You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Pro-Choice’ tag.

For the last week we have read post after post from SarahPalin’s facebook     page  railing against Planned Parenthood.  Congress is contemplating voting to defund Planned Parenthood.  While nobody could predict what Congress will do one thing is very clear.  Donald Trump, the person Palin describes as a “hero”  is Pro-choice.





#Vote2016 #UniteBlue #ConnectTheLeft #Vote #Voters #VoteBlue #FWP #Hi


#Hillary #Clinton #UrbanLeague #Abortion

#UniteWomen #StandWithPP #PlannedParenthood #WarOnWomen #Wome


#ReproRights #ProChoice #Humanist #Feminist #Feminazi

#TheDonald #Donald #Trump #2016 #Trump2016 #RWNJ #LiesMenTell

#Sarah #Palin


I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce you to my nephew, Palmer.  He is an adorable 1 year old, and the son of my younger brother.

My brother and his wife had difficulty getting pregnant.  After a great deal of anxiety, money, and medical technology, my sister-in-law was able to become pregnant. The really exciting and amazing news was that she was pregnant with twins.  My brother arrived at Thanksgiving dinner filled with elation, wearing a Minnesota Twins jersey, to announce their news.  The pregnancy progressed for about three months without complication.  In the fourth month the doctors advised that one of the twins was severely malformed.  Just one of the many abnormalities of this fetus was a brain abnormality that was similar to hydro encephalopathy, but much more severe.  The worst of the problems for this twin was that its main blood vessels were abnormal.  There was a complete absence of any blood vessel leading from the heart to the lungs.  This meant that the only reason that this fetus was alive was that it was getting oxygen from its mother’s blood.  At birth, after the mother’s blood would no longer oxygenate the baby, it would suffocate and be dead within a couple of minutes.

Being Catholic, my brother was opposed to abortion, and was willing for his wife to carry this fetus to term, knowing the inevitable outcome.  However things changed in the fourth month of the pregnancy.  The “Angel Baby”, which was in a separate amniotic sac, started to accumulate an excessive amount of amniotic fluid.  The baby that appeared to be healthy was starting to be compromised.  The level of amniotic fluid in the amniotic sac of the healthy twin was dangerously low.  The doctor predicted that if the pregnancy was allowed to continue without intervention the healthy baby would die.  The doctor recommended termination of “Angel Baby”.  Shock, despair, and grief were just some of the feelings that consumed my brother and his wife. After consulting three other doctors, and getting the same advice from the others, termination of the “Angel Baby” was the only option if they were to save Palmer.  The picture above is proof that they made the right decision.  They made the decision to choose life, by terminating the pregnancy of a fetus that would have died upon birth.  To the rest of the family, the decision to terminate the unhealthy twin seemed the obvious choice.  However this decision, at the time, was the hardest choice my brother and his wife had ever had to make.

I share this personal story with everyone today because it is the best example I can give to illustrate that none of us are in a position to appreciate the unique situations that mothers and fathers may face with regard to terminating a pregnancy.  Sarah Palin has made her right to life views known from the time she ran for Mayor of Wasilla.  Of the many candidates she has endorsed, the one thing that is the common thread among all is their proclaimed stance on abortion.  It appears that Palin’s view of a woman’s right to choice, or Palin’s wish to abolish that right, is the single most important issue to her.  Adults and children are killed every day unnecessarily by guns.  Those deaths represent the end of life for people who were able to sustain life, until someone ended that right.  Palin doesn’t donate her time when she gives speeches to right to life groups, but she donated her time to the NRA.  Palin suggests that war is God’s plan.  Who is speaking up for, and being an advocate for, the thousands of American soldiers, civilians, and children killed in the Iraq war?  Unwanted children are born in the United States and become the victims of abuse, neglect, and even death.  Workers in mines and on off-shore rigs are killed due to lack of compliance with safety standards.  Yet Palin advocates less governmental intrusion in our lives, even though those are each cases where more governmental involvement might have saved lives.  Surely each of those tragedies, involving our sons and daughters, are more egregious than aborting a fetus that is not sufficiently developed to independently sustain life.

As a society, our values and moral judgments come with a price tag.  I previously devoted an entire post to the cost to America of reversing Roe v. Wade. Our national debt has become one of the most pressing issues in our country today. The reality is that if we can’t sustain our economy as it exists now, we do not have the luxury of adding additional debt associated with unwanted children.  Debt is causing collapse of entire countries, including Greece and Portugal.  In our struggle to manage our debt we can ill afford to increase our debt by adding the expense associated with another war, additional entitlements, or the cost of supporting an additional one million unwanted children every year.

Unfortunately it seems that all too often the issue of abortion is associated with the notion that it is the preferred birth control method of promiscuous teenage girls.  However those teenage girls must have a boy to impregnate them, before abortion is needed.  Those teenage girls are women who have not had the benefit of an education about birth control, or lack the financial means to obtain appropriate birth control.  The incontrovertible fact is that today in the United States premarital sex is “universal”.  An estimated 95% of people engage in premarital sex.  Thus 95% of the politicians, who publically advocate a “right to life” agenda, appreciate the importance of birth control education and ensuring that birth control is available.  Why are those politicians, and people like Sarah Palin, who so vehemently oppose abortion, not dedicating themselves to birth control education and accessibility?

Abortion is always an emotional issue, regardless of whether you support the right to choose, or not. The critical consideration is that the choice should be personal.  None of us can know how we would react if our daughters were raped or became the victims of incest.  We can’t comprehend how we might react if our daughters became suicidal because of an unwanted pregnancy.  It is impossible to anticipate every circumstance that might present itself, as the example of my brother illustrates.   I can’t know why Lynn Vincent, the ghost writer of Palin’s book Going Rogue, made the choice to have an abortion.  I don’t feel it is my place to impose my beliefs on her.  If a person’s faith dictates that abortion is always evil, regardless of the circumstances, our Constitution ensures their right to refuse that option for themselves.  It appears Palin was pregnant when she married Todd, as indicated by Lorenzo Benet in Trailblazer. I respect her right to choose to get married and have the baby.  If Bristol chose to give birth to a baby out of wedlock as a teenage mother, I also respect her right to make that choice.  However I also respect my brother’s choice to protect the life of his unborn child.  Sometimes choosing life means choosing to have an abortion.  We should not presume to know what is best for another.  We can not, as a country, afford to make that choice for another.

(Part 1 of 2)

Abortion is the only topic more controversial than politics and religion, perhaps because it involves both. Sarah Palin is a staunch supporter of the right-to-life movement.  She is not supportive of abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger.  Even in the case of rape or incest, Palin opposes abortion.  As early as her race in 1996 for Mayor of Wasilla, Palin made abortion a part of her campaign. Until that time the race for the position as Mayor had been compared to a friendly intramural contest among neighbors. Even if you didn’t know who Sarah Palin was before the night of the Republican Convention, as of that evening Palin made sure everyone watching would know that she had a special needs child. Trig has become a constant reminder of Palin’s position on abortion.

Palin often gives speeches, for which she is, paid $100,000, and in which she suggests that abortion should not be a choice. In those same speeches Palin has advocated the importance of balancing the budget; she has opposed Obama’s health care initiative, referring to it as “Obamacare”and “nonsensical”. Thus people pay Sarah Palin $100,000 to tell us that we should insist on balancing the budget that we should oppose virtually all forms of abortion, and that health care should not be provided as a service to those citizens in need of it.  As Palin gets wealthier, our country goes further in debt.  For a minute, disregard the philosophical issues of abortion, and simply consider just how unrealistic it would be to prohibit abortion, balance the budget, and limit the cost of health care.

First consider the cost of an abortion compared to the cost of delivery.  In Dallas, Texas, the cost of a routine abortion is less than $500.00.  A normal vaginal uncomplicated delivery costs $5,000-$8,000.

The cost of raising a child only to 18 years old, EXCLUDING college, is between $125,000 and $250,000.

In 1976 Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which excludes abortion from the comprehensive health services provided through Medicaid.   Under the new health care law recently passed, federal funds are only available in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

In 2006 there were 4.3 million child-birth related hospitalizations of women costing an estimated $14.8 billion in hospital costs.  Forty-two percent of the costs associated with maternal-childbirth related hospital stays ($6.3 billion) were billed to Medicaid.

Approximately half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned.  When considering the cost of having an unwanted child it is essential to consider the cost to society during the child’s lifetime.  Additional considerations should include:

Women who gave birth as teenagers make up nearly half of the welfare caseload.  This group of women is less likely to have high school diplomas, and they are more likely to have larger families.  Both of these characteristics increase the likelihood of being among the poorest welfare recipients.

Teenage mothers may have the hardest time earning their way off welfare and becoming self-sufficient.

Teenage mothers make up nearly half of the AFDC caseload.

Teenage mothers are less educated, have larger families, and are more likely to have never married.

Teenage mothers are more likely to have incomes below 50% of the poverty line.

The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison was that the criminal was raised by a single parent.

70% of inmates in state detention centers serving long-time sentences were raised by single (never married) moms.

When children born after Roe v. Wade reached their teenage years, the crime rate dropped.   Legalized abortion led to less crime.

The five states, New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii which embraced a woman’s right to an abortion for two years before Roe v. Wade, realized an earlier 13% drop in their crime rates than the rest of the nation (Dubner and Levitt 141).

The states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970’s experienced the highest crime drop in the 1990’s (141).

In the 1990’s there was a clear downward trend in the numbers of teen pregnancies.  The trend has now reversed, and 7% of teen girls got pregnant in 2006, which is an increase from 2005. Given these incontrovertible statistics, we know that more teenage girls are getting pregnant, and the mothers and their children present an increasing financial burden on the U.S. economy.  This burden includes not only the cost of the delivery of the baby, welfare, Medicare, education, criminal court costs, but also the cost to society of additional crime and the cost of a dramatic increase in the prison population.  Given the growing concern over the national debt it would seem that voters would choose either reduction of the national debt or anti-abortion as primary issues, but not both.  The two are unquestionably inconsistent.  It is clear that when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job figuring out if she is in a position to raise a baby well (145).

The incontrovertible conclusion must be that the cost to our country of reversing Roe v. Wade would be dramatic.  When our politicians or a commentator with Fox News suggests that they are proponents of over turning Roe v. Wade, they are necessarily advocating an increase in governmental expense for entitlements, for prisons, for education, and they are guaranteeing an increase in crime in the United States.   That’s a guarantee I don’t want.

It’s no secret that Sarah Palin is motivated by money.  Yet it has never been as obvious as in her recent appearance in Canada.   On Thursday, April 15, Palin appeared in Hamilton, Canada.  I knew articles had appeared indicating Palin was receiving $200,000 for the Canadian speaking engagement, as compared to the paltry sum of $100,000 she has been receiving for her speeches in the United States, but what I didn’t realize was that the speech was originally planned to benefit the Juravinski Cancer Centre and St. Peter’s Hospital in Canada.  After news articles and blogs in Canada were outraged by Palin’s scheduled appearance, the charitable causes were changed, but not the appearance.  The original charities were part of Canada’s publicly funded health care system, and St. Peter’s Hospital is a facility that performs abortions.  Thus the change of beneficiaries was not Palin’s doing, but the response of the organizers of the event to public outrage.  While Palin had only good things to say in her speech about Canada, it seems what she likes best about Canada is not the political ideology of the Canadian people, but their willingness to pay double her regular fee.  Consider significant differences in Canada, and the ideologies for which Palin purports to stand:

  1. Canada has a nationalized system of health care.  Palin has admitted that her family relied upon Canada’s nationalized health care when she was a child, but now opposes national health care in the United States.
  2. Palin has positioned herself as a champion for the right-to-life movement, but in Canada, abortion is available to women as a matter of right, and St. Peter’s Hospital is just one of the many hospitals that provide that service.
  3. Palin has advocated in the United States the need to reduce taxes. Yet in Canada people pay, on average, more money in taxes than in the United States.  In Canada total tax, and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of the Gross Domestic Product, and in the United States the rate is closer to 28.2%.
  4. Palin has also campaigned against the rights of homosexuals in the United States.  Palin has professed her belief that homosexuality is a “choice”, her opposition to gay marriage, and her religious opposition to homosexuality.  Palin is clearly not a friend to the homosexual community. Conversely, Canada has a history of being more open and accepting of its homosexual community.  In 2005 Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriages, through the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act.  Even before the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act in Canada, as early as 1999 most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had already been afforded to cohabitating same-sex couples.  On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act. Court decisions, as early as 2003, legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada‘s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples in Canada since 1999.

Palin’s appearance and speech in Canada could be compared to her speech to the bowlers’ convention, and the wholesale liquor convention.  All three had nothing to do with politics, or philosophy, but everything to do with money.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”. Sarah Palin might be the very type of person about whom Dr. King warned us.  Maybe the candidates endorsed by Palin share similar character traits.

Sarah Palin has been seen traveling around the country in a private plane for the purpose of endorsing political candidates for various offices.  Some of us would find it embarrassing to be endorsed by Palin given the many embarrassing things Palin has said, and the fact that she is no longer a politician (she quit…even though she is not a quitter, and she still insists upon being called “Governor”). One logical question might be:  Does her travel by private plane indicate that her income has risen sufficiently beyond that of the Governor of Alaska (remember her comment about selling the Governor’s plane on e-Bay at the Republican Convention) to justify such an extravagant expense?  Even though she appeared at book signing events in a bus, we realized later that she was flying in a private plane and being met at the airport by the bus.  At least the bus gave her the appearance that she was a common person.  Certainly we can agree that she is no longer a common person, and has become part of the “elite” which she has been so quick to denounce.  So what good is she doing with this new-found celebrity status? Who merits the endorsement of Sarah Palin?

My favorite endorsement by Sarah Palin is that of the “bizarre and outlandish” Michele Bachmann, Representative from Minnesota.

Palin’s wisdom and intellect in her choice of candidates is best illustrated by quotes of Bachmann:

“There isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas”.

“We have a gangster government”.

“Not all cultures are equal.  Not all values are equal”.

“If you are involved in gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage.”

“Because it is important that we put men and women of God into

office in our government, amen. And I don’t want any more letters

about church and politics don’t mix. If that’s your opinion, then

you need to get saved…”

Maybe Palin and Bachmann share a common view of religion, and maybe Palin could give Bachmann some pointers about how to identify witches.  I bet they agree on the importance of God in politics.  Maybe Palin and Bachman also share a common view of civil rights. Certainly Palin has herself been identified as having “bizarre and outlandish” behavior and comments (i.e. writing on her hand, waving to Russia, suggesting that she has seen human footprints inside a dinosaur’s footprint, and even reference to “two Sarah’s …one that is perky and one that is morose and non-responsive”).

Because Sarah’s website doesn’t list candidates she endorses, or policies that are important to her, we might question what the common thread is for each of the politicians that she endorses.  Palin has endorsed Rick Perry, Governor of Texas.  Like Todd Palin, Perry advocates secession from the United States.  Like Sarah Palin, Perry doesn’t seem to put a premium on education, so maybe ignorance is something they share.  Governor Perry has turned away millions of dollars in federal aid for education in Texas.  It appears that he, like Sarah, doesn’t mind that Texas and Alaska are two of the lowest performing states in the educational achievements of our kids.

A closer review of all the candidates endorsed by Palin reveals one common thread.  Each candidate Palin endorses suggests that women should not have reproductive freedom.  These people can’t accurately be called right to lifers as the fact of abortion has been known to save lives.  The health of some women may be compromised by a pregnancy, and thus an abortion may actually save the life of the mother.  In the case of my brother’s son, an unhealthy twin pregnancy necessitated termination of one twin in order to save the life of the healthy twin.  I now have a nephew who would not be alive today if not for the termination procedure of what my brother called the angel baby.  For my nephew, his right to life was dependent upon the termination of his twin.  My brother and his wife chose life, and terminated a fetus that would not have lived outside the womb.

Sarah Palin and those candidates she endorses condemn all people who choose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason.  Sarah seems to feel it is HER job to dictate what other people do, even if the United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is a fundamental civil right of every woman to decide for herself whether to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester.  Contrary to the wisdom of the United States Supreme Court, Palin seems to feel she should be able to impose her beliefs and values on the entire country.

There is one noticeable exception to this philosophy.  Palin is also endorsing McCain, and he is pro-choice.  Maybe if a person causes a financial windfall for Sarah, values become extinct like the dinosaurs.  Another example of the persuasiveness of money to Palin would be the choice of ghostwriters for her book, “Going Rogue”.   Of all the people Palin could have chosen to be her ghostwriter, Sarah chose Lynn Vincent, who herself admits she had an abortion.

Most of us would respect McCain and Vincent’s attitude regarding abortion, but it is ironic that the two people who have helped Sarah make the most money have each embraced the right of a woman to make the right choice for herself.  Palin appears as the keynote speaker at right to life rallies making hundreds of thousands of dollars for appearances.  The only logical conclusion is that Palin is a pro-life proponent when it is financially rewarding to her.  If we have not been clear about what motivates Sarah Palin until now, surely it is now crystal clear!  Character, values, and virtues (the subject of her next book) seem to take a back seat to financial rewards.

Evolution of the Feminine Mystique

Just Say NO to BS

The Ignorance of Sarah Palin

Rebuttal to the Rogue


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 4,303 other followers

Share This Blog