Category Archives: Abortion

Pray Your Gods

Did you hear about the Democrats praying for abortion in Iowa?  Usually, when one hears the words “prayer” and “abortion” in the same sentence, it means some horrible, no-good pro-life group is violating a woman’s reproductive rights by showing her hard facts in at least a fleeting manner as she enters an abortion clinic.


Not this time.  This was an actual prayer to an actual deity, actually asking for supernatural help to keep those abortion mills grinding.

Byron York explains that the prayer was given by Midge Slater, an organizer for Iowa Alliance for Retired Americans, which is part of the Iowa Federation of Labor and the AFL-CIO.  The full text and video is at the link.  For those that don’t want to chew on the whole blasphemous enchilada, here are some highlights:

“There are some who would . . . perpetuate an ongoing blockade of women’s right to safe reproductive health care.

We want to . . . ask your guidance to keep and protect the goodness that we are capable of. Lord, we gather today to address that violation of justice and to offer prayers for those who have been caught in this political posturing.”

“We give thanks, O Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care. . . .”

“We pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power by their paternalistic religion. . . .

Today, we pray that all women will know that they are created in the image of God — good and holy, moral and wise.”

“Today, we pray for a continuous love to overflow from our spirits, and we give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.

And finally, O Lord, we pray . . . that we never forget the passion and commitment we feel today, inspired by our understanding of Your message: “Dance, dance, wherever you may be, for I am the Lord of the Dance, said she. And I lead you all, wherever you may be, and I lead you all in the dance, said she.” [bolding mine]

Sooper Mexican already picked up on the pagan vibe:  “these are words used in prayer . . . to thank the female goddess for the sacrament of killing babies in the womb.”

But the thing that really stuck out for me was that bravo sierra about the “Lord of the Dance.”  Where did Ms. Slater get that?  Does it have anything to do with Michael Flatley? michaelflatley

Mercifully, it does not.

Turns out, “Lord of the Dance” was a song originally written in 1963 by Sydney Carter as a Christian hymnWhile the lyrics are new-age-y, the references to Bethlehem, the crucifixion, and the resurrection are plain.

But that’s not the end of the story.  Apparently, members of the New Revised Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn (!) adopted the song and adjusted the lyrics.  Given the song’s new-age feel, it’s no surprise that wiccans would like it.

I wonder.  To which version of the song was Ms. Slater referring?  Notice how she referred to the “Lord” as “she.”

First of all, whoops:  the Lord of the Dance is a male, even in the wiccan version.  However, we are all familiar with the way wiccans focus on the feminine–all the Gaia Goddess Earth stuff.  Notice, too, Ms. Slater’s elevation of female and the denigration of male in the bolded portions above.

Obviously, I don’t know what religion Midge Slater practices.  I’m certainly not claiming she participates in pagan rituals, forms a magic circle, or attempts to invoke the power of gods or goddesses.

But even if by accident, doesn’t her prayer sound curiously wiccan?

And about that wiccan Lord of the Dance.  He’s also known as the Horned One.

the horned one

Serious You Guys.

Awfully fitting for this “prayer” to sound as though it is directed to the Devil himself.  What with it being a prayer for millions to die, and all.

UPDATE:  Just Turn Right had a good post on this “abortion prayer” three whole days ago:  “This is either a blatant sacrilege, or one of the most profound misunderstandings of God’s teachings I’ve ever heard.”  Oh dear.  Now I’ll start mulling over the question of whether this is an example of ignorance or calculation.  Mercy!

Why the Media Blackout on Gosnell?

I’m so pleased with the succinct wording in this tweet that I reckon it’s worth a post of its own.

Why are the major news outlets ignoring the gruesome case against abortionist Kermit Gosnell?

Because his case proves there is no difference between killing a baby then removing it, and removing a baby then killing it.

Baby killing Abortion:  it’s just a matter of geography.  Kind of like drone strikes.

The Need to Post and Politics

I need to post, but for several days I haven’t been in a posting place.  Tonight I shall post come hell or high water, not because I have something new or especially incredible to say, but because the posting itch is unbearable and I must scratch.

I left my first gas station note regarding the price of gas today.   It had $$ signs and a frowny face and a question about hope and change.  This question is worth asking, but some can’t stand the public scrutiny.  They can bury their heads in the sand, but the DNC’s message tonight seems beyond bizarre, something like:  “churches & charities are cool, but they don’t mean sh^t compared to government which can’t fix it but ain’t the problem and also I approve of gay marriage.”

Anybody else got whiplash from the all-over-the-place messaging?

UPDATE:  slightly edited version of original.

An Article Full of Fail

How so?  You may ask.

Let’s start with the title.

Obama: Romney would take health care back to 1950s

Even though I have no actual experience with the 1950s, my first thought is:  would that be bad?

Let’s assume that Obama is not claiming Romney would outlaw all medical breakthroughs discovered since 1959.  To assume otherwise wouldn’t be reasonable.  (Or would it?)

Also, to be fair, I am ignorant of the Bad Stuff (other than the Korean War) that happened in the 1950s.  So I may not be a good judge.  If, for example, the President had said, “Romney would take energy back to the 1970s,” well if taken at face value I would say, yikes.  That Romney fellow is no good!

But the 1950s?  Weren’t those the post-WWII boom years?  What’s wrong with going back to that?  In the ideal world, maybe we could go back to the pre-WWII era of health insurance.  (P.S. I can’t believe I just linked to an article co-authored by Ezekiel Emanuel.)

Let’s move on from the title, and look at the first sentence of this article.  “. . . Republicans would seek to strip away health care benefits for [women] and cut funding for contraceptive services.”

Surely this sentence suffers from a typo.  In order to be accurate, it should read like this:  “Republicans would seek to strip away health care benefits for [women] by cutting funding for contraceptive services.”

Ah, those slippery collectivists nowadays feel no embarrassment when their one concrete–albeit ridiculous–example is the only evidence available of a long list of alleged wrongdoing.  By the way, who is supposed to fund the contraceptives, and thus be responsible cutting the funding?  I thought those evil Catholic churches were supposed to do it.  How would Romney be in control of them in this wonderful nation which separates Church and State?

Nevermind.  On to sentence number two:  “Obama sought to draw a stark contrast with presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, saying his rival intended to take his health care law and ‘kill it dead’ on the first day of his presidency and ‘get rid’ of Planned Parenthood.”

Ooh, looks like a case of projection here.  Perhaps the Left’s feelings on unborn children (“kill it dead,” “get rid”) are to blame?

Sentence number three is a doozy:  “They want to take us back to the policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century,’ Obama said, arguing that the decisions affecting a woman’s health are ‘not up to politicians, they’re not up to insurance companies, they’re up to you.’

Ugh.  I’m sorry.  Did Mr. Single-Payer-Universal-Healthcare-Coverage just try to say that a woman’s healthcare decision is up to her?  And not up to the provider?  Because when a government-mandated monopoly provides the service, well it won’t have any opinion on what must be provided . . . will it?


Okay, at this point I have to skip a few sentences so fluffy and boring that they don’t even warrant fisking.

Here’s the next quote screaming for clarification:  “Obama said women’s issues resonated with him because of his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, and his late mother.  The president said he wanted to ensure that Mrs. Obama ‘has control over her health care choices’ and noted that his mother would have been 70 this year had she not died from cancer nearly two decades ago.”

Clearly his wife and mother make women’s issues “resonate” with Obama.  Because his wife and mother are women.

How exactly does empathy with females make you a better candidate?

Oh yeah.  It doesn’t.  Especially when spouses have expensive habits.  That’s why Obama must rely on the debunked claim that his mother’s death was caused by the failure of an insurance company.

(P.S.  Debunked = Fail.)

Now we get to the really meaty part of the article’s failure:  “The president was introduced by Sandra Fluke . . . . Fluke gained notoriety after conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh called her a slut because she supports the Obama health care law’s requirement that insurance companies cover contraception.”

I love this particular bit of journalistic fail because it admits the larger failure of the leftist powers-that-be:  without conservative attention, darlings of the left like Fluke would remain unnoticed.

Seriously. Look at the quote.  The article is AP, and it plainly doesn’t state that Fluke gained notoriety by being an advocate of reproductive justice.  Or that she gained notoriety by speaking in Congress.  She gained notoriety by getting called a slut by Rush Limbaugh.  Still, the dunces of the left actually thought this transgression would shut Limbaugh down.

Whew.  No more fisking.  The hour has grown late.  Here’s the article if you’d like to deconstruct the rest.  Greg Gutfeld artfully concludes this post, by juxtapositioning Sandra Fluke with Rachel of the viral Chick-fil-A video featuring that chucklehead who got himself fired.

Totally worth your precious viewing minutes.  And if that’s not enough Leftist Failure to satisfy your appetite, try the offerings at Twitchy:  #Obedience!


An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions

I have neither interest nor opinion on the Casey Anthony acquittal. 

No offense to those who followed the trial.  It is interesting.  We all love a “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” tale.  (My weaknesses are natural disasters and survival stories.)

I do have an opinion on the reaction to the acquittal, though.  The word that best describes this reaction:  visceral.  On Facebook, folks are lamenting how stupid we Americans are, or at least twelve particular Americans, and how broken our system is, and how really terribly awfully difficult it was to watch that terrible awful woman’s reaction to the verdict that frees her.

I’m thinking:  why are you watching then?  Why does her reaction matter to you?  Who can judge a human’s reaction to the announcement of her fate?  Even hubs got into a wee bit of a familial Facebook debate on the topic.

It should be no surprise, then, that I avoid these publicized trials like the plague.  What is this need to pick a side?  What is the point of picking a side in a situation where you have no control nor firsthand knowledge?

How do folks so easily assume they know better than the twelve who sat and watched the trial, weighed the credibility of witnesses, took the judge’s instructions, and pored over the evidence?

Suddenly, I’m reminded why lynch mobs are a bad thing.

You’ll find no debate over facts of the case here.  You’ll find a lively discussion at Stacy McCain’s Big Dog Blog, as usual.  The best “pro-acquittal” comment is here, and the best “anti-acquittal” here.

In that comment string, reasonable minds are definitely differing as to the merits of the prosecution’s case.  The jurors probably had differing opinions, too.  Trouble is, they all have to agree in the end.

Trouble is, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a stiff standard.  Is that gal guilty?  Let’s see . . . the victim was two years old, she’s the victim’s mom, and she’s a lying eejit.  So yes, she is likely guilty.  More likely than not.

Oops.  “More likely than not” is the standard in a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I know, I know, the CSI effect.  Supposedly, folks aren’t willing to convict unless the case is wrapped up with Christmas bows, as tidy as the TV shows.

To those who blame the CSI effect, I ask:  did it prevent Lizzie Borden’s conviction?

That’s right, Lizzie Borden, circa 1893.  We all know her as the chick that axe-murdered her parents.  She was acquitted, notwithstanding boatloads of circumstantial evidence.

I repeat, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  It stinks, sometimes.  The murderer gets away with it, sometimes.

That fact is proof that the system is still working.

We should be more alarmed about an unchecked prosecuting government than an unhinged partying woman who may have killed her own child.

Cold?  Maybe.  But it’s cold comfort for the innocent whom the state still managed to wrongfully convict, even under the “reasonable doubt” standard.

Which is worse?  The guilty going free, or the innocent getting convicted?  As a liberty lover with a healthy suspicion of state power, I say:  the innocent getting convicted. 

Moreover, should I ever serve on a jury, I expect folks to respect my decision.  That means I have to respect their decisions, too, doesn’t it?

A shorter Linda:  Da Tech Guy.

Oh dear:  She’s pregnant?  Let’s hope not, for safety’s sake.

An interesting theory.

An even more interesting argument:  it’s just a late-term abortion.

Instalanche!  Thank you, Glenn Reynolds.  Especially for the “read the whole thing.”  Wow, I’m smiling.


Just because it’s so good.

Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor:

. . . My life was being snuffed out in the name of women’s rights.  And ladies and gentlemen, I would not have cerebral palsy, had I not survived all of this.  So when I hear the appalling, disgusting argument that we should have abortions because the child just might be disabled . . . .

Ugh.  The horror that fills my heart.  Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us.  And when you snuff them out you are the one that loses.  The Lord looks after them, but you are the one that will suffer forever.

And that arrogance–what absolute arrogance, and it has been an argument for so long in this human place, where the stronger should dominate the weaker, and should determine who lives and who dies.

The arrogance of that!

Don’t you realize?

That you cannot make your own heart beat.

Don’t you realize that all the power that you think you possess, you really possess none of it.  It is the mercy of God that sustains you.  Even when you hate Him.

When Topics Collide

When topics collide in an unexpected manner, then it feels postworthy.

Of course, a lot of blog brethren wrote about the horrow show that was Dr. Gosnell’s Murder Mill

But I didn’t realize that the woman he killed was a recently arrived refugee.  Ms. Corcoran over at Refugee Resettlement Watch points this fact out.  (If you don’t read her stuff regularly, you should.)  Karnamaya Monger had been in the United States only four months.  The bitter irony of it:

“She was born in Bhutan and then survived nearly two decades in refugee camps. She had finally immigrated to Woodbridge, Virginia, only to die in a squalid, Pennsylvania abortion clinic, filled with bags of aborted fetuses.”

Corcoran asks the question, who resettled this woman?  The question is a good one, because these resettlement agencies are 1) usually church-affiliated, and 2) remain involved in the refugee’s new life for months, in order to help her settle into the new culture.

So, was a Catholic or Lutheran agency involved in getting this Virginia-settled refugee up to Dr. Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Pennsylvania?

Aren’t Catholics and Lutherans supposed to be pro-life?

Just a question.