News outlets reject pro-life ad for being “too controversial”

posted at 2:31 pm on July 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

What’s so controversial about a baby?  When Heroic Media wanted to place an ad in major newspapers like USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune to argue for a ban on late-term abortions, they didn’t include any graphic photos of aborted babies, or what abortion mills like Planned Parenthood call “products of conception” or “POCs.” Instead, it just shows a child at roughly 20 weeks gestation resting in the hand of an adult, which gives readers some badly-needed context about late-term abortions.

heroic-lg2

No problem, right? After all, our media has no trouble selling ad space for lots of pictures of babies, asleep and awake, for products from diapers to car tires to on-line investment firms.  Suddenly, though, a baby to sell the concept of protecting human life is too controversial, according to these newspapers (via Carol Platt Liebau):

A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago TribuneUSA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media. …

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.

No one here will argue that these outlets have a requirement to carry these ads.  Their newspapers are their own property, and they should be allowed to choose freely on which advertisements they run.  But we are also free to reach conclusions about their political bias based on those decisions, and it’s clear that these outlets don’t want a real debate on abortion, especially late-term abortion, based on facts.  The argument that this photograph is somehow so controversial that it can’t be published in decent society is ridiculous immediately on viewing the ad. They’re not refusing it because it’s controversial — they’re refusing it because it’s effective.

Meanwhile, Scott Walker signed a bill in Wisconsin that duplicates the bill in Texas.  You know, the one that’s so controversial that 62% of Texas voters support it:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law on Friday new abortion restrictions that opponents said could lead to the closing of two of the state’s four abortion clinics.

Opponents of the law, which goes into effect Monday, July 8, filed a federal lawsuit challenging it.

The law requires women to undergo an ultrasound before they get an abortion and doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinics.

“This bill improves a woman’s ability to make an informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in the future,” said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for the governor.

According to Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, which are the state’s two abortion providers, the law could prompt the closing of abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee because doctors there do not have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

If that’s a requirement for all other ambulatory surgical centers (it is in Texas, at least), then why should abortionists be exempt from it?  Or do Planned Parenthood want to argue that women undergoing abortions should be less safe than anyone undergoing a Botox treatment or a tummy tuck?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Seriously? That is never going to happen. I will be interested in seeing the decrease of abortions from their absurd number now that Obamacare demands that the birth control is to be covered “free” of charge. Especially since it has been so terribly hard to find and expensive up until now.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 1:30 PM

The question is at what point can a fetus survive outside of the womb with more than a mother’s milk?

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Since my daughter was born 2 1/2 months early (and wasn’t even the earliest premie in the NICU), a BABY can survive outside the womb during the third trimester.

Thus, by your own admission and my personal experience, third-trimester abortions should be considered murder, and the abortion providers performing them should be charged with murder.

dominigan on July 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:11 PM

.
It finally got posted. But I’m left wondering what triggered the mod-que.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Those who endorse dirty abortion clinics run by greedy opprtunists are obviously racists, because the majority of women who frequent (and are harmed by) those places are minorities.
These Margeret Sanger fans should stand up and be counted!

LASue on July 8, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Whatever…..how is cleanliness a big f-ing imposition?

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Do you not see how disingenuous that comment is?
I assume you have a position on abortion – as do the advocates of this bill.
Let’s not get silly and pretend this is a debate/concern about clinic ‘cleanliness’.
Or shall I assume next on the TX legislature’s to-do-list is properly carpeted podiatry offices.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:35 PM

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:28 PM

You think it is too much to ask that a hospital be within thirty miles of a facility that is performing a medical procedure? Never mind, just have at it, go anywhere, do anything and I’ll just pray that there continues to never be any personal consequences for poor choices. Roll the dice.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Having a distinct DNA doesn’t actually make a fetus a distinct life though.
 
libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM

 
SCIENCE!

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 1:36 PM

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM

.
Simple and correct answer:
No, your are not wrong.
This has nothing to do with concern over the health and well being of the women who make this choice.
It’s incremental-ism…with the goal being abortion being 100% illegal.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM

.
The conditions of Kermit Gosnell’s “clinic” be damned, what the testimonies proved is that the unborn baby (“fetus” to you) is a real live person.
.
I believe abortion will always be an option, where the mother’s life may be at risk.
That is the only time it should be an option.
The decision in such cases should be private, between patient and doctor.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:41 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I believe abortion will always be available legally. Sorry that you can’t believe that I am horrified by the facility that Gosnell ran. And since there are investigations into others I think you are the one being naive about what goes on. Oddly enough it is usually the lower income women who pay more and put up with substandard facilities. You don’t know me from Adam nor, I you, but I am as appalled that you think think that this is too much to ask and some kind of trick. Until Gosnell happen, I never dreamed that some legitimate facility like this would be allowed to exist.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 1:43 PM

verbaluce

Kamamaya Mongar’s family begs to differ.

LASue on July 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Despite the hysteria, gun control isn’t about banning guns.
 
verbaluce on June 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM

 

It’s incremental-ism…with the goal being abortion being 100% illegal.
 
verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM

 
Because only one side is allowed to read minds.

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I believe abortion will always be an option, where the mother’s life may be at risk.
That is the only time it should be an option.
The decision in such cases should be private, between patient and doctor.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Are you not then choosing the life of one over another?
Why the mother’s over the life of the innocent ‘unborn’?
A quandary…no?

Regardless, I imagine you understand many pushing this bill in TX find your position to be immoral…and that you advocate for ‘murder’.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Because only one side is allowed to read minds.

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM

.
Damn, you’re good !

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Despite the hysteria, gun control isn’t about banning guns.

verbaluce on June 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM

It’s incremental-ism…with the goal being abortion being 100% illegal.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Yes, both true.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Good news is – at least one of us is right.
 
verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Oops, sorry. Wrong quote. Not completely wrong since I was making fun of the religious quip from upthread, but it wasn’t the one I meant. Here’s the correct one.

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 1:59 PM

I do not support the ‘banning’ of all weapons/guns.
I understand some folks do. But that is not my position.
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

 
That’s better.

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Well lucky you, on the Right’s motives are suspect.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:41 PM
.
Are you not then choosing the life of one over another?

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

.
Yes.
.

Why the mother’s over the life of the innocent ‘unborn’?
A quandary…no?

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

.
IF . . . . . . . . the mother’s life is genuinely in danger, then it’s not a “quandry” for me.

Such situations/circumstances are tragic, no matter which way the decision goes.

Life’s hardest decisions are always between ‘bad’ and ‘worse’.

A pregnant woman experiencing a genuine life-threatening situation due to the pregnancy, is as tough as it gets. : (
.

Regardless, I imagine you understand many pushing this bill in TX find your position to be immoral…and that you advocate for ‘murder’.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

.
No doubt about it.

Hard-line conservatives Christians don’t agree on every detail, verbal’.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Well lucky you, only the Right’s motives are suspect.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Well lucky you, on the Right’s motives are suspect.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

So, generally speaking…

You don’t feel that the pro-life movement ultimately wants to stop abortion?

And you do feel that gun control advocates actually want to take everyone’s guns away…all of them?

(Again, generally speaking…exceptions granted and noted.)

If this debate is to be had from false premises and false equivalencies – then it’s not a debate…just a word game.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Hard-line conservatives Christians don’t agree on every detail, verbal’.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

And yet they want to legislate them.
But ‘Hard-line conservatives’, as you call them, have always had a hard time staying out of peoples bedrooms and bodies.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Well lucky you, only the Right’s motives are suspect.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

(Yes, understood that when I replied above – thx)

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Well lucky you, only the Right’s motives are suspect.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM

.
That comment sounds suspiciously “right-wing” to me.

Somebody should investigate this girl, to validate her motives.
She might be “biased”.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

There are countries where guns have been taken away. It probably won’t happen in my life time, I’m getting up there. What countries don’t allow abortion? Muslim countries? I am sure there are extremists who want absolutes on their particular issue, and while I am against abortion, I don’t appreciate being labeled over the issue of cleanliness. If you can’t run a McDonalds with those conditions, you shouldn’t be able to do invasive procedures either.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Boycott these newspapers.

potvin on July 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Yeah. Those creepy old Conservatives pushing the LGBT Agenda with the Anti-Bully Laws and Bill 1266, which will allow both genders into each others restrooms and locker rooms.

They just want to prescribe what is sexually normal to the whole country, don’t they?/

Give it a rest, Kreskin.

kingsjester on July 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Thanks, I don’t suggest that you are petty. Just wrong.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Do you not see how disingenuous that comment is?
I assume you have a position on abortion – as do the advocates of this bill.
Let’s not get silly and pretend this is a debate/concern about clinic ‘cleanliness’.
Or shall I assume next on the TX legislature’s to-do-list is properly carpeted podiatry offices.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Because we all know that if this legislation was a case of clinic cleanliness only, the pro-abortionists presently up in arms would then happily support it, right? (look to Gov. Mark Dayton in MN for an example of what I am talking about!)

You are either delusional or a liar if you say you believe that’s the case here…

Anti-Control on July 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM

If you can’t run a McDonalds with those conditions, you shouldn’t be able to do invasive procedures either.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

If cleanliness of the clinics is truly your concern here, I accept you are one of the exceptions.
(And I’d be ok with shutting down McDonalds. Or at least I’d benefit from it.)

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:43 PM

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM

.
And yet they want to legislate them.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

.
To us, the casual “aborting” of a pregnancy is just as much murder, as the killing of the anyone else would be.

Situations where the pregnant mother’s life is genuinely in jeopardy, the decisions have to be left to the persons involved, and their doctor(s).
A situation like that is like unto conjoined twins where one of them cannot live separated, but they’ll both die if they’re not.
.

But ‘Hard-line conservatives’, as you call them, have always had a hard time staying out of peoples bedrooms and bodies.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

.
B U L L (expletive) !

Opposing “abortion-on-demand” does NOT constitute getting into “peoples bedrooms and bodies.

Christian zealots are not going to be sneaking around, spying into
people’s bedrooms, motel rooms, parked cars or vans trying to catch fornicators, adulterers, or gays.

We do want a strong law that gives recognition to an unborn child (“fetus” to you) as being a real live person.
We want ‘Roe vs Wade’ overturned, and we’d like to do it without a civil war.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:47 PM

You are either delusional or a liar if you say you believe that’s the case here…

Anti-Control on July 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Not sure what your point is, but here’s what I think to be the case –
The bill is not motivated by a concern that clinics might be clean or not.
It is motivated by a concern that they exist at all.

Now what is it you’re accusing me of again?

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:43 PM

My long experience as a woman and public restrooms makes my desire not to plop my azz on filth, unimpeachable.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:49 PM

To us, the casual “aborting” of a pregnancy is just as much murder, as the killing of the anyone else would be…..

We do want a strong law that gives recognition to an unborn child (“fetus” to you) as being a real live person.
We want ‘Roe vs Wade’ overturned, and we’d like to do it without a civil war……

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I’m aware that some view abortion as ‘murder’. I think your position – that you consider it murder and yet are ok with it in some circumstances – is illogical and inconsistent. But that’s for you to sort out.

As far as you wanting to change the law – there’s a process for that. It’s nice that you’d like to accomplish that ‘without a civil war’ – but that sounds a bit like you’d approve and support such if the nation doesn’t accept and legislate based on your beliefs.
(But maybe you didn’t mean that.)

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:43 PM

My long experience as a woman and public restrooms makes my desire not to plop my azz on filth, unimpeachable.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 2:49 PM

It is in these circumstances that I have the advantage of being a stand up guy.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM

This is another area where your side plays both sides of the fence. Since men can’t carry babies the Left want pro-Life men to shut up but pro-choice guys get to expand at length about the motives about sanitary and emergency conditions. Y’all lead a charmed life.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Not sure what your point is, but here’s what I think to be the case –
The bill is not motivated by a concern that clinics might be clean or not.
It is motivated by a concern that they exist at all.

Now what is it you’re accusing me of again?

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM

You believe the cleanliness of the clinics isn’t a motivation of the pro-life legislators…you have as much evidence for this as those who say George Zimmerman went after Trayvon Martin because of his race do i.e. you have no evidence to support your opinion.

My point is that you are incapable of admitting that the pro-abortionists who are upset about this legislation don’t care one whit about the health of the women getting abortions in these dirty clinics, when it comes right down to it i.e. they value abortion above everything else, including cleanliness/healthiness!

You fail to acknowledge this because you are a liar, because you’re delusional, or both. Based upon the quickness you have to impugn the motives of those you disagree with here, I say the correct answer is, “both”! :)

Anti-Control on July 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM

This is another area where your side plays both sides of the fence. Since men can’t carry babies the Left want pro-Life men to shut up but pro-choice guys get to expand at length about the motives about sanitary and emergency conditions. Y’all lead a charmed life.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Come on now…
This isn’t a cleanliness thread…it’s an abortion thread.
L2G above isn’t concerned about a civil war over sanitary conditions…but over Roe v. Wade.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:23 PM

My point is that you are incapable of admitting that the pro-abortionists who are upset about this legislation don’t care one whit about the health of the women getting abortions in these dirty clinics, when it comes right down to it i.e. they value abortion above everything else, including cleanliness/healthiness!

You fail to acknowledge this because you are a liar, because you’re delusional, or both. Based upon the quickness you have to impugn the motives of those you disagree with here, I say the correct answer is, “both”! :)

Anti-Control on July 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Not a point…a rant.
But go for it…I won’t get in the way of it.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The commonality of unreported rapes isn’t made up, it’s a well researched and documented fact.

bayam on July 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM

And we know from undercover video, that abortion clinics aid and abet unreported rapes of minors. But you don’t really care about that fact either.

dominigan on July 8, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Not a point…a rant.
But go for it…I won’t get in the way of it.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM

It was pointed; it was not a rant – you mischaracterize it because it was too pointed for you, and you know you cannot defend against it.

Was this a rant by me as well? LOL@you, you lying coward.

Anti-Control on July 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Since my daughter was born 2 1/2 months early (and wasn’t even the earliest premie in the NICU), a BABY can survive outside the womb during the third trimester.

Thus, by your own admission and my personal experience, third-trimester abortions should be considered murder, and the abortion providers performing them should be charged with murder.

dominigan on July 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM

As a note, I was personally born over two months premature back in 1968. I was supposed to be born on Thanksgiving, but was born on September 19th instead; a six and a half month gestation. And I am sure that the medical technology has only vastly improved over the last 45 years to allow those as young as five months and younger to survive.

This “viable” and “quality of life” garbage is what the statists (Fascists, Communists, Nazis) used as an excuse to kill millions. Be very careful with that line of thinking.

Whenever there is a question between life or death, life should automatically be the default option.

Theophile on July 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Apparently two on record, one in Delaware, I think, and the other in Georgia.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM

So with pro life activists working for years to discredit abortion practices they were able to find a total of 4 clinics that needed to be closed due to lax facilities. 4. Out of the thousands that exist around the country? Come now.

The argument of rarity might have some weight if inspections were happening on a regular basis in these places. But Pennsylvania refused to inspect any abortion clinics in the last 20 years. The only reason any of this came out was an unrelated investigation of prescription drugs.

So it does no good to appeal to rarity if inspections are not even allowed.

Going with the line you guys like to throw out, is it too much to ask for sanitary conditions in a healthcare (liberal term for abortion)facility if it saves the health or life of one woman?

Not if doing so endangers two others who may pursue totally unregulated clinics because the nearest approved abortion provider is hundreds of miles away. Conservatives supposedly claim that we should enforce existing regulations before we craft new ones. Why isn’t it possible for state agencies responsible for regulating abortion providers to be asked to do their job. The real goal is to limit women’s access to abortion. Please stop calling it healthcare.

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM

IOW, please ignore our hypocrisy while we call you hypocrites.

So we shouldn’t try to eliminate abortions currently being done in poor, unsafe, unsanitary facilities by unqualified staff, because it might lead to a lack of properly licensed abortion clinics, which might lead to abortions being done in poor, unsafe, unsanitary facilities by unqualified staff.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Eating a dead baby and eating a dead puppy is the same thing.

thujackass on any day of the week 2013

davidk on July 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

The real goal is to limit women’s access to abortion. Please stop calling it healthcare.

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Th real goal is to protect the lives of innocent babies.

It is called justice.

davidk on July 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Leftists are such idiots when trying to make their points.

They need to be concerned when THEY are older, though, as their arguments sound an awful lot like what Hitler believed (I know this has already been said)…..but not sure it’s been applied to future thoughts about the “useless” elderly who are /will be draining our economy when they retire, which I’ve already been reading from the younger generations (X’s,Y’s), even Gerri Willis on Fox Business (the only Fox channel I watch).

http://answers.ask.com/Society/History/why_did_hitler_kill_jews

avagreen on July 8, 2013 at 5:29 PM

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Well, actually it is a thread about news organizations deciding which side of an argument is pertinent. I can ignore it in their acceptance of advertisement a lot easier than I can in news coverage which is the duty to the citizenry. As I said above all you have to do is compare and contrast the coverage of the Gosnell trial to the filibuster by Ms. Davis and anyone can plainly see that they don’t report the news, the control the news.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Leftists are such idiots when trying to make their points.

avagreen on July 8, 2013 at 5:29 PM

According to verbaloser:

accusing anti-abortionists as being unconcerned with abortion clinics’ cleanliness, without supporting evidence=a point, not a rant;

accusing pro-abortionists who not only do not advocate for improving the cleanliness of abortion clinics, but ignore & oppose efforts to improve their cleanliness, with evidence=a rant, not a point.

verbaloser=lying loser.

Anti-Control on July 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Verbaldouchebag. you’re mentally unstable . Fact.

CW on July 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM

The real goal is to limit women’s access to abortion. Please stop calling it healthcare.

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Why do you hate life so much. Does swilling semen rot the brain? So many homosexuals bow at the altar of abortion.

CW on July 8, 2013 at 6:57 PM

CW on July 8, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Pro Choice guys,especially non-breeders get to say anything they want. You possible Dads need to shut up.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Having a distinct DNA doesn’t actually make a fetus a distinct life though.
 
libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM

 

SCIENCE!
 
rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 1:36 PM

 
I have to admit that I’m looking forward to the gymnastics when
 
1) genetic testing for homosexuality yields 50% accurate results, and
 
2) women begin purposely aborting potentially homosexual babies, and
 
3) the same politicians who say “that’s not really life” about all other abortions begin pushing anti-discrimination legislation to prevent the purging of homosexual not-lifes.

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 8:10 PM

rogerb on July 8, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Come on now, libs would abort for Downs Syndrome or even gender but not for sexual preference.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2013 at 8:22 PM

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 2:47 PM

.
I’m aware that some view abortion as ‘murder’. I think your position – that you consider it murder and yet are ok with it in some circumstances – is illogical and inconsistent. But that’s for you to sort out.

As far as you wanting to change the law – there’s a process for that. It’s nice that you’d like to accomplish that ‘without a civil war’ – but that sounds a bit like you’d approve and support such if the nation doesn’t accept and legislate based on your beliefs.
(But maybe you didn’t mean that.)

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM

.
“Abortion-on-demand” (Roe vs Wade) IS going to be overturned one way or another … period.

A majority of Americans DO accept this action taking place.

Abortion-on-demand would NEVER have become “legal” without the arrogant, black robe wearing “bench sitters” on that Warren Court.

It would not have passed in the Legislature, if it had to.
it wouldn’t have passed four years ago, when Saint Nancy controlled the House.
It would NEVER pass as a National Referendum.

The will of the majority is being “over-ruled”, and I view it as constituting a valid grounds basis for full-scale revolt (yes, that means ‘civil war’).

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Karl Magnus on July 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Some fools sure are handy with the HTML font tags.

Nutstuyu on July 8, 2013 at 9:28 PM

nobar on July 8, 2013 at 1:04 PM

KERSLAM!!

Nutstuyu on July 8, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Simple question. Have any of the backers of these laws been able to demonstrate the Kermit Gosnell represents anything like the usual standard of care within an abortion clinic in PA or in any other state? It seems that pro life ideologues have taken the Gosnell exception to make sweeping changes that will severely limit the number of places a woman can receive a legal abortion. Am I wrong about this?

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Simple and correct answer:
No, your are not wrong.
This has nothing to do with concern over the health and well being of the women who make this choice.
It’s incremental-ism…with the goal being abortion being 100% illegal.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Tell you what: I’ll give up 100% of guns if you give up 100% of abortions. Deal?

*crickets*

Nutstuyu on July 8, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I believe abortion will always be an option, where the mother’s life may be at risk.
That is the only time it should be an option.
The decision in such cases should be private, between patient and doctor.

listens2glenn on July 8, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Are you not then choosing the life of one over another?
Why the mother’s over the life of the innocent ‘unborn’?
A quandary…no?

Regardless, I imagine you understand many pushing this bill in TX find your position to be immoral…and that you advocate for ‘murder’.

verbaluce on July 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM

It’s not really any more of a quandary than when conjoined twins must be separated in the hope that ONE of them survives. And that situation requires an actual MD in an actual hospital O.R. So why can’t abortions operate (pun intended) under the same conditions?

Nutstuyu on July 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM

OK, do I get a Bishop or something?

Nutstuyu on July 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM

HotAir trolls ecstatic: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/judge-blocks-new-wisconsin-abortion-law/?test=latestnews

davidk on July 8, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Hmm, a lawsuit by UnPlanned Parenthood when they don’t have standing…according to SCOTUS.

Nutstuyu on July 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Liberals just want abortion to be “Safe, Legal, and Rare”.

But you can’t require it to be as safe as an oral surgeon or a Lasik clinic; that’s horrible.

And you can’t remove any rights to any abortion for no reason at any time; that’s horrific.

Lets revise that:
“Unsanitary, common, and legal”.

That’s what they’re fighting for; lets call it what it is.

gekkobear on July 9, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Simple question. Have any of the backers of these laws been able to demonstrate the Kermit Gosnell represents anything like the usual standard of care within an abortion clinic in PA or in any other state? It seems that pro life ideologues have taken the Gosnell exception to make sweeping changes that will severely limit the number of places a woman can receive a legal abortion. Am I wrong about this?

libfreeordie on July 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM

So we only pass safety laws like OSHA style laws when the majority or “usual standards” are sub-par? We don’t pass any laws like this at any time if it is a minority who fail to meet the requirements and are terrible and needs changing?

Can I see some evidence of that logical premise that your conclusion is resting so firmly on? I’m failing to see any justification that such a claim is even vaguely accurate; but it’s required for your statement to be meaningful, isn’t it?

The new EPA standards, are the “usual standard of CO2 release” in the vast majority of power plants intolerable? If not does that mean we shouldn’t pass any standards for anyone?

How is that not the same argument?
How is that argument even meaningful?

gekkobear on July 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM

HotAir trolls ecstatic: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/judge-blocks-new-wisconsin-abortion-law/?test=latestnews

davidk on July 8, 2013 at 9:04 PM

No surprise. When liberals don’t like a law, they find a friendly judge to slap an injunction on it. Happens all the time.

When Mississippi passed a law to clarify that a handgun in a holster is not actually concealed, and can be carried without a Concealed Carry Weapon permit, they blocked it in the last half hour of the last business day before the law went into effect by asking a judge to rule that the law was (somehow) vague.

When Mississippi passed a law much like the one in Wisconsin, saying that you can’t perform abortions unless you have admitting privileges at a local hospital, they found a judge to slap an injunction on it. Apparently, regulating abortions might actually reduce the number of them, and that is unacceptable.

When Texas finally passes their law requiring abortion clinics to meet safety standards, you can fully expect an 11th-hour lawsuit to block it, followed by an injunction.

Remember the Sacrament of Molech, to keep it holy.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 9, 2013 at 1:44 AM

It may be more realistic if the baby were black. After all, most abortions are black. It helps the liberals fix what Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) called the “Negro Problem”. I guess these newspapers want to help fix it as well.

jeffn21 on July 9, 2013 at 11:18 AM

* crickets chirping * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
Wow … the silence is loud, here.

listens2glenn on July 9, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6