More on Indiana Planned Parenthood

Hoosier Access has a great update on the flouting of law by Planned Parenthood in Indiana, and the growing response to it.

I encourage everyone to use the link at Hoosier Access to contact the FSSA Secretary and ask them to suspend state payments to Planned parenthood.

At what point does a baby get human rights?

There was no way I was going to watch Rick Warren talk to the presidential candidates last night instead of the Olympics. I have my priorities. Besides, one of the gifts of the internet is that you can always find a YouTube video.

I've seen several videos, and a few news reports, and haven't seen anything surprising. I'm still not enthusiastic, but my friend RPW has a video on her blog that shows why I'll likely vote for McCain.

(I love it when Obama says that question is above his pay grade. We certainly wouldn't want to promote him then!)

Safe and legal, yes. Rare? Not so much

There's been some talk that the Democrats are becoming more inclusive on the abortion issue. At Get Religion Terry Mattingly addresses some articles that see the changes in the Democrat platform as an outreach to pro-lifers who lean in the liberal direction. A number of other stories call attention to the strengthening of the "abortion rights plank."

A piece at First Things points to a Slate magazine piece that celebrates the dropping of the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation that was formerly part of the plank. Instead it now says,

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The writer at Slate welcomes this change. She says it will allow pro-abortion advocates to reclaim "the morality of abortion." (Anyone else see an oxymoron there?) And, I have to say, I'm not seeing an appeal to pro-life people in that language.

Apparently this new section was crafted to appeal to pro-life voters.

"The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."

Does that do it for you? That doesn't sound like anything to me except more potential government spending to do things that religious people have been doing for years on a low to no cost basis.

Democrats for Life suggested a restoration of a conscience clause as part of the section on abortion. It read:

"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues."

It was rejected.

The Democrats have invited Bob Casey to speak at the convention. This is seen by some as another olive branch to pro-life voters. Some of you may remember that his father was not allowed to speak in 1992 because of his pro-life convictions.

So does all of this make you as a pro-life person feel more comfortable with a vote for Obama? What about those readers I have who are pro-choice? What do you think of these changes?

I don't buy it. From the reading I've done, and from the liberal commentators I've seen on TV, I don't think anything has changed except that the Dems are recognizing that America has become more pro-life--as was admitted in the Slate article--and they are trying to grab a few of the votes of people for whom life is a drop-dead issue. Of course, this is politics, so that's what we expect.

Wow. Just wow.

As you all know, I've been feeling rather ambivalent about this presidential election. John McCain definitely doesn't stand up well against my checklist of desirable political convictions for a presidential candidates. I've toyed with the idea of voting for a third party candidate, but, whether we like it or not, all that will do is help Obama.

I cannot help Obama.

Sometimes choices are clarified by just a few words out of a long political season, and this is one of those times. This American Spectator piece in the Wall Street Journal puts the lie to Obama's campaign words about the "difficulty" and "wrenching" character of the abortion issue. Here are a couple of the high--or low--points:

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Or how 'bout this:

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Go read the whole thing. Especially if you are considering voting for Obama or for a third party candidate.

HT: Mere Comments

I could toss my cookies

I'm currently watching an Obama rally on Fox News. There doesn't seem to be anything that he thinks the government isn't--or shouldn't be--responsible for. (Unless, of course, you are looking for protection for unborn children.)

Scary.