Too extreme of a title?  You tell me.

This would explain why he thinks partial birth abortion is A-OK:

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” 

Exit question: What do you think he finds more objectionable, babies or personal responsibility/accountability?

Boy, that abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood really stepped in it this time.  Here’s the story from the Idaho Statesman:

Planned Parenthood of Idaho officials apologized Wednesday for what they called an employee’s “serious mistake” in encouraging a donation aimed at aborting black babies.

They also criticized The Advocate, a right-to-life student magazine at the University of California-Los Angeles, for trying to discredit Planned Parenthood employees in seven states in a series of tape-recorded phone calls last summer.

The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because “the less black kids out there the better.”

Kersey laughed nervously and said: “Understandable, understandable. … Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.”

On Tuesday, The Advocate released transcripts and audio recordings of this phone call and another to fundraising representatives in Ohio.

The student editor-in-chief of The Advocate said she’s not surprised by Planned Parenthood’s response and that the unedited recordings speak for themselves. The activist students think Planned Parenthood targets minorities and minority neighborhoods.

Seems pretty obvious to me.  Planned Infanticide’s response?

“A fundraising employee violated the organization’s principles and practices when she appeared to be willing to accept a racially motivated donation,” said CEO Rebecca Poedy in a written statement. “We apologize for the manner in which this offensive call was handled. We take full responsibility for the actions of the fundraising staff member who created the impression that racism of any form would be tolerated at Planned Parenthood. We took swift action to ensure that each of our employees understands their responsibility to communicate clearly with donors about the fact that we believe in helping all individuals, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation, make informed decisions about their reproductive health care.”

Translation: “This is ridiculous, people!  We will help anyone kill their babies, regardless of whether the baby is black, white, gay, straight, male, female, etc.  But if you really had your heart set on offing a black child, then with your generous donation, we can certainly accomodate your request.”

These are sick, sick people.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t going to be featured in any Planned Parenthood pamphlets or brochures.  From the UK:

An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: “I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum.”

Emma Beck was found hanging at her home in Helston, Cornwall, on Feb 1 2007. She was declared dead early the following day - her 31st birthday.

Her suicide note read: “I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does.” 

Look, I am not about to cast stones at this poor woman.  She was so consumed by guilt that she ended her own life.  But as politically incorrect as it is to ask this exit question, I’m going to anyway: why is her death any more newsworthy than the death of her unborn twins?

Wow.  Just…wow.  From Newsbusters:

Let me get this straight: On September 11, 2001, terrorists brutally exterminated nearly 3,000 Americans, obliterated the landscape of lower Manhattan, and pummeled the headquarters of the United States’s national defense. And since that same date nearly six-and-a-half years ago, pro-lifers have committed a grand total of zero murders, attempted murders, and bombings directed at abortion workers and clinics across the United States and Canada.

So the Associated Press implies that the bigger threat of terrorism to this country comes from … pro-lifers? Here’s how the AP tells it:

When it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually focus on Osama bin Laden and foreign-based radical groups. Yet researchers say domestic extremists who commit violence in the name of their cause — abortion or the environment, for example — account for most of the damage from such incidents in this country.

The AP’s reporting is simply a smear. Violent episodes against abortion clinics have been quite rare, especially in the last decade. Even the stats from National Abortion Federation (pdf) reveal this.

In his book On Message, Life Dynamics’ Mark Crutcher sums it up best: “The image of abortion workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is utter nonsense.” Crutcher notes that in the years 1993 and 1994, the worst period of violence in pro-life history in which five abortionists and clinic workers were killed, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job. (The total number of murders that have occurred since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is seven.)

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Had it been a protest of a dozen Code Pinkos on Walter Reed, the MSM would have been all over that like Ted Kennedy on a tray of Jello shots.  Instead, the MSM largely yawns.  From Michelle Malkin:

If they were illegal alien activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.

If they were anti-war activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.

They are pro-life activists who marched today to mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

You’ll be lucky to see photos like the one above buried somewhere in the back of your newspaper.

I don’t care what your view of abortion is, but you can’t deny that the double standard is quite obvious.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

In Edwards’ eyes, you deserve a “health care choice” if you’re going to kill your baby.  Otherwise, you get no health care choices of any kind.  Silky Pone Pone on your own non-infanticide health care:

“I’m mandating healthcare for every man woman and child in America and that’s the only way to have real universal healthcare.”

“Evertime you go into contact with the helathcare system or the govenment you will be signed up.”

During a press avail following the event Edwards reiterated his mandate:

“Basically every time they come into contact with either the healthcare system or the government, whether it’s payment of taxes, school, going to the library, whatever it is they will be signed up.”

When asked by a reporter if an individual decided they didn’t want healthcare Edwards quickly responded, “You don’t get that choice.“ 

Silky on your other “health care choice”:

Q: What is your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding?

A: This decision by the Supreme Court is a perfect example of what’s at stake in this election. The kind of people that will be appointed to the US Supreme Court by the next president will control whether a woman’s freedom, freedom to choose, make her own health care decisions will be made by her or will be made by the government or by some men sitting on the US Supreme Court. 

Totalitarian in all aspects, though the benevolent dictator will give you the option to suck your baby’s brains through a vacuum.  Mighty big of him, don’t you think?

A most excellent column by Amy Alkon:

A child a man agrees to have is one thing, but should a man have to pay child support when he makes it clear to a woman that he does not want one?

Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby — despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.

He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigan’s paternity law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot — but should it have been?

As I wrote in my syndicated advice column, in no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. In an especially sick miscarriage of justice, even a man who says he was sexually victimized by an older woman from the time he was 14, has been forced to pay support for the child that resulted from underage sex with her. (That’s Canada for you, eh? - Ed.)

While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First , poses an essential question: “Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?”

A child shouldn’t have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, there’s a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.

This isn’t 1522. If a woman really doesn’t want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that her partners latex up. Since it’s the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. (Now THAT is “quote of the day” material! - Ed.)

It’s one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when he’s, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really “in the child’s best interest” to be the product of a broken home before there’s even a home to break up?

For all you boys out there, until that day there is actual male choice, don’t neglect the birth control…no matter what she tells you. Unless you’re a sterling judge of character, on the level of secret service agents and clinical psychologists, and unless you’re absolutely sure you’ve got an ethical and/or infertile girlfriend, or you personally watch her get Depo Provera injections…prudent thinking is never believing her when she says she can’t get knocked up, always bringing your own condom, and retaining custody over it at all times…lest it find its way to the business end of a pin. (This does happen! - Ed.)

Sound cynical? That’s what a lot of guys think — before they write to me about what they can say to persuade some girl to get an abortion, or whether there’s anything they can do to get out of paying child support…short of dying.

And yes, sure, you can say a man doesn’t have sex if he doesn’t want a child…but let’s discuss this as if we’re living in the real world, ‘kay?

Two wingnut alerts in one day. Must be a record here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS). From Iowa:

A Detroit man was sentenced to five years in prison Friday for trying to burn down a women’s health clinic that he mistakenly thought performed abortions.

David McMenemy, 46, pleaded guilty in January to arson against a business affecting interstate commerce. He could have been sentenced up to 20 years in prison.

Police said McMenemy drove to Davenport and crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Health Care Center lobby at 4:30 a.m. on Sept. 11. He then lit a Gatorade bottle filled with gasoline on fire, walked away from his car and surrendered to firefighters.

McMenemy was ordered to pay $263,252 in restitution for damage to the clinic. The judge also ordered McMenemy to follow substance abuse treatment and continue to receive mental health treatment while imprisoned and when he is released.

“It was wrong,” McMenemy told U.S. District Court Judge John Jarvey at the sentencing hearing. “Even if it was an abortion clinic, it would still be wrong.

“I’m sorry for the hurt and shame of my family, and I want to distance myself from any pro-life organizations.”

The Edgerton clinic provides prenatal care and medical services to low-income and underprivileged women. It does not perform abortions, nor does it make abortion referrals, clinic officials said.

What a dumb#ss! If you’re going to be some religious nutbar who thinks he’s doing God’s work, at least make sure the voices in your head are getting their facts straight.

These fanatics are walking contradictions. If, as the prior post indicates, God wipes out the blights on humanity Himself via natural disasters, then why would He need us to carry out acts of arson on His behalf? Pick a nutbar talking point and stick to it, please!