New at Live Action: Partial-Birth Abortion Defender Claims Phone-Calling Protestors Are More Offensive Than Killing Babies

My latest Live Action post:

The abortion crowd has so much invested in the narrative that pro-lifers are bullies that finding an actual example of pro-life misbehavior to exploit must feel like an early Christmas present. Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak tells the tale of Todd Stave, the landlord of a Maryland abortion clinic where partial-birth abortions were performed by the notorious LeRoy Carhart, who’s had enough of the harassment anti-abortion protestors have allegedly subjected him to:

[H]is tormentors crossed the line last fall when a big group showed up at his daughter’s middle school on the first day of classes and again at back-to-school night. They had signs displaying his name and contact information as well as those gory images of the fetuses.
‘What parent wants to have that conversation with an 11-year-old on the first day of school?’ he fumed.
Soon after that, the harassing calls started coming to his home. By the dozens, at all hours.

Stave, however, didn’t take this lying down:

He began to take down the names and phone numbers of people who made unwanted calls. And he gave the information to his friends and asked them to call these folks back.
‘In a very calm, very respectful voice, they said that the Stave family thanks you for your prayers,’ he said. ‘They cannot terminate the lease, and they do not want to. They support women’s rights.’
This started with a dozen or so friends, and then it grew. Soon, more than a thousand volunteers were dialing.
If they could find the information, Stave’s supporters would ask during the callbacks how the children in the family were doing and mention their names and the names of their schools. ‘And then,’ Stave said, ‘we’d tell them that we bless their home on such and such street,’ giving the address.
The family of a protester who called Stave’s home could get up to 5,000 calls in return.

Obviously, harassing a man’s children crosses the decency line, no matter the cause. And if a call to his home was truly threatening, I’m not about to get worked up over Stave turning the tables on that caller.

But looking up their children’s names and schools?

Read the rest at Live Action.


Feingold to Plague Wisconsin College With His Presence

Pro-Life Wisconsin reports that Marquette University Law School has asked former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold to join them as a visiting law professor. As PLW notes, the radical pro-abort Feingold holds some interesting views that should be of great interest to anyone thinking about going to Marquette. From a 1996 debate: 
@font-face { font-family: “Times”; }@font-face { font-family: “Cambria”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }p { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.
Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby’s head would slip out — that the baby was completely delivered — would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn’t answer the question. Let’s assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you’ve stated, and the head is accidentally delivered.Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor.   And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions.  That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

What the average university will not only tolerate, but welcome with open arms, these days is simply abominable. At least this monster isn’t disgracing our state in the Senate anymore.


A Glimpse into the Heart of Evil

Back during the 2003 debate over partial-birth abortion, Slate ran an editorial by abortionist Warren Hern entitled, “Did I Violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?” His thesis is that the law’s language was vague, which would lead to problems. Full disclosure: I haven’t looked at his argument in detail (I might for a future post, and if you want to read the law for yourself, click here). In my opinion, there’s no substantive moral difference between a month-1 abortion and a month-9 abortion. But right now my interest is in Hern’s closing paragraph:

“Earlier this year, I began an abortion on a young woman who was 17 weeks pregnant. Because of the two days of prior treatment, the amniotic membranes were visible and bulging. I ruptured the membranes and released the fluid to reduce the risk of amniotic fluid embolism. Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact. With the next pass of the forceps, I grasped the placenta, and it came out in one piece. Within a few seconds, I had completed my routine exploration of the uterus and sharp curettage. The blood loss would just fill a tablespoon. The patient, who was awake, hardly felt the operation. She was relieved, grateful, and safe. She wants to have children in the future.”

Read that again. This “doctor” is describing an act of murder, admitting that his victim was “alive” at the time, and doing so without the slightest hint of regret or embarassment; indeed, he is proud of the grotesque way in which he makes a living! I’ve never been surprised at the existence of evil in this world, but the degree of acceptance his kind has achieved in so-called civilized society still makes me sick to my stomach.

Score One for the Good Guys!

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today voted to uphold the 2003 ban on partial-birth abortions. Predictably, in her dissenting opinion Ruth Bader Ginsburg whined that “the ruling ‘refuses to take … seriously’ previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.” Well…yeah, that’s kinda the point.

Predictably, the frontrunners of the ‘08 Republican field
have embraced the ruling, while all three leading Democrats promptly took the Nazi position on the issue (by the way, Barbara Boxer’s reaction was even more extreme; too bad she’s not running for President!).

Today was a great day—a great day for America, for human rights, and even for President Bush (both of his appointees delivered today). But this battle isn’t over by a long shot. It won’t be over
until the rest of our countrymen remember that “unalienable” really does mean “unalienable,” and every human life, from the moment of conception onward, is recognized & protected by US law.
(Oh, by the way: if you wanna see a general abortion debate that’s just taken a turn for the stupid, click here.)

UPDATE: Though I still think pro-lifers are right to celebrate today, Ross over at Sullivan’s blog has a
somewhat-more sober reaction that’s worth reading.