Nathan Sheets

OK, OK, I know I've been slacking on the pro-life front. Things in life have just been so different that I've felt more like blogging about them. But I feel that I should spend some time writing about pro-life stuff, though I don't really have a topic, so I'll just sort of do a stream-of-consciousness thing.

1) Pro-abortion groups are (once again) pretending to be horrified with the prospect of John McCain becoming president of the United States. They did the same thing with George Bush. John McCain is even less pro-life than Bush. But this shows the striking contrast between the pro-choice advocates here and those in other countries, such as England (as I've recently learned). Pro-choicers here faint and threaten to kill themselves with coat-hangers at the mere mention of something like parental notification, much less full abolition of abortion. John McCain has been so wishy-washy on the abortion issue, how they could even be afraid is beyond me. But it's always up to the gals at NARAL to be dramatic. One of my new favorite features of their blog is "Liberty Lowdown", where they generally cry womanly tears about John McCain. Is it just me, or is "Liberty Lowdown" a really corny-sounding name? John McCain has expressed his support over and over again for Roe vs. Wade. He might--and this is a big "might"--support federal legislation for parental notification/consent, but that's not ever going to get to him if we continue to have these Democrats running the show.

2) John McCain will probably not be able to get pro-life backing in the election, at least as strong as President Bush. Sure, National Right to Life will endorse him, because he'll obviously be better on the life issue than Oh-Go-Ahead-And-Allow-Infanticide Obama, but frankly, I'm not feeling it. Heck, I was still a liberal when Bush ran for re-election, and I had more enthusiasm for him than I now have for McCain as a cranky conservative. Perhaps it's his liberal stances on a lot of other issues, or maybe it's because he's forgetting to even pretend that he's more pro-life than he really is, but I'm just not feeling much excitement. This can, of course, change as we draw nearer to the possibility of having our first half-black President who approves of infanticide being sworn in.

3) Lastly, this would be an awesome bedroom:

As one of those gays who doesn't believe in a "gay gene", I fantastically look forward to the day that it is discovered, because the pro-choice movement is going to have to figure some things out.

Because the movement officially (but quietly) stands for abortion on demand (any time during pregnancy for any reason--and yes, that includes the third-trimester for those of you having trouble grasping "any time"), when the gay gene is discovered you are suddenly going to have an influx of two different kinds of people: 1) pro-choicers who want to abort their children because they are gay and 2) pro-choicers who want to restrict abortion only in this one instance.

For some reason, it appears as if every gay and lesbian in this country supports abortion rights. It's as if there's a "abortion-supporter gene" included in the DNA structure of virtually every gay and lesbian I've ever met! Let's research it! I'm sure we'll come up with it! It must be there because I know they're born that way! Granted, most gays and lesbians (or just pro-choicers in general) are not NARAL-type pro-choicers, but many strongly feel that 1) abortion is needed to help women or 2) that it's not their problem so they're just going to ignore that issue.

And of course NARAL isn't going to budge on the issue. They have no problem killing blacks, why would they care about a few fags? "A fetus is a fetus, no matter their DNA structure." (A very nice motto to have when comparing human fetuses with that of dogs, as if that were relevant in any possible way in this debate.) This will be a moment when you'll want to pop some popcorn and grab your lawn chair: the pro-choicers will have the greatest schism of all time! *thunder and lightning crash*

While normal pro-choicers (hell, even me) can understand the desire of women who really feel as if they cannot care for a child and who are poor and single to abort a child as early as possible, a woman offing her gay fetus looks just a tad less noble when she's a suburbanite not wanting to deal with a lifetime of paying for baton-twirling lessons or expensive shoes. Indeed, she begins to look quite heinous.

But you gotta love the ladies at NARAL: this woman is still their amassment of courage and feminine power, shining with glorious light with choirs singing mystical chords around her! They adore any kind of woman who can kill her own child, via doctor or coat hanger, and will do anything--anything--to make sure she can get it without any kind of delay or harm to her person, including being able to pay for the thing herself.

The pro-choicers will be forced to actually take a public stand for what their position has been all along, and at least their position will be consistent: if you can kill the blacks or the unwanted, you should be able to kill the gays. While enraged pro-lifers are generally ignored by the media (unless of course they kill someone, in which case they are the epitome of all that is "pro-life") the media generally listens to groups of enraged gays. The feminists will get defensive, the gays will get defensive, and pro-lifers like me will have to stifle our giggles throughout the entire bout of drama. It will be glorious.

While it is obvious that aborting a baby because of their sexual orientation is quite deplorable, it's also worth noting that it's also just as disgusting to abort a child for any other reason. If a woman can abort for "cultural" reasons such as being looked down upon and called a "slut" in her community, why is it any less acceptable to abort the mother of a gay guy who doesn't want to deal with what could very well be a strong homophobic cloud in her community? We can argue all we want that such a sentiment shouldn't exist, but so also the stigma of the unwed mother shouldn't exist. Why is one an acceptable reason to abort while the other isn't?

The crones at NARAL are celebrating the fourth year anniversary of the "March for Women's Lives", an event that took place in Washington DC four years ago. Because the fourth anniversary is the Silk Anniversary, NARAL is appropriately recalling stories from the march and immortalizing them on their blog. Later today they will fold linen napkins in the shape of coat hangers.

The March for Women's Lives was a smashing success for the pro-choicers. They had a lot of women there, at least 800,000, possibly over 1 million. Pro-choicers gloat that their march drew in considerably more people than those who show up to the annual March for Life. This, to them, is solid evidence that more women are pro-choice than pro-life (I'm still checking, but I also believe that it's also evidence to them that the fetus can't feel pain). It's worth pointing out that dragging a bunch of rhetorically-ginned up college-aged women off the street and getting them to Washington DC for one event is considerably easier than getting over a million people to show up in January-weather year after year. (Note to fellow anti-choicers: can we PLEASE criminalize abortion in August so we can march in celebration of it every year?) And yet we get an average of 300,000 pro-lifers there every year. Multiply that by 35 years and we've slaughtered the pro-choicers, which is terribly ironic.

The blog entries are presumably still coming in, but NARAL policy director Donna Crane had an unintentionally ironic story about meeting the wife of Christopher Reeve, paralyzed actor and embryonic stem-cell proponent. She discussed the link between we "anti-choicers" and the death of Christopher Reeve. While his death is largely blamed on lack of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, no one sees that, in fact, embryonic stem-cell research did nothing to help him. The fact remains that, today, four years after his death, he would still be paralyzed, advocating for the destruction of human embryos in order to help him personally. Notice that one can understand Reeve's selfishness and be somewhat empathetic. No one wants to be paralyzed. That doesn't makes his position automatically ethical, however. And what other issue can we empathize with the killers of innocent people? Abortion. Funny how NARAL's on top of both.

Even I can concede that there is a difference between destroying a fetus and destroying an embryo. I think most pro-lifers see that and even some grapple with it. It's much easier for us to accept a few cells being used for supposedly helpful research as opposed to a 2nd trimester unborn baby. But that's where we differ from the pro-choicers. We give the benefit of the doubt to life, every single time, even if we cannot see or understand its value. Pro-choicers, in general I am sure, oppose slaughtering children in Darfur. However, their respect for life begins only after a child has passed out of the birth canal. Then magically, they have rights and we should be outraged that evil people are killing them and their families! They dismiss the deaths of fetuses as nothing, however. After all, who are fetuses compared to women? Well, then I ask, what value to society does a 4 year-old in Darfur have? Realistically, none. And frankly, what value to society does even a 16 year-old pregnant girl have? Realistically, none.

But that doesn't matter. Pro-lifers don't base a person's value on their contribution to society. We give them the benefit of the doubt and we encourage them to leave a productive life We are against the taking of any innocent human life--even that "potential life" found in a bunch of cells in a dish.

Of course Donna doesn't have a problem with chopping up embryos in a lab. She is for abortion for any reason, throughout all nine months of pregnancy. She thinks that simply changing your mind during labor is an OK reason to kill your baby. Sure, it may never happen, but that what she supports. By being cool with killing early-term fetuses and embryos, the pro-abortion position of NARAL has reached horrifying proportions. Perhaps when euthanasia on infants with Downs Syndrome becomes the status quo, NARAL will be right along side those proponents as well.

Jessica over at Bush v Choice is snippy over Missouri governor Matt Blunt's remarks in his recent attempt to block prison inmates from getting abortions. Now, I must say, myself, that I don't see why prison inmates should be the exception in the mad dash to abort children. (Does anyone see any reasoning for this?) Thankfully, to Jessica, pro-choice liberals generally get what they want by using the courts, as they did in this case: the Federal Appeals Court said, yes, women in jail have the right to dismember their children too, thus preventing any glass wall that the jailed women who have spent their entire lives contributing to society have been striving to surpass. Ah, how glorious the victory must be.

Jessica indignitaly quotes Blunt, who said, "Over the last three years, we have … enacted laws that reflect our profound respect for the inherent dignity of each and every life...I am hopeful and prayerful that we can further protect life by enhancing our laws to defend the dignity of human life."

Responding with her usual thought-provoking commentary, Jessica states: "Unless that life is an incarcerated woman, then her dignity doesn't really mean [obligatory curse word] to Blunt." (And the blog entry dramatically ends!)

What kind of a world do pro-choicers live in? It must be nice that any kind of argument, no matter how elementary or advanced, can be ended with, "PRO-LIFERS HATE WOMEN!!!!!11!!!" and a threat to go stick a coat hanger in themselves.

Queen of Child-Killing Advocacy herself, Kate Michaelman, graced us with her presence on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade with a rather intriguing column in the Los Angeles Times. She frankly states, "Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view. "

In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman's right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women's bodies to the "who decides" [Hahahahaha!] question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.

Um, wow. I totally agree with what she just said.

She declares, "It's not 1973. Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground."

This article was actually enjoyable to read, because it reaffirms what I've been saying from the start: pro-choice advocates know the fetus is a human, they just don't care. To have Michaelman of all people admit this is wonderful.

Perhaps some of you have already clued into this "moral highground" of screaming "women, women, body, women!" when discussing abortion pointlessly with some NARAL supporter type on a college campus or, worse, abortiondebate. (Not dissing the community, mind you.) You have the smart ones and the clueless ones: the smart ones are the ones who don't care about the development of the fetus despite any information that comes out (the fetus could literally be saying, "Um, please don't kill me!" and they would tell it to shush, their mother is getting ready to practice her right of bodily integrity, and it would be ever-so-much easier if the fetus would keep it down) and the clueless ones are the ones who don't know about Doe vs. Bolton and think that abortion is illegal after the first trimester. Needless to say, these types don't lead the movement.

It's funny, because pro-choice advocates are so desperate to kill children. They have ignored any new information about the fetus that has come out in the past 35 years that points to "personhood" or claim that, why no, just because a fetus is fully developed doesn't make it a "person", oh wow look at how deep we are talking about "personhood"! ("Personhood" is a term so vaugue that it has come to mean "whatever pro-choicers want it to mean at the time".) They simply are now the most honest they've ever been about their position, which has been the same ever since Roe: they think women have the right to kill their children.

Just got off the phone with one of my Oregon Right to Life crony friends M. about the fact that Oregon has been named the least pro-life state in the country. Granted, the fact that you can legally kill yourself drops us down a few notches, but even then, things look dismal.

We were discussing the somewhat humorous fact that NARAL dropped their rating of us down to an "A" while Washington recieved an "A+" because we don't have an abortion clinic in every county. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure there are counties in Oregon that don't even have women, much less pregnancies that need to be gotten rid of. At least Oregonians now have something to reach for: "An abortion clinic in every county of 80 people! Even if we don't have a gas station!" It's about priorities, people.

This is one thing about NARAL and other pro-abortionists that is totally ridiculous is that they carp about "abortion access", even going as far as to make the laughable statement that "there is no longer a legal right to abortion" because of "funding bans, waiting periods, limitations on teens, declining numbers of providers, and myriad other barriers to access". These people are insane! When will American get it??? They're STILL not happy with Oregon because we don't bless every county with an abortionist.

Thankfully hope is not lost. We have God on our side, even though the darkness tries to hide Him. He will prevail.

ht: JivinJ

People often wonder why I paint the pro-choice movement out to be "evil". The short answer is because it is.

The long answer, however, deserves some looking at. We know—because I've laboriously written about it before in order to futilely avoid any whining—that not all pro-choicers are reflections of the pro-choice movement. This is seen by the obvious fact that not all pro-choicers believe that a woman has the right to a partial-birth abortion. However, their spokespeople do.

Not only that, but the spokespeople are against any kind of reasonable legislation that would not only make it harder for a woman to abort (no matter her age or mental state) but that would even delay it by four seconds. The only question Planned Parenthood wants women who are aborting to be asked is, "Will you be paying with cash or check?" (You could add "Nathan's Tax Dollars" to that as well.)

While I'm sure that the pro-choicers ultimate intentions are admirable (no unwanted children), we are expected to ignore their means which they use to get to their ends. They try to frame the sides of the debate thusly: Pro-Choicers are against unwanted pregnancy; pro-lifers are against choice. Well OK!

Really, pro-lifers are against unwanted pregnancy as well. We just have a problem with the pro-choicers' solution: kill unborn children. The "let's kill babies" position is made out to be the logical position, when really no sane person should be thinking that it is OK to kill another innocent human being. Really, their position would be a lot more logical if they at least advocated killing unwanted born-people as well. But they don't.

Pro-choicers are quick to get snippy when their logic is used with anything other than a human fetus. Apparently there is an "obvious" difference between a fetus who will be a drain to society and a homeless person who is already worthless in society. Point this out, and they scream that you are going too far (as well as claim that you are for killing homeless people).

The reasons for child-killing the pro-choicers use are all smokescreens. "Rape and incest", "population", "abuse" and many more are always used. Notably, pro-choice advocates don't use "selfishness" or "not ready to have a child" very often. For that kind of honesty you have to visit the really crazy pro-choicers' blogs where they're actually honest about their positions. But really, it doesn't matter what the reason is for NARAL: there is no abortion they don't like (except perhaps forced-abortions abroad, but even then we're waiting for an official statement).

But most people—even pro-choice people—are not like that. They also don't realize that their movement is so extreme. But it doesn't really matter. The pro-choice movement is evil because it advocates child-killing. No one hesitates to call the Nazis evil. But how could we compare the killing of 1.5 million children every year to what the Nazis were doing? That's obviously different!

Indeed, it's easy for 21st century Americans to look upon the Nazis and Germans of the 1940s with moral disdain; we have hindsight. To us, there's simply no way we could be as morally depraved than them! We're an enlightened people in an enlightened time. But what do we think the Germans thought? Perhaps it is because of this delusion that we are not willing to view the pro-choice movement as evil: because many people we know (if not most) identify themselves with it. Aunt Clara isn't evil! Burt the janitor isn't evil! (And especially) I'm not evil!

The pro-choice movement in the United States stands for child-killing, meaningless sex without consequence, protecting rapists and exposing children to lewd "sexual information". They cannot fathom a world in which women are prohibited from killing their children right up until the moment of birth. Such a denial of "rights" sends them into furious fits of rage. So yes, the pro-choice movement is evil, as well as those who participate in it. We all have wickedness in us, and thankfully the Lord has given us a way out of evil. Child-killers and advocates of such are included in His mercy, on the condition of repentance.

More BushvChoice Amusement!

Really, I need to stop reading this blog. I just about get a hernia from laughing every time I read it.

Elizabeth Shipp, Political Director of NARAL, wrote a blog entry regarding tonight's CNN/YouTube debates, featuring the Republican candidates. She describes all of their pro-life views thusly:

"Could it get any worse than what’s already being said about women and their apparent inability to make choices for themselves? Well, the answer might surprise you."

Besides the fact that the "surprising" answer isn't surprising in the least, I find Shipp's interpretation of pro-life belief to be incredibly bizarre. She either has terrible receptive skills, or she's never actually met a pro-lifer and has only been reading NARAL dossiers her whole life. Let's take a step away from the talking points for a second.

Pro-choicers get snippy if you portray them as a bunch of blood-thirsty psychos. And while I totally believe that that's what their position inherently leads to, even I can admit that most pro-choicers are decent human beings who generally don't know anything about abortion. ("Doe vs. Bolton? What's that?")

But it's perfectly acceptable for Shipp to describe pro-lifers are anti-women and ignore that our actual problem with abortion is that...it kills people. Hmmm, it kind of sounds to me as if Shipp is actually reinforcing her own misconstruction of pro-life belief! Perhaps NARAL should leave the blog entries to their few male staff members from now on.

A perturbed Jessica (BushvChoice, um, “commentator”) writes about Huckabee:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has come out against the idea that states should decide whether to make abortion legal or not.

She then quotes an article talking about how Huckabee—as opposed to Fred Thompson—doesn’t agree with the “letting the states decide it” approach. And this is true, at least over actually condemning abortion morally. As I’ve pointed out before, Fred Thompson says that he’s “against abortion”, but shows no real outrage over it. (Unless his “outrage” is saying that he thinks Roe vs. Wade is "bad law" and that the states should decide their own abortion laws in a voice as enthusiastic as a lecturer on different sand types in ancient Iran. Way to rally the troops, Fred!)

But the funny thing is, Jessica totally agrees with Huckabee! It’s true! She doesn’t think that the states should decide their own abortion law either, nor does NARAL, the organization for which she works!

Pro-choicers (and NARAL in particular) constantly cite polls taken in Southern California and claim that “Americans want to uphold Roe vs. Wade!” This is a pathetic tactic on their part. Oh yes, Americans are pro-choice just like NARAL: for any reason whatsoever during all nine months of pregnancy!

The reason why Jessica agrees with Huckabee is because, at one time, the states were allowed to decide their own abortion laws. And guess what: states were riddled with abortion restrictions, varying in degree from one to another. Some were (of course) more liberal, and others allowed virtually no abortions.

And pro-choicers couldn’t stand this. So they had to do what they always do to get their way: bypass democracy and go to the courts. Thankfully for them, they had the Warren Court to give them what they wanted. And they still lie to the American public, instilling fear of women giving themselves abortions with coat-hangers and candy canes (happy holidays!) should Roe vs. Wade be overturned.

While NARAL and the feminists continue to claim that Americans are for abortion, they always seem to shy away from actually letting Americans decide. They know that, sure, many Americans support abortion—but only in extreme circumstances, and almost never past the first trimester. They got the most liberal abortion policy in the world via the Warren Court, and now they are afraid that if they actually let the people decide on the matter, they may lose something as third-trimester abortions!

While pro-choice advocates sometimes give the pretense of wanting to "work together" with the anti-choicers to "reduce abortion rates", it becomes pretty clear right away what the real plan is. The pro-choicers have a pact amongst themselves to never, ever give an inch when it comes to advocating the killing of the unborn.

As opposed to pro-lifers, who constantly make compromises in order to save children. Perhaps it's because we have a lot more at stake (human life) than they do (the inability to have unprotected sex with strangers sans consequence), but you'll find that pro-lifers will constantly be doing things they don't really want to do in order to squeeze in any sane reason into the abortion debate, particularly with law.

While the phrase "rape and incest" elicits a strong desire in me to lash out violently (proving pro-choicers' suspicions all along!), I (and all pro-lifers) realize that the public is fixated on this stupid phrase. Like I've said before, pro-choicers (who don't believe that there are "good reasons" or "bad reasons" to get your abortion anyway) throw out this phrase as casually as "Nice shoes!" or "Merry Christmas!" People have stopped thinking about actual rape and incest victims and simply parrot some kind of objection to parental notification for abortions on 12 year-olds.

The Democrats have a huge problem. It's hard trying to look sane when you have the most extreme abortion stance possible: abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Obama and Clinton both have this view. They need it too: the people who speak for pro-choicers in this country, NARAL and Planned Parenthood, hold tremendous political power in their endorsements. And if you are against the "non-existent but medically necessary" partial-birth abortions but are yet pro-choice in every other way, God help you. Emily's List, a group of paranoid old women clutching coat hangers, gives millions of dollars to female politicians who support sucking the brains out of unborn babies in the 8th month. Oops, I mean "choice".

Because of the money and endorsements that are on the line, Democrats don't have much wiggle room. This is why they all tell us either that "abortion is a sad decision, but..." or even "I'm personally against abortion, but..." Note to Democrats: no one cares! What we want to hear is "Abortion is murder, boo-ya..." And giving this to us is...well, Ron Paul.

The president can do relatively little given the current and past make ups of Congress. Even with a Republican majority, there are too many wishy-washy (aka, non-conservative) Republicans with seats. They give us parental notification and expect us to be in awe of their "respect for life". Please. What pro-life advocates want are actual laws that may stop a girl from actually getting an abortion. We can only harass abortion clinics for so long by passing bills holding them to an actual standard like not having blood smeared on the walls or washing their hands between clients. But the fun of that is quickly subsiding. Now, with more and more future pro-choicers being aborted and more and more people becoming educated about the detriment of abortion to society, change is afoot. At least some of the wishy-washy Republicans will be able to hide behind their oh-so-brave votes for parental notification when the country has a drastic change of heart about abortion. The democrats will still be sitting there, claiming that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was "bad for women".

First, I don't understand Thompson's fixation with nonexistent state laws that would send girls and women to jail who abort. There never have been such laws, and there never will be. Thompson's insistence on bringing up this abortion industry scare tactic, unprovoked by any interviewer and all the while maintaining he doesn't want to discuss hypotheticals, only puts thoughts in people's minds that ought not to be. He needs to just shut up about that.

—Jill Stanek

I have also found these comments by Thompson to be annoying, and by saying them I think that he further proves my suspicion that he's in cahoots with NARAL. I mean, really, no actual pro-lifer would ever say something like this! Well, except for me of course, advocating such laws. But I'm the only pro-lifer apparently who actually thinks that the mothers who slaughter their children should receive some form of punishment. Ahem.

While the issue of abortion "going back to the states" is certainly what I believe should happen, I don't use that argument to shield the underlying principle I have about abortion: that it's murder. If anything, saying that abortion should be left to the states should be a way of softening the blow for poor college pro-choicers who can't fathom a world without a woman's right to choose; but not the other way around.

Thompson clearly doesn't care about his pro-life base, and that's annoying. Every Republican president needs to be aware of what the people who vote for him value. Usually at this point we could laugh maniacally and say that we hold the power through the NRLC endorsement...but, oh wait, NRLC chose to endorse Thompson who 1) has yet to say abortion is morally wrong, 2) shallowly says that it's a "state issue" in order to avoid any moral grandstanding, 3) talks as if he's a NARAL intern about "girls going to jail", 4) won't sign a Human Life Amendment, 5) has a bad position on end-of-life issues. Next we'll be finding out he supported McCain-Feingold!

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the Supreme Court recently upheld the "Federal Abortion Ban"! Having never heard of this piece of legislation (and as a rabid anti-choicer I think I do a good job at following abortion-related news) I did a quick search for it on Wikipedia. Nothing. So I did a news search for it. No recent stories, and only two with that actual term, one of which is capitalized to give the air of being an actual thing. I then decide to do a regular Google search and I came up with a hypothesis that the NARAL blog, BushvChoice, is in fact talking about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. I actually called my local NARAL affiliate and confirmed that, yes, this is what the blog was talking about.

Here's what the blog said, in order to pump up support for their Freedom of Choice Act:


Now follow the link and you'll find a summary of the so-called "Federal Abortion Ban", which actually has never gone by that name that I can see. Now, obviously, NARAL doesn't want to go around saying "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" (or, for that matter, "abortion"—and actually they generally avoid "birth" as well...), but does anyone else find this just a tad bit dishonest? Don't the ladies at NARAL realize that, perhaps, when the college liberals read their blog that they might not have the faintest idea about what NARAL is talking about and conclude, from the name "Federal Abortion Ban", that it might be talking about just a bit more than partial-birth abortions? Not anywhere on that link do they provide the actual name of the ban (the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), the name of the Supreme Court cases that upheld the ban (Gonzales v. Carhart or Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood) or the medical uses of the term which they insisted that we use in place of "partial-birth abortion" when this whole thing was being debated (D&X procedure). If I didn't know any better, I'd say it's almost as if NARAL doesn't want ordinary Americans to know specific details what they heck they are talking about!

Here's what they consider "background" information with common sense questions inserted:

• The Supreme Court struck down an almost identical state law as unconstitutional in 2000 [Um, and that would be...?], and every court to hear a challenge to this first-ever federal ban on abortion declared it unconstitutional. [Do you guys care if it goes the other way: when courts uphold pro-life bills but the Supreme Court upholds your side? It really doesn't look good for the pro-choice crowd to be whining about us having the Supreme Court give us something the other courts wouldn't.]
  
• Since the Court's decision in 2000, President Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and abortion foes see these appointments as an opportunity to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision.
• For the first time since Roe, this ban [WHAT BAN?] has no exception for the health of the woman.
• Any doctor who violates this ban [WHAT BAN?] would face criminal penalties of up to 2 years in prison, even if he/she was acting to protect the woman's health.
• This ban [WHAT BAN?] rolls back key protections that have been guaranteed since the days of Roe v. Wade.
• The Court, with the addition of Bush's appointees, has disregarded the medical opinion of leading doctors who oppose the ban [WHAT BAN?]. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - which represents 90 percent of the OB GYNs in this country - says the ban is harmful to women's health and interferes with medical decision making.

Um...OK. Finally at the end of their laborious fear-mongering page, they offer a link for "More Information", which includes the name of the Supreme Court case, but nothing else that would even remotely clue-in readers as to what they are talking about. That page says, "State legislatures across the country continue to introduce new total bans to challenge Roe in the courts, and the majority of state legislatures and Congress have passed unconstitutional laws that would ban safe and medically appropriate abortion care as early as the 12th week in pregnancy." Throwing this in there (the introduction of "total bans") intentionally insinuates that this is what the "Federal Abortion Ban" also is. I would think that the average person—even someone who isn't very bright—might see just a bit of a difference in a total ban on abortion and late-term abortions.

Why can't NARAL just come out and say what they are actually thinking: "We are OK with partial-birth abortion for any reason!" It would make things so much easier, though, frankly, they may feel a dwindle in support. Like I've said before, NARAL does not support anywhere near the vast majority of self-identified pro-choicers. They are for abortion for any reason whatsoever, at any stage of pregnancy, with "no apology". Of course they start crying about the fact that there is no "health" exception in Gonzales v. Carhart—er, I mean "The Federal Abortion Ban", causing housewives in Manhattan to lock up the kids in the basement and go out in search of wire coat-hangers for the impeding Doom that will befall women.

In a pathetic hope that somewhere NARAL would link their own name for the ban and the actual name of the ban together, I clicked on yet another "Find Out More Information" link (what is this, "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the NARAL website?) and that led me to a press release that only Nancy Keenan could draft. Of course, that painful read provided no information about the actual details of "The Federal Abortion Ban", but, indeed, "this is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not make private, personal medical decisions for the rest of us". I wonder had Nancy worded it, "This is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not be making private, personal late-term partial-birth abortion decisions for the rest of is" if it would ring the same with the average American as her first sentence.

My most loyal pro-choice readers will undoubtedly scoff and say that there is nothing deceptive about the term "Federal Abortion Ban" and yes, they can see that it is capitalized as a proper noun rather than a regular noun, what does that have to do with anything—why would I ask? NARAL can do no wrong.

[Update: Here is a screen shot of their original post, complete with my funny comment which will no doubt be deleted.]