry. Putting people back to work ensures that men and women have money to take care of their responsibilities – including buying multiple forms of contraception and taking care of their children.
            This has nothing to do with judging others. This has to do with stopping the senseless killing of unborn children. Are you happy when parents kill their born children? Do you judge them? Do you abhor their actions? However you feel towards parents who kill their born children, you should feel the same way about parents who kill their unborn children (before or after viability).

      • Michelle Erb

        Blacks are disproportionally poor. Free clinics that serve the poor are located in poor urban areas. It is not like poor women can get in the car and drive to a suburban clinic.

        For hundreds of years Southern whites (mostly Christian) separated black families, tore children from their parents, forbade marriage, and banned slaves from learning to read. After the civil war they kept them in separate inferior schools, and even after the civil rights act passed, some cities actually closed their public schools and set up “scholarships” so that every white child could attend “private” schools.. Many actually cited the Bible to claim that blacks were better off as slaves and then servants.

        Given this history, coupled with republican policies that continue today, is it any wonder that for many the cycle continues, and a higher percentage of black women find themselves poor, lacking sexual education, and desperate?

        Yet today, many white Christians still claim they know what is best for black people. Bristol even supported the Duck Dynasty guy, as espousing “Christian values” when he said that blacks were happier working in the fields before they got civil rights. And she claims to wonder why blacks are more likely to vote Democratic.

        • Michelle Erb

          Before you parrot “But Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves.” There is a reason that I said “white Christian Southerners. Before the civil rights act Christian southerners were primarily Democrats and Liberal northerners were the Republicans who fought against slavery etc.

          When the Democratic party realized that civil rights was the correct thing to do, the southern Christians jumped ship and became Republicans. In the meantime, the racist “Southern Strategy” was so sickening that many decent people could no longer stand to be Republicans.

          Rand Paul actually had the nerve to go to Morehouse college and try to “educate” the students who know far more about civil rights history than Paul ever will. When he asked them if they knew about the republicans party history, he was booed for his condescension.

          Blacks do not even have to be educated to know which party the people wearing the white sheets belong to now. Bristol’s propaganda only works to convince her fellow racists that they are somehow on the side of angels. The rest of us can still see the white sheets.

          • myintx

            You’re the one spewing propaganda. What flavor was the koolaid you had? wow
            Interesting that Clarence Thomas (yea, I know, you don’t like him. boo hoo) says he sees more racism from Northern elites than from southerners.
            Slave owners treated their slaves as their property. They were selfish and though about themselves over the fate of other human beings… sounds like another group you know? Yep… women who kill their unborn children.

          • Michelle Erb

            Well if one black person says it, it must be true right? It is not like Clarence Thomas and his wife have gained anything from aligning themselves with the tea party? (Hint huge salary for her, and Supreme Court appointment for his original conservative alliance).

          • myintx

            So, every liberal black person got rich through hard work, but every conservative black person got rich from aligning themselves with the tea party? lol.. Keep drinking that kool aid.

          • Michelle Erb

            See if you can follow this math (I know math is a hard). One is not equal to all. Even some is not equal to all. Clarence Thomas is one person he neither speaks for nor represents all black people. Quoting his biased opinion is not persuasive of anything. His performance on the supreme court has shown time after time that he cannot even think for himself which is why he never risks speaking at oral arguments. Ever.

          • myintx

            I’ll bet you have issues with Dr. Ben Carson too… He has said white liberals are racist.
            Love how you think Clarence Thomas’ opinion is biased… but I’m sure Obama’s is not.. lol
            It’s Obama that should keep quiet. Every time he opens his mouth he spews LIES.

          • Michelle Erb

            Dr. Carson’s comparison of liberals to Nazis destroys his credibility on anything. Since he obviously was a gifted surgeon I suspect he is suffering from some type of senility. Unlike Thomas he is not motivated by greed. But when he speaks these days he is not impressive.

          • myintx

            There are dozens of things Obama has done to destroy his credibility. I bet you love the liar-in-chief though.

          • Michelle Erb

            Why do you think Obama is relevant to this conversation? Could it be because we were discussing the credibility of two specific black people and Obama is black? Do you not see how odd that is?

          • myintx

            We were talking about racism… then 2 conservative black man, which you didn’t like… so I figured I’d see if you liked a liberal black man. It appears you do.

          • Michelle Erb

            Did you think about that in your head before you wrote it?

          • myintx

            Are you afraid to admit you voted for Obama?

          • Bcgf

            Haha! Seriously? People who voted for Obama, particarly in 2012, are not embarrassed to admit it. You crack me up
            Myintx.

            Oh hey, by the way,be sure to watch Meet the Press tomorrow. Something special,just for you!

          • myintx

            Gene Simmons says he regrets voting for Obama… :) I’m sure there are plenty of other people too. Ones that have gotten laid off because of Obamacare, ones that were duped by Obamacare…

          • Bcgf

            Haha, well he didn’t vote for him 2012, did he?

            Laid off over Obamacare? Myintx, you are a CEO’s dream. Talk about being duped! I’m sorry but you really do crack me up. And just wait… Well before 2016, the GOP will have stopped calling it Obamacare. ;).

            Don’t forget Meet the Press tomorrow!

          • myintx

            Simmons voted for Obama in 2008…
            Yes, companies have laid off employees because of Obamacare. You’re the one being duped if you think that’s not the case. You probably don’t think there are any LIES associated with Obamacare either (‘if you like your doctor…’, no taxes (I wish), etc).
            Emilie Lamb voted for Obama in 2012. Then her insurance was cancelled. She has Lupus. Now Obamacare is costing her more – much more.

          • Bcgf

            Yes, but he didnt vote for him in 2012.

            Sure, some companies have blamed Obamacare for layyoffs. and threatened to
            layoff because of it. That doesn’t mean it’s the actual reason though or that they actually went through with the threat.

            I have no idea who Lamb is, but if her insurance actually was cancelled it would have been because it was substandard and a better one had to be offered by law. Obamacare is not perfect but it certainly makes a lot of improvements…. A big one being that people like Lamb with a pre- existing condition can no longer be denied coverage for that condition ( thank you Obamacare!) Thank you for using her as an example

          • Bcgf

            Funny, here’s some fact checking for you and a pretty thorough analysis of Lamb’s situation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/13/does-americans-prosperity-ad-about-woman-lupus-tel/

            Turns out Lamb did have a crappy state sponsored plan capped at $25,000 in healthcare. Such limits are no longer allowed (thank you Obamacare!) and that’s why the plan was cancelled. She would have been in real trouble when her lupus worsened or she required additional costly healthcare. Unfortunately for Lamb, red state TN opted out of Medicaid expansion. Her plan options and their costs under The federal exchanges are presented well In this article.

            Funny too that Marsha Blackburn is involved in this little piece of right wing propaganda. Don’t forget to watch Meet the Press on Sunday!

          • myintx

            There is a Medical Device TAX in Obamacare. Several companies have already laid off people because of the tax (someone has to pay for it). Even the Democrats want to get rid of that tax.

            Lamb said her old insurance (yes, she did have insurance before) was better than what she is on now. TN was FORCED to cancel her plan because of Obamacare! “The short list of benefits did not meet the minimum requirements set by the Affordable Care Act, particularly the part of the law that said insurers couldn’t set caps on annual spending for care. So the state had to cancel the plan. Tennessee officials requested a waiver from the Obama administration to keep it operational, but the waiver was denied.” Her new plan is worse and she has to work 2 jobs. Obamcare stinks.

          • Bcgf

            Um no, her new plan is better. The reason her old one was cancelled was because it was capped at $25,000. Clearly you didn’t read the link carefully.

            As fir the medical device tax and layoffs, I’d like to see those figures Michelle. Sorry, can’t take your word for stuff. And you’ve already shown your inability to evaluate your sources. And yes someone has to pay for it. How about that ” someone” be corporate profits? You are aware, are you not, that one of the prime reasons healthcare in thus country costs so much more than other countries is the cost of certain medical devices? No, you probably aren’t aware……

            Sorry, but the improvements that the ACA has brought in fir people are going to be a nail in the GOP coffin come election time.

          • myintx

            If her new plan were better she wouldn’t have had to start working 2 jobs.. duh.

            here is one source: http://www.fiercemedicaldevices.com/special-reports/10-largest-medical-device-layoffs-2012

            The democrats are shying away from obamacare. That’s likely the reason there are even more delays, so that Obama can pull the wool over peoples eyes at the mid term elections and say “see, no impact… (silent snicker)”

            TRAINWRECK!

          • Bcgf

            Democrats are shying away from Obamacare???? Hahahaha! You wish!

            And no, her supposedly working two jobs does NOT mean her new plan isn’t better. Where do you even get that????It just means she has to pay more. Her old plan was cheap because it was capped at $25000. It was insufficient and put her at great risk. The point of these reforms is so that people have adequate coverage. She did not.

          • Bcgf

            Did you even read your link myint? It discussed how the tax might just be being used as a scapegoat for planned cuts and that the ACA has a dual effect on the industry: increased sales due to increased coverage and reduced profits due to the tax.

            Truth is, a lot of CEO’s are just blaming Obamacare for cuts because it easier than saying ” I want to keep my huge bonus”. Last weekend the CEO of AOL was in trouble for blaming reduced 401k benefits on Obamacare and two of the employees’ ” distressed babies”. This after announcing huge profits and paying himself $12 million in 2013. And yet you eat it up. You’re a CEO’s dream.

          • Bcgf

            And to be honest, I don’t understand how a Prolifer would be against the ACA. Has it not occurred to you what disallowing insurance companies to impose lifetime maximums and deny coverage for ore-existing conditions means for someone who finds out they are at risk for giving birth to a special needs child? Do you not think of these things????

          • Michelle Erb

            A lot of pregnant woman could not even purchase maternity care before the ACA. The few companies who would sell it to an individual required a waiting period. If you actually had assets or an income above the poverty level you were not eligible for any government programs. So a normal labor alone could lead to bankruptcy, never mind a C section or something more complicated

            Do not try to tell me that did not lead to some abortions.

          • Bcgf

            I know Michelle. It’s just ridiculous that a Prolifer like myintx would not consider all these things and instead claim the ACA is bad because a bunch of CEO’s claim they may ” have to” layoff of people because of it.

          • myintx

            The ACA is bad for PLENTY of reasons. Someone from Obama’s own party called it a trainwreck.

            You want some more reasons

            – If you like your doctor…. If you like your health care plan… LIE of the year.

            – It’s LOADED with TAXES. Quite a few affect the middle class directly. Thus breaking THIS promise from your dear leader:

            “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,”

            President Obama, September 12, 2008 (regarding Obamacare).
            – The CBO has said it could cut the labor force by over 2 million…. so people can stay home and write poetry? lol
            – Premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing (more then they were before obamacare).

          • Bcgf

            Hmmm…. Premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing???? Really. You believe anything don’t you.

            Certainly some will see increases in premiums and deductibles. Prior to the ACA,all kinds of insufficienct health insurance plans were allowed and people could choose not to have insurance and jnsurance companies could choose not to insure people. All that has changed…. Which is great progress…. And it should be expected that this will cost some people more and cost more for health insurance companies. (And some people will pay less and get better coverage than before .). That’s understandable and necessary in order for all Americans to be adequately covered.

            Lots of good things. And that’s precisely why the GOP fought it. They certainly have you fooled, those Koch Brothers.

          • myintx

            I see how you chose only to address one of the bad things about Obamacare. With a very low approval rating, plenty of people are seeing the bad things about Obamacare.
            Koch brothers… you just proved you drank the koolaid.

          • Bcgf

            Really? You have no problem with the Koch brothers influence on politics? Or are you simply unaware?

            Lots of things about Obamacare that both sides like ( even if Republicans claims to dislike the Act): no more lifetime limits, no more denying coverage for pre- existing conditions, children can stay in parents’ plan longer, individual plans must now cover mental illness and addiction, pregnancy and child birth must now be covered,etc.

            Are you aware that a lot of people disapprove if it not because it goes too far, but rather because it doesn’t go far enough? No, I bet you didn’t.

            Can’t wait until 2016!

          • myintx

            Keep drinking that koolaid.
            There are just a few good things about Obamacare. The bad things outweigh the good things by a long shot. Someone in Obama’s own party called it a Trainwreck.
            In the first mid-terms more Republicans won because of the disaster known as Obamacare. More Republicans will win in 2016 too.

          • Bcgf

            Haha!!! Keep telling yourself that Myintx.Just like Obama wasn’t going to win a second term??!!! I can’t wait until 2016!

          • myintx

            Obama had the youth easily fooled and media support for the presidential election. The media doesn’t cover the midterms nearly as much so those voters wont be voting.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11poll.html?_r=0

            The dems are distancing themselves from obamacare, but it wont work.

          • Bcgf

            Hahaha!!!! Can’t wait for 2016!!!!!

          • myintx

            Guess you want Republicans to win. Yeah :)

          • myintx
          • Bcgf

            Well even if that is the case, she is still better off without the $25000 cap and insurance companies no longer being able to deny her coverage for her lupus. She was at horrible risk before the ACA. I’m so glad you used her as an example myintx. Not quite sure it has had the effect that Marsha Blackburn and The Koch Brothers intended.

            So much about the ACA that people like…. Even Republicans who say they hate the Act.

          • myintx

            She already HAD coverage… It’s Obama who LIED with the ‘if you like your plan…’ b s.
            Now she has to work 2 jobs with her debilitating disease.
            Keep on spinning. You aren’t going to be able to spin your way out of this TRAIN WRECK!
            I guess you do see the light that democrats are distancing themselves from the train wreck known as Obamacare

          • Bcgf

            You’re not listening myintx. Her coverage was inadequate Her plan was capped at $25,000 a year. Her lupus has a 1 in 3 chance of affecting her kidneys. Her coverage would have been insufficient for this.

            No spin necessary. Just the facts.

          • myintx

            She may end up paying more than that for meds under her new plan!
            “Given my health problems, the physical and emotional drain that this puts on me is difficult to bear. It’s also made it much more difficult for me to care for my ailing mother, who depends on me for help.”

            “Mr. President, you’ve now broken all of these promises–and not just to me.”
            But hey, she voted for the guy.

          • Bcgf

            Bullshit. The plan she has now has a maximum annual out of pocket of $1,500. Read the politifact link I gave you. It explains all of the options available to her. You really don’t like facts do you myintx?

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/13/does-americans-prosperity-ad-about-woman-lupus-tel/

          • myintx

            Google ‘politifact’ and you will see it is biased.
            This woman has to work 2 jobs now to cover the premiums and out of pocket costs. Obama LIED and said she could keep her health plan if she liked it…..

          • Bcgf

            Facts are facts myintx. Sure she was paying hardly anything but she had inadequate coverage. She was capped at $25,000 per year in health coverage. She was only covered for two emergency room visits. Her hospital stays were capped. All she needed was for her lupus to start affecting her kidneys ( a 1 in 3 chance), an accident or an additional illness requiring hospital stay(s) or specialists or extra ER visits ( she says she goes often) for her plan to not cover any of this and possible ruin her financially. And then what would happen? She wouldnt be able to get additional coverage because they would be pre existing conditions. Do we expect her to go untreated? Or does she expect others to pick up her costs?

            With her new plan ( and she chose the platinum one bt, knowing she is at risk and a heavy user of health care) she does not have to worry about any if this, plus she gets access to therapy, basic dental and eye, non generic drugs and once her out of pocket huts $1500 she has no copays for treatment.

            Bottom line, with her having lupus, there is a very good chance that she will surpass the $25000 annual cap her old plan had before she would have been old enough for Medicare. And you can bet she’ll be thanking Obamacare then!!!
            Funny thing, the Kochs and Marsha Blackburn inadvertently brought forward someone who illustrates beautifully why the ACA was needed.

          • myintx

            Now that she has to work 2 jobs, the stress will probably send her to the ER! or to an early grave!
            Obama LIED….

          • Bcgf

            Better to have an extra part time job to make the extra $300 a month fir health insurance that provide adequate coverage than the very real possibility of financial ruin and not being covered for advanced lupus, an additional illness, or an accident. If she doesn’t realize how lucky she is by now, she will later.

            Shame oin the Kochs and Blackburn. Shame on them.

          • myintx

            “Given my health problems, the physical and emotional drain that this puts on me is difficult to bear. It’s also made it much more difficult for me to care for my ailing mother, who depends on me for help,” wrote Lamb.
            Shame on Obama for LYING.

          • Bcgf

            Just imagine the strain it would put on her without Obamacare had her lupus moved to her kidneys ( 1 in 3 chance) or she had another illness or an accident that put her over her maximum. Or just one extra ER visit ( she was only covered for two). And gosh, imagine what effect THAT would have had on her ability to care for her mother. Having to earn an extra $300 oer month for jnsurance is nothing compared to that financial toll or inability to get treatment.

            You’re just not thinking myintx. Which is exactly what the Koch brothers are counting on when they run these ads.

            More likely than not, Emilie Lamb will be grateful for Obamacare. Without it she was headed for trouble. She’s an excellent case for how much we needed this reform. You just too stubborn or stupid to admit it. I’m not sure which. But it doesn’t really matter which.

          • Bcgf

            Myintx, maybe reading it from FOX will help the facts sink in for you:

            http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/02/14/dont-be-fooled-by-another-obamacare-horror-story/

          • myintx

            You’re the one who is not thinking… not remembering all the LIES associated with Obamacare.
            Even the Dems are distancing themselves from Obamacare. And Democrat Mary Landrieu wants people to be able to keep their healthcare plan (of course, she could be lying to win votes, she is a democrat like Obama)

          • myintx

            Did you (bgcf) get banned AGAIN? what did you do this time.
            Don’t like Mary Landrieu or something?

          • Michelle Erb

            Gene Simmons regrets voting for Obama? Wow. Cool Story. What does Justin Bieber think?

          • Michelle Erb

            BTW Gene Simmons is a very wealthy Republican who was born in Israel. He loved Bush and openly supported the Iraq war. He voted for Obama in 2008 because Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket and McCain admitted that he was not an expert on the economy. Are you sure you really wanted to bring that up here?

            You right wing extremists sure love your anti-family values rock stars don’t you? At least he isn’t bat crazy or a child molester like Nugent.

          • Michelle Erb

            Seriously, what is wrong with you? I gave you a history to explain why blacks in general are more likely to vote Democratic. You cited two Conservatives, somehow claiming that their opinions wore more worthwhile just because they happen to be black, as if that makes them spokespeople for an entire race.

            When I pointed out what makes those two particular gentlemen less than credible you tried to generalize that to all black people. In this context, the distinguishing characteristics about Thomas and Carson are that their opinions are extreme and unsupportable (like yours) not that their skin is black.

            I am proud that I voted for Obama. But there is no reason to get into that at this point. Why should we just start naming random black people and giving our opinions about them?

            You seriously do not see how messed up that is?

          • Michelle Erb

            Treating people like property? You mean like saying it is no big deal to deny a rape victim a morning after pill, and that women do not really need psychiatric drugs or health saving medicine. . Or screw them if they are trapped in an abusive relationship, or already have children they need to care for.

            In your eyes, a bunch of chromosomes that have not even implanted in the womb yet are of the exact same value as her life and her living children. You fail to see the difference between a person with a conscience, a brain and a soul, and a bunch of cells. Seems like you see pregnant women as not quite human, since their lives and well being do not matter to you at all if there is any possible that conception may occur. Kind of like the way slave owners looked at the slaves.

            By the way many slave owners were so delusional that they did not think they treated their slaves like “property” they actually thought they were kind to them and the slaves were better off. Even today, some southerners will brag that their ancestors were the “good slave owners.” I have recently heard tea party members claim slaves should have been grateful for food and a roof over their heads. Very similar to how Phil Robertson and Bristol now claim that blacks were better off working in the fields before civil rights, or how Sarah Palin pretends that talking about actual institutionalized inequality is “playing the race card.”

          • myintx

            What DAY in the development cycle do you think an unborn child deserves to be saved? If its 20 weeks, what about 19 weeks and 5 days? it’s the same human being both of those days. An unborn child has it’s DNA in place after fertilization – the same DNA it has its entire life. The same DNA that says what color hair and eyes it will have. An unborn child is a human being. It deserves a chance at life.
            I NEVER said women should be denied health saving medicine . Neither do pro-life doctors. Women can be treated for any medical condition they have during a pregnancy. They just shouldn’t intentionally kill their unborn child because the medicine they are talking ‘might’ harm them.
            If you only want to make killing an unborn child legal within 48 hours after a rape and no other condition, I’m sure many pro-lifers would compromise in order to save the 950,000+ unborn children killed every year in the US for reasons other than rape – killing that you apparently support.
            Every human being should have an equal right to life.

          • Hillary Smith

            Michelle Erb your post confirms how stupd and uneducated you are…you absolutely know nothing of the South, Southern Christians, early Democratic/Repubican parties, etc…. lay off the MSNBC for your education needs… much better reading material at your local public library…. you’ll find true hstory completely contridicts all your self motivated false accusatons…. another {sigh}

          • Michelle Erb

            Care to enlighten me about the facts I got wrong?

          • Michelle Erb

            In case it wasn’t obvious, while I could not help but point out that the slave owners and perpetrators of Jim Crow laws were primarily white christian southerners. I do not in any way intend to represent that all or even most southern whites Christians are bigots.

            When Bristol actually tried to foment race hate by claiming that liberals are targeting black babies, and pretended to be bewildered about why blacks are usually Democrats, a little historical perspective became necessary.

            I will say though, that at this point every single person who identifies themselves as a member of the tea party is now a de facto racist. At every single rally and every facebook page that identifies itself as “tea party” there are outright racist comments, threats, cartoons, and even souvenirs for sale. Since I have never seen a leader or even a single a member, call out those bigoted acts, or say that the bigots do not speak for them, at this point they do.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton John Dalberg-Acton

            More setting the record straight…

            First off…. Lincoln wanted to deport all Blacks from the US to the British Colonies in the Caribbean, because he believed they were inferior and could not make good citizens of the US. And that was even after they were emancipated! Lincoln was a racist who used the Slavery issue to his political advantage when it was convenient.

            Second…those Dixie Democrats from the civil rights era…very few of them became republicans. I have no love for the Republican Party or the Democrat Party but the truth is the truth. Most of the Dixie Democrats folded back into the Democrat Party like Bird and others or joined up with Wallace (a Democrat) who started his own party.

            Lastly, the more I read of what you write the more I realize how you are spouting political talking points and historical fiction. It would be a full time job to correct your inaccuracy and faulty logic. That is sad.

          • Michelle Erb

            No one said Lincoln was perfect. That was not even an issue here. I was just pointing out that he has no connection to what is now the modern Republican party. The party’s current attitude toward blacks is beyond unsettling.

            Lincoln considered giving blacks an option to go somewhere that might be better for them, some did choose to go to Liberia. The plan Lincoln actually settled on was to immediately give blacks civil rights. Unfortunately he was assassinated by a Southerner first, and the horrible “reconstruction period” and then “Jim Crow” followed. All supported by a majority of white Christian Southerners.
            Are you seriously claiming white southern Christians are not primarily republican? Have you never heard of red states and blue states?
            Google the “Southern Strategy.”

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton John Dalberg-Acton

          Just to set the record straight…
          –Northern Whites owned slaves in close to the same numbers as southerners did for over 75 years.
          –The majority of slave traders were Northern business men.
          –Free Blacks were among some of the largest slave owners in the south.
          –Less than 10% of all Southerners ever owned a Slave. The same percentage as in the north.
          –Many Southerners risked all to help abolish slavery peacefully. Or do you think Northerners just came down to the South unnoticed and set up the underground railroad all alone, like as if they lived there all their life?
          –Equating Christianity with slave ownership shows an ignorance of the history of the abolitionist movement in the South and exposes your possible bigotry against Christians.

          • Michelle Erb

            I did not come here to bash Christians. I came here to respond to Bristol’s claim that she cannot understand how blacks could possibly not be Republicans.
            Yes Christians (especially Quakers) are the very people who put an end to slavery. Just as many Christians today are the ones fighting for gay rights. However, my point was that the whole reason that slavery was acceptable and institutionalized was because of the argument that it was approved of in the Bible. Same with anti-miscengenation laws (“Curse of Ham” anyone).

            Most of your other statements are inaccurate. For example some blacks owned slaves but they were far from a large percentage. Moreover, some blacks were technically slave owners, because while they were grandfathered in as “freemen” their family members were not lawfully allowed to be free, so they bought them from white slave owners to give them the closest thing possible.

            Of course this entire Country was responsible for slavery, including the North. The issue here is which party is still harboring racists and actually implementing policies that are horrible for most minorities.

            Tell me which party is still waiving around confederate flags? Which party hails Ted Nugent as a hero, and not a draft dodging child molesting misogynist who called the President a “half bred mongrel.”

      • Michelle Erb

        Okay this is going to be a bit of a complex thought. See if you can follow it though.

        When Planned Parenthood is easily accessible, people in that neighborhood are LESS likely to have an abortion, because they actually have access to affordable contraception and education.

        Once someone is desperate and pregnant they will travel, even if it is a hardship, to get that abortion. So when you pull planned parenthood out of the neighborhood, you raise the rates of unplanned pregnancies.

        • myintx

          See if you can follow this – Planned parenthood can be easily accessible and provide all the free contraception it wants – without having to KILL unborn children :)
          Or, would they lose too much money if they stopped their killing.. boo hoo…

          • Michelle Erb

            You know very well that planned parenthood is a non profit. As long as abortion is legal someone will perform them. Most caring people would prefer that they remain legal and we not go back to coat hangers. The only time people get rich off performing abortions is when they are illegal and dangerous.
            You have a choice. Allow them to provide birth control and education, or stop them. You will not stop abortions, so in the meantime YOU who close down planned parenthood and other health clinics are killing women and causing the very unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortion.

          • myintx

            ‘Planned profit’ – there’s a Freudian slip, lol
            Planned Profit makes LOTS of money. They just put the money back into the business and call themselves non-profit. They pay their doctors and executives with the money they make from killing unborn childrenand they expand their killing empire. Pretty much the same as regular businesses do, except they don’t have stock holders.
            Sometimes women kill their newborn children. They go to jail and their lives are RUINED. Boo freakin hoo. You want to make killing a newborn legal because the poor, poor, poor, woman’s life will be ruined if it’s not? It’s not always about the woman. It shouldn’t be. In a pregnancy, there are 2 (occasionally more) human beings involved. BOTH should have a right o life.

          • Michelle Erb

            I accidentally wrote “profit” because it was stuck in my mind how ridiculous it was for you to suggest it was about profit. These people are risking their lives to help women(because thanks to hatefilled psychos like yourself provider’s lives are in danger). There are far easier ways to make a lot more money, especially if you have a medical degree..

          • Michelle Erb

            Let me be clear I do not think most people who oppose abortions are either hate fueled or deranged. I am addressing you specifically. With your complete lack of empathy toward cancer and rape victims. Your “boo hoo” attitude toward women suffering mental illnesses or trapped in abusive relationships, your inability to distinguish between a fertilized embryo in a petri jar and a live person, and your dismissive attitude that people who do not want to go back to the days of coat hangers are just profit seeking baby killers. You have shown yourself to be smug simplistic uncaring and mentally unhinged. Most people are “prolife’ because they actually do have empathy, and that is why even a conservative state like Mississippi overwhelmingly rejected a law to give fetuses person hood status. If extremists like you would shut up and get out of the way the rest of us could work together to make abortions rare, and stop closing clinics that actually do save women’s lives.

          • myintx

            I have empathy for them, but killing an unborn child is rarely ever the answer. Life is horrible sometimes, but killing should never be a choice.
            If a rape victim doesn’t realize she is pregnant until she is 35 weeks along, can she kill her unborn child? How about if she doesn’t realize she is pregnant until she goes into labor – can she kill the born child because the thought of her rapists evil spawn roaming the earth causes her mental distress? NO. Yes, I have empathy for her, but she can get counseling to get through her trauma. In a rape pregnancy there are 2 victims. The unborn child is a victim too – it should not be killed.
            The clinics are welcome to stay open. They just need to stop killing unborn children.

          • Michelle Erb

            We have already discussed in depth your ludicrous straw men arguments about killing actual newborns or electively terminating 35 week pregnancies. Have you changed your position about the morning after pill for everyone, IVF for the infertile, or early termination for rape victims and people with serious medical and psychiatric conditions?

          • myintx

            They are not straw men arguments because it’s the same human being that is getting slaughtered. I see how you avoided answering them though 😉
            Have you changed your position about a woman killing her unborn child at 11.5 weeks because she cannot afford a child or the ever so lame reason of ‘not the right time for a child’? How about when she finds out the sex (before viability) and kills because she wanted a girl instead of a boy. Or how about if she wants to kill to hide the results of an affair from her husband.
            Again, pro-life doctors say that patients can continue on their medicine while they are pregnant without there being an ethical issue. Its the intentional slaughtering that is wrong.

          • Michelle Erb

            I have no idea what “position” you are referring to. I did not come to this site because I love abortions but rather because I was so disgusted by Bristol’s race baiting attept to claim that liberals are specifically targeting black “babies.”

            Once I got here I was further disgusted by your cavalier attitude toward rape and cancer victims and your inability to distinguish between an embryo in a petrie jar and a real live human being. I also have incredible empathy for women who desperately want children but have to make the gut wrenching decision to abort a late term pregnancy because of a horrible diagnosis for either themselves or the fetus, and then are put through the wringer by horrible laws and actual deranged persons who call them “baby killers.”

            While I am personally uncomfortable with selective abortion once there is a heartbeat, I, like most caring people, do not want to go back to the days of coat hangers, and also recognize a woman’s constitutional right to control her own body., which as you know does not extend to viability.

            In my opinion the best way to end selective abortions, is to make contraception and sexual education more available, and to end the republican policies that trap people in poverty. Not, by closing the very clinics that prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

            When planned parenthood was under attack by Texas and the Komen foundation hundreds of thousands of women, many who would never have an abortion themselves. rallied to the defense of planned parenthood, because they personally knew about that the healthcare they provide to women who have no other access..

            Now that there is an abortion pill, you will never stop abortions completely, so get out of the way of those who are actually trying to make them more rare.

          • myintx

            Your position is that you are for abortions. If you are pro-choice, you are for the senseless killing of unborn children. it’s as simple as that.
            LIke I said, I do have empathy for rape and cancer victims, but slaughtering an innocent human being isn’t the answer. Counselling is the answer for some. Taking necessary medication while pregnant is OK. You’ve seen the quote from pro-life physicians and the studies that say chemo won’t harm the unborn child.
            Sometimes women kill their born children. They go to jail and their poor lives are ruined. Want to make killing a newborn legal so that those women don’t suffer? huh? Cause its ALL about the woman, right? Women first then children (born or unborn) right? Killing a newborn is no different than killing an unborn child – it’s the same human being.
            All most pro-lifers want is for Planned Parenthood to stop the killing. If they want to stay open in Texas and hand out free condoms they CAN. No law is Texas is saying they cannot stay open and hand out birth control. All they have to do is comply with the law regarding the killing of unborn children.
            Laws WILL reduce the number of children that are senselessly killed every year: Many women DO obey the law.

            From the CDC:
            Multiple factors are known to influence the incidence of abortion, including the availability of abortion providers (12,73-75); state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods (76), parental involvement laws (77), and legal restrictions on abortion providers (78); increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing (79,80); shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population (81,82); and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health-care services, including contraception (83,84).

          • Bcgf

            You’re not going to get such a law myintx because the vast majority simply do not equate a zygote with a born child. We get that you and that’s okay. Just don’t d expect others to share your belief. It’s not going to happen.

          • myintx

            Doesn’t hurt to try to change hearts and minds. I’ll support any just about any law restricting the senseless killing of unborn children. Like the one that was struck down in Arkansas, which it sounds like you would have supported (ban after 12 weeks with exceptions).

          • Bcgf

            I just wish Prolifers and pro choicers could work together on common ground: reducing unintended pregnancy, reducing abortion, better support for working and low income mothers, etc,

      • Rudnick David

        thats what i was saying. Look at these numbers then think of the economics that are set into place. It is imposible to be living off of a minimum wage and suitably support 3+ children. Drop the birth control argument because things happen. I just do not understand why society has to punish women for being women and having babies. Why people have to look down on what in reality is a blessing.

        • myintx

          Are we ‘punishing’ a father by making him pay child support if he doesn’t want the child? This isn’t about punishment, its about responsibility.
          If a woman doesn’t realize she is pregnant until 30 weeks can she kill her unborn child? What if she doesn’t realize she is pregnant until she is in labor? can she kill her newborn? Is it ‘punishing’ her if we don’t let her kill her newborn? NO. It’s about saving the lives of human beings . Born and unborn.

    • Denise Hintz Wolfgram
      • Michelle Erb

        Denise I noticed you gave a “thumbs up” to the comment accusing me of being “the most disgusting troll ever seen on the internet.”

        That doesn’t seem very “christian.”

        • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

          It wasn’t the disgusting troll part I was agreeing with, although I can sure see why it looks that way, obviously. I remember a clicking on that post, but can’t find it again. Whose was it again?

          • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

            But you are correct. That wasn’t very Christian of me, and I shouldn’t have done that.

          • Michelle Erb

            Well at least it cleared things up for me a bit. I was wondering how someone who seemed so outwardly polite and respectful could be a fan of hateful propagandists like Sarah and Bristol Palin.

            I suspect you may not have realized that comment rating is not anonymous.

          • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

            I’m still not seeing that post. I do remember the caps, too. No, I know that the comments listed who said what.

          • Michelle Erb

            Please feel free to tell your friend that I am not pro-choice because I am trying to “defend something I have already done”

            A study has shown that conservatives are more likely to change their mind about issues like homosexuality or providing insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, when it hits home among their own friends and families.

            On the other hand, liberals are more able to empathize with people in other situations even if they never expect to face the issues themselves.

            When I said I was personally uncomfortable with aborting healthy fetuses, but recognize the needs and rights of others. I was telling the truth.

          • Michelle Erb

            Also, Judaism is not just fine with abortions. That was a misrepresentation of what I said.

            Judaism stresses the duty to be fruitful and multiply
            so some orthodox even frown on contraception and masturbation. Fortunately Jews have never tried to impose their beliefs on society at large. For example jews would never claim that their religious beliefs are under attack, because other people choose to work on the sabbath, violate the very first commandment by claiming there is more than one “god”, or eat nonkosher food.

            What I was trying to explain is that before modern day evangelicals came along, no one used the Bible to try to to delude themselves that embryos are people. When it comes down to a choice between the health of the mother and a fetus, Judaism has no dilemma. The mother always comes first, because the fetus does not have a soul. Judaism values souls and actual living people.

            To be clear though, I am no longer a practicing jew, because to me the universe is so incredible, that it could not possibly have been created by the small minded god of the Bible. We are worth so much more than that.

          • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

            Who posted that comment that I had “liked”? I’m not finding it and would like to respond, but can’t remember what it had said. If I knoew who had posted it, I could find it that way.

          • Michelle Erb
          • Michelle Erb

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2014/02/this-is-what-a-botched-abortion-looks-like-17-years-later/

            It is still pretty close to the top. You can’t miss it. It is the one with the word “troll” in all caps.

      • Michelle Erb

        Why do you think black women in New York City have a high rate of abortion?

        Hint: now that NYC has finally elected a progressive liberal mayor who cares about early education and minimum wage issues the abortion rate will go down exponentially

      • Michelle Erb

        I suppose this is a reference to the right wing propaganda that Margaret Sanger started planned parenthood to destroy the black race. As usual you guys took a kernel of truth and spun it into something ugly that meets your agenda.

        The truth is that there is not one iota of evidence that Sanger was racist, actually the opposite is true. The so called “proof” comes from a letter that she wrote to a black minister where she was stating that she did not want people to get the wrong impression and think they were targeting blacks, because she recognized that impoverished blacks needed services at a higher rate. A societal problem which we have discussed.

        The other kernel of truth comes from the unfortunate fact that she did believe in a form of eugenics, but it was NOT about race. Back then mentally disabled people were a matter of shame and were treated horribly. Families lied about having disabled children and sent them away to live wretched lives in sanatoriums.

        In light of that time, she believed in voluntary sterilization of the disabled, so that they would not pass on a gene and the misery that came with it. She did adamantly oppose the way eugenics were applied by the Nazi regime. That was not what she had meant.

        So there is a dark side to the person who started planned parenthood. But it has nothing to do with race or the planned parenthood of today. And it does not change the fact that her main mission was to give woman control of their own lives in a time when pregnancy after pregnancy kept them trapped in poverty and abusive marriages.

        As always the goal of planned parenthood has been contraception and education first and foremost with abortion only as a backup.

        • Richard Smit

          You are only posting leftwing propaganda here!

          • Michelle Erb

            Richard,

            When I call something propaganda I explain why that is so using facts.

            When I post facts you call it propaganda. That is not reasoning it is sloganism.

          • Warpde

            Propaganda?
            Really?
            You need to exercise those grey cells a bit.
            Or at least change the channel.

  • Denise Hintz Wolfgram

    Oops. Couldnt attach a pic. Oh well…

  • Kristy Patullo

    I don’t know why anyone votes for a liberal for anything. They’re destroying
    this country. And babies are at the top of their list.

    • Michelle Erb

      Well maybe some people do not like the fact that Republicans have sold out to large corporations that are funding climate change deniers. You are literally destroying the world.

  • Michelle Erb

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X