Libertarians and abortion

From American Catholic about libertarians and abortion:

On my blog.

Thanks to the efforts of Ron Paul and other pro-life libertarians, I’ve found that it is no longer automatically assumed that libertarians are pro-abortion. This is as it should be.

From First Things:

Three Facts About Roe

Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 10:51 AM

Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz

Michael J. New:

• After Roe v. Wade, conceptions increased by 30 percent.
• The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has reported that child abuse has increased more than 1,000 percent since Roe v. Wade.
• The cohort of 14-to-17-year-olds born after the Roe v.Wade decision was much more likely to commit homicides than the cohort of 14-to-17-year-olds born before Roe v. Wade.

Civilization declined, in other words.

 

The Extremists Who Report the News

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 24th, 2012 at 08:59 PM  | 

I’m sending Richard Mourdock some money and you should too. I want to explain to you just how extremist the media is on abortion and just how much spinning in favor of killing kids the media does.

According to Gallup polling, roughly a quarter of the population supports Richard Mourdock’s position on abortion — that the only exception in support of abortion should be the life of the mother.

According to Gallup polling, roughly a quarter of the population supports Barack Obama’s position on abortion — any time during pregnancy until the moment of delivery. And of course, we all know that Barack Obama actually supports infanticide too in cases when a baby survives an abortion attempt, but OMG Politifact claims otherwise!!!!!!!

When the media chooses to report stories about abortion, the media consistently chooses to report stories like Richard Mourdock’s statement and Todd Akin’s statement, both of whom believe that children conceived as a result of rape are still human beings entitled not to be ripped apart in utero and scrapped out of the womb or whatever procedure the child killers use these days. As an aside, during the Mourdock controversy few in the media reported that Mourdock’s Democratic opponent has sponsored pro-life legislation with Todd Akin.

. . . . .  . . . .

more more more more

Irish come out fighting

Hopey changey not working out at Notre Dame.  Nothing says more about this most obvious overreaching by the boy president.

Give a look at some nuts and bolts of it, noting while you are at it, this pungency:

The [legal] background [of the HHS mandate] is farcical. It represents administrative law brought to us by Laurel and Hardy, or Professor Irwin Corey, or the dictator of that Central American country featured in Woody Allen’s Bananas.

There are 12 suits, of course, each identically worded.  Chicago is not suing, but from Illinois, Springfield and Joliet are suing.  Can you imagine Chicago getting really serious about fighting Obama and the Dimmycrats? 

Cardinal George and his archdiocese are

“ . . . obviously deeply concerned about preserving the Catholic identity of Catholic educational, health care and social service organizations,” George said in a statement. “The Archdiocese therefore entirely supports the actions of the Catholic dioceses and organizations that have brought suit against the Department of Health and Human Services for violating the heretofore constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom of Catholic institutions.”

Nicely, if professorially, said.  But not part of the suit?  Why not?

Vegans for life? Not quite

The case for not eating meat, by David Sirota, is also a case for mandatory scanning of fetus by abortion-seekers, but Sirota doesn’t make the fetus case.

One of his [11] commenters notes this: “Sirota echoes an argument from the anti-abortion folks.” He or she is answered with this: “Only if the mothers eat the fetuses.” Followed by: “first they come for the placenta…. “

Heh-heh: having fun with the opposition, and this on the somewhat religion-oriented, firmly pacifist and other sort of leftist position-taking Truth Dig site.