Governments shovel money to radical abortion agenda

posted at 2:31 pm on January 17, 2015 by Dustin Siggins

How much of the public treasury are Baltimore, Austin, New York, and San Francisco politicians willing to spend to help their friends in the abortion industry shut down pro-life competitors?

This is a question taxpayers may want to ask in light of new information this week showing that the Montgomery County Council spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in a failed effort to harm crisis pregnancy centers — on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

According to e-mails uncovered in an investigative report by LifeSiteNews, for whom I work as a reporter, NARAL’s Maryland chapter engaged in a straightforward case of crony capitalism in 2009 when it pushed County officials to pass a law requiring pro-life clinics — NARAL’s competitors — to disclose if they do not have a doctor on-site.

Unfortunately for taxpayers in Montgomery County, the Council listened to NARAL, passing the law and spending more than four years defending it. After three defeats, the county was forced to pay $375,000 to lawyers for pro-life clinic Centro Tepeyac. And this doesn’t include the time spent by council staff members on drafting, proposing, and defending the regulation.

And Baltimore may be next. On its website, NARAL’s Maryland chapter brags about how it helped the Baltimore City Council pass Ordinance 09-0406 in 2009. The ordinance, which required all pro-life Baltimore pregnancy clinics to declare whether or not they provide abortions, has been in court for nearly five years, and has received mixed decisions by judges.

The ordinance is currently not enforceable, by court ruling, until a final decision is made — and that could take until 2016 or later. In the meantime, Baltimore taxpayers have to keep shoveling out money to the city’s lawyers and staffers, and in the end could have to pay more than Montgomery County did for the legal fees of various pro-life clinics and other organizations that have sued to overturn the ordinance.

There are other similarities. NARAL’s alleged undercover investigations of crisis pregnancy centers was dismissed by the judge in the Montgomery County case. The judge said that those who claimed that a “misinformation problem” existed “were universally volunteers from a pro-choice organization sent to investigate practices” at pro-life centers.

Likewise, Baltimore — the first municipality in the nation to pass this kind of speech-related ordinance — appeared to rely heavily on NARAL’s 2008 report on alleged deception by pro-life clinics. However, even a cursory glance at the report shows NARAL’s definition of “deceptive” boils down to “anything we disagree with about the realities of abortion.”

It’s not just Maryland taxpayers who are facing enormous costs as their elected officials do the bidding of America’s radical abortion proponents. Last year, an Austin ordinance requiring pro-life clinics to put up signs saying they do not provide medical services was overturned in court — and that ordinance was preceded by a different regulation that a) lost in court, and b) was recommended to be dropped because of litigation costs to the city.

Back on the East Coast, two of New York City’s three anti-pregnancy center regulations were overturned one year ago, while out west the abortion industry’s only clear-cut victory took place in San Francisco.

And, as in Maryland, NARAL was right there, bragging about its role in costing taxpayers money. In San Francisco, they claim to have “worked tirelessly with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors” to pass the city’s ordinance. In Austin and New York, those cities passed their ordinances after “reports” were issued by NARAL about alleged pregnancy center dishonesty.

NARAL’s use of government officials to harm its competitors is not only a case of collusive cronyism — it’s also a clear case of hypocrisy. Right now, NARAL’s Ohio chapter is suing Governor John Kasich, claiming his administration’s relationship with Ohio Right to Life is just a little too cozy.

As the various ordinances continue to work their way through the courts, taxpayers may want to ask whether their dollars are best used at the beck and call of NARAL, rather than for the benefit of the public.

Siggins is the D.C. correspondent for LifeSiteNews, a leading pro-life and pro-family daily news site. He is a co-author of the book America’s Bankrupt Legacy: The Future of the Debt-Paying Generation, to be published in 2015.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I first read “radical” as “racial” which is actually more correct as many times the abortions, proportionately, are done on black women as are done on other women.

VorDaj on January 17, 2015 at 2:40 PM

Never enough dead innocents for the pro deathers.

CW on January 17, 2015 at 2:49 PM

Let’s see…it’s okay to kill an unborn infant who is completely innocent but barbaric to kill a vicious criminal who is a scourge on society.

rich8450 on January 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM

Im all for eliminating wasteful government spending. So where’s the article suggesting citizens complain about the millions of dollars spent by state and local governments defending their codification of traditional marriage into law, even when it was readily apparent it was a loosing battle? Because that’s just as wasteful. Selective outrage doesn’t look good. Either governments should use all resources available to uphold their duly passed laws or they shouldn’t. No middle ground..

TylerMichaels on January 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM

If “Children are a gift from God” then abortion can just be seen as a unique kind of “re-gifting”.

The next excuse by the Left.

profitsbeard on January 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM

As the various ordinances continue to work their way through the courts, taxpayers may want to ask whether their dollars are best used at the beck and call of NARAL, rather than for

we seem to be missing the end of the statement.

dmacleo on January 17, 2015 at 3:08 PM

How much of the public treasury are Baltimore, Austin, New York, and San Francisco politicians willing to spend to help their friends in the abortion industry shut down pro-life competitors?

No price is too high for euthanasia and infanticide enthusiasts.

Star Bird on January 17, 2015 at 3:12 PM

No one’s done more for:
Abortion
Atheism
Poverty
Welfare
Than Barack Hussein Obama

Privatize It on January 17, 2015 at 3:14 PM

The U.S. Government gives more than $500 million to Planned Parenthood annually. Of course, it’s not used to fund abortion. lol. We all know how this shell game is played.

Dustin, thanks for posting this. Many of the HA writers are so obsessed with same-sex marriage that abortion hardly receives any coverage.

bw222 on January 17, 2015 at 3:14 PM

the millions of dollars spent by state and local governments defending their codification of traditional marriage into law, even when it was readily apparent it was a loosing battle?

TylerMichaels on January 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM

No mention of the millions of dollars all government has spent trying to pass legal gay marriages?

Aww, I see a one sided argument here.

Barred on January 17, 2015 at 3:38 PM

…pass a law requiring pro-life clinics — NARAL’s competitors — to disclose if they do not have a doctor on-site.

Kermit Gosnell sure saved lives in Philly.
/

Jeff2161 on January 17, 2015 at 3:49 PM

Barred

Not really. Only if you take half of a sentence out of context, and then on your own, assign me a position on an issue, and then assume my argument was made in bad faith based on that.

Either governments expend all resources defending duly passed laws or they don’t. No middle ground. No picking and choosing the issues one agrees with. To complain about it for one thing and not the other is selective outrage

TylerMichaels on January 17, 2015 at 3:50 PM

I wish you’d write here more often Dustin.

cat_owner on January 17, 2015 at 4:03 PM

We must murder more citizens in the womb in order to make room for more ready-made third world illegal Dim voters..

vnvet on January 17, 2015 at 4:21 PM

My understanding of this issue is that abortion providers are angry because anti abortion groups set up facilities that look from the outside like an abortion clinic. Of course, they wouldn’t have this problem if they didn’t use euphemisms like “family planning” to describe what they do. They hide behind vague language because they know most people are uncomfortable with abortion, then get mad when someone else takes advantage of that weakness.

Mahna Mahna on January 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM

Dustin, thanks for posting this. Many of the HA writers are so obsessed with same-sex marriage that abortion hardly receives any coverage.

bw222 on January 17, 2015 at 3:14 PM

I hope I’m wrong, but HotAir bloggers don’t seem motivated to do good as much as they appear eager to generate clicks.

itsnotaboutme on January 17, 2015 at 4:52 PM

…Generally speaking.

Again, I may be wrong, & I hope I am.

But appearances are what they are.

itsnotaboutme on January 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM

The only “radical” position here is that of the anti-abortion religious folk. Abortion is a safe and legal procedure. There is nothing radical about it.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

TylerMichaels on January 17, 2015 at 3:50 PM

I didn’t see anything in your original post about government getting out of the business of defending all marriages. Only the one about traditional marriages.

You were the one that assigned the one position.

Barred on January 17, 2015 at 5:10 PM

My understanding of this issue is that abortion providers are angry because anti abortion groups set up facilities that look from the outside like an abortion clinic. Of course, they wouldn’t have this problem if they didn’t use euphemisms like “family planning” to describe what they do. They hide behind vague language because they know most people are uncomfortable with abortion, then get mad when someone else takes advantage of that weakness.

Mahna Mahna on January 17, 2015 at 4:24 PM

Thanks – that cleared up some of my confusion.
Dustin was writing as if we are all up to speed on this issue, whereas, this is the first I have heard of it.

AesopFan on January 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM

I see one of the disciples of Molech has checked in.

CurtZHP on January 17, 2015 at 6:05 PM

Either governments should use all resources available to uphold their duly passed laws or they shouldn’t. No middle ground..

TylerMichaels on January 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM

The stupid in this one is enormous.

corona79 on January 17, 2015 at 6:11 PM

Imagine a world were a genetic marker for homosexuality was identified and people started aborting their babies based on that information.

Abortion opponents would still plead for the rights of the unborn, but liberals’ heads would explode.

I expect scientists will discover such a genetic marker, whether it exists or not, because of the deep desire in the gay community for rationalization.

Immolate on January 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM

Let’s see…it’s okay to kill an unborn infant who is completely innocent but barbaric to kill a vicious criminal who is a scourge on society.

rich8450 on January 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM

The scourge is a potential Dem voter.

Oxymoron on January 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM

Beverly would you show a dead fetus/baby to Jesus and than call Him a religious freak? I would love to see you do that. I will be lucky to just get an answer here.

garydt on January 17, 2015 at 7:11 PM

The only “radical” position here is that of the anti-abortion religious folk. Abortion is a safe and legal procedure. There is nothing radical about it.
beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

Since abortion is 100% fatal for the baby, logic dictates that your “safe” procedure is anything but.

Legal? Killing Jews, gays and the retarded was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany

Killing women for being the victims of rape is legal today within many Muslim countries and communities

Killing slaves was perfectly legal in any country, including this one that practiced slavery.

I wouldn’t lean too heavily on that “legal” straw, either.

Dolce Far Niente on January 17, 2015 at 7:23 PM

Ok, I will probably get flamed for this but you guys really need to chill on the abortion issue. I call myself a conservative but this is where I break with conservatism. Personally, as a child of the 70’s, I don’t see what the big deal is. Abortion, IMHO, should be available to women, period. It should be safe, sane, and legal. You don’t get to decide whether I should have to have a baby or not. I do.

In spite of what religious people think, women have been terminating pregnancies since the dawn of time. They did it by way of witch doctors, herbal concoctions that often took the life of the mother, too, and in more recent bygone years, they went to back street “doctors” who would insert all manner of things into her body, up to and including coat hangers.

Abortion has been settled law since I was 15 years old and I’ll be 55 in April. You need to STOP giving the liberals a cudgel to scare voters with (ooh, the scary, bad Republicans are going to ban abortion!!!!) and step into the 21st century. The President and Congress have way more on their plates these days than trying to repeal abortion. We have the national debt, Obamacare, terrorism and a laundry list of other issues that are way more important than trying to repeal a law that has been in effect for 3/4 of my life.

I an not in favor of using abortion as a manner of birth control, and I do not advocate late term abortions, but if a young woman doesn’t want to have a baby, for whatever reason…I’m ok with that as long as she is legally an adult. You should be too, whether you approve or not. If you don’t approve of abortions…don’t have one, but don’t try to force YOUR way of life on me or any other woman….this is what you accuse the Libs of doing and you all look like rank hypocrites.

If you are so ok with forcing anybody to do what YOU think is right…you’re no better than the liberals you rail against. Think about that. :)

StPaulSally on January 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM

Baby killers and if you condone it you have blood on your hands. hink of t this way if you are driving the get away car for a bank robbery, you will do heavy time. If you support abortion, you will also have your day in court.

crosshugger on January 17, 2015 at 7:52 PM

garydt
Beverly would you show a dead fetus/baby to Jesus and than call Him a religious freak? I would love to see you do that. I will be lucky to just get an answer here.

When would I ever see Jesus? I would have no problem telling anybody that I support a women’s right to do whatever she wants with her body.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 8:26 PM

The only “radical” position here is that of the anti-abortion religious folk. Abortion is a safe and legal procedure. There is nothing radical about it.
beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

…look at that!…^…they gave Kermit Gosnell a computer in prison!…and he calls himself beverly!

JugEarsButtHurt on January 17, 2015 at 8:30 PM

Imagine a world where a genetic marker for homosexuality was identified and people started aborting their babies based on that information.

Immolate on January 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM

“Planned” Parenthood from the beginning had a genetic marker but it was for African Americans and other unwanted races. Their founder Margaret Sanger wrote on the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Planned Parenthood has just become more efficient with abortion at eliminating those deemed unfit.

As reported by the Washington Times: “She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks.”

12th Legion on January 17, 2015 at 8:42 PM

JugEarsButtHurt
The only “radical” position here is that of the anti-abortion religious folk. Abortion is a safe and legal procedure. There is nothing radical about it.
beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM
…look at that!…^…they gave Kermit Gosnell a computer in prison!…and he calls himself beverly!

Right, everyone that supports a woman’s right to choose is Gosnell, and everyone that is anti-abortion is Scott Roeder. Get a life troll.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 8:55 PM

Yanking a baby out of a mother’s body simply can’t be this expensive.

I’m thinking that it’s more of a money laundering and money siphoning operation with Planned Parenthood being the front. Makes sense if you think about it. The Leftists get their abortion bone and the politicians playing them for suckers get their political and LSM support, while said politicians walk away with the cash.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 17, 2015 at 10:54 PM

If you are so ok with forcing anybody to do what YOU think is right…you’re no better than the liberals you rail against. Think about that. :)

StPaulSally on January 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM

I thought about it..you’re full of crap.
What about the fathers right to choose? What about the innocents right to live? You want to force people to comply with your choice.

Mimzey on January 17, 2015 at 11:30 PM

I would have no problem telling anybody that I support a women’s right to do whatever she wants with her body.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 8:26 PM

It’s not your body. Enough with that tired meme.
If the DNA of the fetus is identical to the DNA of the woman, then it’s part of her body. If it is different, it’s not part of her body. To claim otherwise is the position of anti science ideologues imo.

Mimzey on January 17, 2015 at 11:34 PM

Mimzey
I would have no problem telling anybody that I support a women’s right to do whatever she wants with her body.
beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 8:26 PM
It’s not your body. Enough with that tired meme.
If the DNA of the fetus is identical to the DNA of the woman, then it’s part of her body. If it is different, it’s not part of her body. To claim otherwise is the position of anti science ideologues imo.

Well then that DNA can find some other place to hang out.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 11:52 PM

Well then that DNA can find some other place to hang out.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 11:52 PM

So you concede the point?

Mimzey on January 18, 2015 at 12:08 AM

Mimzey on January 17, 2015 at 11:30 PM

Sorry, but until a baby lives outside my body and breathes on its own, it IS my choice.

As for a father’s right to choose? Why should he get one? Who says life is fair? It was 5 or 10 minutes of fun on his part and it will be 9 months of travail on the woman, not to mention the wear and tear on hormones and skin. Post-partum depression, anyone? Do men suffer that? Uh…no. So all is not equal, pal. Also, until there is some sort of mechanism for successfully compelling men to support their children (yes, there’s a mechanism, but men can and do choose jail), why should any woman give a man a choice? If he wanted children that bad, chances are he’d marry the mother and raise the child, but in the real world of hookup sex, how often does that really happen?

In a perfect world, people would procreate responsibly, but we all know this isn’t a perfect world and sometimes adoption is not an option. I don’t understand why the female half of a couple should bear the brunt of the consequences of unprotected sex, while her male partner moves on to his next conquest, free from childbearing and rearing.

As I said before, I’m not in favor of using abortion as a means of birth control, nor do I favor late term abortions. Life isn’t fair, but abortion at least levels the playing field somewhat.

StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 12:59 AM

garydt
Beverly would you show a dead fetus/baby to Jesus and than call Him a religious freak? I would love to see you do that. I will be lucky to just get an answer here.

When would I ever see Jesus? I would have no problem telling anybody that I support a women’s right to do whatever she wants with her body.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 8:26 PM

I, too, support a woman doing as she will with her body.

But destroying her baby’s body is taking a human life.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2015 at 1:51 AM

Mimzey on January 17, 2015 at 11:30 PM

Sorry, but until a baby lives outside my body and breathes on its own, it IS my choice.

As for a father’s right to choose? Why should he get one? Who says life is fair? It was 5 or 10 minutes of fun on his part and it will be 9 months of travail on the woman, not to mention the wear and tear on hormones and skin. Post-partum depression, anyone? Do men suffer that? Uh…no. So all is not equal, pal. Also, until there is some sort of mechanism for successfully compelling men to support their children (yes, there’s a mechanism, but men can and do choose jail), why should any woman give a man a choice? If he wanted children that bad, chances are he’d marry the mother and raise the child, but in the real world of hookup sex, how often does that really happen?

In a perfect world, people would procreate responsibly, but we all know this isn’t a perfect world and sometimes adoption is not an option. I don’t understand why the female half of a couple should bear the brunt of the consequences of unprotected sex, while her male partner moves on to his next conquest, free from childbearing and rearing.

As I said before, I’m not in favor of using abortion as a means of birth control, nor do I favor late term abortions. Life isn’t fair, but abortion at least levels the playing field somewhat.

StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 12:59 AM

Part of “choice” is living with the consequences of that choice. The action required to conceive a child requires making a choice. That choice carries with it risks, and one of those risks is pregnancy. Once you’re pregnant, you have brought a life into this world.

Abortion does not prevent a life from coming into the world. It simply kills the life that is in the womb.

Birth control does not make it impossible to conceive, just less likely. And that’s only if you use it correctly and consistently. If you get pregnant anyway, then you have still brought life into the world, and you still have the responsibility for what you do with that life, or to that life.

You want to declare the right to a choice to kill a new life, while refusing to face the consequences of the choice that brought that life into existence.

There is nothing conservative or responsible about such a perversion of choice.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 18, 2015 at 2:13 AM

Sorry, but until a baby lives outside my body and breathes on its own, it IS my choice.

Why do you think that? Because of the inconvenience? If so, how does that discomfort compare to the impact on a mothers life after the baby is alive and “breathing on it’s own”? Isn’t the impact on that mother’s life much greater after the birth? I’ve never been pregnant, so I’m wondering, what is the time extent of discomfort during a pregnancy?..the last 2 or 3 months? Is that about it?

As for a father’s right to choose? Why should he get one?

Why? because other than the several months of the mothers discomfort (if that is the right way of thinking about it) the father has his life disrupted by 18 years of working to pay for support. That 18 years is certainly more of a “burden” than several months a baby “breathing” inside you. At least you acknowledge that a living entity, separate from yourself is alive and breathing and you don’t rationalize that it’s “just a blob of cells”.

Who says life is fair?

Irony alert!.

It was 5 or 10 minutes of fun on his part and it will be 9 months of travail on the woman,

No..it’s 18 years of money out of his pocket..not all of which goes to the baby, some of it benefits the expenses of the woman exclusively.

Life isn’t fair, but abortion at least levels the playing field somewhat.

StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 12:59 AM

Rationalization.

Mimzey on January 18, 2015 at 6:18 AM

The choice to have a baby is made when the choice to have intercourse is made. That is the choke-point of moral responsibility.

Abortion terminates a human life. Abstinence doesn’t. The moral burden of abortion is extremely heavy for anyone with human decency. The basic fact is, every single pro-abortion outfit that goes rent-seeking for public subsidy doesn’t have that decency.

For all the high dudgeon about the “social issues killing the party” the pro-lifers have a distinctive edge over the pro-aborts. Being able to see babies in the womb sooner and sooner with advances in ultrasound technology tends to do that. No matter how dumbed down and propagandized liberals try to make public schools, basic human instinct compels us to know the moral cost of abortion, and any visuals that reinforce the existence of that cost will solidify the instinct.

BKennedy on January 18, 2015 at 6:19 AM

Sorry, but until a baby lives outside my body and breathes on its own, it IS my choice.

 
Can’t really coexist with
 

nor do I favor late term abortions.

 

In a perfect world, people would procreate responsibly, but we all know this isn’t a perfect world and sometimes adoption is not an option. I don’t understand why the female half of a couple should bear the brunt of the consequences…

 
Can’t really coexist with
 

As I said before, I’m not in favor of using abortion as a means of birth control…
 
StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 12:59 AM

 
It’s fine if you’ve made the choice to support retroactive birth control up to and including shoving the scissors through the tiny skull at the moment the hasn’t-yet-breathed-on-his-own baby clump of cells is crowning, but be honest about it, please.
 
It doesn’t bother me that you believe it, just that you try to disguise it by saying day-before-the-C-section abortions, while still very much supported, aren’t your favorite kinds of abortions, or that abortions of convenience, while still very much supported, aren’t your favorite method of birth control.
 
Just be open about it, please.

rogerb on January 18, 2015 at 8:25 AM

The only “radical” position here is that of the anti-abortion religious folk. Abortion is a safe and legal procedure. There is nothing radical about it.

beverlyfreaks on January 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM

I’m not all that “religious” but am 100% against the slaughter of innocent children on the industrial scale we see in these United States.

Animals like YOU kill 1.5 MILLION innocent children every single year, 500,000 of which are BLACK. In any other context that would be considered ethnic cleansing, black GENOCIDE.

In FACT, you animals have slaughtered more innocent black babies, since Roe, than Hitler and his Nazis killed Jews during the Holocaust.

Abortion is NOT safe for the mother, either, moron.

Women routinely DIE during the slaughter of their babies. IF they live, they are 3 times more likely to get breast or uterine cancers. There are many other ailments, including mental heath issues that pop up as well.

This is the 21st Century, not the Middle Ages. Don’t want to get pregnant, there are dozens of ways top prevent it, including keeping your legs closed!

Face, the democrat party is nothing but a vile and vicious death cult inhabited by blood thirsty animals who should be wiped from the face of the earth.

TopFuel425 on January 18, 2015 at 3:11 PM

rogerb on January 18, 2015 at 8:25 AM

I think my comments can coexist quite well, but you are taking them out of context to make your point. What a surprise. I noticed that none of you who fisked my earlier comments actually addressed my point about being rank hypocrites for wanting to force your sense of right and wrong on everybody else. Did I strike a nerve that you would prefer to ignore? You all go on and on about what the Lib/Progs are trying to force on us (Obamacare, anyone?), yet you are absolutely ok with forcing pregnant girls to have babies they may not want to have.

Seems that none of you addressed my point about women terminating pregnancies any way they could since time immemorial. Maybe because you know its true? Women will find a way to terminate a pregnancy they don’t want, no matter the prevailing law, so why drive them back to a coat hanger, just so that you can feel good about having won the morality war?

There is a window (the first 12 weeks) where I am ok with abortion. Anything after the first trimester would be considered a late term abortion and I don’t advocate that. As for my comments about using abortion as a method of birth control, let me rephrase that. I don’t advocate using multiple abortions as a method of birth control. One accident is forgivable, but 2 or more is a pattern of irresponsibility.

All you people out there that advocate abstinence are just fooling yourselves. Either that, or you were never a hormonal teenager in love. Abstinence is great if you have the self control but is that really a term that anybody can use about teens? Really?

I live in the real world, where teenaged girls cannot be trusted to take the pill at the same time every day (for maximum effectiveness), and teenaged boys whine that a condom “just doesn’t feel right,” if they have been instructed to use one at all. Abstinence is what we all try to tell our kids, but it’s just wishful thinking if you think they’re really going to do that.

Sure, I’d love it if they were all responsible and abstained from sex until they were old enough to understand the consequences, but that is just not realistic.

I realize that to some of you, abortion is the taking of a life, but I am more concerned about the life already on the planet. The truth of the matter is that most of the time, the young women (and/or their families)are left to rear the children while the young fathers skip off to the next victim.

Here’s a thought…how about reversible vasectomies for every male child? Then they can have at it like bunnies and until the plug is pulled…no unwanted pregnancies…no pills that can cause future cancers and, wow…no abortions!

StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 8:23 PM

Seems that none of you addressed my point about women terminating pregnancies any way they could since time immemorial. Maybe because you know its true?

Progressives….always living in the past.

Mimzey on January 18, 2015 at 9:02 PM

I realize that to some of you, abortion is the taking of a life, but I am more concerned about the life already on the planet.

StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 8:23 PM

Got it…you don’t live on this planet.
Are you suggesting that the baby in the womb is living on some other planet??
Area 51 is sending you a message…the “Greys” have gotten to you.

Mimzey on January 18, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Wow, Mimzey…you are really a zealot. D’ya think you could be just a little more willfully ignorant?

I live on this planet and the life I was speaking about is the mother, but you knew that and I suppose your previous post was a lame attempt at humor. Better, in my mind, for a young woman to have a chance at a better life without being saddled with an illegitimate child that she can’t afford, and which child has a better chance of growing up to be a criminal, rather than a productive member of society. But maybe you prefer to fill the jails with one more fatherless child.

Women have terminated unwanted pregnancies for thousands of years, but you can’t admit to that or it would make you have to think about what I’ve said, and maybe have to acknowledge it’s truth. But hey…ad hominem attacks work so much better. Maybe you’re the progressive.

StPaulSally on January 18, 2015 at 10:55 PM