Tag: abortion (page 4)

http://creationcare.org/
http://creationcare.org/blog.php?blog=35
Christian environmental group says the EPA's new rules on mercury pollution is a pro-life issue

The Evangelical Environmental Network is running radio ads in six states.  The ads are virtually identical, merely substituting the name of the state and the senators who are targeted in the ad.  The ads, narrated by "Pastor Tracy" (no last name given) all say that "children here in [state] are vulnerable".  But unless she recorded identical ads in each state, she is LYING about where she is in most or all of the ads.

The ads also reference "members of Congress who say they are pro-life", which is bizarre since since some of those mentioned, including Levin and Stabenow, say no such thing.

I can't claim to be an expert on mercury emissions, but I am extremely skeptical of the scientific claims of environmental organizations, which have a long history of distorting science for their own ends.  But whatever the dangers to the unborn of a few parts per billion of mercury, it pales in comparison to the dangers of BEING STABBED IN THE NECK AND HAVING YOUR BRAINS SUCKED OUT.

Abortion has killed 50 million or so unborn, and Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow are ardent defenders of it.  For "Pastor Tracy" and the EEN to imply that Levin and Stabenow are pro-life is outrageous, and to attempt to use the pro-life cause to promote their environmental agenda is despicable.

Sec. 3407c. (1) A qualified health plan offered through a state exchange pursuant to the patient protection and affordable care act, Public Law 111-148, and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, shall not provide coverage for elective abortion. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an individual, organization, or employer participating in a qualified health plan offered through a state exchange from purchasing optional supplemental coverage for elective abortion outside of the exchange as provided in subsection (2).

Read the rest. Its as if its thrown in there to appease conscience conservatives.  Of course we don't wish to see tax dollars spent on abortion. We don't want to see abortions frankly.

However, every time a bill is crafted to capitulate with the left and its great society plans, it seems there has to be riders and subsequent action to (hopefully) silence dissent from the right.

"I haven't been following Cain as well as some of you so I'm forwarding this to get your take on the article and the comments about his true position on those issues.   If might be good if one of you that have been strong supporters from the get go would maybe comment on this ...

Seeking clarity,  xxxx xxxxx"

I have some ideas for an original score for this, but in the meantime thought it newsworthy and relevant to the issues of the day, so have made it avialable right away.  The other day, I had mentioned SB0160 will soon sign into law the ban on the horrific "partial birth abortion" practice.  Perhaps we can do even more in the future.

Cross-posted in The Wizard of Laws

One of the problems with public discourse these days is that many people can't bring themselves to state their cases without engaging in wild histrionics.  How many times have you read something described as the most shocking, the most outrageous, the most ridiculous, etc.?  Not everything can be the most outrageous -- only one thing can be.  And yet, that doesn't stop people from launching into ludicrous hyperbole or, just as bad, cobbling together lists that supposedly divine some pattern of thought or action.

This is the case currently with a list floating around the internet, first finding publication on a noted left-wing site, titled "Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women."  The site reports, "The Republicans are on a rampage attacking women's health and rights this year."  Really?  A rampage?  Do all of the Republican legislators who happen to be women know about this?

A Michigan legislator wants legislation that bans the murder of children who happen to be unfortunate enough to have been conceived and carried in Michigan.  "Unfortunate" at least till now.

State Sen. Arlan Meekhof, is introducing (not yet enrolled)  SB 160 to ban the practice of partial birth abortion in Michigan.  The practice which has had other attempts to ban it by legislators only to be shot down by the former governatrix Jennifer Granholm. When presented with the opportunity as passed by the house 72 34 and senate 24 to 13 in 2008.

This time its different.  Or at least one would think so.

First off, the language is supposed to mirror already constitutionally vetted language by congress, because another attempt was through a citizen initiative, and was ruled unconstitutional by the 6th circuit court:

Constitutionality: The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the U.S. District Court's decision in Northland Family Planning v Cox (docket Nos. 05-2417 and 05-2418, published June 4, 2007), held that the Legal Birth Definition Act, an act initiated by citizen petition, is unconstitutional. The court held that "invalidation of the law is the only available course" since the act "imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by prohibiting the D and E procedure, because it failed to adequately protect the health of the woman, and because it was void for vagueness due to its confusing language."

I would encourage the fast passage of this protection of our unborn.

After spending a good part of last year blogging for the man who would take the First District of Michigan away from liberal Bart Stupak, and put it back into the hands of mainstream conservatism, I take serious umbrage at the use of the words, "Stupak amendment" and "Stupak language."

Bart Stupak was not a conservative Democrat, nor was he a "blue dog."  His "Stupak amendment" was actually the "Stupak/Pitts amendment," and it became known as the "Stupak amendment" only because he was on television and radio constantly for a month prior to the vote on Obamacare saying that the bill would not be passed without "his" amendment, banning the use of federal funds for abortions.  His constituency, and many social conservatives throughout the nation thought that Stupak was going to stop Obamacare.  After watching Bart at town halls and on tv and radio, I knew he was not going to vote against Obamacare.  He said so at a Cheboygan Town Hall, and took a position of high morality on abortion against the likes of Pelosi and Obama.  He ended up getting a useless executive order which meant nothing from the most pro-abortion President this nation has ever seen.