“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

Let’s talk about a shocker from the British Medical Journal. In a recent BMJ edition, Oxford University’s Francesca Minerva, a medical ethicist, and Alberto Giubilini, a bioethicist from the U. of Milan, argue in favor of “post-birth abortion.” Specifically, they advocate a right to kill newborn babies if they are disabled, unwanted, or if they would be too expensive for the family. Yes, you read that right.

Here is their argument:

1. Like an unborn child, a newborn has yet “to develop hopes, goals and dreams.” Thus, while the newborn is human, it is not yet “a person – someone with a moral right to life.”

2. In the case of disabled children. . . while the child may be happy, it will not reach the full potential of a normal child: “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole. . . On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.” In other words, if you aren’t perfect, your don’t have a right to live.

3. Parents, siblings and society have goals that could be affected by the arrival of the child, and those goals should take precedence over the child’s rights. Therefore, “post-birth abortion” is justified if the mother “no longer has the time, money or energy to care for” the child.

Wow, chilling.

The abortion movement has always hidden behind the idea that fetuses aren’t “alive.” Ergo, aborting a fetus is not like killing a child and abortion is no big deal. This argument has worked to the extent we have been unable to define when life begins. That’s why many people are indifferent to early-term abortions, but oppose late-term abortions because the more the fetus looks like a human the more likely it is to be alive. That’s also why partial-birth abortion was such a disaster for feminists because no one could help but grasp that this was a child being killed.

But now Minerva and Giubilini lay bare the real thinking behind the pro-abortion position. They don’t care if the child is alive or not. All that matters to them is the economic progress of the mother.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics Minerva goes through are stunning. First, she redefines life to have value only if a person has “hopes, goals and dreams.” But that’s not really her test because babies have hopes, goals and dreams, as does my dog. What she’s really saying is life only has value when people have “hopes, goals and dreams” which she considers worthwhile. That is a justification for mass murder of undesirables.

And while she limits this to newborns to make her theory seems less dangerous to readers, the fact is her logic does not account for an age limit. Indeed, what difference does it make using her test if someone is 6 weeks, 6 years, or 6 decades old? If they don’t have the right “dreams”/goals to be considered human, then logically there is no reason they couldn’t be exterminated using her same justification. The sick, the infirm, those on welfare or without useful skills, or even old people who are beyond trying to achieve their goals could all be exterminated using her logic.

She also really twists herself to dismiss adoption as an alternative. Indeed, if the mother doesn’t want the child, why not just give it up for adoption? Well, Minerva says we can’t do that because adoption could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Think about that. There is no psychological distress with killing your child, but there would be psychological distress in letting someone else have it. How sick is that?!

What she’s really worried about is that unless the doctor exterminates the child, the mother might want to keep it, and that would expose the atrocity of her theory once the mothers realized that these newborn things actually turn into people that matter.

Not surprisingly, our Hitlerian genius Minerva was shocked at the negative reaction, which included death threats. Boo hoo. She claims that her argument has been “taken out of its academic and theoretical context” and that she’s not advocating this policy. But the fact is, she is advocating this by issuing a paper in which she claims this is an ethically/ philosophically correct position. Whether she likes the backlash or not, she has tried to justify infanticide and she even provided the euphemism: “post-birth abortion” (as if you could abort something that has already happened).

Remember this the next time some abortion advocate tells you they only support abortion because “it’s not alive.”

Let’s talk about a shocker from the British Medical Journal. In a recent BMJ edition, Oxford University’s Francesca Minerva, a medical ethicist, and Alberto Giubilini, a bioethicist from the U. of Milan, argue in favor of “post-birth abortion.” Specifically, they advocate a right to kill newborn babies if they are disabled, unwanted, or if they would be too expensive for the family. Yes, you read that right.

Here is their argument:

1. Like an unborn child, a newborn has yet “to develop hopes, goals and dreams.” Thus, while the newborn is human, it is not yet “a person – someone with a moral right to life.”

2. In the case of disabled children. . . while the child may be happy, it will not reach the full potential of a normal child: “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole. . . On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.” In other words, if you aren’t perfect, your don’t have a right to live.

3. Parents, siblings and society have goals that could be affected by the arrival of the child, and those goals should take precedence over the child’s rights. Therefore, “post-birth abortion” is justified if the mother “no longer has the time, money or energy to care for” the child.

Wow, chilling.

The abortion movement has always hidden behind the idea that fetuses aren’t “alive.” Ergo, aborting a fetus is not like killing a child and abortion is no big deal. This argument has worked to the extent we have been unable to define when life begins. That’s why many people are indifferent to early-term abortions, but oppose late-term abortions because the more the fetus looks like a human the more likely it is to be alive. That’s also why partial-birth abortion was such a disaster for feminists because no one could help but grasp that this was a child being killed.

But now Minerva and Giubilini lay bare the real thinking behind the pro-abortion position. They don’t care if the child is alive or not. All that matters to them is the economic progress of the mother.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics Minerva goes through are stunning. First, she redefines life to have value only if a person has “hopes, goals and dreams.” But that’s not really her test because babies have hopes, goals and dreams, as does my dog. What she’s really saying is life only has value when people have “hopes, goals and dreams” which she considers worthwhile. That is a justification for mass murder of undesirables.

And while she limits this to newborns to make her theory seems less dangerous to readers, the fact is her logic does not account for an age limit. Indeed, what difference does it make using her test if someone is 6 weeks, 6 years, or 6 decades old? If they don’t have the right “dreams”/goals to be considered human, then logically there is no reason they couldn’t be exterminated using her same justification. The sick, the infirm, those on welfare or without useful skills, or even old people who are beyond trying to achieve their goals could all be exterminated using her logic.

She also really twists herself to dismiss adoption as an alternative. Indeed, if the mother doesn’t want the child, why not just give it up for adoption? Well, Minerva says we can’t do that because adoption could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Think about that. There is no psychological distress with killing your child, but there would be psychological distress in letting someone else have it. How sick is that?!

What she’s really worried about is that unless the doctor exterminates the child, the mother might want to keep it, and that would expose the atrocity of her theory once the mothers realized that these newborn things actually turn into people that matter.

Not surprisingly, our Hitlerian genius Minerva was shocked at the negative reaction, which included death threats. Boo hoo. She claims that her argument has been “taken out of its academic and theoretical context” and that she’s not advocating this policy. But the fact is, she is advocating this by issuing a paper in which she claims this is an ethically/ philosophically correct position. Whether she likes the backlash or not, she has tried to justify infanticide and she even provided the euphemism: “post-birth abortion” (as if you could abort something that has already happened).

Remember this the next time some abortion advocate tells you they only support abortion because “it’s not alive.”

“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

View Detail

Rick Santorum’s Abortion Hypocrisy

Rick Santorum’s Abortion Hypocrisy

I’m sick of talking about Santorum. He’s a sleazy socialist hiding behind religion. But if Republicans want to ensure that Obama gets a second term by picking him, then there’s not much I can do about it. Nevertheless, one of our readers has sent me two articles worth discussing. Why? Because they show just how hypocritical Santorum’s being on the pro-life issue.

The two big attacks on Romney by conservatives are his support for RomneyCare and that he’s supposedly soft on abortion.

As you all know, the beef with RomneyCare is that it included the same individual mandate as ObamaCare, which violates conservative principles. However, the attacks on Romney for RomneyCare are highly hypocritical because (1) he’s stated he will repeal ObamaCare, i.e. he’s not proposing to bring RomneyCare to the rest of the country, and (2) all of the conservative contenders who claim his support for RomneyCare makes him suspect (i.e. Gingrich and Santorum) not only supported the same individual mandate as a “conservative” idea until 2009, but they also supported massive expansions of the government’s role in the healthcare system including the creation of new medical coverage entitlements. In other words, they did the same and worse.

But today’s issue is the second issue, Santorum on abortion.

Romney claims to be pro-life. He wasn’t always. He says he became pro-life as a matter of conscience. Specifically, he states that after he got into office as governor, he was faced with an embryonic stem cell bill and decided, “I simply could not sign on to take human life.” He vetoed the bill, which would have authorized embryonic cloning, would have defined human life as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization, and would have made the morning-after pill available without a prescription. He thereafter promoted abstinence education and vetoed a bill which would have required Catholic hospitals to offer abortion-inducing drugs to rape victims.

But that’s not enough for Rick Santorum. Rick argues that Romney can’t really be pro-life because he wasn’t always pro-life. . . forget that Reagan and George W. Bush both claimed similar conversions on abortion. Think about the illogic of this: unless you are pro-life your entirely life, then Rick would forever tar you as pro-choice and therefore untouchable to Republican voters. That’s wrong and self-defeating on a great many levels. Indeed, how in the world can such an approach win anyone over when you’re telling people you will always view them with suspicion?

More importantly, let’s take a look at Rick’s own history on this issue.

On October 28, 1990, the Pittsburgh Press put out an article about young Rick Santorum, who was running for the House of Representatives. Rick was about to be elected in a huge anti-incumbent wave which wiped out people who supported the Bush/Darman budget ("no new taxes"). To fuel his campaign, Rick relied on religious conservatives to whom he promised he would outlaw abortion. So he was always pro-life, right? Actually, no.

Prior to the campaign, Rick put out a campaign manual in which he described himself as a “progressive conservative” who took no position on the issue of abortion. And a few months before that, Rick put out a paper in which he said that his opposition to abortion was limited only to the final three months of pregnancy, when the fetus was considered viable. That paper was quietly withdrawn when Santorum changed his mind. Said Rick: “For me, it was just a lot of education, a lot of soul-searching.”

In other words, he had a Romney moment. So why should we trust Rick any more than Romney? And how in the world can he argue that Romney’s conversion isn’t genuine?

There’s more.

In 1998, Bill Clinton tried to appoint a pro-abortion liberal activist to the Second Circuit. This appointment was considered important because conservatives believed it would put this person on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh noted that Clinton was “putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court.” Consequently, conservative Trent Lott delayed this person’s confirmation vote for more than a year, hoping to get the votes needed to block her. That ultimately failed when only 29 Republicans voted to oppose the nomination. These 29 include all the usual conservatives, including people the Tea Party now hates like Mitch McConnell and John McCain.

Ricky. . . staunchly anti-abortion Ricky. . . supported the Democrats and voted to confirm this person. That’s right. He went against the conservatives in the Senate to support a pro-abortion liberal activist, knowing she would likely end up on the Supreme Court. Who was Ricky’s friend? Sonia Sotomayor, who now sits on the Supreme Court as a reliable leftist -- just as conservatives predicted. Call me crazy, but I think Ricky would be beside himself with (self)righteous indignation if Romney had been the one supporting Sotomayor.

And Rick’s pro-abortion credentials aren’t finished there. In 1995, Rick endorsed pro-abortion “Republican” Arlen Specter in his run for President. Significantly, Specter made being pro-abortion a centerpiece of his campaign. Indeed, he referred to pro-life activists as a “fringe” group who had hijacked the Republican Party. Yet, Rick endorsed him in the primaries.

Rick then endorsed Arlen Specter again in 2000 against Tea Party conservative Pat Toomey. Ricky even did television ads for the pro-abortion, pro-big government, soon-to-switch parties Specter.

The point here is simple. Rick is a hypocrite. He’s denigrating Romney’s beliefs on a basis which applies equally to Rick himself, and he’s doing it so he can keep people from seeing the real sleazy, insider, influence-peddling, Big Government progressive that is Rick.

Support him if you want to, I won’t.

I’m sick of talking about Santorum. He’s a sleazy socialist hiding behind religion. But if Republicans want to ensure that Obama gets a second term by picking him, then there’s not much I can do about it. Nevertheless, one of our readers has sent me two articles worth discussing. Why? Because they show just how hypocritical Santorum’s being on the pro-life issue.

The two big attacks on Romney by conservatives are his support for RomneyCare and that he’s supposedly soft on abortion.

As you all know, the beef with RomneyCare is that it included the same individual mandate as ObamaCare, which violates conservative principles. However, the attacks on Romney for RomneyCare are highly hypocritical because (1) he’s stated he will repeal ObamaCare, i.e. he’s not proposing to bring RomneyCare to the rest of the country, and (2) all of the conservative contenders who claim his support for RomneyCare makes him suspect (i.e. Gingrich and Santorum) not only supported the same individual mandate as a “conservative” idea until 2009, but they also supported massive expansions of the government’s role in the healthcare system including the creation of new medical coverage entitlements. In other words, they did the same and worse.

But today’s issue is the second issue, Santorum on abortion.

Romney claims to be pro-life. He wasn’t always. He says he became pro-life as a matter of conscience. Specifically, he states that after he got into office as governor, he was faced with an embryonic stem cell bill and decided, “I simply could not sign on to take human life.” He vetoed the bill, which would have authorized embryonic cloning, would have defined human life as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization, and would have made the morning-after pill available without a prescription. He thereafter promoted abstinence education and vetoed a bill which would have required Catholic hospitals to offer abortion-inducing drugs to rape victims.

But that’s not enough for Rick Santorum. Rick argues that Romney can’t really be pro-life because he wasn’t always pro-life. . . forget that Reagan and George W. Bush both claimed similar conversions on abortion. Think about the illogic of this: unless you are pro-life your entirely life, then Rick would forever tar you as pro-choice and therefore untouchable to Republican voters. That’s wrong and self-defeating on a great many levels. Indeed, how in the world can such an approach win anyone over when you’re telling people you will always view them with suspicion?

More importantly, let’s take a look at Rick’s own history on this issue.

On October 28, 1990, the Pittsburgh Press put out an article about young Rick Santorum, who was running for the House of Representatives. Rick was about to be elected in a huge anti-incumbent wave which wiped out people who supported the Bush/Darman budget ("no new taxes"). To fuel his campaign, Rick relied on religious conservatives to whom he promised he would outlaw abortion. So he was always pro-life, right? Actually, no.

Prior to the campaign, Rick put out a campaign manual in which he described himself as a “progressive conservative” who took no position on the issue of abortion. And a few months before that, Rick put out a paper in which he said that his opposition to abortion was limited only to the final three months of pregnancy, when the fetus was considered viable. That paper was quietly withdrawn when Santorum changed his mind. Said Rick: “For me, it was just a lot of education, a lot of soul-searching.”

In other words, he had a Romney moment. So why should we trust Rick any more than Romney? And how in the world can he argue that Romney’s conversion isn’t genuine?

There’s more.

In 1998, Bill Clinton tried to appoint a pro-abortion liberal activist to the Second Circuit. This appointment was considered important because conservatives believed it would put this person on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh noted that Clinton was “putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court.” Consequently, conservative Trent Lott delayed this person’s confirmation vote for more than a year, hoping to get the votes needed to block her. That ultimately failed when only 29 Republicans voted to oppose the nomination. These 29 include all the usual conservatives, including people the Tea Party now hates like Mitch McConnell and John McCain.

Ricky. . . staunchly anti-abortion Ricky. . . supported the Democrats and voted to confirm this person. That’s right. He went against the conservatives in the Senate to support a pro-abortion liberal activist, knowing she would likely end up on the Supreme Court. Who was Ricky’s friend? Sonia Sotomayor, who now sits on the Supreme Court as a reliable leftist -- just as conservatives predicted. Call me crazy, but I think Ricky would be beside himself with (self)righteous indignation if Romney had been the one supporting Sotomayor.

And Rick’s pro-abortion credentials aren’t finished there. In 1995, Rick endorsed pro-abortion “Republican” Arlen Specter in his run for President. Significantly, Specter made being pro-abortion a centerpiece of his campaign. Indeed, he referred to pro-life activists as a “fringe” group who had hijacked the Republican Party. Yet, Rick endorsed him in the primaries.

Rick then endorsed Arlen Specter again in 2000 against Tea Party conservative Pat Toomey. Ricky even did television ads for the pro-abortion, pro-big government, soon-to-switch parties Specter.

The point here is simple. Rick is a hypocrite. He’s denigrating Romney’s beliefs on a basis which applies equally to Rick himself, and he’s doing it so he can keep people from seeing the real sleazy, insider, influence-peddling, Big Government progressive that is Rick.

Support him if you want to, I won’t.

Rick Santorum’s Abortion Hypocrisy

View Detail

Involuntary Charity For Abortion

Involuntary Charity For Abortion

You’ve probably heard about this scandal involving the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood (“PP”). On the one hand, I find this positively shocking. On the other hand, every aspect of this is what I’ve come to expect from intolerant modern liberalism.

Here’s what happened. The Komen Foundation is a charitable group that spends about $90 million annually on breast cancer research, education and screening. The Komen Foundation has been giving around $700,000 a year to PP so PP “could provide poor women with breast cancer screening, mammograms and education.”

Last week, the Komen Foundation announced that it would stop giving money to PP because PP was under investigation by Congress for using federal money for abortions and for failing to report child abuse. Komen has a policy that it will not give money to any organization under investigation by any state or federal agency until the organization is cleared. Simple enough. Only it wasn’t.

Every liberal from the abortion wing of the Democratic Party to Hollywood went apesh*t. They screamed that this was an outrage, a political decision, and the evil Komen Foundation was (insert nonsense claim here). Sadly, Komen folded under the pressure and agreed to continue funding the abortion lobby in violation of their own policies. Here are my thoughts:

● Liberals do not understand the concept of charity. Charity is something you give voluntarily. Liberals have taken the position that PP is entitled to money from Komen in perpetuity, even though PP has no right whatsoever to a single penny in charity from Komen. This is a perversion of the concept of charity and turns a good deed into perpetual slavery.

● Liberals claim this was a political decision. That’s wrong. Giving money to a controversial organization in the first place was the political decision. Stopping that money is NOT a political decision. It is the opposite. It is a depolitization decision.

● Also, the real political decision was restarting the funding. Komen has a policy, which it applies to all organization to which it contributes. Carving out an exception for PP because some liberals got upset is a political act. And how typically liberal to demand special rights for a liberal group.

● Don’t believe for a moment this won’t fund abortions. Money is fungible. That means giving money on the condition it won’t be used for some specific purpose is delusional because all that does is free up other money which can then be used for the forbidden purpose.

● PP is an abortion clinic and they only offer other services so they can pretend they are a women’s health clinic who just happens to provide abortions. When the government and charities fund these other activities, they are not only freeing up money for abortions, they are helping provide a smokescreen for PP to claim it’s something greater than just an abortion clinic.

● This is going to be a mess for Komen. Giving in to the left will stop the whining (for now... see next point), but will anger many more conservatives who don’t want their money going to PP and who probably had no idea they were funding PP through Komen. Conservatives give to charity, liberals don’t. So Komen may have placated the whiners, but it will anger the people who actually support it. It will be interesting to see what happens with their donations.

● Finally, pro-abortion groups were already upset at Komen because the founder of the group, Nancy Brinker, served as George W. Bush’s ambassador to Hungary and last year she appointed Georgia’s former secretary of state, Karen Handel, a pro-life Republican, to a senior policy post with the foundation. Expect these groups to try to use this incident as a pretext to force political change at the organization.

There are some lessons to be learned here. For one thing, if you don’t want to become a slave to a liberal cause, don’t ever start donating to their groups. Apparently, as with the mob, you can’t leave once you start. Also, it will be interesting to see who wins the funding war. Make no mistake, this is a political war and it will be between whiny-but-cheap liberals and blind-but-generous conservatives. If conservatives make a statement by closing their wallets, the ability of liberals to impose their will by whining may start to fail. On the other hand, if funding doesn’t drop, expect further aggression from the left to be aimed at controlling other charities.

Thoughts?

Also, don’t forget it’s Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

You’ve probably heard about this scandal involving the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation and Planned Parenthood (“PP”). On the one hand, I find this positively shocking. On the other hand, every aspect of this is what I’ve come to expect from intolerant modern liberalism.

Here’s what happened. The Komen Foundation is a charitable group that spends about $90 million annually on breast cancer research, education and screening. The Komen Foundation has been giving around $700,000 a year to PP so PP “could provide poor women with breast cancer screening, mammograms and education.”

Last week, the Komen Foundation announced that it would stop giving money to PP because PP was under investigation by Congress for using federal money for abortions and for failing to report child abuse. Komen has a policy that it will not give money to any organization under investigation by any state or federal agency until the organization is cleared. Simple enough. Only it wasn’t.

Every liberal from the abortion wing of the Democratic Party to Hollywood went apesh*t. They screamed that this was an outrage, a political decision, and the evil Komen Foundation was (insert nonsense claim here). Sadly, Komen folded under the pressure and agreed to continue funding the abortion lobby in violation of their own policies. Here are my thoughts:

● Liberals do not understand the concept of charity. Charity is something you give voluntarily. Liberals have taken the position that PP is entitled to money from Komen in perpetuity, even though PP has no right whatsoever to a single penny in charity from Komen. This is a perversion of the concept of charity and turns a good deed into perpetual slavery.

● Liberals claim this was a political decision. That’s wrong. Giving money to a controversial organization in the first place was the political decision. Stopping that money is NOT a political decision. It is the opposite. It is a depolitization decision.

● Also, the real political decision was restarting the funding. Komen has a policy, which it applies to all organization to which it contributes. Carving out an exception for PP because some liberals got upset is a political act. And how typically liberal to demand special rights for a liberal group.

● Don’t believe for a moment this won’t fund abortions. Money is fungible. That means giving money on the condition it won’t be used for some specific purpose is delusional because all that does is free up other money which can then be used for the forbidden purpose.

● PP is an abortion clinic and they only offer other services so they can pretend they are a women’s health clinic who just happens to provide abortions. When the government and charities fund these other activities, they are not only freeing up money for abortions, they are helping provide a smokescreen for PP to claim it’s something greater than just an abortion clinic.

● This is going to be a mess for Komen. Giving in to the left will stop the whining (for now... see next point), but will anger many more conservatives who don’t want their money going to PP and who probably had no idea they were funding PP through Komen. Conservatives give to charity, liberals don’t. So Komen may have placated the whiners, but it will anger the people who actually support it. It will be interesting to see what happens with their donations.

● Finally, pro-abortion groups were already upset at Komen because the founder of the group, Nancy Brinker, served as George W. Bush’s ambassador to Hungary and last year she appointed Georgia’s former secretary of state, Karen Handel, a pro-life Republican, to a senior policy post with the foundation. Expect these groups to try to use this incident as a pretext to force political change at the organization.

There are some lessons to be learned here. For one thing, if you don’t want to become a slave to a liberal cause, don’t ever start donating to their groups. Apparently, as with the mob, you can’t leave once you start. Also, it will be interesting to see who wins the funding war. Make no mistake, this is a political war and it will be between whiny-but-cheap liberals and blind-but-generous conservatives. If conservatives make a statement by closing their wallets, the ability of liberals to impose their will by whining may start to fail. On the other hand, if funding doesn’t drop, expect further aggression from the left to be aimed at controlling other charities.

Thoughts?

Also, don’t forget it’s Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

Involuntary Charity For Abortion

View Detail

Her Holiness Holds Forth

Her Holiness Holds Forth

This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. "Good Catholic" Nancy Pelosi has been very busy recently correcting the Papal stance on issues involving faith and morals. In her discussions with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Pelosi has divined that abortion is a good thing, and ought to be paid for by the federal government.

Since her word on faith and morals is both infallible and superior to that of the Pope, she regularly damns opponents to eternal purgatory for exercising the independent thought that abortion might actually be wrong under most circumstances. She reserves some of her best vitriol for those who believe that no public money should be spent on abortion even if lawmakers and courts have decided that a baby doesn't become a human until the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy.

Obamacare, pushed through the House in the middle of the night by Pelosi and the Democrat Curia, left the issue of how private insurers would be treated when it comes to paying for abortion procedures. That brought the public payment and private payment issues for abortions to the forefront. The 2700 page (plus or minus) Obamacare law doesn't expressly require that private insurers cover abortions, but it doesn't leave private insurers the option not to cover them either. That omission didn't deter the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department announced without any quibble that private insurers must cover abortions, birth control devices and medications, and abortifacients (essentially, the "morning after" pill).

This is a direct assault on the "conscience clause" which was instituted in health care legislation starting after the horrendous Roe v. Wade decision and continuing through the Bush administration. The conscience clause exempts doctors, nurses, and hospitals which have deep religious opposition to abortion from having to perform abortions or prescribe birth control medication. The lack of any such conscience clause in the Obamacare bill was not an oversight.

Given the HHS decision and the Obamacare mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it quickly became apparent that insurance companies would have to cover abortion and insurance agents religiously opposed to abortion would have to sell policies covering abortion. Without a conscience clause, opponents of abortion including traditional Catholics and a large number of Evangelicals and old church Protestants would be selling and/or paying for something they deeply despise.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops quickly came forward with a statement that such a mandate offends the conscience of practicing Catholics (with or without the conscience clause) and violates the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Her Primateness Pelosi had spent years trying to squelch the conscience clause in any health care legislation which even tangentially touched on abortion (euphemistically known as "a woman's right to choose"). Until she finally succeeded with Obamacare and the back door HHS rulling, her efforts had gone unrewarded.

In order to clear up the vagueness and ambiguity of the Obamacare bill and to quash the HHS decision, in October of 2011 Republicans proposed HR 358, known as "The Protect Life Act." It is basically a reiteration of the conscience clause, applying it to health care providers and insurance companies specifically facing the Obamacare law. Pelosi jumped to the fore, skewing Catholic doctrine and mocking "the Catholic conscience thing."

The Conference of Bishops had said: "Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty." They further cited the conscience clause inserted into all previous Congressional health care legislation: "Public officials may not require individuals or entities who receive certain public funds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures or to make facilities or personnel available for the performance of such procedures if such performance would be contrary to the individual or entity's religious belief or moral convictions."

If you can't attack the principle, attack the persons advocating the principle. Pelosi is no stranger to that kind of attack. This past Thursday, unable to find any Catholic doctrine to support her views, Pelosi simply called the Conference of Catholic Bishops "lobbyists in Washington DC." So much for the efficacy of Church discipline, doctrine, dogma, and Papal authority. Her Catholicness speaks, and the Bishops should just shut up. In a masterpiece of illogic, bad grammar, and un-Catholic thought, Pelosi said: "I am a devout Catholic. As a devout Catholic (second time, in case you didn't get it the first time), I have great respect for our bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington DC, we have some areas of disagreement."

Pelosi is simply an idiot. I understand Church decisions and Papal authority better than she. And I'm Lutheran. It's OK, even expected, that as a Protestant I will have differences of religious opinion with Papal decisions on faith and morals and am free, perhaps even obligated to dispute those decisions publicly when they offend my personal conscience and reading of scripture. That's not how it's supposed to be under Catholic apostolic succession doctrine. Pelosi is determined to flout the doctrine of her own Church, while at the same time forcing millions of non-Catholics to support abortion with their tax dollars and eventually to buy insurance that covers abortion.

If that's being a devout Catholic, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. "Good Catholic" Nancy Pelosi has been very busy recently correcting the Papal stance on issues involving faith and morals. In her discussions with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Pelosi has divined that abortion is a good thing, and ought to be paid for by the federal government.

Since her word on faith and morals is both infallible and superior to that of the Pope, she regularly damns opponents to eternal purgatory for exercising the independent thought that abortion might actually be wrong under most circumstances. She reserves some of her best vitriol for those who believe that no public money should be spent on abortion even if lawmakers and courts have decided that a baby doesn't become a human until the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy.

Obamacare, pushed through the House in the middle of the night by Pelosi and the Democrat Curia, left the issue of how private insurers would be treated when it comes to paying for abortion procedures. That brought the public payment and private payment issues for abortions to the forefront. The 2700 page (plus or minus) Obamacare law doesn't expressly require that private insurers cover abortions, but it doesn't leave private insurers the option not to cover them either. That omission didn't deter the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department announced without any quibble that private insurers must cover abortions, birth control devices and medications, and abortifacients (essentially, the "morning after" pill).

This is a direct assault on the "conscience clause" which was instituted in health care legislation starting after the horrendous Roe v. Wade decision and continuing through the Bush administration. The conscience clause exempts doctors, nurses, and hospitals which have deep religious opposition to abortion from having to perform abortions or prescribe birth control medication. The lack of any such conscience clause in the Obamacare bill was not an oversight.

Given the HHS decision and the Obamacare mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it quickly became apparent that insurance companies would have to cover abortion and insurance agents religiously opposed to abortion would have to sell policies covering abortion. Without a conscience clause, opponents of abortion including traditional Catholics and a large number of Evangelicals and old church Protestants would be selling and/or paying for something they deeply despise.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops quickly came forward with a statement that such a mandate offends the conscience of practicing Catholics (with or without the conscience clause) and violates the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Her Primateness Pelosi had spent years trying to squelch the conscience clause in any health care legislation which even tangentially touched on abortion (euphemistically known as "a woman's right to choose"). Until she finally succeeded with Obamacare and the back door HHS rulling, her efforts had gone unrewarded.

In order to clear up the vagueness and ambiguity of the Obamacare bill and to quash the HHS decision, in October of 2011 Republicans proposed HR 358, known as "The Protect Life Act." It is basically a reiteration of the conscience clause, applying it to health care providers and insurance companies specifically facing the Obamacare law. Pelosi jumped to the fore, skewing Catholic doctrine and mocking "the Catholic conscience thing."

The Conference of Bishops had said: "Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty." They further cited the conscience clause inserted into all previous Congressional health care legislation: "Public officials may not require individuals or entities who receive certain public funds to perform abortion or sterilization procedures or to make facilities or personnel available for the performance of such procedures if such performance would be contrary to the individual or entity's religious belief or moral convictions."

If you can't attack the principle, attack the persons advocating the principle. Pelosi is no stranger to that kind of attack. This past Thursday, unable to find any Catholic doctrine to support her views, Pelosi simply called the Conference of Catholic Bishops "lobbyists in Washington DC." So much for the efficacy of Church discipline, doctrine, dogma, and Papal authority. Her Catholicness speaks, and the Bishops should just shut up. In a masterpiece of illogic, bad grammar, and un-Catholic thought, Pelosi said: "I am a devout Catholic. As a devout Catholic (second time, in case you didn't get it the first time), I have great respect for our bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington DC, we have some areas of disagreement."

Pelosi is simply an idiot. I understand Church decisions and Papal authority better than she. And I'm Lutheran. It's OK, even expected, that as a Protestant I will have differences of religious opinion with Papal decisions on faith and morals and am free, perhaps even obligated to dispute those decisions publicly when they offend my personal conscience and reading of scripture. That's not how it's supposed to be under Catholic apostolic succession doctrine. Pelosi is determined to flout the doctrine of her own Church, while at the same time forcing millions of non-Catholics to support abortion with their tax dollars and eventually to buy insurance that covers abortion.

If that's being a devout Catholic, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Her Holiness Holds Forth

View Detail

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

Just a short time before the House took a vote forbidding the use of federal funds to pay for any part of a health plan that covers abortion, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would mean that "women can die on the floor." Fifteen House Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for what the president of NARAL called The Let Women Die Act.

The bill is aimed at one portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Prior law forbade direct use of federal funds for abortion, but Obamacare slipped in provisions which did by the back door what it couldn't do through the front. Rather than pay for the abortion directly, Obamacare allowed abortion to be paid for by insurance plans which accept federal funds. The bill bans that practice.

The bill also covered another problem created by Obamacare. It prevents punitive action against any health care provider who refuses to perform or assist in performing an abortion based on moral or religious objections. It's important to note that as we review the Democratic hysteria over the bill, it doesn't ban abortion, just direct or indirect federal funding of it. Multiple polls have shown that somewhere between 65% and 70% of Americans who may otherwise have divergent views on abortion itself oppose federal funding of abortion in any form.

The Republican position on the bill was that Obamacare contains loopholes galore that allow the use of federal subsidies and stimuli for the purpose of purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. Many of the supporters of the new bill (called the Protect Life Act) clearly believe that Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, but wanted to take an early step in that agenda by eliminating one of the most egregious of Obamacare's flaws. Unlike many of the provisions of Obamacare which are purely economic nostrums or bureaucratic "solutions," this flaw flagrantly allowed federal funding for a medical procedure abhorrent to a substantial number of Americans.

Pelosi went off on a journey of free-association in discussing the bill. "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. It's just appalling. It falls right into their--all, it's a health issue." In other words, if the doctors don't perform a procedure which would terminate a perfectly normal pregnancy, a woman will die on the floor while the doctors stand by and swap golf stories.

Perhaps she doesn't realize that if a woman comes into a Catholic hospital bleeding heavily from a botched abortion performed elsewhere, those Catholic doctors will do everything in their power to save the mother (and the baby, if it still lives). But what can you expect? This is a practicing Catholic woman who lectures the bishops and the Pope on their misinterpretations of the Bible and their incorrectness on Church doctrine.

For a woman her age, Pelosi has amazing lung power. She can string together thoughts in random order and pronounce them without taking a breath. Example: "This is a health care issue and it falls right in with a lot of other initiatives that they [the Republicans] had coming up on the floor (where the women are dying?) about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it--America's families deserve better than this and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity, instead of taking up even an aspect of the president's job bill that could create jobs they're--I can't even describe to you the logic of what is is that they are doing, I just know that you will see a large number of women on the floor today (dying women?) fighting for women's health issues, as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Whew! I'll bet she could blow out a 150 birthday candle cake without taking a second breath.

Pelosi also went on to say "this is not a jobs bill." No, really? "Everybody in America has the creation of jobs as their top priority and what we are doing is wasting time. Every woman in America should be concerned with this assault on women's rights. This is just one aspect of women's health. But it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. It's a waste of time." So if I'm hearing her right, women's health and access to abortion is vitally important, but it's a waste of time because jobs are at stake.

National Right to Life Director Douglass Johnson said: "President Obama won enactment of Obamacare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion. But now the mask is coming off. Obamacare contains multiple provisions designed to authorize federal subsidies for abortion." The Protect Life Act removes those subsidies. But it does not prevent any woman who wants health care insurance with abortion coverage from purchasing it. It just prevents them from purchasing federally-subsidized insurance which provides coverage for abortions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 251-172 (236 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor). There are two hurdles remaining. First, the Senate helmed by Democrat Harry Reid may never even get to vote if Reid uses his parliamentary tricks to keep the vote away from his colleagues. Even if Reid doesn't manage to table the bill, passage in the Senate is far from a sure thing. And in the event that the bill does pass the Senate, there's that final roadblock in the White House.

President Obama will have to do some serious spinning to come up with a reason to veto the bill. But spin he will. He spent months on the political trail obscuring the Obamacare loopholes for abortion because he claims to believe that federal funding should not be used for abortion. He can't veto the bill on that basis, then, without having another lie added to the long list of lies he has told. He might try to do his new "capitalist" thing, and claim that the bill interferes with the right to private contract. Who knows? But it is highly likely that he will veto the bill if it ever gets to his desk.

Just a short time before the House took a vote forbidding the use of federal funds to pay for any part of a health plan that covers abortion, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill would mean that "women can die on the floor." Fifteen House Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for what the president of NARAL called The Let Women Die Act.

The bill is aimed at one portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Prior law forbade direct use of federal funds for abortion, but Obamacare slipped in provisions which did by the back door what it couldn't do through the front. Rather than pay for the abortion directly, Obamacare allowed abortion to be paid for by insurance plans which accept federal funds. The bill bans that practice.

The bill also covered another problem created by Obamacare. It prevents punitive action against any health care provider who refuses to perform or assist in performing an abortion based on moral or religious objections. It's important to note that as we review the Democratic hysteria over the bill, it doesn't ban abortion, just direct or indirect federal funding of it. Multiple polls have shown that somewhere between 65% and 70% of Americans who may otherwise have divergent views on abortion itself oppose federal funding of abortion in any form.

The Republican position on the bill was that Obamacare contains loopholes galore that allow the use of federal subsidies and stimuli for the purpose of purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. Many of the supporters of the new bill (called the Protect Life Act) clearly believe that Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, but wanted to take an early step in that agenda by eliminating one of the most egregious of Obamacare's flaws. Unlike many of the provisions of Obamacare which are purely economic nostrums or bureaucratic "solutions," this flaw flagrantly allowed federal funding for a medical procedure abhorrent to a substantial number of Americans.

Pelosi went off on a journey of free-association in discussing the bill. "Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. It's just appalling. It falls right into their--all, it's a health issue." In other words, if the doctors don't perform a procedure which would terminate a perfectly normal pregnancy, a woman will die on the floor while the doctors stand by and swap golf stories.

Perhaps she doesn't realize that if a woman comes into a Catholic hospital bleeding heavily from a botched abortion performed elsewhere, those Catholic doctors will do everything in their power to save the mother (and the baby, if it still lives). But what can you expect? This is a practicing Catholic woman who lectures the bishops and the Pope on their misinterpretations of the Bible and their incorrectness on Church doctrine.

For a woman her age, Pelosi has amazing lung power. She can string together thoughts in random order and pronounce them without taking a breath. Example: "This is a health care issue and it falls right in with a lot of other initiatives that they [the Republicans] had coming up on the floor (where the women are dying?) about clean air, clean water, mercury, you name it--America's families deserve better than this and, again, today is another example of a wasted opportunity, instead of taking up even an aspect of the president's job bill that could create jobs they're--I can't even describe to you the logic of what is is that they are doing, I just know that you will see a large number of women on the floor today (dying women?) fighting for women's health issues, as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Whew! I'll bet she could blow out a 150 birthday candle cake without taking a second breath.

Pelosi also went on to say "this is not a jobs bill." No, really? "Everybody in America has the creation of jobs as their top priority and what we are doing is wasting time. Every woman in America should be concerned with this assault on women's rights. This is just one aspect of women's health. But it has an impact across the board on how women get their health insurance. It's a waste of time." So if I'm hearing her right, women's health and access to abortion is vitally important, but it's a waste of time because jobs are at stake.

National Right to Life Director Douglass Johnson said: "President Obama won enactment of Obamacare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion. But now the mask is coming off. Obamacare contains multiple provisions designed to authorize federal subsidies for abortion." The Protect Life Act removes those subsidies. But it does not prevent any woman who wants health care insurance with abortion coverage from purchasing it. It just prevents them from purchasing federally-subsidized insurance which provides coverage for abortions.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 251-172 (236 Republicans and 15 Democrats in favor). There are two hurdles remaining. First, the Senate helmed by Democrat Harry Reid may never even get to vote if Reid uses his parliamentary tricks to keep the vote away from his colleagues. Even if Reid doesn't manage to table the bill, passage in the Senate is far from a sure thing. And in the event that the bill does pass the Senate, there's that final roadblock in the White House.

President Obama will have to do some serious spinning to come up with a reason to veto the bill. But spin he will. He spent months on the political trail obscuring the Obamacare loopholes for abortion because he claims to believe that federal funding should not be used for abortion. He can't veto the bill on that basis, then, without having another lie added to the long list of lies he has told. He might try to do his new "capitalist" thing, and claim that the bill interferes with the right to private contract. Who knows? But it is highly likely that he will veto the bill if it ever gets to his desk.

Is There Anything This Woman Won't Say?

View Detail

Planned Parenthood A Pelosi Quandary

Planned Parenthood A Pelosi Quandary

It's Sunday, and for once I'm going to do my religious duty and rest. But not before I throw out a topic for you readers to kick around and bring me up to speed on your thinking. We're once again up against a Congressional deadline for passing a budget, or passing a continuing resolution, or shutting down non-vital government functions until one of the previous two is accomplished.

On Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Boehner lost a vote on his proposed continuing resolution (they're not even close on an actual budget). Conservative Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the bill 230 to 195. Whatever one may think of their reasoning and their votes, the basic problem was that the conservatives thought the resolution didn't make enough deep cuts and wanted FEMA disaster funding handled separately. Democrats wanted to keep FEMA in the formula in order to demagogue Republican heartlessness. They also wanted some offsetting new taxes to balance the cuts ("revenue enhancement" in Democrat parlance means "higher taxes").

In fact, there was a more complicated reason for why the Republicans seemed to be susceptible to the claim of being heartless. They actually originally wanted to keep FEMA disaster funding and named the figure of $1.5 billion. But to keep that funding, they wanted an equal cut in funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program. In other words, the Democrats would rather kill funding for FEMA disaster relief than to allow cuts in their precious experimental toy cars program.

Former House Speaker and now very-minority Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday did her usual incoherent discussion of the impasse, blaming recalcitrant Republicans for just about everything except the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Subtly admitting that she simply doesn't like cuts in federal programs that produce Democrat voters and ever-larger deficits, Pelosi said she was opposed to cuts in any programs in order to protect the FEMA disaster funding.

Says San Fran Nan: "Let's hope they're [Republicans] not playing games with us--and now we are getting into games. Why don't we just come back and have another press conference after they say what they're are going to do. Because it's a waste of your time and my time to speculate on the horrors that they could come up with--because we know they are endless and we could be here a long time." Pelosi is much more concerned with what she calls "games" (others call it hardball politics) and news conferences than she is with admitting that cuts have to be made and that the nation can't afford to keep all the Democratic pie-in-the-sky, something-for-nothing programs.

Given her tendency to hyperventilate over any proposal to downsize the federal government giveaway programs, her reaction was not exactly unexpected. Her failure to propose an alternative that the nation could afford was likewise not a surprise. And her incoherence was simply standard Pelosi. But that's not what I'm hoping you will edify me and enlighten me about.

Pelosi was sure that she would advocate against and vote to reject any Republican proposal that funds necessary government functions by cutting Democratic pork and wasteful government programs. She was in a quandary about only one thing (surprisingly). When asked directly if some government programs in a continuing resolution could be funded by de-funding Planned Parenthood, Pelosi said she wouldn't speculate on what she would if that proposal were made.

So there it is. I have no idea why Pelosi would have any hesitation about preserving the funding for the abortion mill that she has so often and strongly supported. I would have expected her to give up all funding for the Defense Department or fetal stem cell research before even considering cutting or de-funding Planned Parenthood. So what do you think? Should she be in a quandary about Planned Parenthood? Is she really in a quandary, or is she simply stalling for time until she can think of an answer favorable to Planned Parenthood? And finally, if everything else could be worked out, do you think Pelosi would fight a continuing resolution solely on the basis of de-funding Planned Parenthood?

It's Sunday, and for once I'm going to do my religious duty and rest. But not before I throw out a topic for you readers to kick around and bring me up to speed on your thinking. We're once again up against a Congressional deadline for passing a budget, or passing a continuing resolution, or shutting down non-vital government functions until one of the previous two is accomplished.

On Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Boehner lost a vote on his proposed continuing resolution (they're not even close on an actual budget). Conservative Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the bill 230 to 195. Whatever one may think of their reasoning and their votes, the basic problem was that the conservatives thought the resolution didn't make enough deep cuts and wanted FEMA disaster funding handled separately. Democrats wanted to keep FEMA in the formula in order to demagogue Republican heartlessness. They also wanted some offsetting new taxes to balance the cuts ("revenue enhancement" in Democrat parlance means "higher taxes").

In fact, there was a more complicated reason for why the Republicans seemed to be susceptible to the claim of being heartless. They actually originally wanted to keep FEMA disaster funding and named the figure of $1.5 billion. But to keep that funding, they wanted an equal cut in funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program. In other words, the Democrats would rather kill funding for FEMA disaster relief than to allow cuts in their precious experimental toy cars program.

Former House Speaker and now very-minority Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday did her usual incoherent discussion of the impasse, blaming recalcitrant Republicans for just about everything except the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Subtly admitting that she simply doesn't like cuts in federal programs that produce Democrat voters and ever-larger deficits, Pelosi said she was opposed to cuts in any programs in order to protect the FEMA disaster funding.

Says San Fran Nan: "Let's hope they're [Republicans] not playing games with us--and now we are getting into games. Why don't we just come back and have another press conference after they say what they're are going to do. Because it's a waste of your time and my time to speculate on the horrors that they could come up with--because we know they are endless and we could be here a long time." Pelosi is much more concerned with what she calls "games" (others call it hardball politics) and news conferences than she is with admitting that cuts have to be made and that the nation can't afford to keep all the Democratic pie-in-the-sky, something-for-nothing programs.

Given her tendency to hyperventilate over any proposal to downsize the federal government giveaway programs, her reaction was not exactly unexpected. Her failure to propose an alternative that the nation could afford was likewise not a surprise. And her incoherence was simply standard Pelosi. But that's not what I'm hoping you will edify me and enlighten me about.

Pelosi was sure that she would advocate against and vote to reject any Republican proposal that funds necessary government functions by cutting Democratic pork and wasteful government programs. She was in a quandary about only one thing (surprisingly). When asked directly if some government programs in a continuing resolution could be funded by de-funding Planned Parenthood, Pelosi said she wouldn't speculate on what she would if that proposal were made.

So there it is. I have no idea why Pelosi would have any hesitation about preserving the funding for the abortion mill that she has so often and strongly supported. I would have expected her to give up all funding for the Defense Department or fetal stem cell research before even considering cutting or de-funding Planned Parenthood. So what do you think? Should she be in a quandary about Planned Parenthood? Is she really in a quandary, or is she simply stalling for time until she can think of an answer favorable to Planned Parenthood? And finally, if everything else could be worked out, do you think Pelosi would fight a continuing resolution solely on the basis of de-funding Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood A Pelosi Quandary

View Detail

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

Slow Joe is at it again. Last time he was calling Tea Party supporters terrorists. Before that he was calling women lacrosse players “gazelles” and complaining that “the wrong people end up collecting the women” in the financial crisis. Now he's praising China’s “repugnant” forced abortion policy.



Starting in the 1970s, China introduced a policy that limits families to one child per couple. This includes criminal sentences and forced abortions for parents who violate the policy. Ostensibly, this was done because China was facing an over population problem -- although China’s population was actually declining at the time the policy was put into place.



As an interesting consequence of this policy, China is now facing two of the world’s most extreme demographic problems. First, the elimination of several generations of young has left China with the world’s worst retirement problem, as China’s elderly population far outweighs its productive population (4 retirees per worker) -- this is much worse than in the United States (3 workers per retiree). Secondly, because the Chinese prefer boys over girls, this meant that mostly girls were aborted or killed as infants. Thus, China is about to face the problem that there are 40 million more eligible bachelors than there are wives. To get a sense of how large this problem is, consider that this is the same number of marrying age males in Britain, France and Germany combined. It is also the entire population of California.



China’s single-child policy is largely responsible for both of these problems and there is serious pressure to end the policy. Even China’s official press is questioning the policy, which is highly unusual. Moreover, last month, one entire province demanded a waiver of the policy. It seems that the policy will soon end.



So what does this have to do with us?



American liberals were initially big fans of China’s one-child policy. Why? Well, the 1970s was the age of the next Global Ice Age, the Population Bomb, and fantasies of global famine. We were all going to starve by 1992. And let’s face it, liberals have always loved Eugenics.



But at some point, most liberals realized that forced abortion was not a very defensible thing. So they decided that China’s policy was not something they could publicly praise, even though many continue to support it in private. Indeed, even now, you will occasionally find liberals who openly defend the policy. For example, there was a laughable AP article last month that claimed that girls had it better under the one-child policy than they did before. Of course, that’s only the girls who aren’t killed as children or fetuses and aren’t imprisoned or forced to abort their own children. Moreover, the article failed to grasp that economically, the whole premise of its argument was crap. But hey, these are liberals, what do you expect?



Enter Slow Joe Biden.



Biden is in China for reasons unknown, possibly to get him out of town until the election or maybe as collateral for our bonds or maybe he just got lost on his way to see Santa? And let me tell you, the Chinese are not pleased. They have already had to cut off one of his speeches because it was too idiotic to be translated. Then they asked him what he thought about China’s one-child policy. Here is what Joe said:

“The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The vice president believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the one child policy to a Chinese audience.”

Oops, sorry, that’s what Biden’s spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said (and no, I did not make that name up). Here’s what Biden actually said:

“Your policy has been one which I fully understand--I'm not second-guessing--of one child per family.”

Feel free to compare the quotes, you may find a slight discrepancy. Either Barkoff is lying or Biden is “not second-guessing” China’s “repugnant” policy. . . or both. Who keeps letting this idiot out of his rubber room? Seriously, if I were Obama, I would have Biden shot to the moon and then get Huntsman to run as my VP.

Slow Joe is at it again. Last time he was calling Tea Party supporters terrorists. Before that he was calling women lacrosse players “gazelles” and complaining that “the wrong people end up collecting the women” in the financial crisis. Now he's praising China’s “repugnant” forced abortion policy.



Starting in the 1970s, China introduced a policy that limits families to one child per couple. This includes criminal sentences and forced abortions for parents who violate the policy. Ostensibly, this was done because China was facing an over population problem -- although China’s population was actually declining at the time the policy was put into place.



As an interesting consequence of this policy, China is now facing two of the world’s most extreme demographic problems. First, the elimination of several generations of young has left China with the world’s worst retirement problem, as China’s elderly population far outweighs its productive population (4 retirees per worker) -- this is much worse than in the United States (3 workers per retiree). Secondly, because the Chinese prefer boys over girls, this meant that mostly girls were aborted or killed as infants. Thus, China is about to face the problem that there are 40 million more eligible bachelors than there are wives. To get a sense of how large this problem is, consider that this is the same number of marrying age males in Britain, France and Germany combined. It is also the entire population of California.



China’s single-child policy is largely responsible for both of these problems and there is serious pressure to end the policy. Even China’s official press is questioning the policy, which is highly unusual. Moreover, last month, one entire province demanded a waiver of the policy. It seems that the policy will soon end.



So what does this have to do with us?



American liberals were initially big fans of China’s one-child policy. Why? Well, the 1970s was the age of the next Global Ice Age, the Population Bomb, and fantasies of global famine. We were all going to starve by 1992. And let’s face it, liberals have always loved Eugenics.



But at some point, most liberals realized that forced abortion was not a very defensible thing. So they decided that China’s policy was not something they could publicly praise, even though many continue to support it in private. Indeed, even now, you will occasionally find liberals who openly defend the policy. For example, there was a laughable AP article last month that claimed that girls had it better under the one-child policy than they did before. Of course, that’s only the girls who aren’t killed as children or fetuses and aren’t imprisoned or forced to abort their own children. Moreover, the article failed to grasp that economically, the whole premise of its argument was crap. But hey, these are liberals, what do you expect?



Enter Slow Joe Biden.



Biden is in China for reasons unknown, possibly to get him out of town until the election or maybe as collateral for our bonds or maybe he just got lost on his way to see Santa? And let me tell you, the Chinese are not pleased. They have already had to cut off one of his speeches because it was too idiotic to be translated. Then they asked him what he thought about China’s one-child policy. Here is what Joe said:

“The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The vice president believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the one child policy to a Chinese audience.”

Oops, sorry, that’s what Biden’s spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said (and no, I did not make that name up). Here’s what Biden actually said:

“Your policy has been one which I fully understand--I'm not second-guessing--of one child per family.”

Feel free to compare the quotes, you may find a slight discrepancy. Either Barkoff is lying or Biden is “not second-guessing” China’s “repugnant” policy. . . or both. Who keeps letting this idiot out of his rubber room? Seriously, if I were Obama, I would have Biden shot to the moon and then get Huntsman to run as my VP.

I'm Not Second Guessing Your Repugnance!

View Detail