Most significantly, the straw men go from shoddy to shameful when he talks about how much he listens to his professed good friends Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt arguing against same-sex marriage. Here he is claiming to have substantial familiarity with the position he disagrees with, from people he respects and takes seriously, yet he still shadow-boxes with lazy caricatures of traditional marriage talking points rather than the arguments Prager and Hewitt actually make.
Understanding Redistribution and Class Warfare in One Chart
New Prager University Video: Proving Media Bias
New at Live Action – Are Women Considering Abortion Informed? Not if Planned Parenthood Can Help It
How well informed are abortion seekers? We may not be able to know their minds or experiences, but we can certainly know whether those doing the informing are being honest, fair, and candid with them (spoiler alert: they’re not).Live Action has caught at least three Planned Parenthood clinics giving their patients inaccurate medical information about their babies and pregnancies, misleading women on when heartbeats can be detected, abortion’s medical downside, whether eight-week-old fetuses had limbs and brains, and whether the name “baby” is applicable. “But wait,” you say, “you can’t judge an entire organization according to a few bad apples!”Very well. Let’s see if Planned Parenthood’s official material fares any better.The Q&A section on their website, written by obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Vanessa Cullins, is a treasure trove of pro-abortion talking points, but the biggest whopper is the way it absurdly and falsely pretends “baby” is an inaccurate term because “most medical authorities” don’t think it “becomes” a baby until “after birth when it takes its first breath.” Dr. Cullins apparently doesn’t think “most medical authorities” includes Mayo Clinic, WebMD, Johns Hopkins, or the federal Department of Health and Human Services, all of which refer to “babies” in the womb.
New on Live Action – Gee, I Wonder Why Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers Don’t Get Along Better
In one breath, Forbes contributor Chitra Sundaram bemoans how “no real discussion occurs online or offline” when it comes to abortion policy. In the next, she unwittingly betrays her own culpability in the sad state of our national dialogue with a tirade about pro-lifers’ alleged heartlessness:
The silent masses, much as Margaret Sanger, a pioneer in Women’s reproductive rights and one of the founders of Planned Parenthood found during her travails, remain ignored. They live and die on the fringes of society, in pockets of dire poverty and inner city tenements, even in an ultra-rich country like ours. Yet they might as well not exist as far as politicians, and commentators are concerned. If poor women get pregnant, it must be because they are sluts. And the fact that they can’t afford to have a child simply means that they shouldn’t have sex! And the possibility that they might be living in overtly or covertly abusive situations matters little to the ideological pundit. Finally, if the unwanted child is to be forced upon a woman or family, the State of Arizona, facing similar budget deficits to other states has cut into the very programs that might help ease the financial strain on such families.Much could be said about how pro-choice states actually don’t do better than pro-life ones in reducing abortion rates or preventing unintended pregnancy, or which social programs actually help the needy and which ones simply waste money and foster dependence on government. Here, though, let’s focus on the author’s visceral aversion to frank discussion about sexual responsibility.Hyperbolic “slut” descriptor aside, the underlying point – that poor women (other than rape victims) get pregnant because they knowingly chose to do something that potentially results in pregnancy – is self-evidently true, as is the commonsense advice that not having sex is the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy.
Rave Reviews 7!
The "Great One" Has a Problem
New at Live Action – Bachmann-Bashing ThinkProgress Fails Biology 101
My latest Live Action post:
If you write for the Health section of a prominent website, shouldn’t you have a working knowledge of basic human biology? Apparently not if that website is ThinkProgress, where Rebecca Leber claims to have caught pro-life Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann in an inconsistency about women’s health.
Discussing health care on MSNBC, Bachmann said:
What we want is women to be able to make their own choices […] We want women to make their own choices in healthcare. You see that’s the lie that happens under Obamacare. The President of the United States effectively becomes a health care dictator. Women don’t need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money, that way they can make their own choices for the future of their own bodies. [Emphasis in original.]
Leber questions the “irony” of Bachmann’s answer, given the “GOP war on women targeting Planned Parenthood, abortion services, and contraception coverage”:
Bachmann doesn’t believe a women’s right to choose applies in all cases, though, promising on the presidential campaign trail that in addition to supporting an abortion ban, she wouldn’t allow exceptions for rape or for the woman’s health.
It seems pro-aborts have been misusing terminology so long that they can no longer recognize its proper use.
Read the rest at Live Action.
ALERT: RedState Alters Diarists’ Posts? UPDATE: Fixed UPDATE 2: Second Offense
UPDATE (4/12/12): This morning, I emailed Erick Erickson about this. I just heard back from him. He says he doesn’t know how it happened, but it seems to be traceable back to someone with the same IP address. Most importantly, the post has been changed to its original form. Thanks to Erick for a quick response & resolution.
UPDATE 2 (4/22/12): A second post, another illicitly-added link to Erickson’s Perry-boosting. Hmmmm:
GOProud’s stated support for marriage federalism is highly misleading.
ORIGINAL POST: While working on another article, I looked up this post on drug legalization I posted on July 28, 2011, in my now-defunct RedState diary, and noticed something odd in this sentence:
The far-left ex-president is in rare agreement with National Review, which on June 27 called the bill “an excellent first step” toward ending a war that has “curtailed personal freedom.”
The “National Review” hyperlink goes to a post by Erick Erickson, where passes along Ben Domenech’s complaint that NR was biased toward Mitt Romney and had lost sight of conservative principles.
I didn’t put it there.
That post is dated December 15, 2011. I had been banned on November 27.
Apparently somebody at RedState went back and snuck the link in. Was it a petty attempt to get back at me by putting something I disagreed with in my own writing? Or have they been doing this on a wider scale, spreading their material wherever they can without the diarists’ knowledge or consent?
I have no idea, but it’s certainly disturbing to see that RedState is no longer content with misleading writing and purging critics, and seems to have crossed the ethical line into manipulating the writing of others. Has anyone else – other bloggers, Eagle Publishing, anyone – picked up on what’s been going on at RedState?