Awww, let’s all feel sorry for the “doctor” who dismembers babies

Via The Other McCain


Jodi Giddings at Victory Girls writes about Dr. Susan Robinson, one of only four . . . well, “doctors” is the word, but it seems somehow inappropriate to describe someone whose business is death:

Only four American doctors remain who perform third-trimester abortions. One of those “doctors” is Susan Robinson. Dr. Robinson, aside from her other duties in her practice, kills viable babies for a living, what she deems “abortion medicine.” And as if that isn’t troubling enough, it gets even worse: she takes photos of the dead babies for their mothers to take home in memorial. Yep, you read that right. Dr. Robinson, after “euthanizing” infants mere weeks from being born snaps photos of them for the mother to take home to remember the dead infant. . . .

As I said SICK! But that is not the most disturbing part. Poor, poor Dr. Robinson is sad because other doctors do not appreciate her acts of infanticide

“Being an abortion provider is very stigmatized. Other doctors look down on you and think of you as like the lowest of the low.”

Gee, I wonder why anyone, especially doctors who have devoted their lives to SAVING lives would frown upon you “Dr” Robinson? maybe because what you do is evil? Maybe that has something to do with it? Maybe it is due to the fact that real doctors know better than anyone how despicable your deeds really are?

PETA should change its name to Dumb and Dumber

Read it and laugh, or shake your head in disbelief

PETA, always adding hilarity to our day…pass the blue cheese dip!

Via Daily Caller:

In its latest campaign to end carnivorism, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has expressed concern that buffalo wings might harm the physical development of the sex organs of male babies.

The radical animal rights group recently sent a letter to Drew Cerza, who runs the Buffalo Wing Festival in Buffalo, New York, asking him to bar pregnant women from taking part in a wing-eating contest which has been held each Labor Day since 2002.

PETA’s associate director of campaigns, Lindsay Rajt, wrote to Cerza saying “consuming poultry while pregnant may lead to birth defects in utero, including smaller-than-average penises for newborn boys.”

PETA, just another tree in the Grove of Low-hanging Blogging Fruit


This is your mind on unfiltered Leftism

Melissa Harris-Perry exemplifies what I call the Pit of Eternal Liberal Stupidity!


( – Noting the worldwide excitement surrounding Kate Middleton’s pregnancy, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry compared the hoopla surrounding the British royal birth to Texas abortion politics, and then offered her own definition of viability:

“When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science,” Harris-Perry said on her show Sunday. “The problem is that many of our policymakers want to base sweeping laws on those feelings.”

Harris-Perry also said that women with unwanted pregnancies do not share the same experience as the Duchess of Cambridge, who gave birth Monday to an 8 pound, 6 ounce baby boy who is now third in line to the British throne.

“When a pregnancy is wanted . . . it is easy to think of the bump as a baby,” Harris-Perry said. “But not every pregnancy is a fairy tale.”

“An unwanted pregnancy can be biologically the same as a wanted one. But the experience can be entirely different,” she added.

Of course, in her emotionalistic ramblings she ignored the fact that IT IS STILL A BABY! Still a person. Liberalism is what happens when people replace intelligent thought with raw emotion.

Then there is the United Nations, A.K.A The Useless Nations that has decided we should respect refer to illegal immigrants as “irregular migrants”.

Via Telegraph:

I was in Malta last week, reporting on the problems the country is facing with illegal immigration. Large numbers of Africans are claiming asylum there after arriving on people trafficking boats from Libya, and the Maltese are up in arms about it. Actually, sorry, I got that wrong. Let me start again. I was reporting on the problems the country is facing withirregular immigration from Africa. Not illegal. There’s a difference, it seems. Let me explain.

“Illegal immigration” apparently carries connotations of criminality, of someone doing something wrong. Like, for example, paying a people smuggler €700 to transport them a rickety boat that might sink with the loss of all on board. Whereas “irregular” is a more “neutral” term. Probably all the same to you and me.

Except it’s not. According to the office of the  UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Malta, which gave me a leaflet about what words to use when discussing this issue, it’s wrong to use the term “illegal”. The reason is that most of those who arrive in Malta claim asylum, and even though they are locked up while their claims are processed, that detention is “administrative and not criminal”. Also frowned upon is the word “clandestine”, which has a “strong negative connection, invoking a sense of criminality”. Instead, it recommends the phrase “irregular migrants”.

So, if the problem is irregular immigrants, the solution is what Metamucil?



North Dakota Set To Ban Abortions At Six Weeks Of Pregnancy

North Dakota Set To Ban Abortions At Six Weeks Of Pregnancy – New American

The North Dakota legislature has passed a pair of bills that, if signed by Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple, will give the state the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation. On March 15 the state senate gave its final approval to a bill that would ban most abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy, as well as another measure prohibiting a woman from having an abortion because of indications her pre-born baby has a genetic defect such as Down syndrome. The bill would also ban abortions based on sex selection.

Passage of the measures comes just a week after Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe signed legislation banning abortion in that state after 12 weeks of pregnancy, a law that is slated to go into effect this summer. North Dakota Gov. Dalrymple is expected to announce his intentions on the abortion bills within days.

Proponents of the bills said the goal is to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that effectively legalized abortion throughout the United States at up to 22-24 weeks of pregnancy. The pro-life North Dakota Family Alliance Action explained that the purpose of the Heartbeat Bill (HB 1456) is to stop abortion if an unborn child has a detectable heartbeat. “We all know the significance of a beating heart,” the group said in a statement. “We may have witnessed the loss of a loved one being cared for in a hospital, one moment hearing the presence of the heartbeat via the heart monitoring machine, the next moment experiencing the deafening silence of a heart beating no more. The heartbeat offers an undeniable truth about life… Just as we protect life, a living being, until that heart stops beating, no matter the age, we must afford that same protection when that heartbeat becomes detectable in the unborn.”

The group told that the “issue of abortion may become complex at times, and obviously has for many years – as we have witnessed the discussion and debate. But the issue becomes very simple, if we go back to a very foundational truth – that we as a people, as a government, are to secure and protect the right of life.”

As for the genetic abnormalities/sex selection bill, Republican State Senator Margaret Sitte, one of the measure’s cosponsors, said it is meant to ban the destruction of life based on “an arbitrary society standard of being good enough.” Pro-life leaders noted that the tests doctors use to reveal fetal abnormalities are often inaccurate, and many babies that medical authorities recommended be aborted have been born normal. Regardless of the results, pro-life leaders emphasize, every baby deserves the God-given gift of life.

Pro-abortion groups have promised a legal battle over the bills should Dalrymple sign them, with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero calling the measures, which would ban almost all abortions in the state, “extreme.” Romero insisted that “in America, no woman, no matter where she lives, should be denied the ability to make this deeply personal decision.”

Jennifer Dalven of the ACLU’s pro-abortion Reproductive Freedom Project said that her group was urging Dalrymple “to veto all of these bills to ensure that this personal and private decision can be made by a woman and her family, not politicians sitting in the Capitol.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights noted that the imposition of a six-week ban would mean that many women would be prohibited from seeking an abortion even before they know they are pregnant. “The passage of this law is nothing short of a frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution, 40 years of Supreme Court precedent, and the health and fundamental rights of women,” said the abortion group’s president Nancy Northrup.

Similarly, Sarah Stoesz of abortion giant Planned Parenthood’s North Dakota franchise said that in passing the restrictive laws “politicians in North Dakota have proven their disregard for a woman’s personal medical decision-making.” She was joined by the national CEO of the abortion business, Cecile Richards, who declared that such abortion restrictions “are outrageous and unconstitutional and they will not stand. The state-by-state race to the bottom on women’s health is not what Americans elected their lawmakers to focus on. A majority of Americans consistently believe that abortion should remain safe and legal in this country.”

Even some pro-life groups oppose such restrictive laws, pointing out that in the present judicial climate they are likely to be overturned, making it increasingly difficult to mount an effective battle to overturn Roe v. Wade. Some state officials also warned that a court challenge would represent a considerable expense to the state, with the likelihood of an eventual loss. Nonetheless, State Representative Bette Grande, who introduced both bills in the House, said that concerns over a legal challenge shouldn’t stop the state from doing everything it its power to protect the unborn at every phase of development. “Whether this is challenged in court is entirely up to the abortion industry,” Grande told lawmakers prior to passage of the Heartbeat bill. “Given the lucrative nature of abortion, it is likely that any statute that reduces the number of customers will be challenged by the industry.”

Among the pro-life leaders commending the North Dakota legislature for protecting the unborn was Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, who applauded the legislature’s passage of the genetic defects/sex selection abortion ban. “A civil society does not discriminate against people – born and unborn – for their sex or for disability,” said Yoest in a statement. “We should be celebrating diversity, not destroying it.” Yoest noted that “women in particular have been targeted for death in the womb, and we’ve also seen dramatic abortion rates for children with disabilities which put them at risk for extinction. The legislators in North Dakota have shown courageous humanity in passing this legislation.”

The Christian Post noted that one issue not clarified by the Heartbeat bill “is how doctors will detect fetal heartbeats. Those found guilty of performing an abortion after a fetus develops a heartbeat could face up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, though mothers would not face charges.”

State data shows that in 2011 North Dakota recorded 1,247 abortions. If Dalrymple signs the bills into law, more than 75 percent of all abortions would disappear, according to a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood-aligned Guttmacher Institute, which studies abortion trends across the nation.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Behind the mask of “pro-choice”

I have long-held that the term pro-choice is BS, a concocted phrase meant to paint abortion rights supporters as champions of choice, and for the right of women to control their bodies. Pro-choice fits in nicely with other pro-abortion, yes, you heard me, catch phrases like “my body my choice”. Yes, right, because the Left are big fans of women or anyone else controlling their own bodies. Sure they are, that is why thy so strongly support universal health care where ultimately the government decides who gets care and what sort of care they get. And pro-choice? Try to think of anything besides killing an unborn baby the Left wants us to have any type of choice in? Owning guns? No. Whether or not to join a union? No. How about school choice? Again no. How about a woman seeing an ultrasound BEFORE having an abortion? NOPE! Keeping more of our money so we can choose how to spend it? Hell no! How about Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, or women getting to choose which political party they support without being personally attacked? Yeah, right! The Left is about as anti-choice as it gets. But, the Left is all about saying one thing, while doing the complete opposite, in short, they are liars, they have to be. When most people see what Leftism really is, they run like Hell away from it.

Every now and again though, the Left or at least individual members of the Left allow the ask to slip. They let the truth emerge. Over at Salon, I read it so you don’t have to, Mary Elizabeth Williams does not just let her pro-choice mask slip, she rips it off with infanticidal glee.

Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

There we are, she KNOWS, as most pro-choice abortion supporters KNOW what abortion is, How could any person not know. Medical science has proven that for years, yet it is hard to find many abortion advocates who will admit that they accept this science. they know the science is real, they just want to convince you it is not settled science. This is why they almost exclusively use emotionalistic arguments about a woman’s body, and choice, and  why they scream things like “keep the government out of my uterus”! Those are emotionally charged words. And as it is with the gun control debate emotionally overloaded Americans are more easily swayed into buying the lies the Left pedals. But Williams is not playing the lying game any more. She is loud, proud and screaming at the top of her lungs that all people are not equal

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

See, the great lie the Left spews daily is that they believe in equality. And, I suppose they do, as long as we realize they mean that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. How very Orwellian of them. And understand this, by saying that all human life is NOT equal Williams lays bare the ugly truth about the Left. They loath individualism, they loathe assigning individuals with unalienable rights. Your rights, according to the Left last only so long as the “common good” does not require you to lose them.How very totalitarian of them. Think me throwing the term totalitarian in is too much? Ask yourself this. Who always suffers the most under any type of totalitarian regime?  The inconvenient do, and who is seen as an inconvenience by the Left? Who is considered a drain on the Collective? Clearly the unborn child is just too inconvenient to possess the same rights as others. I wonder what other groups Williams would deem as unworthy of equality?

Go read all of this piece. the cold-heartedness of this evil woman sickens me, and likely will you as well, but, we need to see what depths of depravity the Left is willing to sink to. Here is one more small glimpse into the demented mind of “pro-choice”

I can say anecdotally that I’m a mom who loved the lives she incubated from the moment she peed on those sticks, and is also now well over 40 and in an experimental drug trial. If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ass I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion.

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Again, that is the face of Leftism, laid bare.

Your blog headline of the day

Is this jewel, If America is ever attacked by an army of pregnant women, they’ll be prepared. It comes from Doug Powers


CAMP ZAMA, Japan – The Army is ordering its hardened combat veterans to wear fake breasts and empathy bellies so they can better understand how pregnant soldiers feel during physical training.

This week, 14 noncommissioned officers at Camp Zama took turns wearing the “pregnancy simulators” as they stretched, twisted and exercised during a three-day class that teaches them to serve as fitness instructors for pregnant soldiers and new mothers.

Army enlisted leaders all over the world are being ordered to take the Pregnancy Postpartum Physical Training Exercise Leaders Course, or PPPT, according to U.S. Army Medical Activity Japan health promotion educator Jana York.

Wow,just wow.

This will make you cry

Sister Toldjah writes about abortion, in this case “twin reduction”

You’d think that with all I’ve read, heard, and watched on this issue that anything else I read/see/hear at this point will not phase me. But it does. And it has. Case in point: this New York Times Magazine piece about the growing practice of “twin reduction”- which is the fancy, sanitized term for “aborting one of the twins.” No, it’s not a popular thing to do in America – yet – but it’s a growing trend that once again should concern any moral-minded, warm-blooded American who views the little life growing inside a woman’s body as a human being rather than an expendable “clump of cells” or “parasite.” I’m going to paste a few quotes from the piece as I believe there has never been an article written that has so clearly demonstrated with crystal clarity the abject moral bankruptcy of the pro-abortion crowd by demonstrating their casual, bloodless approach to the process of aborting one of the twins a woman carries for, you guessed it, convenience purposes. My comments are below the quotes and passages I found particularly disturbing (bolded emphasis added by me):

As Jenny lay on the obstetrician’s examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn’t want to see the two shadows floating inside her.Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion [Note: There’s no “almost” about it! – ST]. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.

“Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.” 

Please go read the rest, it will bring you to tears of anger and sorrow