‘We Need Reinforcements’

Robert E. Lee once famously paid tribute to the fighting ability of Texans: “I rely on Texas regiments in all tight places, and fear I have to call upon them too often. They have fought grandly, nobly.” During the Battle of the Wilderness, when it seemed the Confederate line could not hold, Lee rode his horse into the midst of the fighting to rally his troops. His soldiers urged him to go back, but Lee would not leave until reinforcements arrived. Learning that the fresh troops were from Texas, the general declared: “Texans always move them!” And so they did.

It was therefore somewhat confusing to learn last week that, in the fight to save innocent unborn lives in Texas, the forces of evil were so numerous and vocal as to discourage Christians:

The battle over the bill has attracted nationwide attention to Austin. During confrontations between supporters and opponents of the legislation at the state capitol last week, a group of anti-abortion protesters began singing the Christian hymn “Amazing Grace.” They were heckled by pro-abortion activists who chanted “Hail, Satan.” It was reported last week that a group called Grassroots Campaigns was offering to pay abortion supporters between $1,300 and $2,200 a month to participate in “our Pro Choice Campaign in Austin.”
One abortion opponent said he was exhausted by the “spiritual warfare” over the abortion bill.
“I have never seen the left do more spiritual warfare than I have so far this week,” Thomas Umstattd Jr. wrote at his blog. “Those of us who have been at the Capitol are worn out. I am weary to my bones. We need reinforcements.”

Will pro-life reinforcements turn out Monday at the Capitol? The reputation and honor of Texas is at stake in this spiritual warfare.

 

What Can Elspeth Reeve Teach Us?

The Pervert Party: Democrats for abortion had
a Texas girl hold a sign declaring: ‘If I wanted the
government in my womb, I would f*** a Senator.’

Liberalism is like a Swiss Army knife, a versatile tool that makes it valuable as a substitute for whatever its users otherwise lack. If you are stupid, but espouse liberalism, you will be praised by liberals as intelligent merely for so doing — Joe Biden and Al Sharpton, for example. If you are immoral,  all you need to do to receive acclaim for your virtue is to become a liberal, as Ted Kennedy’s entire career attests.

This belief that every liberal is the moral and intellectual superior of others merely because he is a liberal has a profound effect not only in politics, but also within those fields of endeavor — journalism, academia and the entertainment industry — where the authority of liberalism has become hegemonic. Nothing else can possibly explain how an idiot like Chris Matthews remains on the payroll of NBC News, or why “Women’s Studies” departments stain the campuses of major universities, or why Joy Behar has a show-business career.

Liberals will themselves occasionally acknowledge this truth. When Mona Eltahawy went off on Max Blumenthal this week, she made the point that Blumenthal “does nothing but Tweet” — he is not, nor has he ever been, a prolific writer. Blumenthal certainly has never shown any merit that would recommend his work except that he is a liberal. Andrew Breitbart was right on target when he said that the only thing Blumenthal has ever done is use “Alinksy tactics” in his efforts to “destroy people” — cheap political “gotcha” journalism that serves no other purpose than to smear the Left’s chosen enemies.

In this, however, Max Blumenthal is not particularly unusual. Outfits like Think Progress and Media Matters employ scores of “journalists” who have never done any “reporting” other than to accuse conservatives of sexism, racism and/or homophobia. It’s as if they were seeking the Pulitzer Prize for finger-pointing and name-calling.

So when Mona Eltahawy denounced Max Blumenthal as a useless drone, an untalented do-nothing, that indictment encompassed many more such practitioners of progressive journalism. Max is not unique among those whose only real qualification as journalists is that they are liberals.

Conflating liberalism with virtue is an idea that has consequences, and among those consequences is the moralistic hubris of liberals. Believing that advocacy for liberal causes is synonymous with virtue, they are prone to an ends-justify-the-means rationalization of unethical tactics and even criminal violence in support of what they believe to be The Greater Good. This was how, after all, the 1960s “peace” movement gave rise to the hateful fanatical terrorism of the Weather Underground bombers — social justice as a license for murder.

And speaking of murder, why do liberals never pause to wonder how abortion became the sine qua non of their worldview?

Bela Kun and the Politics of Perversion

Ann Coulter was never more accurate than when she said in her book Godless that abortion is the sacrament of the Church of Liberalism. We beheld a bizarre testimony to this truth when pro-abortion protesters at the Texas Capitol began chanting “Hail Satan.”

What was going on was that the Texas legislature was considering a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks, a proposal that should not really be controversial. Advances in medical science have made it possible to save the lives of premature babies, so that the criterion of fetal viability would certainly justify banning the murder of babies in utero who might be able to survive if they were delivered. The vast majority of abortions (more than 95%) are performed before the 20th week of gestation, so that the Texas law would do relatively little to limit the exercise of “choice.” Yet it is on this dubious battleground that Texas Democrats have, to nationwide applause from liberals, chosen to make their stand.

No one outside Texas had ever heard of Wendy Davis until the Democrat legislator decided to filibuster this legislation, a stance so wrong and unpopular that even a liberal Democrat like Kirsten Powers was moved to remark, “It’s amazing what is considered heroism these days.” And speaking of amazing . . .

Pro-life activists who supported the bill banning late-term abortions were at the Texas Capitol in Austin and began to sing “Amazing Grace,” a timeless and much-beloved Christian hymn:

I once was lost, but now I am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

Let’s ask: How could anyone be offended by this? What kind of person hates God so much they would object to “Amazing Grace”?

It is one thing, after all, to say that you do not share someone else’s particular religious belief, but quite another thing to say that their expression of belief is offensive to you. I may believe that Buddhists are fools and that Scientologists are deluded devotees of a charlatan, but I don’t run around deliberately starting arguments with them. Somehow, though, liberals have decided that Bible-believing Christians are their mortal enemies, and I think Matt Ross has properly located the historical origins of this anti-Christian animosity:

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

Through the intellectual influence of the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism (Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, et al.) this attitude has been steadily woven into the ideological tapestry of the Democrat Party over the past half-century. The hegemonic dominance of liberalism within academia, journalism and the entertainment industry means that this radicalism — the embrace of perverse licentiousness and an implacable hostility to Christian faith — has been so widely diffused throughout our society that many Americans no longer even notice it, let alone question its original motives and purpose.

No one under 40 has any memory of when the Democrat Party did not stand for abortion, sodomy and socialism (not necessarily in that order) and the advance of political correctness within our educational system has deprived the young of the historical knowledge by which they might understand or critique modern liberalism. It is therefore remarkable — although seldom remarked — that mere opposition to the Democrat Party agenda is now classified as “hate,” as if buttf–king and baby-killing were synonymous with love.

Father of Lies, Party of Death

Rather than pursue that philosophical digression further, however, let us return to the scene Tuesday at the Capitol in Austin, where pro-lifers sang their hymn, for here we find an answer to the question: Who hates God so much that they are offended by “Amazing Grace”?

One of the more bizarre tactics used by pro-abortion
activists involved chanting “Hail Satan!” to harass a
pro-life crowd as they sang “Amazing Grace.”

Abortion is wrong and its advocates are evil, and if their chants were meant in jest, there is truth in humor: Democrats want to kill babies, and thereby they make themselves servants of Satan.

We may again digress briefly to note that the process by which Democrats became The Party of Death™ was fairly rapid. In 1960, when the Democrats nominated John F. Kennedy, his Catholicism was sufficiently controversial that Kennedy had to avow that he would not be taking dictation from the Pope. Ten years after JFK’s assassination, in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling the Supreme Court manufactured a fictitious “right” to abortion, but this was not a partisan matter, and many Democrats strongly opposed it.

By 1992, however, the Democrat Party’s commitment to killing babies had become such a cornerstone of their national agenda that Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was not permitted to speak in opposition to the party’s radical pro-abortion platform. Pro-lifers have since been purged, as Daniel McConchie explained last year:

If you tuned into the Democratic National Convention . . .  and were momentarily confused as to whether C-SPAN was actually covering a huge abortion rally, you are not alone. The high-profile roles given to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, Sandra Fluke, and Caroline Kennedy are the capstone of a two-decade-long effort to eradicate anti-abortion Democrats from the party. It is an effort that is nearly complete. An event hosted by Democrats for Life during the convention failed to attract a single politician currently in office.

Thus, in scarcely more than 50 years, Democrat have gone from being feared as too Catholic to being The Devil’s Own Party, whose adherents cheerfully offer their praise to Satan as they stand firmly in favor of killing the innocent unborn. And as every Christian knows, Satan is the “father of lies,” which brings us to Elspeth Reeve.

Ms. Reeve first came to public notice as a handmaiden of falsehood, and it is a testimony to liberalism’s influence in the field of journalism that someone so closely connected to an infamous act of dishonesty could still be employed by any reputable publication. Her disgraceful debut involved the notorious “Baghdad Diary” episode:

On August 2, 2007, the editors of The New Republic disclosed what they had learned in their July 26 chat with Beauchamp — that the “crypt keeper” episode didn’t happen in Iraq at all. They revealed also that Beauchamp had first made contact with The New Republic through one of the magazine’s yearlong researcher-reporters, Elspeth Reeve, who happened also to be Beauchamp’s girlfriend. . . .

Reeve left The New Republic just about the time (July 2007) it became evident that Beauchamp had fictionalized his atrocity tales, and one might have thought that the shame she had helped bring upon the profession of journalism would have rendered her radioactive, permanently persona non grata, as was the case with such liberal liars as Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair.

Nevertheless, The Atlantic has attempted to rehabilitate Elspeth Reeve, a fact I mentioned last year with a passing reference to her as the World’s Least Reliable Fact-Checker™ and now, in the case of the Texas abortion protests, she has disgraced herself anew.

Dishonesty, a Valuable Skill for Liberals

After video of the “Hail Satan” chant went viral Tuesday, Reeve presumed to fact-check it and generally deride conservatives who cited it “as proof of the depravity — or at least stupidity — of the pro-choice activists.” Before proceeding further with our inquiry into Elspeth Reeve’s competence as a fact-checker, let’s ask a few questions:

  • Why is it that only conservative sites oppose abortion?
  • Why do the words “liberal” or “Democrat” appear nowhere in Elspeth Reeve’s article? Is it really impossible to classify the general political orientation of those who think it necessary for abortion to be legal under all circumstances?
  • Who assigned Elspeth Reeve to patrol the Internet, presuming to “debunk” messages on conservative sites?

You perhaps see the point: Reeve is doing the same kind of Alinksyite work as Media Matters and Think Progress do every day, and she seldom does anything else, because she has no “skill” except her liberalism. And in Swiss Army knife fashion, the universal tool of liberalism is made to serve as a substitute: If you are a habitual liar, being an outspoken liberal is accepted as proof of your honesty.

Reeve labels conservatives but does not label liberals, even though everyone knows that the only kind of people so evil as to protest in favor of abortion are liberal Democrats. However, Elspeth Reeve refers to them only as “pro-choice activists,” as if their political and ideological loyalties were unknown. But we need not be so mystified: The people who want to kill Texas babies are Democrats.

There are no Democrats who oppose killing babies, because Democrats have purged everyone who disagrees with baby-killing, and  describing this policy agenda as “choice” is a purposeful deceit.

KILL BABIES! HAIL SATAN! VOTE DEMOCRAT!

Sodomy is still just an optional item on the Democrat agenda, but it’s probably only a matter of time before they make it mandatory.

Elspeth Reeve derogated conservatives for calling attention to the “pro-choice activists” who used a Satanic chant to mock pro-lifers, saying that only a handful of the “activists” took part in the chant, but one imagines that if a handful of Tea Partiers started chanting racial slurs, this would have been deemed newsworthy. Not content with dismissing the “Hail Satan” chant as trivial and insignificant, however, Elspeth Reeve then disputed the authenticity of the photo (shown at the top of this post) of bloodthirsty pro-abortion fanatics Texas Democrats having a young girl hold up a nearly pornographic protest sign:

However, it’s a fake. Or at least, it’s not from the Texas demonstrations. The photo was posted on a message board in December 2007. The anti-abortion crowd will have to stick with its five Satanists.

 Oops! The World’s Least Reliable Fact-Checker™ strikes again: The photo is legit; Elspeth Reeve had read the date wrong on the message board; and she was forced to acknowledge her error.

Did I say “error”? I meant lie, because when you are engaged in a dishonest political propaganda campaign (which is all Elspeth Reeve’s “journalism” career has ever been) and you publish falsehoods in service of your deceitful purpose, this is scarcely an accident.

Liberals lie routinely, because they know if they ever told the truth, no honest person would support their wicked agenda. And if we fail to defeat them, it is because we do not boldly speak truth, or because we have let ourselves become confused by liberal lies.

Let me close by saying that the Texas legislature will convene again on Monday, as Thomas Umstattd Jr. says:

We need reinforcements. If you have not yet come down to the capitol we need you there on Monday July 8 and Tuesday July 9.

Where are God’s soldiers? Who will volunteer in the Army of the Lord?

THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU!

– – –

Well, What Is the Rate?

The usual suspects are doing their abortion-rape war dance:

Another Republican congressman ventured into the realm of rape and pregnancy Wednesday, saying at a committee hearing that incidences of pregnancy from rape are “very low.”
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare.
“Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.
Franks continued: “But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.”

Attack!

“I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low,” [California Democrat Rep. Zoe] Lofgren said. “There’s no scientific basis for that. And the idea that the Republican men on this committee can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”

This is not what Franks said, but what he did say indicates — as I pointed out at the time of the Todd Akin fiasco — that there really needs to be a seminar where pro-life Republican politicians are taught to talk sense about this. The point to be debated is not about how many pregnancies result from rape, rather the point is, what percentage of abortions are a consequence of rape?

If you outlawed abortion and made a loophole for rape victims, you would have banned more than 95% of abortions, which are performed simply as after-the-fact contraception. And you would also have created a powerful incentive for women who accidentally got pregnant to claim they had been raped.

There is a reason why, after all, hard-core pro-lifers are opposed to abortion without exception, simply because the history — during that period of the 1960s and early ’70s when a few states created loopholes in heir abortion laws (for what were called “therapeutic” reasons) — demonstrated that women seeking abortions would say whatever they had to say in order to get what they wanted.

After all, once you decide, “I want to kill my baby,” what’s a few lies in the grand scheme of wickedness? And there were plenty of doctors who would sign off on claims that, for example, the stress of pregnancy would impair the patient’s mental health, and therefore   a “therapeutic” abortion was medically required.

People who are in favor of killing babies are not scrupulous about such things as honesty. Zoe Lofgren is such a fanatic for abortion, I’m sure she would have gladly volunteered at Kermit Gosnell’s clinic to “snip” babies’ spines as a weekend hobby.

Suppose you passed a ban on abortion that included every exception usually demanded: Rape, incest, life or health of the mother. If effectively enforced, this would reduce the number of abortions from more than 1 million a year to less than 100,000.

It would also devastate the abortion industry, which currently has revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and which also reliably supports the Democrat Party. Baby-killers are a core constituency of Zoe Lofgren’s party, and she is committed to doing whatever is necessary to defend this grisly practice.

Zoe Lofgren would deny this, of course, because she is a Democrat and therefore a liar. And it is the lying baby-killers whom we should criticize, rather than criticizing Republicans like Trent Franks.

 

#Gosnell Convicted: Quick Reactions

You probably have to remember the “Doonesbury” cartoon during the Watergate investigation to appreciate the headline here:

CNN headline:

Doctor found guilty of first-degree murder
in Philadelphia abortion case

Memeorandum thread, and everybody should read Steven Ertelt’s description of the three murder victims:

Baby Boy A was the biggest baby that Kareema Cross had ever seen delivered at Gosnell’s abortion “House of Horrors” clinic in the four years she worked there. He was delivered to 17-year old Shaquana Abrams at 29.4 weeks gestation, according to an ultrasound record. Baby Boy A was so large, he did not fit into the plastic shoe box that Gosnell tossed him in. Cross said she saw the baby pull in his arms and legs while Gosnell explained the movements as “reflexes” telling her the baby really didn’t move prior to cutting the baby’s neck. Baby Boy A was so large, Gosnell joked that “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” Cross and fellow employees Adrienne Moton and 15-year old Ashley Baldwin were all so “startled” by the size of the baby that they all took photos of the baby with their cell phones.
Baby C was an intact baby of over 25-weeks gestation. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Baby C breathing and described the up and down chest movements she observed for 20 minutes. She told the court she saw Lynda Williams lift the baby’s arm and watched as the newborn drew it back on its own power. Afterwards, Williams inserted surgical scissors into the baby’s neck and “snipped” the spinal cord. Gosnell was said to be in the room at the time. This baby’s murder charges were unintentionally dismissed in the place of Baby F, but were reinstated after Judge Minehart discovered his error.
Baby D was described by witnesses as 12-15 inches long with the head the size of a “big pancake” when he was delivered into a toilet. Kareema Cross testified that she saw the baby struggling, using swimming motions in an attempt to get out of the toilet bowl. Adrienne Moton pulled the baby out and “snipped” the neck, as Gosnell had taught her to do, while the mother watched. Gosnell has also been charged with Criminal Solicitation of Moton to commit murder of Baby D.

Babies “A,” “C” and “D” — they never had names and we don’t know who the mothers or fathers were. All we know is that Kermit Gosnell murdered them. It was premeditated, “with malice aforethought.” And somewhere covered by those “penumbras and emanations,” liberals think there is a right to kill babies.

You know how liberals like to pretend that all women are in favor of abortion? Those liberals obviously have never met my wife.

 


If @AmandaMarcotte Made You a Sandwich, Would You Eat It?

“I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication . . .”
— Revelation 13:3-4 (KJV)

The title of the post is obviously a moot question — a far-fetched hypothetical — because Amanda Marcotte lacks any capacity for nurturing and is, in fact, quite vehemently anti-nurturing, as evidenced by her fanatical reaction to Mitt Romney’s recent speech:

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/330666505538768896

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/330666840235839488

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/330667360405032960

What did Mitt say to provoke Marcotte’s bizarre rant? He simply gave this advice to college seniors: “If you meet someone you love, get married. Have a quiver-full of kids if you can.” But Amanda Marcotte hates babies. She is such a bloodthirsty enthusiast for abortion that one imagines that she would have paid Kermit Gosnell for the opportunity to come to his clinic and help kill babies.

Amanda Marcotte is not “pro-choice.” She is pro-death.

Did I mention that this is National Offend a Feminist Week? Many other blogs have joined in recognition of this fifth annual event:

What sane person, male or female, could admire the heartless, hateful ideology of cruelty that Amanda Marcotte represents? Over the years, I have occasionally been forced to cope with silly arguments from silly people who think there is some kind of “moderate” or “mainstream” feminism — even, God help us, “conservative feminism” — but what these people don’t understand is that feminism is what it has always been, a radical doctrine of the extreme Left.

Feminism is founded on a lie — the false promise of an impossible egalitarian utopia — and its arguments are all dishonest. Feminism is at war with nature, its theories are hostile to human happiness, and its beliefs are symptomatic of an insane detachment from reality.

Rational humans are therefore not surprised when Amanda Marcotte erupts in fits of jabbering lunacy, nor are we shocked when a college feminist makes a hoax-threat to “hatef-ck” herself.

So we invite all bloggers to join us in celebrating National Offend a Feminist Week, because these monsters deserve to be offended.

Meanwhile, say hello to a hot chick in a bikini.

You’re welcome, America.





 

UPDATE: Gene Hackett connects the dots:

Amanda Marcotte immediately equates having babies with hatred, and by using the eugenics comparison, with death.

An ideology founded on falsehood will inevitably produce dishonest arguments leading to insane conclusions. Feminism is like some bizarre alternative universe, where no one has normal emotions or natural impulses and where the rules of logic do not apply.

 

GO, NICK SEARCY, GO!

Because I seldom watch TV except for news and documentaries, when Ace of Spades started going on about Justified star Nick Searcy, my reaction was like, “So what?” My indifference ended today when I saw how Searcy opened up a giant-sized can of whupass on pro-choicers claiming to be shocked by the Kermit Gosnell case:

Anybody Else Starting to Suspect @AmandaMarcotte Eats Dead Babies?

Just briefly noted last night that The Beast Who Wears Bangs had made an obnoxious fool of herself blaming pro-lifers for the heinous crimes of Kermit Gosnell, but even I didn’t really expect that she would be so eager to double down on bloodthirsty stupidity:

Man, the feeding frenzy over Gosnell is a sobering reminder of how much hatred there is out there towards women.
— @AmandaMarcotte, April 13

In this rhetorical formulation, the normal and expected reaction to pregnancy is to seek an abortion, so that “women” exist only insofar as they are defined by their right to abortion choice.

This conveniently defines out of existence any woman who is pro-life: To be a woman is to be pro-abortionchoice.

In this bizarre Manichean dualism, there are only (a) people who share Amanda Marcotte’s gruesome death-fetish for maximizing the number of abortions, and (b) people who hate women. Somehow, within her rigid worldview, she must rationalize headlines like this:

Abortionist Slit Necks Of Babies Born Alive
In Front Of Teenage Employee, Told Assistant,
“That’s What You Call A Chicken With Its Head Cut Off”

It is the attempt to rationalize such brutality — to think of themselves as humanitarian philanthropists for defending this cruelty — that makes Amanda Marcotte and her comrades so manifestly insane.

She sees dead babies and thinks “feeding frenzy“? As a Rorshach inkblot test, that result speaks volumes about Amanda Marcotte.

 


Stop the Killing. Stop the Crying.

Trang Bang, South Vietnam, June 8, 1972 (Photo: Nick Ut, Associated Press)

Did I ever mention that I can’t stand to hear children cry? It’s rather odd, considering I’m a father of six, that I can’t stand the sound of a crying child. When my kids were babies, I’d take them for long walks, rocking them in my arms until they fell asleep, rather than hear them cry.

As they got older — and this was especially true with the twin boys, who would beat each other up for fun — my trick for dealing with this problem was to strike a pose of callous indifference to their pain: “Is it bleeding? Are there any broken bones? No? Then shut up or go to your room.”

The thought of my children actually being injured horrifies me, and seeing them suffer the inevitable dings and bruises of childhood — the stumble on the playground, the cut or scrape — was so traumatic that I can’t actually recall any specific incident. Evidently, I’ve blocked these psychic wounds from memory. And the fact that one of my sons is now a 20-year-old Army private in training to become a front-line warrior involves risks I prefer not to think about.

Ever.

All this is as a preamble to quoting Megan McArdle’s reflection on her admitted role in the media’s Gosnell blackout:

[T]he MSM has barely covered a story that could plausibly be named “The Trial of the Century”. And that demands explanation. So I’ll tell you why I haven’t covered it.
To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. I am someone who cringes when I hear a description of a sprained ankle.
But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”
Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.
What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion.

Except that it is, just as legal abortion is the inevitable result of the Contraceptive Culture, which was sanctioned by the “penumbras, formed by emanations” that Justice Douglas miraculously discovered in 1965, and if you are “someone who cringes when [you] hear a description of a sprained ankle,” you really ought to think about why these results are inevitable, including The Law of Large Numbers.

Having spent many years thinking this through, and unwilling to deliver a sermon on the topic, I am content to let others think through it for themselves, if only I could get them to pay attention to what is actually happening — “What ‘Choice’ Really Means” — and trace these horrors back to their philosophical and historical origins. Continue reading Stop the Killing. Stop the Crying. →