You just have to love the irony of liberals celebrating the birth of Christ at a business built on ending innocent life. Oh, and don’t forget to BYOB so you can get drunk and sleep around… in other words, drum up some more business for your gracious hosts.

So I guess I could be “progressive” by hosting a big BBQ at PETA’s headquarters.

Creative Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation that appears, by its title, to be a pro-life measure, but in reality is nothing more than a bailout bill for abortion providers.

A former leader for one of the nation’s largest pro-abortion groups and a congressman who abandoned his pro-life views to such a large extent that a pro-life group kicked him off its advisory board are introducing a new bill that will be touted as pro-life legislation.

However, the Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative, expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this week, is a bailout for the abortion industry.

The bill provides additional funding for Planned Parenthood, a group that receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and performs hundreds of thousands of abortions every year.

Pro-life advocates aren’t being duped, however.

Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat who is the co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus and the kind of moderate lawmaker the measure is designed to appeal to, wouldn’t support it either.
…
[Rep. Tim] Ryan (an Ohio Democrat whom Democrats for Life of America recently kicked off its board) also told Copely at the time that he asked several major pro-life groups to join him in supporting the bill, but none would take the bait because of the money dedicated to Planned Parenthood.

It’s obvious on its face what the Democrats behind this bill are trying to accomplish. And it’s apparently not working at all, thank goodness.

So here’s my question: If abortion proponents actually think abortion is not the killing of an innocent human being, why spend so much time trying to “reduce the number of abortions” (or introducing bills that purport to do so)? If abortion is simply a “medical procedure” that allows women positive things like “reproductive freedom”, why try to reduce the quantity? You’re making it sound like a bad thing.

Some might consider this murder… for Obama, it’s just another nuanced political inconvenience on the road to making history. It says something when your position on abortion is even left of pro-abortion groups like NARAL.

But what really puts him out in left field (literally) is his consistent opposition to a bill that would prevent the practice of leaving babies born alive from botched abortion attempts in soiled linen closets to die (a bill which, by the way, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate before he got there). But this should not really surprise anyone, considering his view that babies are “punishment“…

So what is the bill all about, and what are the practices that Obama apparently supports? Listen for yourself and see if you can stomach Obama’s position on these barbaric acts.

It’s one thing for the pro-abortion crowd to try and argue that ignoring the rights of a baby still living inside the womb is a “woman’s right”, but Obama extends that “woman’s right” to include the right to insure the death of a baby born and already living and breathing. This is infanticide… and Barack Obama supports it. One has to wonder where Obama draws the line. If a baby can live for hours and still not receive the rights and protections afforded human beings in this country, then when do those rights and protections attach? Obama admitted the question of when life begins is “above his pay grade“, but we all just assumed he was referring to the time prior to birth… Silly us.

It’s just sad.

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic. And regardless of race, high abortion rates are linked to hard times.

“It doesn’t just happen to young people, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with irresponsibility,” said Miriam Inocencio, president of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island. “Women face years and years of reproductive life after they’ve completed their families, and they’re at risk of an unintended pregnancy that can create an economic strain.”

As a matter of fact, it does have to do with irresponsibility. If you’re not financially capable of supporting a child, don’t engage in activities that could lead to having one. Killing a baby after the fact is irresponsible.

It would be different if women could become pregnant from riding the bus, swimming in a pool, brushing their teeth, etc. But it’s common knowledge that there’s one activity, and one activity alone, that can lead to pregnancy. If you’re not ready to support the life of a child, then you shouldn’t engage in that activity. Period.

But often the women getting the abortions say they act in the interests of children they already have.

“It wasn’t a hard decision for me to make, because I knew where I wanted to go in my life — I’ve never regretted it,” said Kimberly Mathias, 28, an African-American single mother from Missouri.

It’s pretty sad when someone admits that killing a baby “wasn’t a hard decision to make”.

“It wasn’t hard to realize I didn’t want another child at that time,” Mathias said. “I was trying to take care of the one I had, and going to college and working at the same time.”

If it wasn’t that hard to realize, then why the hell did you engage in the one activity that could result in a child? It’s not like you ate some bad mexcian food and wound up pregnant. You knew sex could lead to pregnancy and you knew you didn’t want to become pregnant. It’s not hard to figure out the responsible path in that equation.

…[Planned Parenthood’s national vice president for medical affairs Dr. Vanessa] Cullins views the right to abortion as an important component in the ability of all American women to determine the right size for their family.

Then why not support Andrea Yates’ right to drown her five children in the bathtub? Maybe she had just determined five fewer kids was the “right size for her family”.

“I don’t think most people understand that these are women who have families, who are making a very serious decision about their reproductive health,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The stereotype is that the decision is made lightly. It is not.”

I’m sorry, I guess I just misunderstood the “it wasn’t a hard decision to make” line.

Bottom line, if it’s such a financial burden to have and raise a child, don’t practice the act that could lead to one.

From Reuters:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama criticized recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions as hypocritical and inconsistent on Tuesday, saying a ruling upholding a late-term abortion ban was part of a concerted effort to roll back women’s rights.

Actually, Barry, it’s an effort to roll forward children’s rights.

“At the top of the list was this effort to try to overturn Roe vs Wade or at least try to chip away at it,” [Hillary] Clinton said, adding the Bush administration has waged war against contraception education and “set out from Day One to dismantle reproduction rights around the world.”

Dismantling reproduction rights? Not quite, Hill. People still have the right to reproduce… We’re talking about them taking responsibility for a child when they exercise that right and do reproduce.

Obama said he would look into the heart of a potential Supreme Court nominee. “We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teen-aged mom,” he said.

And there you have it, folks. Inconvenience and hardship as a justification for killing a child. That’s the qualifications liberals look for when nominating someone to interpret the supreme law of the land for life.

You know it’s Friday the 13th when Louisiana is acting as an example of good policy…

BATON ROUGE, La. - Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed legislation Friday that penalizes doctors who perform a late-term abortion procedure, making Louisiana the first to outlaw the surgery since a similar federal ban was upheld this year.

Good for her.

I still find it ironic that many of the same liberals that defend this procedure that involves “partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then puncturing or crushing the skull” also argue that lethal injection of a convicted murderer is “cruel and unusual“.

…apparently they don’t pay them anyway.

War tax resistance, popularized by Henry David Thoreau in the 19th century and by singer Joan Baez and others during the Vietnam War, is gaining renewed interest among peace activists upset over the Iraq war.

“Clearly this year we definitely had more people calling, sending e-mails about how they decided to start resisting,” said Ruth Benn, coordinator of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee in New York.

Based on the committee’s mailing list and reports from numerous groups it works with around the country, Benn estimates 8,000 to 10,000 Americans refuse to pay some or all of their federal taxes over war objections. Internal Revenue Service officials say they don’t have figures for that specific category, but earlier this year reported an overall noncompliance rate of 16.3 percent and estimated the annual tax gap at about $345 billion.

Leave it to liberals to protest the government funding those who protect Americans from criminals who target innocent victims, while fully supporting government-funded killing of innocent lives.

They’re fighting to have him declared a “person”:

“Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights,” said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge … “We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions,” Theuer said. … “If we can get Hiasl declared a person, he would have the right to own property.”

Now if only liberals would fight as hard for unborn human beings…

…as they are for this chimpanzee.

Responding to the news yesterday that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld a 2003 law that banned partial birth abortions, Senator Harry Reid said:

This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, a key abortion rights supporter over her quarter century on the bench.

“A lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who opposed Alito’s nomination, said.

I guess Reid’s handlers forgot to remind him he voted for the legislation the court was upholding.

This is good news.

The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

I’m glad this legislation was upheld. It’s a terrible procedure where a doctor partially delivers a child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, then punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery of the now-dead infant.

I find it ironic that many of the same people who advocate for legalization of this awful procedure are also in front of the protest line declaring the lethal injection of a convicted murderer is “cruel and unusual”.