On Monday, President Obama gave a demagogic speech urging Congress to pass gun control legislation. In doing so, he asked a hypothetical question, "what's more important to you--our children or an A grade from the gun lobby?" True to form, the President posed a false choice. Ironically, in survey research and legal proceedings, the type of question the President posed is known as a double barreled question, meaning the potential answers are not mutually exclusive. Protecting children and the second amendment are not mutually exclusive. Many NRA-backed politicians and many NRA members fight for the second amendment in part because they wish to be able to defend their children in the same way that the Secret Service is able to defend the President's children.
How about a question that isn't double barreled, Mr. President and your gun control allies? What's more important to you--our children or a Grade A from the abortion lobby? NARAL Pro-Choice America grades politicians on how "pro-choice" they vote, they and endorse candidates. President Obama received their endorsement for President twice, even before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race in 2008. Obama is actually more supportive of abortion than NARAL. In 2006, NARAL did not oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that protected children who survived an abortion. While the Senate approved this by a unanimous voice vote, a nearly identical bill had been presented in the Illinois legislature a few years prior, and Obama opposed it as an Illinois state senator.
NARAL has other allies outside of elected office. Planned Parenthood sees NARAL as a "partner for women's health and rights". Despite the claim that these organizations support women's rights, both have opposed a ban on sex-selected abortion. To them, it is fine for a woman to choose to have an abortion simply because her unborn baby is a girl, yet they claim to stand for women's rights? In their annual report released in January, Planned Parenthood indicated that they performed a record number of abortions in 2011 and nearly a million abortions from when President Obama took office in 2009 through the end of 2011. The media are pro-choice in their coverage of these horrors of abortion, and they often choose not to cover it. Meanwhile, some media outlets choose to consider children as collectively "ours" as society, not as children who belong to their parents. First things first, however, in order for children to "belong to us "or to their parents, they cannot belong to the medical waste bin. What's more important to you? Crossposted here and here.
Today marks the forty years since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. Since then, millions of unborn children have been aborted. In its most recent fiscal year report, Planned Parenthood noted it had aborted 333, 964 unborn babies--a record year. That's like wiping the city of St. Louis off the map.
When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he noted that we were endowed my our Creator with certain inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life precludes all the others. If we deny someone that first right, how can they have liberty? How can they purse happiness? Abortion is the ultimate form of prejudice--where personal convenience is pre-judged as more important than another person's existence and those inalienable rights are denied.
For all the pearl clutching pro-choice women do regarding having men interfering with their "health" care choices, they seem to forget that it was nine men who decided Roe v. Wade. Men are allowed to make "health" care decisions for these pro-choice women, so long as it is convenient for them. Sadly, we live in a world where health care legislation indicates that a twenty-six year old is considered a child for insurance purposes, but baby in her eleventh week in her mother's womb is not considered a child.
So much of politics is purportedly "for the children", yet when we deny them the right to life, what does any other legislation matter? In light of the recent ineffably saddening shooting in Newtown, CT, this well done video edit asks President Obama that very question.
Advocating for life is not solely dependent upon court cases and legislation. It's about a culture where life is valued. This is the culture we want to help create and cultivate. Andrew Breitbart once said that culture is upstream of politics. This does not only apply to those facets of culture like entertainment or sports, but also the lens through which our society sees. Let that lens be life.
On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article discussing debate over the mechanism of the "morning after" pill, Plan B. In recent years, research has indicated that the drug's mechanism of action was not as many had previously thought--that the drug prevented a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. This was what the FDA label indicated and what the NIH and Mayo clinic notes on their websites. With this being the understanding of the drug's mechanism, the drug was an abortificant since it prevented implantation. However, recent research has indicated that this may not be how the drug works:
Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills
prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists
say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries
that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken
cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.
If this is the case, I'm glad to hear that the drug's mechanism is not as such that it terminates a pregnancy, but that it prevents a pregnancy by preventing fertilization. However, it does raise questions about the FDA's processes. Why did their labeling indicate that the drug prevents implementation of a fertilized egg? Moreover, why was a drug approved in the first place if its pharmacology was not known?
The NYT article notes that the drug was approved in 1999, and that the drug's maker Teva asked to not list the implantation mechanism on their label. However, the article does not indicate why the company chose to not include this. Was the company fearful of the blowback of the pro-life movement? The implantation prevention mechanism was ultimately listed, but apparently without scientific proof.
The article goes on to note the FDA approval process for Plan B:
Back then, scientific research concentrated on whether Plan B’s active ingredient, a synthetic progesterone,
safely and effectively prevented pregnancy, not on how it worked, said
Dr. Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, an obstetrics and gynecology professor
at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, who participated in World Health
Organization studies leading to F.D.A. approval.
This statement contradicts what the FDA describes in their multi phase clinical trial process to bring a drug to market. After being approved as an investigational new drug (which enables researchers to test their drug on humans), the drug will go through three phases of clinical trials before it is approved. After it is approved, the drug will continued to be monitored for long term side effects. What is most shocking about the research claim is that the FDA's multi phase process includes determining drug action early on in the process:
PHASE 1 TRIALS: Initial studies to
determine the metabolism and pharmacologic actions of drugs in humans,
the side effects associated with increasing doses, and to gain early evidence
of effectiveness; may include healthy participants and/or patients.
"Pharmacologic action" simply means specifically how the drug works. Why wasn't the pharmacologic action of the drug determined during this process? Why did it take further research AFTER the drug was approved to clarify its mechanism? The FDA's role is to confirm efficacy and safety of a drug. How can these be fully understood if the drug's mechanism is not known? A drug may be proven to work if symptoms are relieved, a disease cured, or if a condition prevented. However is the mechanism safe? Safety is equally as important as efficacy.
The NYT article goes on to note from an FDA official:
Ms. Jefferson of the F.D.A. said it was often difficult when a drug is
approved, and even afterward, to pinpoint how it works. Citing
confidentiality rules, she would not discuss why the agency declined the
company’s request to omit implantation.
What contradiction from the FDA! They claim that their regulatory approval includes determining pharmacological action, yet their own personnel claims that it's often difficult to pinpoint how a drug works! While this may be the case, why do they note this as part of the process? They may have specific criteria for how much needs to be known about a drug's pharmocology before it is approved to go to Phase II, but why is not something as different has preventing or ending a pregnancy not determined prior to the drug being approved? This should be the case for any drug, but most assured it should be the case for a drug when it's a matter of preventing pregnancy or terminating it. Government regulation for true safety has its place, but regulation must live up to its own standards.
As a sidenote, the New York Times titled their article " Abortion Qualms on Morning-After-Pill May Be Unfounded", yet another example of the media trying to paint pro life people in a negative light as if the pro life movement was trying to perpetuate an untruth, when in actuality, a government agency did not do its due diligence in its regulatory process.
Today is the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision that ruled laws banning abortion were unconstitutional as a violation of privacy. President Obama defended this decision in a statement today:
“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters." ...
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams"
It seems President Obama now thinks that it is now at his paygrade to make statements about life. His words are heart wrenching and hypocritical. His policies have done nothing but intrude on privacy. To promote abortion as a way to ensure that " our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams" is both deeply saddening and false. How can one ensure equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities if he advocates for policies that allow for fewer daughters to be born? How can one make sure that children have the opportunity to "fulfill their dreams" when he feels that children born in less than ideal circumstances are deemed punishments? On the other hand, such words can be expected from whom Governor Palin calls "the most pro-abortion President to occupy the White House".
While President Obama makes these statements, abortion has been discussed a great deal in recent weeks. Michelle Malkin has highlighted the sickening and deeply disturbing actions of a Philadelphia abortion doctor who has been charged with murdering multiple babies and performing horrendous procedures on mothers and babies. Many of the procedures he performed are illegal and much of his horrific behavior went completely unchecked. You can read more about this here,but please be warned that the descriptions in Malkin's piece are heart breaking, vile, and sickening. Various members of Congress are promoting bills that would defund Planned Parenthood and other agencies that provide abortion services. One such bill would codify the Hyde Amendment which would block all federal funding for abortion, a concept to which President Obama paid lip service, but despite his words, did not support in action. Defunding abortion services was one of the points of the GOP's Pledge to America that they are striving to uphold. This Congress, due in part to Governor Palin's endorsements, is the most pro-life Congress in history.
Governor Palin has been a strong defender of the rights of the unborn and the pro-life movement. She speaks the pro-life message, giving speeches at "Right to Life" events and discussing pro-life issues in both of her books. So often though, actions speak louder than words. Governor Palin lives the pro-life message on a daily basis. In Going Rogue, she recounts giving life to her youngest son, Trig, born with Down Syndrome when 90% of babies known to have Down Syndrome are aborted. She even begins this book by recounting a pro life booth at the Alaska state fair where Piper served as "poster child" for their efforts. In America by Heart, Governor Palin spends significant ink on the pro-life message, a point highlighted by Kathryn Jean Lopez in her review of the book:
Palin has always been good at highlighting good things that might not otherwise get national attention, and she certainly does that in this book. She praises “unsung heroes” like the Catholic women religious Sisters of Life, “whose members not only pray for the protection of human life but do the hard, selfless work of caring for human life. They help mothers have and raise their children, and they counsel and comfort those who have made decisions they regret.”
Speaking of regret, she also mentions AbortionChangesYou.com, “a safe, nonjudgemental place for women and men who are troubled after their own abortions or those of someone close to them. It’s beyond politics or proselytizing, place that honors the legacy of feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony by helping women heal."
While serving as Governor, the Anchorage Archdiocese shared this statement:
In welcoming Trig into the world, the Palin family once again serves as an incredible witness by embracing all life as a blessing -- even the challenges.
The governor proves again that she not only talks the talk about pro-life issues, she also walks the walk. She is a shining example and steward of life as a politician, unfortunately one of the few entrusted with public office.
An incredible witness indeed. It is one she has lived out both in her personal and political life. As Governor, she advocated for parental consent in abortion, and when the legislature did not support that, she supported parental notification. She does not support embryonic stem cell research. She opposes Obama's overturn of the Mexico City policy that allows federal funding for international organizations that may perform abortions as part of their services. She signed a "safe haven" bill which allowed birth parents who felt ill equipped to fulfill their role as parents an opportunity to give their child to the state. In her press release, Governor Palin shared:
“All children deserve to begin their lives in a loving, protective family,” Governor Palin said. “When that fails, it is our job as a state to make sure that children are protected"
Governor Palin's message is not just protection, but opportunity, rights, and freedoms, all of the things that President Obama claims to support, yet does not. Governor Palin believes that every life is sacred and every child should be given a chance to have life. It's not above her paygrade, nor is a child a "punishment", but a blessing. Quite possibly Governor Palin's most moving speech is her speech at the Vandenberg Right to Life event in Evansville, Indiana nearly two years ago. As she so often says, "you have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk". We can thank God that she has done just that.
