Basic concepts are not so basic anymore

You will have to bear with the background that some might find tiresome. But there is a matter of connecting basic ideas to be dealt with. We’ve come so far we sometimes sigh when we read old things or history. We prefer new material and words we can identify with. I can be an eye-roller as well. There is a problem with that thinking.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Stop right there; that’s enough. Everyone would recognize that as the Declaration of Independence. But maybe we need to refamiliarize ourselves with it occasionally. A philosophy based on truth not emotion — as is standard fare today. A good exercise is to repeat those words very slowly. That one line is packed and rich.

That is, of course, if you accept that there is truth, it means something and is relevant. Some people may not. Those important words of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be glossed over easily. We on the conservative side understand how important those words are. Not to say the Left doesn’t, but I question their perception and application.

Oh there is such a concept as self-evident, isn’t there? Some things can be reduced only so far. That line is down to almost the basic common denominators.

Now I mention all that to call attention to just one current-event example. Though it helps to see it through this lens. Life means something. Liberty and pursuit of happiness can be qualified by the respect for life.

This philosophy and the ideas were the foundation to the Constitution, yet the DOI also stands alone and did until the Constitution was written.

Now we see the Constitution and bill of rights in that context. Looking at the bill of rights, then, one can see how important those principles are.

Burying the lead

All that may seem like a heck of a wind up. The story is an illustration but any number of stories happening on a weekly basis would fit just as well. Known as hotbeds of activism, a college or University is where students are taking a stand. That alone seems like a noble thing. But what are they taking stands on? Sure campuses are incubators or pools of diverse opinion. Sometimes, but often they seem very monolithic.

Not so? Just look at some of the current trends of protests: BDS, same sex marriage, race activism, minimum wage, “social justice”, sex or abortion rights. And they are reactionary to current events. So that and political correctness, along with the academic and institutionalized hierarchy, is the backdrop. Plug in any number of issues like “controversial” speeches about Islamic terrorism — something which could affect numbers of students by the guns of radicalism aimed at them — or abortion rights they endorse.

What’s in a little harmless vandalism?

It happens again that the radically militant left has descended and stepped on someone’s first amendment speech. Well, I’m sure they don’t see it quite that way.

On a University campus in rural Pennsylvania — not like its Berkeley– students had a demonstration display permitted by the University. They had crosses symbolizing recent abortions.

According to the Students for Life website:

Original Story: (4/13):
For the second time in four years, the Clarion Students for Life Cemetery of the Innocents display, which consists of dozens of white crosses each representing 10 babies who were aborted that day, has been vandalized. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, is located in Clarion, PA, about an hour and a half from Pittsburgh.
Clarion Students for Life put up the crosses Sunday night around 7pm and by 8am this morning, the club’s leaders were notified that the display had been vandalized – a few crosses were written on, others were broken, and others stuffed into the nearest trashcan.
The vandals wrote on some crosses:
“would you support if this life was gay?”
“would you support if this life were trans?”
“This was a reprehensible act of discrimination against Students for Life,” said senior Todd Garrett, Vice President of Clarion Students for Life. “It was an attack on our freedom of speech. I find it quite ridiculous that this is the second time since 2011 that our crosses have been desecrated.”
[…/]
“Instead of dialogue, abortion supporters have once again taken to bullying to silence those with whom they disagree,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “Perhaps if the vandals had sought this dialogue with Clarion Students for Life they would have learned that pro-life students support the right of every human person to be a person, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. ”
Read more at: http://studentsforlife.org/clarion-students-for-life-crosses-display-vandalized/

As a matter of fact, the one individual that did confess to it had an explanation:

“She stated that the crosses had been written on before she was there. [That she] was offended by the display and thought that it was most likely from a group not associated with the University. She placed them into trash cans because she thought that she was doing the maintenance people a favor.”

So the diligently conscientious student was doing some house cleaning and helping out the maintenance crew. Along the way she was cleaning up that 1st amendment mess, but just tidying up for the janitor. Yep, sounds innocent enough. Can’t have enough helpful students around the campuses. Someone give her an award. Not making a joke of it, I would not be surprised if she or they were praised for what they did.

The subject of life deserves a closer look. You have the first amendment, in this case expressing support for life, and then you have vandalism and others trying to stifle their speech. So you have battling sides or factions.(pro-life & pro-abortion) Some say that is as it should be. But they vandalized and sought to block or shutdown the students for life.

What is amazing is to look what each side stands for. (if you want to see it in sides) You have students clearly standing on the side of life. Then you have others standing on the side of, well, various interests whether that be gays, anti-religion/ati-Christian, or abortion and what they would term pro-choice.

Consider the philosophy behind those sides. The protection of life has been a fundamental concept. Now the pro-life purposes and motives are pretty clear or “self-evident.”

I’d like to examine the vandals and pro-abortion side. They hold demonstrations and rallies. I understand that. However, look at their driving motive and philosophy. What is self-evident is they stand on the side of abortion, killing babies. Okay, whatever term you want to use it is the same thing. Now a perfectly acceptable, some believe righteous, thing to do is advocate for abortions. They stand up for ending the life of one or the 55 million ended since Roe Wade.

It is now a cause to rally support for abortion rights. And with their advocacy of defending that “right” comes the use of their 1st amendment rights. (their zealous advocacy goes beyond that) So they employ their entire first amendment rights to defend abortion. They vote and petition government the same way in support of abortion.

Is this an issue to spend one’s valuable God-given, not government created, rights on? It is to them. How much satisfaction and value is in abortion rights?

Is that advocacy the exact opposite of the premises in the Declaration? It is also in conflict with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself considered by some to be controversial because they recognized that stating said rights could constitute government restrictions on them. Imagine that? And the Constitution was designed to limit government not its subjects. Some call that the chains of the Constitution.

Then let’s consider the freedom aspect. The freedoms enshrined in our system are now applied to ending innocent life. Yes, exercising one’s freedom in support of anything up to and including late term abortions as a sacred right protected by the Roe decision, as they see it. So we have the rights of freedoms and pursuit of happiness used to end life, or kill babies, not preserve it. Is that a perversion of the very rights they they are exercising?

What if a doctor consistently used his knowledge, ability and freedom to end life not preserve it? Could someone bind that up into a theme called social justice? Is their advocacy for those perversions as strong as for protecting life? Then they endorse that advocacy directly by terminology. They say they are protecting a woman’s right to choose. They call abortion reproductive healthcare. They call it “settled law” or the “law of the land,” or “basic reproductive rights”. What is basic about it?

The next time one of these all too common stories pops up, I hope people see it that way. But I fear the opposite instead. They have trained generations of people to see it in the post Roe light. They tell us you cannot restrict a woman’s right. They made it a part of every nomination for office, “do you accept a woman’s right to choose?” They have made Supreme Court nominees swear on the altar of the Roe decision many believe was wrongly decided. It is not a “law” that they have built this apparatus around.

They made it a religious test that you must leave your conscience at the door. They force people to swear on the altar of protecting abortion “rights”. In so doing, they have built the foundation of said right on the very concept they are attacking.

Humans have evolved so far that they have developed a sacred “right” to kill off their offspring. They have constructed a philosophy that life begins at conception of choice.

RightRing | Bullright

Gosnell no anomaly, more late-term horrors

Undercover video exposes more late-term abortion horrors

By: John Hayward – Human Events
4/29/2013 09:23 AM

“Dr. Kermit Gosnell is not an aberration,” said Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, a group of pro-life undercover filmmakers. She was introducing a new undercover video that shows the horrors described in Gosnell’s trial “are business as usual for the abortion industry in America. Nationwide, it’s just another day at the office.”

While the two videos released thus far in Live Action’s new series “Inhuman: Undercover in America’s Late-Term Abortion Industry” don’t capture any of the sadistic B-movie horror theatrics that made Gosnell’s trial so stomach-churning, they do reveal a callous disregard for children “born alive” during late-term abortion procedures. This is precisely the situation that our abortion-radical president, Barack Obama, insisted should not be addressed through legislation to protect the life of the born-alive child when he was an Illinois state senator. Perhaps that’s why he didn’t have anything to say about the Gosnell trial – the biggest abortion story of the decade – when he became the first sitting President to address Planned Parenthood last week. (Full video and excerpts of Obama’s speech are available here.)

In the first “Inhuman” video, taken undercover at a clinic in the Bronx – where abortion is legal up to 24 weeks – an abortion clinic staffer makes it very clear that she knows she’s talking about the abortion of a fully -formed 6-month baby. Then she talks about drowning a born-alive infant in a jar of solution to make it stop “twitching.” She makes it clear the clinic won’t trouble its prospective customer with sonograms, or any discussion of the procedure’s target as a “child” or “baby.” And if the baby is born alive at home before the late-term abortion procedure can be completed, the staffer cheerfully advises the expectant mother to flush it down the toilet.

“I don’t know why you want to talk about all this,” the clinic staffer says. ”Just do it!”

Another staffer at the same clinic takes the possibility of an infant being born alive, and thus acquiring defensible human rights, much more seriously – but her description of the very fine line between an acceptable clinical “termination” within the mother’s body, and the killing of an infant born alive just a few inches outside the womb, highlights the inherently dehumanizing nature of late-term abortion. She’s very insistent upon use of the word “terminate” instead of “kill” to describe what happens to the target of a legal late-term abortion.

Read more at Human Events

“You’re done!”

———————————————

Part 2 –Then there is NARAL, Huffington Post reported:

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue:

“So let me be loud and clear: Kermit Gosnell is a dangerous predator. He wouldn’t exist, couldn’t exist, without the work of Rep. Duffy and his friends in the anti-choice movement. Opponents of women’s rights have hounded safe, legal health providers halfway out of business and blocked women’s access to the quality care they need.”

He wouldn’t exist if it were not for pro-life folks? Wow there is a stunner. What bullshit. The industry created Kermit Gosnell and those like him…I’m sure she forgot ….to do what they do and take advantage of every loophole or opportunity provided them, and create a few of their own.

Well, we now know exactly what type abortions and procedures he did. (for over 30 years) But of course what she overlooked is he was operating as a licensed doctor in a legal clinic as an abortion provider. Case closed. That he did things she didn’t know or approve of, well, that’s on her and her conscience for supporting the industry he was a part of. But it is the nature of their death business – or business of death.

The above suggests that the problems are wider than one clinic they seem quick to say the doctor was operating illegally. Isn’t it telling that the main reason they raided his place on running a prescription drug operation? NOT the abortions he was doing! As reports and witnesses state, they realized in one look they had a much bigger problem. Thank goodness for us he was running a painkiller racket too.

Hogue condemned Gosnell again on Friday. “The allegations against Gosnell are nothing short of horrific,” she said. “His actions were reprehensible and illegal. What he did in his clinic was reminiscent of the pre-Roe v. Wade days of back-alley abortion. He took advantage of lax state oversight and desperate women whose options were limited by the relentless efforts of anti-choice lawmakers in Pennsylvania.”

She must have missed the part where the reason inspections were terminated were not because of “anti-choice” lawmakers as she claims. It was because the inspection might reduce or cause problems for clinics thereby possibly restricting women from their ability to get an abortion. Inspections might infrinmge on someone’s right of aboriton. So inspections were lifted by “pro-choice” people for pro-choice reasons.

Whoa there Bessy, about the only thing logical here is that his actions were “horrific”.

“Reminiscent of back-alley abortions”? But he was there legally operating a clinic as a licensed Doctor. How reminiscent? Is that not the excuse we hear, legal safe and rare?(= utopia) Yet in his “established” legal practice he was doing this with immunity. And don’t pro-abortion folks say “keep it legal” and it will be safe? This was not safe legal or rare.

Now I know this may be hard for her to swallow the actual details of abortion, namely late-term, but their next assertion is that he is a one off. Well, the above piece describes various other clinics. It is idicative of how they treat the issue of Life and talk to prospects. That’s a nice window into the abortion world, which they told us if it is just legal and widely available it will be safe. Buzzer sound, Wrong!

How in the world can she gleefully try to blame the pro-life people for Gosnell, the way he treated patients, or the procedures that he was doing? Insanity is the only operative explanation. It is up to her and all her colleagues to answer the question — not her opponents — how many of these clinics… or houses of horrors are out there?

Make it a threefer
In front of a large national Planned Parenthood conference on Friday, as the first president to address the organization, he made it clear to the politically aligned crowd:

President Obama declared that “Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere” as the abortion giant continues to take hundreds of millions of our tax dollars.

Obama has been a strong supporter of the pro-choice group, and said that “no matter how fierce the opposition,” the past few years have shown that “Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/obamas-blessing-of-planned-parenthood-outrageous-aclj-asserts-94931/#1OwQrhBFKueg6sVH.99

Well, neither are we “going anywhere” or away. For Obama to say that while the Gosnell trial is taking place — while he won’t mention it and yet goes to speak to PP — is the height of insensitivity, disrespect, and lacks the dignity of the office.

A President should stand for life and liberty, he obviously stands for death and the slavery of abortion.

[Again, H/T to Pepp article]

Gruesome Gosnell summary

I have posted several times about gruesome Gosnell and his Philly butcher shop. There are a few more articles Pepperhawk Farm forwarded that really deserve a look. So I’ll post them with minimal editorializing. Well, I said minimal, that’s open for interpretation. The subject stirs me to the core.

Now we’re hearing the judge threw out counts against him as it shifted to the defense this week. I can’t imagine the real reason, as if it wasn’t proved they were alive, when Gosnell’s whole pupose to to keep his conspiracy of death behind the filthy walls of his clinic. And he put a lot of effort into that. Some of the ‘lowlights’ are:

Death Doc Kermit Gosnell’s Silent Co-Conspirators

Michelle Malkin

Planned Parenthood now says it’s “appalled” by the Philadelphia house of horrors run by accused serial baby-killer and pregnant-mom murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Bull.

The appalling inaction of the nation’s largest abortion provider, along with countless other clinics and “pro-choice” groups in the know, speaks far louder than their belatedly self-serving words.
/…
As I first noted in my column and on my blog when the scissors-wielding sadist was arrested in January 2011, the murders committed under the banner of “choice” were ignored for four decades by abortion advocates. The Philadelphia grand jury report, now amplified by trial testimony, outlined the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming viable babies. The panel concluded that the “vast majority of the babies he aborted” were more than 24 weeks old.

Gosnell joked that one murdered baby was so big, the child “could walk around with me.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/04/19/death-doc-kermit-gosnells-silent-coconspirators-n1572425

How to Murder the Innocent, Defenseless, and Undefended—and Make Big Bucks Doing It!

By Jim ONeill CFP
Monday, April 15, 2013 (excerpts)

As we near the end of this article I might mention that the Philadelphia D.A. estimates that Dr. Gosnell made between $10,000 to $15,000 a day from his abortion mill (that does not include the money he made from the illegal sale of prescription drugs, which was considerable, but does not concern us here). And before anyone leaps to his defense as a “champion of women’s rights,” I suggest you look over the D.A.‘s report in that regard. For example:

“One woman…was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus. Relatives who came to pick her up were refused entry into the building; they had to threaten to call the police. They eventually found her inside, bleeding and incoherent, and transported her to the hospital, where doctors had to remove almost half a foot of her intestines.” — [**THAT should prevent anyone from ever using the prefix Doctor on Gosnell ]
/…
I will conclude with a sobering thought. The police originally raided Dr. Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” because he was overprescribing Oxycontin—not because he was murdering infants. One wonders how many other “Dr. Gosnell’s” there are spread across the country, flying under the radar—how many other “Houses of Horror” funded by our taxpayer dollars?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54458

Let’s set the stage

Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story

The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy.

Conor Friedersdorf – The Atlantic
Apr 12 2013

On February 18, 2010, the FBI raided the “Women’s Medical Society,” entering its offices about 8:30 p.m. Agents expected to find evidence that it was illegally selling prescription drugs. On entering, they quickly realized something else was amiss.

In the grand jury report’s telling, “There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff.” Authorities had also learned about the patient that died at the facility several months prior.

Read at: The Atlantic.com

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Is Cleared on Some Counts

By JON HURDLE-NYT
Published: April 23, 2013

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday threw out three of seven murder charges against a Philadelphia doctor charged with killing viable fetuses while performing abortions.

The judge, Jeffrey P. Minehart of Common Pleas Court here, granted motions for acquittal on the charges against the physician, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who ran the Women’s Medical Center, a West Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Judge Minehart also granted a motion for acquittal in five charges of abuse of corpse against Dr. Gosnell, who according to prosecutors killed fetuses that were alive after they were aborted by plunging scissors into their necks. Dr. Gosnell, 72, was also acquitted on one charge of infanticide.

The judge gave no reason for his decision, which came on the fifth week of the trial and preceded the start of defense arguments, which had been scheduled to begin on Tuesday afternoon but are now expected to start Wednesday.

MSNBC Finally Covers Gosnell Trial in Primetime Five Weeks After it Began

By Noel Sheppard | April 24, 2013 |

The murder trial of abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell began on March 18.

On April 23, more than five weeks after it started, the folks at the so-called “news network” MSNBC decided it was time they reported it in primetime.

Hardball‘s Chris Matthews surprisingly ended the blackout Tuesday:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: In Philadelphia right now, the trial of an abortion doctor charged with the murder of babies the prosecutors say were born alive is generating national headlines. Of course, it was page one of today’s USA Today with the headline “Gruesome Testimony Renews Debate Over Abortion.”

Well, Im not sure about that, but it is gruesome testimony. A grand jury report released in 2011 called the clinic a house of horrors. But the bottom line remains this is a murder case. Let’s keep our heads around that.

Originally, Dr. Kermit Goswell — or Gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder for killing babies that were allegedly alive, born alive and viable. Well, today, a judge threw out three of the seven murder charges. The judge did not explain his reasoning. But reports have indicated he did not hear sufficient evidence that the three babies he took out were actually born viable and then killed.

“Well, I’m not sure about that.”

What Matthews obviously meant was that he’s not sure this renews debate over abortion. Of course, that’s why his network and virtually all of the liberal media chose to boycott this story because they were indeed afraid it would renew the debate.

Also of note was MSNBC ending its primetime blackout on the day the judge reduced the charges on Gosnell. Makes you think that if he’s found innocent the media will gleefully report that.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/24/msnbc-finally-covers-gosnell-trial-five-weeks-after-it-began#ixzz2RQwEwtIK

Gruesome testimony renews debate over abortion

Rick Hampson, USA TODAY April 22, 2013

A third witness recalled how, as ordered, she used surgical scissors to snip the spine of an aborted fetus she’d found in a toilet, its arm still moving. “I did it once, and I didn’t do it again,” she said. “…it gave me the creeps.”

The creeps are an occupational hazard for jurors in the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, accused of running a clinic where seven babies were allegedly killed after botched abortions and an adult patient was given a fatal overdose of Demerol.

Abortion opponents hope that the horrifying crimes attributed to this one defendant can shift the balance of power in an abortion debate that’s been deadlocked for decades.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/22/gosnell-abortion-trial/2100103/

Gosnell Defense rests in Philidelphia Abortion Case

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Philadelphia abortion provider won’t testify or call witnesses at his capital murder trial, leaving jurors to weigh five weeks of prosecution evidence.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is charged with killing four babies allegedly born alive at a clinic that authorities have described as filthy. He is also charged in the 2009 overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee who died just months after coming to the U.S.

Gosnell’s defense rested Wednesday without calling a witness. The jury is expected to hear closing arguments on Monday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/24/abortion-philadelphia-gosnell/2110857/

H/T to Pepperhawk for three of the articles.

Essay on Reform

A little long but I hope you will read it.

It’s an often-used word in politics. It’s a simple word with various meanings. Basically, in most contexts, it is used as an alternative to abolish or remove. So if one does not want to abolish something they say they are going to reform it or fix it.

The dictionary says, Reform:
a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.
2. : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
4: a : to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking b : to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking

 Since it is used so much today in various contexts I thought it was worth a closer look. It is commonly used in politics to refer to any kind of change, especially toward problems or failures, and often as a cure-all. I mention only some applications of the term.

The word conjures up another meaning also used in education, reform school. Decades ago this was a term for school dealing with behavior problems or problem students. Hence, a student was sent to reform school. It was not generally considered a good thing. But it was thought of as a place that might straighten out kids with problems. There were no guarantees though it was hailed as a possibility. (…when other attempts fail)

And there is the religious use of the root word in Christianity, referring to Luther and Protestants in the reformation. Some religious institutions use the word in their name.

 And there is a broader social use of the term “reform movement”:

A reform movement is a kind of social movement that aims to make gradual change, or change in certain aspects of society, rather than rapid or fundamental changes. A reform movement is distinguished from more radical social movements such as revolutionary movements.

Reformists’ ideas are often grounded in liberalism, although they may be rooted in socialist (specifically, Social democratic) or religious concepts. Some rely on personal transformation; others rely on small collectives, such as Mahatma Gandhi’s spinning wheel and the self sustaining village economy, as a mode of social change. Reactionary movements, which can arise against any of these, attempt to put things back the way they were before any successes the new reform movement(s) enjoyed, or to prevent any such successes.  (Wikipedia)

(note – its a softer approach than revolution)

So there is a lot of talk about reform. Politically, the word has been loosely used (overused) to suggest change needed or necessary. It is used as a blanket description for change, to improve or tweak something. So far, the overuse of the word has not ruined the idea behind it, completely. It still carries popularity and high regards to some folks. But politically, I’m sure many people roll their eyes when they hear the word, as I do. And there has been a good amount of reform done already, which many people disagree with.

Sometimes reforming a bad idea is not the right solution. Often “reform” of something with inherent problems, and plagued from the beginning, is not the best solution. But it still gets used in those contexts as the cure. Strange how liberals who tout “pro-choice” claim that abortions are a solution in dealing with life; but when dealing with federal Government will only go as far as to call for “reform” – and usually dragged kicking and screaming to that position.

To abolish an agency seems to be against their nature. But in dealing with life, they contend abortion should always be an available option – for any and all reasons. In fact, don’t ask why. To abolish a failed agency or program is much tougher. Yet they want a streamlined, simple process to get an abortion. To abolish a program is a monumental task, nothing steam-lined about it, if it can be done– “Let the objections begin.”  And liberals like it that way. Even reforming is a challenge. They want the bar set very high to abolish a program or agency, but set very low to get an abortion. But aren’t they based on the same principle, getting rid of something unwanted and a burden to the greater whole? (sorry ….)

Then there are those politicians who take on the banner as “a reformer” politically. You’ve heard them say, “vote for the reformer… vote for the true reformer”.  Few seem to want to campaign as the abolitionist. (I know, except for the congressman from Texas)  Yet there is something to be said for adopting the abolitionist banner, or at least making it a philosophy that is not so stigmatized and ridiculed a position as it is now.  “Reform” must sound better to people. (proabably poll tested)

The Declaration of Independence was a more than a reform philosophy. They tried the reforms. They pleaded to the King, and they got no relief. In fact, the King made things harder and more difficult for them. “Such” was the “patient sufferance” of their colonies. No, it called for more than reform; it demanded some drastic steps. And it was not easy.

Leftists want it easy to have an abortion on demand but want it difficult to rein in out of control, encroaching bureaucracy. Such is our “patient sufferance” today. Yet they want abortion to be as available as possible; any restrictions on it is a restriction too many to them.  Liberals will hold rallies or protests to “keep abortion legal”…”save a woman’s right to choose” … and protect women’s right to an abortion. (hailed as a civil right) Then the same folks trot out signs to say “No, you cannot cut this program, spending, or end this government agency. It’s not fair.” Fairness…

So there we have it

Scissors to the back of the head and a suction hose to abort babies; but no technique is painless enough or “necessary” to eliminate an agency that outlived its usefulness.  And the stage of development is of no concern for babies. In fact, we even have a Secretary of Heath and Human Services  who very much advocates for that ‘scissors to the head’ treatment of babies.  How does she feel about a ‘badly conceived idea’ that should be stopped in its tracks? (…like ObamaCare) 

You know the answer…

Leave your comments on reform (or anything else) or the way it is used? Your thoughts…