Kalin: Ultrasound

As noted before, Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) says there are too many abortions and the number should be reduced. This is apparently his lame attempt to extricate himself from having to state clear opposition to abortion.

If he really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, he should have voted for the Finstad amendment to HF3391 (House Journal, page 10064-65, 4/10/08). This amendment would have required an ultrasound and audio recording of any heartbeat of an unborn infant scheduled for an abortion. The mother would then be given the opportunity to listen to the heartbeat and look at the ultrasound image.

This would give the mother pause to consider her course of ending her pregnancy because the ultrasound reveals a human being, not just a blob of tissue (see for example 4D images). But Kalin voted against requiring this.

A woman seeking an abortion would be given the opportunity to view the ultrasound images, but would not be required to do so. Thus the decision remained with her. Yet Kalin did not vote for this amendment which potentially could reduce the number of abortions. He doesn’t seem to be very serious about actually backing up his speech with his vote. His voting record speaks louder than his words.

___________________________________________

Update

Anonymous, in the comment section you had a question about the Positive Alternatives Program. It was established by law (Minnesota Statutes 145.4235) during the 2005 legislative session.

Rep. Kalin was not in the legislature in 2005, so he did not vote on its establishment.

___________________________________________

Update

Anonymous, you had not stated your question that specifically until now.

Funding for Positive Alternatives was reviewed in 2008 as part of HF1812. A committee had cut its funding, but it was later restored. In the end, Kalin voted for HF1812 (House Journal, pages 9761-62, 4/3/2008), but that hardly tells the story regarding his vote on funding the program, because it was a small part of the larger tax bill. Kalin was not about to vote against the entire tax bill even if he did not want to fund the Alternatives program.

The real story is told by how he voted on the Finstad amendment, which was offered again in 2008 as an amendment to HF1812 (House Journal, pages 9734-35, 4/3/2008). Kalin again voted against it.

___________________________________________

Update

In my post above, I addressed the fact that Kalin did not vote for the Finstad amendment. In the comment section, Anonymous tried to divert attention from the truth by directing our attention to Kalin’s vote to fund the Positive Alternatives Program.

This type of argument is a red herring, which, with slight of hand, moves one’s attention away from the fact that Kalin did not vote to reduce abortions. The fact remains that Kalin voted, not once, but twice in 2008 against the Finstad amendment.

Kalin voted to fund the Positive Alternatives Program in 2008, but that does not negate the truth of my post. It is rather easy for Kalin to promise to fund the Positive Alternatives Program which is a very small portion of the omnibus tax bill when he voted for the whole bill. It says nothing more positive about Kalin than it says about the other Democrats who are avowedly anti-life who voted for the tax bill, and coincidentally funded the Positive Alternatives Program by voting for the whole bill.

It’s nothing for Kalin to brag about. He knew that funding would not be in a stand alone bill, but rather in an omnibus bill. The Finstad amendment, not the Positive Alternatives Program funding, is the measure of the man.

Kalin: Pro-abortion

From his voting record, Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) is pro-choice and pro-abortion. However, he tries to be coy with his statements regarding the life of the unborn. Instead of definitively declaring against abortion, when asked, he says there are too many abortions; the number of abortions should be reduced.

I take him at his word that he truly would like to see the number of abortions reduced. But his voting record does not substantiate his declaration. He voted to provide public funds to perform abortions for women receiving public assistance (House Journal, page 4075-76, 4/20/07). By a vote of 68-64, the House sustained the public funding. Kalin’s is one of four votes that failed to ban the practice.

This was not a vote to ban abortion. Anyone could still legally obtain an abortion of their unborn child at their own expense. But Kalin voted to expend our tax dollars to aid those on public assistance to obtain abortions—so much for reducing the number of abortions.

It would have been a good start to substantiate his expressed desire to reduce the number of abortions by simply withholding your and my tax dollars from funding it. But Kalin did not vote to reduce abortions. His word means little when his vote speaks contrary to his evasive declaration.

The Donkey has a Panic Attack

The liberals are in full attack mode to discredit Sarah Palin as a person. Do not focus on the attack mode so much that you lose sight of why the Dems are in destruction mode. They are not attacking because they believe Sarah Palin is a recognizably lousy candidate for VP, vulnerable, easily damaged and easily dispensed. Rather, liberals are in a fit of panic, knowing her personhood is not easily destroyed, that she is a strong candidate and makes John McCain stronger.

They are scared stiff of her because she is an authentic person with whom voters will connect. Her values are their values. The libs know Sarah Palin will deal the liberal cause a serious blow.

Ultimately, the Dems are not all that concerned about her use of guns. Nor are they concerned about her propensity to clean up political scum. They aren’t one bit concerned whether she can raise a family and be VP at the same time. They don’t care her husband had a DWI 20 years ago or that she was fined for fishing without a license. They think it’s great that a teenager can exercise her freedom to be sexually active.

The liberals are panic struck because of two things Sarah Palin believes. She is a threat to Mother Earth and Prepartum Death. Liberals view her as a threat to holy ground ANWR and a threat to the sacred cow, abortion.

The latter is more serious. Palin is a woman who walks the talk and walks the walk, not only herself, but with her daughter. Abortion is off the table for her pregnant daughter and was not an option for her own pregnancy with a Down syndrome child.

The Leftists are in a panic that Sarah Palin might become VP and ultimately president, appointing conservative judges to the Supreme Court who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Not a whole lot more matters to them than this government bestowed right because what government grants, government can also take away.

The liberal attack dogs will be vicious, but it will demonstrate one thing—the Donkey party is in a full-blown panic.

Created Equal....the Pursuit of Life

Senator Obama’s position on infant human rights is well known. We analyzed his illogical declaration in support of abortion here. Senator Biden is pro-choice for women, but pro-death for potentially any of the unborn. Senator Pelosi is ardently pro-choice, anti-life, stating the beginning of human life cannot be known. Both Obama and Pelosi took paragraphs to give convoluted explanations that did not answer Pastor Rick Warren’s or Tom Brokaw’s simple question.

Senator John McCain, presumptive GOP presidential nominee, answered Pastor Rick Warren’s question, "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?" with a quick, short, decisive response, "At the moment of conception."

Senator McCain’s love and respect for life wears shoes in his daily life, in the person of his adopted daughter.

"John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her."

And nominee McCain’s selected VP running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, respects equality and the life of the unborn as well.

"Four months into her most recent pregnancy, Palin learned the child would have Down syndrome, and she said she never had any doubts about whether she would have the baby.

"We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential," Palin told AP earlier this year in describing what she and her husband had confronted. Trig, her fifth child, was born in April."

The contrast between the Democrat and Republican presidential/vice presidential ticket cannot be sharper. One provides no hope for the unborn and possible terminal change. The other provides hope, dignity, respect, equality and the opportunity to pursue life. McCain and Palin value life, not just of the born, but of the pre-born.

I would never argue a president should be elected on the basis of one issue. But this year, there is a very stark contrast between the two contenders on this basic human right.

The McCain/Palin team, which recognizes equality and chooses life and the pursuit of life for all, can be trusted to provide national security which is the fundamental framework we need for the pursuit of happiness in post-natal life.

Pelosi and Conception

Isn’t it amazing that a professor of constitutional law cannot articulate a coherent argument to state when he believes a baby receives human rights? Almost any professor is well enough versed in his studies to articulate fundamental statements about crucial concepts in his field of teaching. Yet Professor Obama cannot do that.

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, cannot do it either. Tom Brokaw asked, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker, when does life begin?" She responded,

I would say that, as an ardent practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have impact on a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child, first trimester, certain considerations second trimester, not so third trimester, there’s very clear distinct, this isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As a [sic] say, Catholic Church, for centuries, has been discussing this, and there are those who have decided-

While it is above Obama’s paygrade to answer a question about infant human rights either theologically or scientifically, Pelosi, as a studied and practicing Catholic, believes it cannot be answered from dogmatic or historical theology.

Her studied answer is that ". . . the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition (i.e. when life begins)." Many in the Catholic Church have refuted Pelosi, showing that the official church position is that life begins at conception. For Pelosi, since it cannot be determined by the Catholic Church, then it cannot be theologically determined—"And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

In fact, theology should not be considered, says Pelosi, "The point is, is that it [when life begins] shouldn’t have impact on a woman’s right to choose."

For Pelosi, the uncertainties of theology are many, but the specificity and precision of Roe v. Wade is very clear. Just as Obama thinks he can answer the question legally, so does Pelosi. Pelosi is willing to accept the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe v. Wade, but she cannot endure the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

On what grounds does Pelosi accept the one and not the other? She states none, for she has none. Hers is simply an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. She hasn’t answered anything. Appealing to law does not make it right.

While she wants abortion legal, she knows what is legal is not necessarily moral. So ". . . it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God."

Pelosi says, ". . . it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare and reduce the number of abortions."

And she declares, ". . . we have to handle this as respectfully, this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully, and not politicize it as it has been."

The woman has no idea that she politicized the sacred ground by appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States, rejecting the Supreme Court of her own church. For Pelosi, God, the Ultimate Lawgiver and Judge, must take Roe v. Wade into consideration when a woman contemplates an abortion with her doctor, for that is a woman’s unalienable right.

Above His Pay Grade

At the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, Rev. Rick Warren asked Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain to give answers to his questions. The following transcript is taken from here and the whole transcript is available here.

Rev. Rick Warren: "Now, let’s deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time. All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

Barack Obama: "Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Obama said, ". . . answering that question. . . . is above my pay grade." And this man wants to be president! Almost all presidential decisions are above the presidential pay grade which is small compared to the business world. We don’t pay presidents for their decisions. We elect them to make decisions.

Pastor Warren’s salary would be small in comparison also, yet he said he has to deal with this all of the time. So by self-declaration, Obama could not be the pastor of a church because he doesn’t get paid enough to answer that question. How unpresidential!

Obama said he can’t answer it from a scientific perspective and didn’t try. He said he can’t answer it from a theological perspective and didn’t. But he said there is a moral and ethical perspective to abortion.

"But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one."

OK, there’s a moral and ethical perspective to abortion, but what is it? No answer from Obama.

Obama continued: "But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. . ."

Ah, there’s a legal perspective that Obama believes in. Now how does Obama come to his legal decision?

Obama: I ". . . come to that [legal] conclusion not because I'm pro abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members."

So Obama makes his legal decision by observing that women don’t make these decisions casually, that is, that his legal conclusion is based on the grave process of other people making decisions. Wow, that is solid legal reasoning that would pass any Supreme Court test!

Obama continues: "And so for me, the goal right now should be— and this is where I think we can find common ground (and by the way I have now inserted this into the Democrat Party platform) is how do we reduce the number of abortions because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."

So let’s all have common ground around Obama's legal perspective which really is a social perspective of reducing the number of abortions, which hasn’t happened under President Bush, but evidently it will under President Obama.

With his logic, because a person wrestled hard while deciding to embezzle and reduced the amount of intended embezzlement for social reasons, the embezzlement is legal. Or because a person really struggled with bumping off a family and reduced the number of victims for social reasons, the killings were legal.

Answering that question about the baby is truly above Obama’s pay grade. And he thinks Justice Clarence Thomas was unqualified!

Update on Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora, Illinois

Non-profit mega-clinic fails to meet zoning

Land used by Planned Parenthood requires tax-paying for-profit operation

We had tracked this case, but it had dropped out of the news, until now. Much has been happening in the interlude. It is worth reading. The city violated its own zoning laws.

___________________________________________

Update: 01-10-08

The latest on this case.

Follow up on Chicago Abortion Clinic

The Aurora city council will review the zoning application process of a group that built an abortion clinic under disguise in its application. A judge has ordered occupancy cannot be taken until a review is made.

This is a follow up on a previous article posted here.

God Gets Dragged into Politics by a Dem

God wants Iowa first
By Jason Clayworth

God's will is for Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson told a crowd here Monday.

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary," Richardson, New Mexico's governor, said at the Northwest Iowa Labor Council Picnic. "And I want you to know who was the first candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign anywhere if they got ahead of Iowa. It was Bill Richardson."

Read more...

___________________________________________

Clearly Richardson wants Iowa to hold the limelight it has historically had. But now we know it is also God’s will for that to continue. What is the point of appealing to God to ground his own personal desire? Is the Governor claiming he has been the recipient of divine revelation? Is he using God’s will as a trump card to get everyone in line with his own will? Since he pledged not to campaign in any state that held a vote prior to Iowa, it sounds like he is getting nervous that might happen and wants to head it off at the pass. Well, if it is God’s will, what’s he getting nervous about?

If, for example, Fred Thompson had declared the above, we would not hear the end of the ridicule heaped upon this probable Republican candidate for president. The Dems would mock any Republican man who claims to know God’s will who also aspires to preside over our country. But Governor Bill Richardson will get a pass from the liberal press.

God has spoken (his word being recorded in the Bible) about all aspects of life, but he has not said anything about when primaries should be held in Iowa. Bill Richardson should pay attention to what God has said, which we all can review and contemplate because it is recorded. For example, Richardson will find that God has spoken about abortion and it is contrary to what Richardson has declared:

"I am pro-choice and will continue to support abortion rights and medical privacy for women. I am the only candidate explicitly committing to appoint only judges who consider Roe v. Wade settled law."

See his web site.

This issue is major; the timing of primaries is inconsequential. In the first case, Richardson doesn’t want to be bothered with what God has already said. In the second, he puts words in God’s mouth for his own gain. That is called making God in his own image.

Applying for a Building Permit under a Different Name

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Deception built super-secret abortion clinic
Outrage sparked after Planned Parenthood conceals site ownership

Planned Parenthood concealed its ownership of a huge new abortion facility scheduled to open soon in a Chicago suburb, and pro-life advocates – and at least one city official – are questioning whether the abortion provider can mislead officials without repercussions.

Finish this article.

This Writer is Incensed

To hell with the dogs until people count
By Mychal Massie

"The priorities of America are wrong. The nation and animal-rights groups are beside themselves because a few dogs have been mistreated and destroyed, yet these same people and activist groups support and advocate the slaughter of unborn children."

This declaration can be found in the midst of his firey commentary. The title says it eloquently.