politicalpartypoop.com

(CNSNews.com) - Planned Parenthood is under fire after one of its employees was recorded encouraging a student - who was posing as a pregnant minor - to lie about her age in order to obtain an abortion without the abortion provider having to report the “statutory rape” to the police.

Lila Rose, an 18-year-old sophomore at the University of California Los Angeles, visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in the city, posing as a 15-year-old impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. The visit was part of an investigation for The Advocate, a new pro-life magazine distributed on the UCLA campus.

California law requires abortion clinics to report instances of statutory rape to police. The age of consent in California is 16.

In covertly-filmed video of the meeting between Rose and an unnamed Planned Parenthood employee, the staffer is heard to tell Rose: “If you’re 15, we have to report it … If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to.”

“Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different?” Rose asks.

“You could say 16,” the worker replies, later adding, “Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”

Other parts of the video clip show the manager of another Planned Parenthood clinic encouraging Rose to seek an abortion.

Also check out Malkin’s past post on this: The predators of Planned Parenthood. Malkin column from December 2003, and  this blog post from June 2005. See ChildPredators.com.

(more…)

Found this on the blog Ace of Spades 

“Well! That’s one way to defuse the controversy, eh?

It was fun while it lasted.“

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

Check out the full post here

“This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”

 OBAMA:

I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

EDWARDS

“I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.”

 This is why liberal Democrats and Rudy Giuliani need to be kept out of the White House.
Supreme Court nominations.

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how - not whether - to perform an abortion.

More of the story

(CNSNews.com) - A federal appeals court will hear arguments Wednesday in a potentially groundbreaking case that — for the first time, according to attorneys — addresses the question of whether an abortion terminates a human being’s life.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis will consider a 2005 South Dakota law that requires abortionists to tell women that their abortion will terminate the life of a living human being.

The judges will hear Planned Parenthood’s claim that a “statute designed to protect the rights, interests and health of pregnant women violates the abortion doctors’ right of free speech,” said attorney Harold J. Cassidy, who is representing pro-life pregnancy help centers which have joined the state as defendants in the case.

Read full story

Rudy Giuliani’s campaign is fighting to defend the mayor on abortion today at National Review, but the opposition is coming from the editors of NR themselves.After Giuliani said last week that abortion is a constitutional right and as such must be publicly funded, NR’s editors said his position “makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense.” In response today, Giuilani adviser Bill Simon responded in a letter that first cited Univ. of Alabama professor Michael New’s claim that abortions in NYC under Giuilani declined at a rate greater than the national average at the time. Simon goes on to reiterate Giuliani’s opposition to changing the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortions (except in cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother’s life). Finally, Simon pledges that Giuilani would appoint “strict-constructionist judges who will follow in the philosophical footsteps of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, and Chief Justice Roberts” if elected president.

The editors had a stinging comeback:

Like Bill Simon, we admire Professor New. Let’s quote him some more on abortion trends during Giuliani’s mayoral terms: “I cannot attribute this decline to any actual policy Giuliani implemented.” Note also that New York City’s abortion rate had a long way to fall: Even after its decline, it remained much higher than the national average. Should Mayor Giuliani get credit for that fact as well?

Read the rest here

Mayor Giuliani has tied himself in knots. His position makes neither logical, moral, nor political sense. Many conservatives are disappointed, and hope that their disappointment is not going to grow as the campaign wears on.

Read full editorial from National Review, Support continues to shrink, silly Rudy! Just waiting for Thompson to announce…

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) — Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.”Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected,” Giuliani said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in Florida’s capital city.

Read the rest but why bother, hey Rudy stop the charade and just flip political parties.
No true conservative would even jokingly entertain the notion that we should have taxpayer sponsored baby killing.

Wow, I see your poll numbers shrinking as I type this….

Found on Ankle Biting Pundits

“After he was elected mayor, Giuliani delivered on these campaign promises — and more. His 1994 and 1998 tax returns show $500 in donations to Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider. In 1996, the mayor issued a proclamation declaring it ‘Planned Parenthood Day’ in New York City and praising the group’s eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger. … It wasn’t the last time Giuliani had kind words for Sanger. In April 2001, he gave a speech to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League ‘Champions of Choice’ luncheon, in which he extolled the ‘distinguished tradition’ begun by the Planned Parenthood leader (no mention of human weeds). He thanked NARAL ‘for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us.’”

Hey Rudy, did ya know….

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.
Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Read More: http://politicalpartypoop.com/2006/10/20/the-negro-project/

FLASHBACK VIDEO: Giuliani in ‘89: ‘There Must Be Public Funding For Abortion’…

Public Funding for abortions my ass!

BOSTON (link) –A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.

The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.

Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it “was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant,” according to the complaint.

Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.

It was only when Raper went to the New England Medical Center emergency room for treatment of pelvic pain in late September that year that she found out she was pregnant, the suit said.

She gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004.

She is seeking damages, including child-rearing costs.

Raper and her lawyer, Barry C. Reed Jr., refused comment when contacted by The Boston Globe.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood said the organization does not comment on pending litigation.

Neither doctor responded to requests for comment.

Raper alleges in the suit that Planned Parenthood and Bryant were negligent for failing to end her pregnancy and that Eleonu was negligent for failing to see she was still pregnant.

The state’s high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said.

Raper’s suit has no mentions of medical problems involving her now 2-year-old daughter.

As with all medical malpractice suits in Massachusetts, Raper’s complaint will have to be screened by a tribunal consisting of a Superior Court judge, a lawyer, and a doctor to determine whether it has merit to go to trial.

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor - Link

(CNSNews.com) - Five weeks after the New York Times was notified about a major error in its reporting on abortions in El Salvador, the newspaper finally ran a correction on Sunday.

An April 9 cover story in the New York Times Sunday magazine falsely reported that some women in El Salvador had been imprisoned for thirty years for having illegal abortions.

A pro-life website, LifeSiteNews.com, was the first to question the article’s accuracy. In late November, LifeSiteNews reported that Carmen Climaco, the woman featured in the article, had not been jailed for having an abortion, as the New York Times reported.

In fact, she had been jailed for infanticide — strangling her full-term baby.

On Dec. 31, New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame corroborated the facts presented by LifeSiteNews.com:

“The care taken in the reporting and editing of [Climaco’s] example didn’t meet the magazine’s normal standards. Although Sarah H. Smith, the magazine’s editorial manager, told me that relevant court documents are ‘normally’ reviewed, [freelance writer Jack Hitt] never checked the 7,600-word ruling in the Climaco case while preparing his story. And Mr. Hitt told me that no editor or fact checker ever asked him if he had checked the court document containing the panel’s decision.”

On Sunday, the New York Times magazine ran a correction. An editor’s note admitted that the newspaper should have examined the actual court ruling in the infanticide case before publishing the article.

The newspaper admitted it “did not vigorously pursue the document until details of the ruling were brought to the attention of editors in late November.”

The editor’s note said Carmen Climaco “was sentenced to 30 years in prison for a case that was initially thought to be an abortion but was later ruled to be a homicide; she was not given 30 years in prison for an abortion that was ruled a homicide.”

LifeSiteNews.com described the New York Times report as an “emotionally laden piece” reflecting the “pro-abortion bias of the New York Times.”

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin accused the newspaper’s editors of having no shame. View Vent on this topic, or read her blog entry,  “All the Abortion Lies Fit to Print.”

Lifesite debunks NYT
Calame debunks NYT
Jack Hitt’s hit piece
See-Dubya’s analysis

click on photo to view Vent

Mrs. Snoop and I were talking about this the other night. I was asking why the hell is Phil Kline maintaining the abortion Jihad AFTER dude was resoundingly booted from office and risking any small glimmers of a political future.
Well the answer is below; look at all of these articles about what is frankly a non-issue.
Dude is getting coverage on the issue.
Here is the Google results for all of the articles. I just don’t get it.

I’m as against abortion as the next right wing guy. But this is a case where throwing all of your eggs at one particular issue starts to be counterproductive and you actually start do more damage to the very issue you are trying to fight for.
Kline is another right wing dude that has not grasped the concept that you absolutely and positively can’t legislate morality.

Another reason why folks think people in Kansas are crazy. 

By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - In a last ditch effort before the end of the congressional term on Friday, pro-life GOP lawmakers are promoting a bill that would require women considering an [tag]abortion[/tag] to be informed of the “intense pain their baby would feel during an abortion.”

The [tag]”Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act”[/tag] was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) in September, but Congress has failed to act on the legislation until now. The bill, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass, will come before the House on Wednesday.

“Today’s society must face the morally troubling question of how much pain an unborn child suffers when he or she is dismembered or poisoned by an abortionist - and does a woman have a right to know that her child is pain-capable and that an abortion will likely impose excruciating pain upon the baby,” Smith said at a Capitol Hill press conference on Monday.

READ THE REST, but why bother? 

This kind of bullshit worthless legislation is exactly why folks in the Republican Party are so screwed up, more pandering legislation to appease far right wing folks.

The act of abortion is barbaric and repugnant.
The individual, who is considering it, has already showed a huge lack of judgment and selfishness.
Uh I don’t know, but I seriously doubt they give a shit what kind of pain is inflicted on “the thing.” They just want “it” out.
Why people continue to believe that you can legislate morality is beyond me.

“Today’s society must face the morally troubling question of how much pain an unborn child suffers when he or she is dismembered or poisoned by an abortionist” 

Classic.

I was going to post something about S.D. Voters to Decide Fate of Abortion Ban… ,   however I decided to post a previous rant of mine on the issue from a Negro perspective.

The abortion issue is way down on my list of political priorities. Let me be clear I don’t think Roe v Wade should ever be overturned. But more than that I don’t think men should even be allowed to even debate the issue. But we all know that is impossible. My issue against abortions has always been the racist nature of abortions, something liberals refuse to address.
Folks on the left refuse to study their history regarding the practice.

Lets review;
Abortion mostly targets poor people, Negros, and Hispanics. Anybody paying attention already knows that.
A research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood of America, indicated that those three demographic groups represent 57%, 36%, and 25% respectively of all abortions in the U.S. With blacks making up 12.7% of the U.S. population, that group has a disproportionately greater number of abortions when compared to other racial group categories in America.
Read about the founder of Planned Parenthood of America, Margaret Sanger
Sanger died in 1966, but she has a number of documented statements and positions on record pertaining to family, race, and population control.
In 1939 Sanger and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal called ‘Birth Control and the Negro,’ which asserted that ‘the poorer areas, particularly the South, are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.’ Her ‘religion of birth control’ would, she wrote, ‘ease the financial load of caring for, with public funds, children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.’”
In 1934 Sanger published her Code to Stop Overproduction of Children, in which she said that “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child without a permit, no permit shall be valid for more than one child.”
It is widely known that Sanger associated with followers of the Marxist, Vladimir Lenin, and with advocates of national socialism and eugenics. Again, refer to the post. The latter being “the science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race (by the control of human mating)” . Malthusian eugenics played a big part in Nazi Germany’s promotion of ‘a master Aryan race.’
The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, author George Grant claims Sanger “was thoroughly convinced that ‘inferior races’ were in fact ‘human weeds’ and a ‘menace to civilization.’Sanger had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a ‘symptom of a malignant social disease’ because it encouraged the influence of ‘defectives, delinquents, and dependents.’”
Leninists and eugenicists at the time viewed “religious” people with much disdain and consternation because they saw the church as a threat. basically because it was proven that when Negros turn from God, the Bible and the church, they find themselves frequently in abortion clinics.
Planned Parenthood of course disputes the “racist” accusations involving Sanger as false, stating that her quotes are taken out of context. Just do Google University research on her and see for yourself.
What are the facts:
Three out of five pregnant Negro women will abort their child.
An estimated 1,452 Negro children are killed each day by abortions.
Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States, a number surpassed in less than three days by abortion.
Approximately one-third of all abortions are performed on Negro women.
With so much money at stake, it appears that the beneficiaries of the abortion industry go out of their way to defend individuals such as Margaret Sanger.